Interesting Read on Post 9-11 Bureaucracies

[chilliwilli]

Interesting though, that NIST refuses to release the computer program used to arrive at their dataset, for peer review...last i heard, they claim 'they won't release it for public safety reasons'

Edit: Thanks for your educated theory, JCL. You brought up an element that still boggles my mind: SULFER...what's your theory on it's root?

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

If the chemical signature is not of thermite, can you provide your educated guess of what they're a signature of? Or at least where else sulfer could've come from? If you indeed read their paper and at least watched their bastian of scientific inquiry videos i've posted...in their testing, they were able to ignite the red-gray chips with a calorimeter. That is not an assumption. Simply put: they've found enough evidence to warrant further investigation.

When it comes to the WTC buildings...i can't help but ask myself a few simple questions that can't be muddled...(as i used to lunch and listen to Jazz once a week, when in town, in the courtyards):
- What happened to, and, what pulverized all that concrete?
- Where did the 100+ floors go?
- Should'nt there have been at least 30+ floors of debris?

Looks like the chemical signature of dust, with lots of residue consistent with byproducts of a fire. Sorry, I don't know more precisely than that. I am not sure why it matters.

Gypsum is 18% sulfur, by weight (I had to look up the percent, I thought it was less than that). Gypsum isn't just in the wallboard, it is a binder in cement, used in concrete. Sulfur is fully expected in the residue. (I've switched to the US spelling, but I still think of it as sulphur).

Why aren't the red-gray chips simply paint? Their composition appears to match the paint used on the structure of the WTC.

Pictures appear to show pancaked floors compressed together. That is entirely consistent with buildings that fall down. I don't know how many floors of debris there should have been. I also don't know how to quantify how much of the debris was turned into dust by the collapse. Why does it matter, since it is a result of the buildings falling down? We aren't debating whether the buildings collapsed, just what caused the collapse.

[chilliwilli]

Originally Posted by JCL

Looks like the chemical signature of dust, with lots of residue consistent with byproducts of a fire. Sorry, I don't know more precisely than that. I am not sure why it matters.

Gypsum is 18% sulfur, by weight (I had to look up the percent, I thought it was less than that). Gypsum isn't just in the wallboard, it is a binder in cement, used in concrete. Sulfur is fully expected in the residue. (I've switched to the US spelling, but I still think of it as sulphur).

Why aren't the red-gray chips simply paint? Their composition appears to match the paint used on the structure of the WTC.

Pictures appear to show pancaked floors compressed together. That is entirely consistent with buildings that fall down. I don't know how many floors of debris there should have been. I also don't know how to quantify how much of the debris was turned into dust by the collapse. Why does it matter, since it is a result of the buildings falling down? We aren't debating whether the buildings collapsed, just what caused the collapse.

I believe it was confirmed that they red-gray chips were not from structure...but they were still active, as evident in the calorimeter test by Jeff Farrer. Looking forward to NIST's own results of this particular test, if they ever decide to publish.

I mention debris as there were no significant chunks of concrete, nor even office furniture but i have yet to see images or video showing otherwise. What i do see, is a pulverization of two of the 3 structures...yet officials have yet to test for any exotic accelerants. This should be standard, considering '93.

Nist has abandoned the pancake theory...the videos in itself negate this. If this were the case, then why no resistance with near free fall speed? And the top that tipped over, of WTC2, would not have pulled such a disappearing act.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

Interesting though, that NIST refuses to release the computer program used to arrive at their dataset, for peer review...last i heard, they claim 'they won't release it for public safety reasons'

Edit: Thanks for your educated theory, JCL. You brought up an element that still boggles my mind: SULFER...what's your theory on it's root?

I hadn't studied that they refused to release the computer models. I understood that there were independent validations of their models, and four totally independent simulations efforts, but that is just from reading about those efforts. I don't have them. I can give you the link to the models, though, apparently obtained through a FOI request. First link on Google:

World Trade Center Computer Models from NIST

Now you just need a Cray to run them, and a license for some very expensive analysis software. I conducted finite element analysis once upon a time (brake disk heat dissipation, heavy equipment structural analysis for booms and sticks, generator end bell vibration modes) but never anything this complicated. The SAP2000 data is the baseline model. There are additional programs to simulate the airplane impact, and the fire effects.

Don't worry about sulfer. See my post above on sulphur/sulfur.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

I believe it was confirmed that they red-gray chips were not from structure...but they were still active, as evident in the calorimeter test by Jeff Farrer. Looking forward to NIST's own results of this particular test, if they ever decide to publish.

Well, since the analysis was only done by the good Dr. Jones, you would have to ask him. I did see his email stating that they couldn't be paint, because he analyzed paint and it was different. Which paint? A scraping from the structural steel in the football stadium at BYU. ??????

The spec for the paint in the WTC, issued by the manufacturer, shows that it was red oxide primer. Maybe it is that.

This noise about it being 'active thermite' ignores the fact that the chemical analysis of the chips (as published by Jones) shows that the chips include several elements that are not part of thermite, but which are part of electronics (Ca, Ti, Cr). Could even be from tints used in paints.

The other issue is that the chips are apparently of a uniform thickness. Thermite residue wouldn't be, it would have to be much thicker to have an effect on steel. Hmmm, what is of uniform thickness, red on one side and grey on the other, and contains iron spheres? Paint. Specifically, red oxide primer.

Edit: I looked for Farrer's findings. They are contained in the (non)-peer-reviewed paper that Jones et al paid to have published, after which the editor quit due to this paper being published without a valid peer review.

