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: 12
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Why? Because he's a physics professor and is using physics to back up his claims?


Where is it that you lose grip of the logic?..I'll type slowly..He's commenting on things he has no training in. He's drawing conclusions based on information he doesn't understand.


How does a professor emeritus of physics have no training in physics, Vushta?

His paper was not on the structural aspects of the towers, but the physics involved in their collapses. He is a physicist. His training and expertise was in and is in physics. His paper, is a physics paper. It was reviewed by -- physicists. And approved.

Here might be a better question for you: do you know what physics is? Can you define it for us?




posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
In response to bsb.


Nice deflection. Just like Jones. I never said he had no training in physics..nice spin.

He's using physics to back up his claims?? where?
His main claim is the the towers were imploded with explosives.
Wheres the evidence backed up by physics? Should the 'physics' of explosions show anywhere?..visual..auditory..blast patterns..residue? I would think that they would be part and parcel of 'physics'...but they're not there. He spews a lot of vague speculation, assumptions, and 'gut feelings' to arrive at his conclusions but thats nothing based in physics.


He has no training in the application of physics in relation to structural failures.
Would Jones be the man to go to for answers to questions involving piloting a jetliner?..lots of 'physics' going on there. How about rigging a building for a demo?..could he do that?..that involves physics....Ya know when you think about it using your criteria a "physics" prof. should be qualified to do anything without any extra training..I mean it's all physics isn't it?

I find it almost unbelievable that his backward methodology doesn't jump out at you CTs guys.
First he arrives at a conclusion..most recently evidence of "thermite"...then he states that very thing, and THEN looks for the evidence to support the conclusion.
"I FOUND SULFUR....ITS THERMITE!"..uh oh..sulfur is not a signature of thermite....hang on while I hammer and file the 'evidence' to fit my claim" Thats the kind of "science and physics" that had people believing the sun revolved around the earth for so long.




His paper was not on the structural aspects of the towers, but the physics involved in their collapses.


How is it that you can separate the two and still come across as credible?



. It was reviewed by -- physicists. And approved.


Like who?

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

How many times are we going to cover the facct that all engineering is based in PHYSICS and CALCULUS.


i will actually agree to this statement.

but would you want a physicist to design a bridge you were going to drive over?

i like my family dr, but i wouldnt want him doing surgery on me.

and i would like to comment on the 'evaporated steel' comment. well, ask a question first...is the thinking it was evaporated by HE or Thermite?

if the thinking is HE then that rules out HE. When an explosive goes off next to a steel beam, it doesnt 'cut' it the way one would think. explosives dont do damage based on heat, but on velocity. thats why if you read about HE they dont give a "temp" but a "velocity" (C4 for example detonates at roughly 27000fps, det cord is around 32000 fps) so steel beams that have been "cut" by HE (even linear shape charges) tend to be "mushroomed" away from the source of the blast. HE doesnt 'cut" so much as it "breaks" steel.

just thought id throw that out there.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Damocles]



Thanks for pointing that out. Thats partly what I mean by 'blast patterns'.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but would you want a physicist to design a bridge you were going to drive over?


Since when is building something analogous to studying its destruction?

And since when do structural engineers professionally analyze any types of collapses?


No one is questioning whom you'd rather have build something.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Harte

So, there may be no "error or omission in any of his PHYSICS based writings,"


How many times are we going to cover the facct that all engineering is based in PHYSICS and CALCULUS.

If you want to get technical, all hard science is based on calculus, and all of calculus is based on arithmetic. So can a 4th grader do relativistic physics? How about merely a little solid state physics? Of course not. The truth is, a relativistic physicist can't even do solid state physics, much less structural engineering. To believe anything else is to accept the dunce cap of simpleton-ness. Or something or other.


With the advent of quantum mechanics, all of chemistry has been realized to be merely a part of the field of physics. Does this make Jones a Pharmacist as well?

Jimmy Carter was a nuclear physicist.
Jimmy Carter was President of the United States.
Jones is a particle physicist.
Jones is therefore the President of the United States.

So why is everybody complaining about this Bush guy?



Originally posted by Slap NutsPoint out an error in any of his SCIENCE based writings... including his paper on 9/11.

Okay. First, I assume you mean this paper;
www.physics.byu.edu...
About one-fourth of the way down the page, just below the photo that shows the molten flow cascading down the building exterior, the photo that includes the label "(copyright) 2001 Luigi Cazzaniga, 9:57:45 am." you'll find the following:


Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce.

Now, about two thirds of the way down, you'll see where Jones quotes, and agrees with, the following from Eagar and Musso, 2001:


Relevant to this point, Eagar noted that "Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000 ºC." (Eagar and Musso, 2001)

There you have it. An error in his paper on 9/11. Unless, that is, you or Jones wish to maintain that a fire can both not be able to reach 1000 deg C and simultaneously be able to reach a temperature of 1000 deg C.

