http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mBStEXn3-c
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dream Sailor
Would it hurt to admit that I am getting somewhat upset that you do not read anything I post as evidence?
You havnt posted any evidence. only assertions backed up by not even a single scientific study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dream Sailor
Let's start here.
"In my previous posts I have called you out on fabricating evidence when you said that it has been proven that chemical reactions in the rubble pile caused steel to melt."
You have called me out? And on what basis have you "called me out"? Can you please give one example of how I "fabricated" any evidence? It appears that by your statement above you are actually referring to one point discussed in one post, and not any others. That point was that a eutectic reaction occured, thus melting steel at a much lower temperature.
Exactly, I asked what evidence you have that this is what happened at the WTC. If you have no study to prove that it was possibly done then you certainly cannot simply assert it as fact. You are pretending there is evidence, but cant produce any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dream Sailor
explained to you that even early black smiths used sulphur to reduce the melting point of their steel! (Once again needing to reitterate the facts for you): It was then stated that the 3rd most used component in the building during construction was SULPHUR-BASED DRYWALL. Obviously the needed ingredient was plentiful for a eutectic in the building. Jones however doesn't tell you that the drywall contains sulphur. Based on these details please tell me, why are you completely disacknowledging the fact that eutectic reactions could easily occur in the trade center?
They couldn't easily occur. Prove me wrong (still waiting for that study). Jones addresses the issue of sulfur in the drywall, and specifically the point that it is likely impossible for the sulfur to magically dissociate from drywall into free sulfur and then gather in the very specific amount and combine with other very specific ratios of aluminum needed, and THEN get ignited by a magnesium or some other fuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dream Sailor
Don't you still think it's funny that your whole conspiracy theory relies on just a few of the same pictures of cut beams? Like the same 1-3 photos. I actually find it amusing how your side of the arguement works. You seem to claim soo much likelyness from the photo of thermite cuts. But you have never used thermite, you have never seen thermite make a cut, and your idealogy of how it works is strictly imaginative in your own mind. You seem to be disregarding the hundreds of photos exactly the same, but with ironworkers in them using torches. And yet also, you are still ignoring the fact that it looks 100% characteristic of an oxy-acetelene torch cut. Can you give me a photo of a large beam cut by thermite? No, you can't. Can I give you a photo of a large beam cut by a torch, proving it is the same form of cut? Yes, I can. You've once again been debunked here. But I'm sure you will not hit home on this subject in your next post. Rather you will search deeply before posting to once again shuffle to other subjects that you somehow feel support your theory, while dodging the obvious.
You cant read. I already told you and you even acknowledge the fact that I never claimed a picture of a severed beam is strong evidence for the controlled demolition theory. I only find it odd that the pictures of severed beams from the WTC are - if they were cut by torches - cut at the exact same angle that a cutter charge would make. But is not good evidence compared to the mountains of evidence that have no explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dream Sailor
Once again, I dont think you are honestly engaging my posts. Why cant you address the fact that aluminum, once molten, is silvery in color, and to reach a white hot glow must attain temperatures of 2500 degrees F., much hotter than a jet fuel fire. Also:
"If aluminum alloy (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of roughly 500 - 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal" -Dr. Steven Jones
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dream Sailor
"Why do you insist in all of your posts in calling thermate thermite?"
Is this somehow pertinent to your thermite arguement? Ah, a typical conspiracy theorist approach...once again trailing into non-pertinent subjects.
Do you know anything about chemistry? The reason I call it thermite, is because in chemistry, we call it thermite. A thermite is a composition in which a metal is oxidized by a metal oxide. There is no such thing as a "thermate" just because a catalyst is used. Thermate is a somewhat slang term derived from the use of sulphur catalyst. It would be more appropriate used in pyrotechnic terminology. Do you have any idea what the catalyst does? It slightly increases the reaction rate. 1-2% sulphur will give maximum desireable effects when mixed into the total fuel/oxidizer weight. Those effects are, relatively speaking, a small difference from thermite without a catalyst. Therefore it is essentially the same thing; a thermite. But after explaining this, what does this really have to do with your (weakening) points afterall? Why must you venture to these subjects with no importance towards your real argument? Do you have a real arguement?
I already told you, which you should know since you responded to my questions out of order and out of context. I mention the difference because most wannabe debunkers like yourself will flip back and forth between the two depending on what helps your argument, which is usually that thermite, if used, would require much too large of a quantity, while completely ignoring that less thermate would be needed, and far less nano-thermate ( a military-grade incendiary).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dream Sailor
And why are you still on the "Professor Jones" thing? Are you completely incomprehensive? Finding thermite residue doesn't amount to anything in the WTC collapse. Finding "thermite residue" is the same thing as finding iron and aluminum oxide. Or in this case iron, aluminum oxide, and sulphur. The aluminum turns to aluminum oxide after the burning reaction with rust (FeO), so this is 100% possible and likely to find aluminum oxide at the scene. However even with these likely occurances, Jones could still not find aluminum oxide in the quantity needed to result from a thermite reaction! Funny how the facts do unfold. Once again, the building CONTAINED iron, aluminum, and sulphur before the collapse. So, what's the point if you find them afterwards? If the building was made from these elements, shouldn't we have found them? You're starting to scare me if you say that we should not have found those elements.
Again, simply because you insist that there are chemical constituents of the building materials that if properly combined in the specific ratio, and then ignited by an extremely hot fuse, does not mean that it occurred. Its a laughable scenario you are conjuring up. Where any scientific research to prove this is even possible with the building materials of the WTC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dream Sailor
And the final nail in the coffin for you. Fuel fires can melt steel. The California news report is here from a fuel truck under a bridge which melted the steel and collapsed the bridge. Watch the entire video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXb5M8qKrjw
How can you not know the difference between gasoline and kerosene fueled fire? Why are you comparing a cement bridge held together with bolts, to a steel framed building which was built to withstand a jumbo jet impact? You might want to use a little logic with your rhetoric.