The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Mitchell Jones on 20 Jan 2007 16:35 In article <mjones-EFB48C.01071920012007(a)news.thundernews.com>, Mitchell Jones <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > In article <mjones-35DE98.19120319012007(a)news.thundernews.com>, > Mitchell Jones <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > > > In article <45B00EE6.72699481(a)insidejob.gov>, Henry <911(a)insidejob.gov> > > wrote: > > > > > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > > Henry <911(a)insidejob.gov> wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > I hope you don't actually believe that. I work with various > > > metals for a living. The increase in temperature even if it's > > > bent quickly 180 degrees is barely detectable. > > > > ***{Every pound of steel at the top of the tower had 1368 foot pounds of > > potential energy, and at the bottom, that potential energy had been > > reduced to zero. The implication: all of that potential energy was > > transformed into heat by the hammering and bending that took place as > > the material made its way into the debris pile at the bottom of the > > tower. Whether enough of that heat accumulated on any specific piece of > > steel to render it molten, of course, depends on details of the > > situation that would be difficult to know about. The situation inside > > the zone of disintegration was rather chaotic, with the likely result > > that some of the falling metal, by chance, accumulated less heat, while > > other pieces accumulated more. How wide the range was, and whether any > > of the stuff melted due solely to impacts and bending, I can't say. > > ***{I could have said, of course, if I hadn't been too lazy to do a > calculation. So let's do it now. > > A kilogram of steel would weigh 9.8 Newtons, and the work required to > raise it 1368 feet would be��[(1368)(12)/(39.37)](9.8) = 4086 Joules. > The specific heat of steel is about 486 Joules/kg/K, so if all the > potential energy in a kg of steel at a height of 1368 feet were > converted to heat, its temperature would rise by a mere 4086/486 = 8.4 > K.�Thus I can say for sure that none of the steel came anywhere near to > its melting point due solely to the effects of converting its potential > energy into heat, irrespective of how chaotic the environment might have > been that it fell through on its way to the ground. > > The implication: a hell of a lot of heat had to come from somewhere, if > there was a significant amount of molten steel pooled in the basement of > the Tower after the collapse occurred. But does that require the use of > thermite or some similar material? Or could not the same effect be > achieved by merely burning the various combustibles that wound up in the > debris pile? Offhand, the odds look rather slim, as I think about it. ***{Since writing the above it has occurred to me that I'm neglecting a huge fuel source: the steel itself. The lengthy and complicated group of reactions that produce rust boils down to 4Fe + 3O2 --> 2Fe2O3, and are highly exothermic. When steel is cut with an oxyacetylene torch, for example, the acetylene is only needed to heat the steel. After the steel is hot, the acetylene can be cut off and the cut can be made using the oxygen alone, because of the heat released by the oxydation of the iron. What this means is that once you have a fire in the rubble pile that heats the steel, it's going to burn and melt itself, in areas where the escape of the heat is impeded. As far as the indications of thermite are concerned, well, there was a vast amount of aluminum in the structure, and since the collapse pulverized concrete, it likely pulverized a lot of aluminum as well. And the fire that burned for almost 2 hours before the collapse began likely produced tons of rust: the reaction goes very fast at high temperatures, as noted above. Result: when the towers collapsed, powdered rust was mixed with powdered aluminum, producing tons of thermite. And if you want thermate, which is just thermite plus sulphur, well, there were probably lots of sources for sulphur in the building as well. Bottom line: the various arguments intended to demonstrate that these structures were brought down by controlled demolition, rather than as a consequence of the airplane crashes, simply do not work--which means: they do not meet their burden of proof. The most reasonable explanation of the collapse of these buildings remains what it was at the beginning: the airplanes that crashed into them, and the tons of jet fuel that those crashes ignited. I would note, as an aside, that the above does not refute the notion of a conspiracy being behind these events. It merely restricts the form that theory can take. There are at least three choices in that regard: (1) The leadership of Al Qaeda conspired to bring about these crashes, and thus to bring the Twin Towers down, as part of their hatred of the West and all that it stands for. (2) The Bush administration conspired to bring about these crashes, to provide themselves with an excuse (a) for the stock market crash that was going to happen regardless, and (b) for destroying the Bill of Rights and taking the U.S. into an Orwellian dictatorship. (3) Al Qaeda did the crashes, and the Bush administration seized upon them as an opportunity to (a) avoid blame for the stock market crash, and (b) take the country into an Orwellian dictatorship. I'm not stating an opinion about the above three theories here. All I'm saying is that the notion that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolitions does not work. --Mitchell Jones}*** > I'll have to do some research into this