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.

 

WTC Steel Analysis Reveals Thermite and Thermate By-Products

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Sorry if I missed this somewhere else on this site...

Dr. Steven Jones claims to have recieved a "certified sample" of WTC steel and that his analysis conclusively reveals the steel was subject to a thermite reaction. The samples also reveal the by products of thermate, a sulphur enhanced thermite mixture which reuces the melting point of steel.

The folling link is an audio interview with Dr. Jones from yesterday.

www.prisonplanet.tv...

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]




posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Yes this is very interesting. I can't really see anyone refuting this if Steven Jones presents this evidence in a public forum (If you know what I mean.)

If he is able to show physicsts, structural engineers and other such people proof of what he talks about, then this is pretty much smoking gun evidence of use of Thermite.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Maybe there is some hard evidence after all.......

Good find...



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I really hope Dr. Jones can find a more reputable outlet than Prison Planet to carry this message to the public.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Does anyone know what kind of non-destructive test/tests he used? I'm only on here at work normally and haven't had time to listen to his interview. Also, how has he confirmed that the piece of steel is from the trade center? I heard that he used a piece from the memorial...is that right? Did they let him take a piece or did he do a non-destructive test right there at the memorial? Thanks for the info.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
The quantitative results are currently being complied and reviewed prior to publication.

There are two samples involved at this point and they are trying to aquire more. Sample one was "quite large" and sent to him by a woman nivolved in the erection of a 9/11 memorial. The second sample supposedly came from a ground zero worker. More information on how the samples were obtained will be released soon. They are encouraging people to go PHOTOGRAPH and document any 9/11 memorials that include the steel ASAP so that they can have as much eveidence as possible.

The details of the testing methods used will be published soon.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I think "Dr Jones" is full of it. The only way that the melting temperature of steel can be reduced is by changing the alloy of materials used to make it. Since the main ingredients of Thermite are aluminum and iron oxide, both of which are common building materials, I am fairly certain that I can find chemical residue of thermite on the frame of my car. It has been stated that the wreckage of the WTC was carted off so fast that there wasn't time to do a complete investigation into the collapse, but yet samples magically appear to support thei Thermite Theory? Wake up and smell what this guy is shoveling.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
...The only way that the melting temperature of steel can be reduced is by changing the alloy of materials used to make it. Since the main ingredients of Thermite are aluminum and iron oxide, both of which are common building materials, I am fairly certain that I can find chemical residue of thermite on the frame of my car. It has been stated that the wreckage of the WTC was carted off so fast that there wasn't time to do a complete investigation into the collapse, but yet samples magically appear to support thei Thermite Theory? Wake up and smell what this guy is shoveling.


1. Thermate has a large amount of sulphur in it and large amounts of sulphur were found in the sampls.

2. Sulphur DOES lower the melting point of steel. This is fact. Look it up.

3. There would be no source for large amounts of sulphur on the steel 'naturally'.

4. You are wrong about the by-products of the reaction being found on your car frame. Are there melted Iron or aluminum-OXIDE blobs on your car frame that aer laden with sulphur? Tell me how Aluminum-oxide appeared in the samples.

5. The vast majority of the steel was carted off UNDER GUARD?? and sent to smelters abroad... BUT some untouched steel remains in monuments and in a warehouse. GEE I wonder why few samples remain... Use your head.

6. Why are you so defensive about this? Does Dr. Jones touch a nerve?

7. What is his motive to make a fake sample and test it? What does he stand to gain other than a target on his back?

8. Before you attempt to discreit this man and insult him with "dr jones" [sic], prove cold fusion [the holy grail of nuclear physics] and create an expiriment able to produce free neutrons... he has... but can you?

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Sulphur DOES lower the melting point of steel. This is fact. Look it up.

Why are you so defensive about this? Does Dr. Jones touch a nerve?

Before you attempt to discreit this man and insult him with "dr jones" [sic], prove cold fusion [the holy grail of nuclear physics] and create an expiriment able to produce free neutrons... he has... but can you?



The only way Sulphur lowers the melting point of steel is if it is added during the smelting process. Look it up.

I really don't give a damn about Dr. Jones.

I'd like to see the documentation on cold fusion.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts8. Before you attempt to discreit this man and insult him with "dr jones" [sic], prove cold fusion [the holy grail of nuclear physics] and create an expiriment able to produce free neutrons... he has... but can you?


There is no proof of cold fusion. Jones and his conterparts who scooped him were either incompetent or frauds.

Cold fusion ... good track record he has.

This guy does not know what the scientific method is, nor does he know what a "peer reviewed" journal is ... because he has not had any of his 9/11 work published in such a journal.

As far as this new evidence goes ...

He has no way of controlling the QAQC of his sample – he says the iron beads were collected from an unknown piece of WTC by an unknown source (because he won't reveal). He himself did not have direct access to the sample.

The iron beads, if they even exist, or if they are even from a piece of WTC steel at all:

- Could be welding slag from construction of the WTC
- Could be welding slag from the welder who fashioned the monument
- Could be yet another hoax
- Could be evidence of thermite
- Could be evidence that an iron-meteorite brought down the towers


[edit on 8-6-2006 by vor75]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
The iron beads, if they even exist, or if they are even from a piece of WTC steel at all:

- Could be welding slag construction of the WTC
- Could be welding slag from the welder who fashioned the monument
- Could be yet another hoax
- Could be evidence of thermite
- Could be evidence that an iron-meteorite brought down the towers


Could be from a thermal lance used during the rescue effort



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Could be a real piece of evidence for the use of thermite/thermate. If there were more pieces of steel left to study, maybe we wouldn't have all these could be's now would we.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
There is no proof of cold fusion. Jones and his conterparts who scooped him were either incompetent or frauds.


You are confusing Jones with Fleischmann and Pons, do some research. Fleischmann and Pons were proven to be frauds. Jones was measuring neutron flux, his expiriments WERE successful and accepted though the had little commercial value.

Originally posted by vor75
Cold fusion ... good track record he has.


He was never debunked or disproven.


Originally posted by vor75
This guy does not know what the scientific method is, nor does he know what a "peer reviewed" journal is ... because he has not had any of his 9/11 work published in such a journal.


How deos that invalidate anything he has to say?


Originally posted by vor75
He himself did not have direct access to the sample.


Because the government conducted a MASSIVE evidence destruction operation under armed guard. Your logic is circular.


Originally posted by vor75
The iron beads, if they even exist, or if they are even from a piece of WTC steel at all:

- Could be welding slag from construction of the WTC
- Could be welding slag from the welder who fashioned the monument
- Could be yet another hoax
- Could be evidence of thermite
- Could be evidence that an iron-meteorite brought down the towers
[edit on 8-6-2006 by vor75]


1. Not with sulfidated aluminum-oxide.
2. It was sampled prior to any monument welding. SUPPOSEDLY. The details are YET TO BE RELEASED but wil be.
3. Yes, a well respected professor has a lot of reason for a hoax.
4. Let me throw Occams Razor back at all the coincidence theorists.
5. Great, a comedian.

Since you have all of the answers, how about the angle cut columns at the base?

I would think instead of everyone trying to discret this there would be DEMANDS being made to the government to release samples. Or maybe calls to Korea and China to get samples.

You are NOT interested in the truth. You are only interested in blindly defending the story that has been RAM RODDED down your throat.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Could be from a thermal lance used during the rescue effort

How did the thermal lance introduce sulphur in large quantity?

How come you NEVER respond to the science and just keep throwing "could be" and "what if's"?

I take time to respond to your posts logically and you never conceede or even rebut all you do is post more "stuff" to dilute the issue. Roark is good at this too.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Where do we find sulfur? Oh, I don’t know, how about drywall, fuel oil, acid rain, batteries, (I wonder how many businesses had lead acid battery UPS systems)

I wonder if Jones will bother to look into alternate sources for all of these elements?

I doubt it.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Where do we find sulfur? Oh, I don’t know, how about drywall, fuel oil, acid rain, batteries, (I wonder how many businesses had lead acid battery UPS systems)

I wonder if Jones will bother to look into alternate sources for all of these elements?

I doubt it.


The key is the QUANTITY and the chemical bonding. They will release the full analysis soon and the compouns present will show that your batteries would have needed to be glued to the columns with some thermite.

You are assuming that this was found in small quantities.

So far the arguments are:

- Lack of evidence. (The fault of the government)
- Magic, spontaneous thermate (the sulphur, molten iron and aluminum-oxide came from somwhere else)
- Jones does not know what he is talking about (Then refute the science, not the man)

Am I missing any?



[edit on 8-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Where do we find sulfur? Oh, I don’t know, how about drywall, fuel oil, acid rain, batteries, (I wonder how many businesses had lead acid battery UPS systems)

I wonder if Jones will bother to look into alternate sources for all of these elements?

I doubt it.


The key is the QUANTITY and the chemical bonding. They will release the full analysis soon and the compouns present will show that your batteries would have needed to be glued to the columns with some thermite.

You are assuming that this was found in small quantities.

So far the arguments are:

- Lack of evidence. (The fault of the government)
- Magic, spontaneous thermate (the sulphur, molten iron and aluminum-oxide came from somwhere else)
- Jones does not know what he is talking about (Then refute the science, not the man)

Am I missing any?



[edit on 8-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]


I'm interested also.
Any more info you have would be helpful.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clark_Kent
I'm interested also.
Any more info you have would be helpful.


What are you asking?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Clark_Kent
I'm interested also.
Any more info you have would be helpful.


What are you asking?


I guess I was wondering if you had anymore info on the samples other than what was mentioned on the show. It just sounded like it from your posts.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

The key is the QUANTITY and the chemical bonding. They will release the full analysis soon and the compouns present will show that your batteries would have needed to be glued to the columns with some thermite.

You are assuming that this was found in small quantities.

So far the arguments are:

- Lack of evidence. (The fault of the government)
- Magic, spontaneous thermate (the sulphur, molten iron and aluminum-oxide came from somwhere else)
- Jones does not know what he is talking about (Then refute the science, not the man)

Am I missing any?



The idea that the vast majority of the steel from the site was carted off "under armed guard" is absurd. Entire sections of several naval ships are made from some of this steel. Even the "American Chopper" series on the Discovery channel got some to incorporate into their FDNY motorcycle.

This steel, minus a quantity reserved for testing, exactly as you claim has not been done by the government, followed the exact same pathway that practically every single piece of scrap steel follows in our country.

I'd go with "Jones does not know what he's talking about," except I don't believe that either. But I will say that Jones is a fairly fringey individual. As a physicist, he's published work that attempts to connect some Native American artwork to the New World coming of Jesus Christ (Jones is a Mormon.) Seems to be not only complete nonsense, but also pretty darn far afield considering his Doctorate.


Originally posted by Slap Nuts
You are confusing Jones with Fleischmann and Pons, do some research. Fleischmann and Pons were proven to be frauds. Jones was measuring neutron flux, his expiriments WERE successful and accepted though the had little commercial value.


But Jones was working with Fleischmann and Pons.


Both teams were in Utah, and met on several occasions to discuss sharing work and techniques. During this time Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", excess in that it could not be explained by chemical reactions alone. If this were true, their device would have considerable commercial value, and should be protected by patents. Jones was measuring neutron flux instead, and seems to have considered it primarily of scientific interest, not commercial. In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams apparently agreed to simultaneously publish their results, although their accounts of their March 6 meeting differ.

In mid-March both teams were ready to publish, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at the airport on the 24th to send their papers at the exact same time to Nature by Federal Express. However Fleischmann and Pons broke that apparent agreement : they had submitted a paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on the 11th, and they disclosed their work in the press conference the day before. Jones, apparently furious at being "scooped", faxed in his paper to Nature as soon as he saw the press announcements.[5]

Source

While it's true that Jones' method differs from the debunked method, and that Jones recognized early on that his device had no commercial value, it still says a lot about Jones that he would trumpet his technique as cold fusion when what he actually has could just as easily be merely called a neutron source. Jones' method holds out exactly no hope for energy generation.

Harte




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join