[chilliwilli]

Originally Posted by JCL

Well, since the analysis was only done by the good Dr. Jones, you would have to ask him. I did see his email stating that they couldn't be paint, because he analyzed paint and it was different. Which paint? A scraping from the structural steel in the football stadium at BYU. ??????

The spec for the paint in the WTC, issued by the manufacturer, shows that it was red oxide primer. Maybe it is that.

This noise about it being 'active thermite' ignores the fact that the chemical analysis of the chips (as published by Jones) shows that the chips include several elements that are not part of thermite, but which are part of electronics (Ca, Ti, Cr). Could even be from tints used in paints.

The other issue is that the chips are apparently of a uniform thickness. Thermite residue wouldn't be, it would have to be much thicker to have an effect on steel. Hmmm, what is of uniform thickness, red on one side and grey on the other, and contains iron spheres? Paint. Specifically, red oxide primer.

Jeff Farrer tested the elemental composition of the paint from the WTC steel donated to them...it did not match the red-gray chip. However and interestingly, the red-gray chips were "energetic"...with aluminum, iron, and oxygen peaks in the calorimeter tests.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

Jeff Farrer tested the elemental composition of the paint from the WTC steel donated to them...it did not match the red-gray chip. However and interestingly, the red-gray chips were "energetic"...with aluminum, iron, and oxygen peaks in the calorimeter tests.

Energetic. Interesting word. Lots of things are energetic. I am not sure of the significance of the word in this context. If we want to go back to the claim that it is thermite, Jone's and Farrer's own paper proves that it isn't thermite. That is why they invented the nano-thermite theory, but we also know that it isn't that, from their own tests. So they invented the theory of 'supersecret unknown' thermite, because they wanted it to be thermite. Problem is, everything seen in the red paint chips is naturally occurring, you don't have to engineer it in a lab. So, the composition of the chips isn't a surprise. So why was this important again?

But let's reconsider the phrase 'energetic'; paper and potato chips are both energetic. In fact, paper is reported to be more energetic than thermite. Hmmm.

Pseudoscience.

[chilliwilli]

Originally Posted by JCL

Energetic. Interesting word. Lots of things are energetic. I am not sure of the significance of the word in this context. If we want to go back to the claim that it is thermite, Jone's and Farrer's own paper proves that it isn't thermite. That is why they invented the nano-thermite theory, but we also know that it isn't that, from their own tests. So they invented the theory of 'supersecret unknown' thermite, because they wanted it to be thermite. Problem is, everything seen in the red paint chips is naturally occurring, you don't have to engineer it in a lab. So, the composition of the chips isn't a surprise. So why was this important again?

But let's reconsider the phrase 'energetic'; paper and potato chips are both energetic. In fact, paper is reported to be more energetic than thermite. Hmmm.

Pseudoscience.

Energetic...as in exothermic, it "ignited" in the differential scanning calorimeter, which resulted in the iron-rich microspheres (only present AFTER ignition). I also once read that Jones got one of the chips to ignite using a 12V battery. Repeated experiments from different collected and donated samples, achieved the exact same results. This is the closest i've come to reading, for the cause of the extreme heat and molten iron.

You're able to provide your own theory of all the elemental traces, that's great...However, i still find it odd that NIST et al admit that they never tested for explosives/exotic accelerant and after being challenged by Dr. Jones et al, they still refuse to test and provide their own theory.

I find it difficult to dismiss Jones et al as some so easily have...based, amongst other things, the simple fact that officials will not debate them nor test for any exotics.

These independent experts seem to have much more to lose in this debate...even though officials have yet to test for it, again, everything they claim "thermite can't do" has been proven wrong by this independent, in his own backyard:

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

Energetic...as in exothermic, it "ignited" in the differential scanning calorimeter, which resulted in the iron-rich microspheres (only present AFTER ignition). I also once read that Jones got one of the chips to ignite using a 12V battery. Repeated experiments from different collected and donated samples, achieved the exact same results. This is the closest i've come to reading, for the cause of the extreme heat and molten iron.

Is the presence of iron-rich microspheres evidence of something? You could get them by burning paint. You could also get them by burning wood. Paint is more likely, given the fact that the red-gray samples have a signature that matches up to other elements included in paint.

Iron rich isn't the same as iron. We aren't talking about melting iron here.

The problem remains that they haven't found thermite in the dust. Their own tests show that it isn't thermite. They have to invent another source of energy to add in to the thermite.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

You're able to provide your own theory of all the elemental traces, that's great...However, i still find it odd that NIST et al admit that they never tested for explosives/exotic accelerant and after being challenged by Dr. Jones et al, they still refuse to test and provide their own theory.

My conclusion is that there is nothing in the samples Jones examined that is surprising. There is nothing there that supports the thermite theory. So if Jones wants to propose a theory by which somebody brought down the WTC towers with a controlled demolition, then he needs to come up with some evidence for that theory, and so far he hasn't got any.

There is no reason to test for explosives if there is no logical theory as to where those explosives came from, where the residues disappeared to, and why the causes agreed to by innumerable peer-reviewed studies are wrong.

Bit of a tangent, but I don't think they tested for a government disruptor beam, either. I am not commenting on whether it could or could not have happened, but if we wanted them to test for such a beam, we should have a theory about what such a device is and how it caused the towers to fall, and some evidence. This isn't strictly a theoretical example, as Jones has recently come out stating that the US may have caused the Haiti earthquakes with a powerful weapon.

Gee, now I am making him sound like a nutcase.