particular point to decide, but > this particular conspiracy theory is suddenly beginning to interest me > more than a little bit. > > --Mitchell Jones}*** > > [snip] > > ***************************************************************** > If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility > that you are in my killfile. --MJ ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: Mitchell Jones on 21 Jan 2007 13:38 In article <mjones-29E854.15355320012007(a)news.thundernews.com>, Mitchell Jones <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > In article <mjones-EFB48C.01071920012007(a)news.thundernews.com>, > Mitchell Jones <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > > > In article <mjones-35DE98.19120319012007(a)news.thundernews.com>, > > Mitchell Jones <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <45B00EE6.72699481(a)insidejob.gov>, Henry <911(a)insidejob.gov> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > > > Henry <911(a)insidejob.gov> wrote: > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > I hope you don't actually believe that. I work with various > > > > metals for a living. The increase in temperature even if it's > > > > bent quickly 180 degrees is barely detectable. > > > > > > ***{Every pound of steel at the top of the tower had 1368 foot pounds of > > > potential energy, and at the bottom, that potential energy had been > > > reduced to zero. The implication: all of that potential energy was > > > transformed into heat by the hammering and bending that took place as > > > the material made its way into the debris pile at the bottom of the > > > tower. Whether enough of that heat accumulated on any specific piece of > > > steel to render it molten, of course, depends on details of the > > > situation that would be difficult to know about. The situation inside > > > the zone of disintegration was rather chaotic, with the likely result > > > that some of the falling metal, by chance, accumulated less heat, while > > > other pieces accumulated more. How wide the range was, and whether any > > > of the stuff melted due solely to impacts and bending, I can't say. > > > > ***{I could have said, of course, if I hadn't been too lazy to do a > > calculation. So let's do it now. > > > > A kilogram of steel would weigh 9.8 Newtons, and the work required to > > raise it 1368 feet would be��[(1368)(12)/(39.37)](9.8) = 4086 Joules. > > The specific heat of steel is about 486 Joules/kg/K, so if all the > > potential energy in a kg of steel at a height of 1368 feet were > > converted to heat, its temperature would rise by a mere 4086/486 = 8.4 > > K.�Thus I can say for sure that none of the steel came anywhere near to > > its melting point due solely to the effects of converting its potential > > energy into heat, irrespective of how chaotic the environment might have > > been that it fell through on its way to the ground. > > > > The implication: a hell of a lot of heat had to come from somewhere, if > > there was a significant amount of molten steel pooled in the basement of > > the Tower after the collapse occurred. But does that require the use of > > thermite or some similar material? Or could not the same effect be > > achieved by merely burning the various combustibles that wound up in the > > debris pile? Offhand, the odds look rather slim, as I think about it. > > ***{Since writing the above it has occurred to me that I'm neglecting a > huge fuel source: the steel itself. The lengthy and complicated group of > reactions that produce rust boils down to 4Fe + 3O2 --> 2Fe2O3, and are > highly exothermic. When steel is cut with an oxyacetylene torch, for > example, the acetylene is only needed to heat the steel. After the steel > is hot, the acetylene can be cut off and the cut can be made using the > oxygen alone, because of the heat released by the oxydation of the iron. > What this means is that once you have a fire in the rubble pile that > heats the steel, it's going to burn and melt itself, in areas where the > escape of the heat is impeded. ***{And there were lots of other things going on, in such a complex chemical environment, that would have produced pools of molten material. The ancient Romans, for example, smelted iron ore (Fe2O3 plus impurities) in a device that the Brits call a "bloomery." It consisted of a cone made of clay, narrowing toward a hole at the top. It was filled with a mixture of dried iron ore and charcoal, ignited, and stoked to high temperatures by means of bellows air blown in through tuyeres at the bottom. The process produced iron by a redox reaction similar to that of thermite, but in this case the reducing agent (the agent that pulled the oxygen away from the rust, leaving pure iron) was not powdered aluminum, but carbon monoxide (CO). Basically, if you get impure rust very hot under conditions where there is a lot of CO present, the result will be pure iron and a lot of molten slag. (See, for example, http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/mines_and_iron/Roger_S mith/roger/BLOOM4.htm.) The reaction was: Fe2O3 + 3CO --> 2Fe + 3CO2 Naturally, the conditions within the bloomery would be very similar to the conditions in the basement of the World Trade Center after the collapse: a lot of very hot rust with impurities, and a lot of carbon monoxide. Result: lots of very hot iron, and pools of molten slag. Bottom line: the proximate cause of the WTC collapse was the obvious one: the jetliners that crashed into the towers before they fell down. I would also repeat what I said yesterday: it is obvious those crashes were due to a conspiracy. The question is: who were the conspirators? Were they Al Qaeda, as is commonly alleged? Or was the whole thing a black ops operation pulled off by the Bush administration? My point here is not to argue for one conspiracy theory over another, but rather to argue that whichever conspiracy theory you endorse, you have to accept that the jetliner crashes were the instrument by which the towers were brought down. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct answer. --Mitchell Jones}*** > As far as the indications of thermite are concerned, well, there was a > vast amount of aluminum in the structure, and since the collapse > pulverized concrete, it likely pulverized a lot of aluminum as well. And > the fire that burned for almost 2 hours before the collapse began likely > produced tons of rust: the reaction goes very fast at high temperatures, > as noted above. Result: when the towers collapsed, powdered rust was > mixed with powdered aluminum, producing tons of thermite. And if you > want thermate, which is just thermite plus sulphur, well, there were > probably lots of sources for sulphur in the building as well. ***{Subsequent reflection has brought gypsum wallboard to mind re the above. Gypsum is CaSO4�2(H2O). See http://webmineral.com/data/Gypsum.shtml. If I recall correctly, it doesn't melt in response to heating. Instead, it decomposes into its constituents: the water goes off as steam, and the CaSO4 decomposes into calcium oxide and sulphur, which could appear as a pool of yellowish-orange molten material under the conditions that existed in the basement of the World Trade Center after the collapse. Powdered wallboard, therefore, would have provided lots of sulphur that, when mixed with the abundant powdered aluminum and iron oxide, could have produced the thermate signature identified by Prof. Steven Jones. --MJ}*** [snip] ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: P.Roehling on 21 Jan 2007 15:32 > Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct answer. > > --Mitchell Jones}*** Or, to paraphrase William of Occham : The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.
From: Al Dykes on 21 Jan 2007 15:38 In article <12r7jfnc9fep73b(a)corp.supernews.com>, P.Roehling <Pete.Roehling(a)CUTOUTeee.org> wrote: > >> Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct answer. >> >> --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Or, to paraphrase William of Occham : The simplest answer is usually the >correct answer. > > 42 The hard part is identifying the problem. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
From: Henry on 22 Jan 2007 22:41
Mitchell Jones wrote: > Mitchell Jones <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: >> Henry <911(a)insidejob.gov> wrote: >>> I hope you don't actually believe that. I work with various >>> metals for a living. The increase in temperature even if it's >>> bent quickly 180 degrees is barely detectable. >> ***{Every pound of steel at the top of the tower had 1368 foot pounds of >> potential energy, and at the bottom, that potential energy had been >> reduced to zero. The implication: all of that potential energy was >> transformed into heat by the hammering and bending that took place as >> the material made its way into the debris pile at the bottom of the >> tower. Whether enough of that heat accumulated on any specific piece of >> steel to render it molten, of course, depends on details of the >> situation that would be difficult to know about. The situation inside >> the zone of disintegration was rather chaotic, with the likely result >> that some of the falling metal, by chance, accumulated less heat, while >> other pieces accumulated more. How wide the range was, and whether any >> of the stuff melted due solely to impacts and bending, I can't say. > ***{I could have said, of course, if I hadn't been too lazy to do a > calculation. So let's do it now. > A kilogram of steel would weigh 9.8 Newtons, and the work required to > raise it 1368 feet would be [(1368)(12)/(39.37)](9.8) = 4086 Joules. > The specific heat of steel is about 486 Joules/kg/K, so if all the > potential energy in a kg of steel at a height of 1368 feet were > converted to heat, its temperature would rise by a mere 4086/486 = 8.4 > K. Thus I can say for sure that none of the steel came anywhere near to > its melting point due solely to the effects of converting its potential > energy into heat, irrespective of how chaotic the environment might have > been that it fell through on its way to the ground. Not only that, but there's no good mechanism to effectively convert the gravitational potential energy to heat. > The implication: a hell of a lot of heat had to come from somewhere, if > there was a significant amount of molten steel pooled in the basement of > the Tower after the collapse occurred. But does that require the use of > thermite or some similar material? Or could not the same effect be > achieved by merely burning the various combustibles that wound up in the > debris pile? Offhand, the odds look rather slim, as I think about it. > I'll have to do some research into this particular point to decide, but > this particular conspiracy theory is suddenly beginning to interest me > more than a little bit. Keep in mind that this molten metal was observed at all three demolitions sites, literally =flowing=. These guys speak of molten metal flowing like "lava", like "in a foundry". http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287 Dr. Steven Jones has obtained and analyzed samples of this previously molten metal, and it was found to contain the residue of a thermate reaction. Analysis results begins on page 22. http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf |