It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study concludes explosives used on 911

page: 41
135
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
double
edit on 12-1-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine


There's a new term for this, they call it the WTC Event. Fires simply don't cut it. Read the whole piece if you like, you'll find things like 5.89% iron spheres in the WTC dust vs. 0.04% in Background buildings. Your "spherules are regular in this environment" take is thoroughly debunked due to their sheer abundance.
And don't forget that Nist has no evidence for fire weakened steel, vaporized during this WTC Event as well I'd reckon. There's no other explanation, is it?

To vaporize lead below said 1900°C you would need another atmosphere with different vapor pressures. Extreme heat and a shockwave can do that, yes. Office-fires not so much, no.


The report was originally written for the Deutsche Bank building, damaged by pieces of the WTC. All components from construction were released on collapse. Iron spherules from the WTC were released on collapse. You will also find that the report discusses iron and lead containing spherules. This is the result of fire. Lead oxide is the result of fire.
As to your second comment, no you would not need 'another atmosphere' to have lead vapor in the air. Why do clothes on a clothesline dry below the boiling point of water? Water has a vapor pressure. They even dry when the temperature is below freezing because ice has a vapor pressure. Reread your reference on vapor pressure.

From the report: "Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high
temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common
in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are
not common in “normal” interior office dust.
Gypsum and other calcium sulfate phases were found to comprise up to 30%
of the WTC Dust by mass. "

RJLee makes no determination of when the particles were generated but ascribes all to fires. FYI, Gypsum the major component of drywall and was likely the cause of the 'dustification' claim.

Explosives would have produced materials like shocked quartz; no such materials were found. Alas, the demolition conspiracy is running on wishful thinking.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

My lead pipes don't vaporize on the clothesline and they found mineral wool fragments in said spherules as well. So there's that.
Take a step back and think about all that for a second. It's a piece for the Deutsche Bank and it's main purpose is the search for asbestos. Confidential due to the timing and in sharp contrast to "officials said", which was some "air is save to breath BS".
Anyway. Why should they waste good shopping time on the cause for this WTC Event, of course they're refering to fires. Any explosion is a fire with shockwaves, the cause for said fire (explosives or plane-fuels) is completely irrelevant for the job. One reason for confidentiality aint enough?


The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into
spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular
silicates or fly ash. The heat generated during the WTC Event caused some
plastics to form residual vesicular carbonaceous particles, and paints to form
residual spherical particles. Some metals, plastics and other materials were
vaporized thus producing new chemicals that were deposited onto the
surfaces of solid particulate matter, such as asbestos, quartz, and mineral
wool.
...
Figure 11 shows an X-ray diffraction (XRD)2 pattern of the bulk WTC Dust.
Gypsum and other calcium sulfate phases were found to comprise up to 30%
of the WTC Dust by mass. Other crystalline phases were quartz and calcite
with concentrations of approximately five weight percent.

P.3/ 13

That quartz aint shocked he said! I'm shocked. Alas, it aint that easy after all.


Summary

There is evidence to support the suggestion that explosives residue is derived from a thin outer layer of the charge. The proportion of explosives residue will decrease as both the charge size and the velocity of detonation increase. Simple mathematical models indicate that residue not associated with fragments is concentrated within a limiting radius, approximately 60 meters, regardless of the charge size (excluding wind effects). The distribution of explosives fragments and residue does not follow a simple inverse square distribution. High concentrations of residue are not only encountered close to the blast seat; residue may be found in relatively high concentrations further from the blast seat than would be expected. These could not happen if the distribution followed a simple inverse square law.

Explosives Residue: Origin and Distribution

I'll try to wrap my head around that now. Interesting, innit?
edit on 12-1-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine

My lead pipes don't vaporize on the clothesline and they found mineral wool fragments in said spherules as well. So there's that.
Take a step back and think about all that for a second. It's a piece for the Deutsche Bank and it's main purpose is the search for asbestos. Confidential due to the timing and in sharp contrast to "officials said", which was some "air is save to breath BS".
Anyway. Why should they waste good shopping time on the cause for this WTC Event, of course they're refering to fires. Any explosion is a fire with shockwaves, the cause for said fire (explosives or plane-fuels) is completely irrelevant for the job. One reason for confidentiality aint enough?


The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into
spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular
silicates or fly ash. The heat generated during the WTC Event caused some
plastics to form residual vesicular carbonaceous particles, and paints to form
residual spherical particles. Some metals, plastics and other materials were
vaporized thus producing new chemicals that were deposited onto the
surfaces of solid particulate matter, such as asbestos, quartz, and mineral
wool.
...
Figure 11 shows an X-ray diffraction (XRD)2 pattern of the bulk WTC Dust.
Gypsum and other calcium sulfate phases were found to comprise up to 30%
of the WTC Dust by mass. Other crystalline phases were quartz and calcite
with concentrations of approximately five weight percent.

P.3/ 13

That quartz aint shocked he said! I'm shocked. Alas, it aint that easy after all.


Summary

There is evidence to support the suggestion that explosives residue is derived from a thin outer layer of the charge. The proportion of explosives residue will decrease as both the charge size and the velocity of detonation increase. Simple mathematical models indicate that residue not associated with fragments is concentrated within a limiting radius, approximately 60 meters, regardless of the charge size (excluding wind effects). The distribution of explosives fragments and residue does not follow a simple inverse square distribution. High concentrations of residue are not only encountered close to the blast seat; residue may be found in relatively high concentrations further from the blast seat than would be expected. These could not happen if the distribution followed a simple inverse square law.

Explosives Residue: Origin and Distribution

I'll try to wrap my head around that now. Interesting, innit?


I'll help you wrap your head around anything you want to wrap it around. Why don't we discuss one thing at a time? First, mineral wool in spherules. The mineral wool provides a surface for vapor to condense on like dust particles nucleating rain drops.
As to explosive residue, what brought that on? RJLee did not find any explosive residue. Unreacted explosive would be from the surface as the detonation reaction would start more in the center of the charge and could expel the outer layer before it had a chance to react. This isn't a great revelation.
You are avoiding the issue of vapor pressure and trying to say that something has to boil to produce vapor. I gave you an easy analogy with the clothesline. Why don't you try to explain why things have to boil to have a vapor pressure? I'd be interested to see what you can come up with.
Any more head wrapping?



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Mr. Cahill and his DELTA Group gathered data that showed the air quality downtown, about 10 days after the event, was similar to the air one would encounter at the exhaust end of an industrial incinerator.

Burning office fires could not possibly cause that.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Mr. Cahill and his DELTA Group gathered data that showed the air quality downtown, about 10 days after the event, was similar to the air one would encounter at the exhaust end of an industrial incinerator.

Burning office fires could not possibly cause that.


Neither would explosives or thermite. What caused that was the underground fires that burned for weeks; an impromptu industrial incinerator.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
Mr. Cahill and his DELTA Group gathered data that showed the air quality downtown, about 10 days after the event, was similar to the air one would encounter at the exhaust end of an industrial incinerator.

Burning office fires could not possibly cause that.


Neither would explosives or thermite. What caused that was the underground fires that burned for weeks; an impromptu industrial incinerator.


An excellent point! Now let's take the next step and discuss how office fires burning on the 80th floor caused underground fires that burned for 3 months, emitting the toxic equivalent of an industrial incinerator. How does that work, in a building constructed in accordance with the New York City fire code?



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
Mr. Cahill and his DELTA Group gathered data that showed the air quality downtown, about 10 days after the event, was similar to the air one would encounter at the exhaust end of an industrial incinerator.

Burning office fires could not possibly cause that.


Neither would explosives or thermite. What caused that was the underground fires that burned for weeks; an impromptu industrial incinerator.


An excellent point! Now let's take the next step and discuss how office fires burning on the 80th floor caused underground fires that burned for 3 months, emitting the toxic equivalent of an industrial incinerator. How does that work, in a building constructed in accordance with the New York City fire code?


Where do you think the 80th floor ended up? Where do you think the contents of floors 1 through 79 ended up? Do you think that the rubble was "constructed in accordance with the New York City fire code?"



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
Mr. Cahill and his DELTA Group gathered data that showed the air quality downtown, about 10 days after the event, was similar to the air one would encounter at the exhaust end of an industrial incinerator.

Burning office fires could not possibly cause that.


Neither would explosives or thermite. What caused that was the underground fires that burned for weeks; an impromptu industrial incinerator.


An excellent point! Now let's take the next step and discuss how office fires burning on the 80th floor caused underground fires that burned for 3 months, emitting the toxic equivalent of an industrial incinerator. How does that work, in a building constructed in accordance with the New York City fire code?


Where do you think the 80th floor ended up? Where do you think the contents of floors 1 through 79 ended up? Do you think that the rubble was "constructed in accordance with the New York City fire code?"


They really don't think these "theories" through do they?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine


The OP refers to an opinion piece that has no evidence. Jones is famous for exceptionally bad science with his paper that claimed thermite. Of course, he is completely clueless when it comes to chemistry and analytical protocols. If you would like to defend the abomination that is his paper, let me know.



It's so bad, in fact, that even AE/911 Truth has dropped any mention of thermite in their list of evidence for controlled demolition in their 2017 manifesto..

That speaks volumes....



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: pteridine


The OP refers to an opinion piece that has no evidence. Jones is famous for exceptionally bad science with his paper that claimed thermite. Of course, he is completely clueless when it comes to chemistry and analytical protocols. If you would like to defend the abomination that is his paper, let me know.



It's so bad, in fact, that even AE/911 Truth has dropped any mention of thermite in their list of evidence for controlled demolition in their 2017 manifesto..

That speaks volumes....


That's interesting I wonder what the AE/911 supporters on here will say about that NO doubt the silence will be deafening



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Sweet non-answer, terrific dodge. I do understand why you must do that.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Raise you AE/911 giving up on thermite



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Sweet non-answer, terrific dodge. I do understand why you must do that.



Let's review.
1. Floors 1 through 79 contained combustible office contents.
2. Floors 80 and up were burning
3. The burning buildings collapsed.
4. Combustible office contents were in the rubble and were ignited by fires from floors 80 and up.
5. These fires burned for weeks until they ran out of fuel.

So far, you have not provided any rational alternative to the above. It is because you have no alternative and your only argument is to not answer.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
A few good threads on high rise building fires causing structural weakening and derangement leading to collapse .....

Teheran high-rise collapse due to fire
www.internationalskeptics.com...

tehran-plasco-highrise-fire-and-collapse
www.metabunk.org...

Inward bowing and collapse of WTC 2
www.metabunk.org...



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Sweet non-answer, terrific dodge. I do understand why you must do that.



Let's review.
1. Floors 1 through 79 contained combustible office contents.
2. Floors 80 and up were burning
3. The burning buildings collapsed.
4. Combustible office contents were in the rubble and were ignited by fires from floors 80 and up.
5. These fires burned for weeks until they ran out of fuel.

So far, you have not provided any rational alternative to the above. It is because you have no alternative and your only argument is to not answer.


If I may ask a question, to what energy source do you attribute the horizontal displacement of so much material, much of it massive?

How do "combustible office contents" provide sufficient energy to displace massive structural pieces hundreds of feet horizontally?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Salander

Raise you AE/911 giving up on thermite



Sorry, I miss your point.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Sweet non-answer, terrific dodge. I do understand why you must do that.



Let's review.
1. Floors 1 through 79 contained combustible office contents.
2. Floors 80 and up were burning
3. The burning buildings collapsed.
4. Combustible office contents were in the rubble and were ignited by fires from floors 80 and up.
5. These fires burned for weeks until they ran out of fuel.

So far, you have not provided any rational alternative to the above. It is because you have no alternative and your only argument is to not answer.


If I may ask a question, to what energy source do you attribute the horizontal displacement of so much material, much of it massive?

How do "combustible office contents" provide sufficient energy to displace massive structural pieces hundreds of feet horizontally?


Combustible office contents provided the fuel for the underground fires. Horizontal displacement is a result of a gravitational collapse of a 1000' building. Note that outer walls were peeled from the building in sections as the collapse occurred and fell outward.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Are you joking? Horizontal displacement is a result of gravitational collapse? FYI, gravity works in only one direction, towards the center of the planet we're on. Pieces weighing many thousands of tons were hurled sideways with sufficient force to impale on adjacent buildings.

Office furniture that met the NYC fire code for certain resistance to flames and fire burned for 90 days and made steam when water was applied to it? Nonsense.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

So, then why wouldn't a fire collapse result in a building falling in its own "foot print".

Thanks for debunking another Richard Gauge / AE911TRUTH talking point.

Now, what gave the items in question the energy to be vectorly displaced without the energy release of an demolition charge?

There was no demolitions charges because:

One, no evidence of an over pressure event from charges detonating.

Two, no 140 db soundwave that is the result of a pressure wave powerful enough to eject materials?

Three, were is all the resultant demolitions shrapnel?

Four, people did not receive hearing and demolitions shrapnel injuries at the WTC from the detonation of demolitions.

The WTC was only one of the most recorded and documented events in history?
edit on 21-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Fix finger fumbles



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join