Well, that took about five minutes to find. Apparently, neither Jones nor his "peers" have ever heard of proofreading, nor even fact checking.

One of these days, when I have a little more time, I'll find a few hundred other errors in there for you. Of course, it'll take me a whole lot longer to explain exactly why some of them are errors, as a modicum of scientific knowledge will (I'm sure) be required to understand some things in there are erroneous.


Originally posted by Slap NutsBy the way, attacking a man's religious writings is pathetic.

Einstein wrote about a religion which I think is 100% wrong, but does that negate the theory of relativity?

Got a link to any of Einstein's religious writings? Any of them published by Princeton, the way the Mormon paper was published by BYU?
Did Einstein purport to have actual physical evidence that his religion was right, to the detriment of all other religions?

I don't think I attacked Jones on his religion, I attacked him for misrepresenting the content and context of the artwork of the Maya to advance his religious ideas. This is exactly the same thing vonDaniken does with his "Nazca landing strips" and his "Mayan astronaut relief." In other words, pure Pseudoscience. You don't have to like it, Slap Nuts. You don't have to agree with it either. But it is just pure fact - his writings in that Maya paper are textbook examples of pseudoscience. No more and no less. Pure and unadulterated. He'd make Velikovsky proud.

Harte



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   


And since when do structural engineers professionally analyze any types of collapses?


I don't know...all the time?



Since when is building something analogous to studying its destruction


I don't know..all the time?...you're spinning. No one said they were 'analogous'.

Is the knowledge of how something was built and why it was built in the way it was using the materials that were spec'ed important to understanding how and why it collapsed? Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? I would guess that the input of SE's and ME's is very important to understanding why a structure failed..much more so than a nuke phys.



No one is questioning whom you'd rather have build something.


No..but you seem to be questioning who is better able to analyze a structural failure..those with the proper expertise and training utilizing the state of the art facilities and methodology...or an untrained nuke/phys. and his entourage who seem to have a obvious political/ideological bias.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Vushta]


[edit on 20-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
quotes by Slap Nuts:

zappafan1: Since the outer columns were not weight-bearing, placing thermite/thermate there would serve no useful purpose, as it would not have an effect leading to the collapse.


Are you talking about the outter lattice or the corner columns?


REPLY: Either/or, as the outer columns and the lattice both serve to provide wind resistance (tipping/swaying), not mainly as weight-bearing members, which is/was the job of the core columns. The corner columns and perimeter beams merely supported the glass and related framework and, through them, the outer perimeter of the roof structure.
Also note that the Thermite/Thermate"-like sparks were only in a couple of areas; none of which in total would have anything to do with the collapse

zappafan1: It would be quite impossible to replicate the exact circumstances/condition relative to the sparks seen, which doesn't mean it didn't happen.



Spontaneous Thermite reactions? What are the realtive odds of this occurence? Has it ever been witnessed or replicated in any fashion?


REPLY: I couldn't give you exact odds, though since it is a known phenomenon, one must assume it has been seen or reproduced. This is somewhat irrelevant, because, as mentioned, even if Thermite/Thermate was placed on every single lattice junction of the floor perimeter on any given floor (something not seen or proposed), it would only weaken those junctions. Thermite/Thermate is not a "cutting" action, but a localized heating.

zappafan1: Ross B. Corotis, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the editorial board at the journal Structural Safety, says that most engineers are pretty settled on what happened at the World Trade Center.


Most... Pretty... not really... Sounds like a nice way to say that there is disagreement.
Does he list who "most engineers" are? How is he speking for millions of engineers? What is his source?


REPLY: I cannot speak for Corotis, I would hazzard an educated guess that what happened at the WTC was a rather hot topic amongst large numbers of engineers in many/all fields, and his opinion was based on those discussions, and the resulting conclusions and/or computer simulations; at the very least knowledge of decades of engineering principles and practices.


"Mr. Corotis is the recipient of MANY gov't grants.... I think his motives can easily be brought into question."


REPLY: Mr. Jones, too, by the virtue of his being a professor at an American college, receives money from government grants/tax money as do they all. By the "logic" of your statement, would that also preclude the validity of the Jones claims?


He (Corotis) is also a member of the "The Emergency Manager of the Future Rountable"... Interesting... he is not an "emergency manager", he is a civil engineer... by the standards being set here his opinion is invalid in this work?



The Emergency Manager of the Future Rountable

Objective: The nation is changing in terms of its demographics, the types of risks it faces, and in many other ways. The emergency manager of the future will have to cope with such changes in order to further effective mitigation, preparedness, and response and recovery efforts throughout the United States. The objective of this workshop is to provide the opportunity for practitioners, decision-makers, researchers and other stakeholders to discuss and exchange views and perspectives on challenges that emergency managers of tomorrow can expect to face, based on our current knowledge and experience. Expected opportunities for meeting future challenges, including those that can be provided by education, research and technology, will also be considered at the forum.


REPLY: Again, as was mentioned earlier, I would concede to his statements as being a consensus of findings among many diciplines of engineering fields. Being "only"a professor of civil engineering, and a member of the editorial board at the journal Structural Safety, he is among a rather diverse group, with the objectives as noted above, so I can't see where this would place him in the realm of those who might not have the inherent knowledge to venture an opinion of what happened, or submit the consensus thereof.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by zappafan1] For one screwup by me.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
quotes by Griff


Huh? According to some sources, the outer columns held as much as 50% of the weight. How could they be non load-bearing?


REPLY: I'll have to find the link of you like, but please see my post, above, as to how this relates to the building design.


I'd like to see Eager show us where natural thermite reactions have occured since he states that they are well known.


REPLY: I would think you could contact him for that info.


What about the other 1%?


REPLY: I would imagine that there is always a 1% variable or unknown in any given circumstance or endeavor. Again, contact with him might bring to light details as to what the specifics might be as the 1%.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The exterior columns and the interior core split the loads approximately 50/50. In addition, in the core, the majority of the loads were borne by the main corner columns.

What was unique about the towers was that there were no intermediate columns in the tenant areas. It was an open span from the core to the exterior walls.

The core and the perimeters were ties together by the floor trusses and the hat truss on top of the building.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Exactly how much mass would be resting on each floor to provide sufficient stress... haroom..



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

by Masisoar:
Exactly how much mass would be resting on each floor to provide sufficient stress... haroom..


REPLY: I have this info somewhere.
I'll get back to but will probably be tomorrow.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Should the 'physics' of explosions show anywhere?..visual..auditory..blast patterns..residue?


1. Incendaries are quiet while they burn columns.
2. Small charges in the core are quiet.
3. Many firefighters reported hearing explosions.
4. Ejection of beams, etc. ARE evidence of force (physics) that canniot be explained by G (the only available force).
5. Microscorpic particulates in massive volumes are evidence of explosions.
6. Squibs could be evidence of explosions.
7. Collapsing towers are LOUD so how would you hear any explosins after initiation?
8. Giant dust clouds obscure visual contact with explosions.
9. Blast pattern, again, may not be visible because incendaries were used mostly, giant dust cloud, in the core, etc.
10 Residue of Thermate and Sol-Gel or their by-products were found. FEMA found the Sol-gel by products and samples taken from 9/11 memorials, scanned with electron scanning microscopes show evidence of thermate.

Shall I continue on your little game?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   


1. Incendaries are quiet while they burn columns.


They would produce very bright light lasting at least several seconds. Incediaries like thermite burn down, not sideways, they couldn't be used to melt a vertical column.




2. Small charges in the core are quiet.


They would have to tear down walls to plant them, any evidence that ever happened? Small charges won't even bring it down, in real demolitions the charges are louder than the collapse.




3. Many firefighters reported hearing explosions.


Most of them said they heard something like an explosions, it doesn't mean they were. Explosions are normal for a buring building, and failing steel sounds a lot like an explosion. If they truely believed that the towers were rigged with explosions, they would never keep quiet about it, the lost a lot of people that day.




4. Ejection of beams, etc. ARE evidence of force (physics) that canniot be explained by G (the only available force).


No, you got it backwards, the ejections of beams cannot possibly be from explosions.
The amount required would be heard by everyone and pickup by all the cameras. Try calulating how much is required to throw out a given beam. In a real CD, gravity does most the work, the charges just take out the supports.




5. Microscorpic particulates in massive volumes are evidence of explosions.


In real CD, most of the damage to the material of the building, happen during collapse. The charges only take out the support, and most of the dust is from the collapse.


6. Squibs could be evidence of explosions.


Or they could be evidence of how much air pressure is being produced by the collapse.




7. Collapsing towers are LOUD so how would you hear any explosins after initiation?


Yes, in a real CD.




8. Giant dust clouds obscure visual contact with explosions.


If you can''t see or hear any, why would you believe they exist?




9. Blast pattern, again, may not be visible because incendaries were used mostly, giant dust cloud, in the core, etc.


What the would leave behind, is a very distintive melting pattern.




10 Residue of Thermate and Sol-Gel or their by-products were found. FEMA found the Sol-gel by products and samples taken from 9/11 memorials, scanned with electron scanning microscopes show evidence of thermate.


Where do you hear this? If you bring up the sulfur found, that is not evidence of themate, it can be found in gysum drywall.



[edit on 24-7-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
They would produce very bright light lasting at least several seconds. Incediaries like thermite burn down, not sideways, they couldn't be used to melt a vertical column.


Not true, see the Patent in Dr. Jones' new article.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
They would have to tear down walls to plant them, any evidence that ever happened? Small charges won't even bring it down, in real demolitions the charges are louder than the collapse.


Not true. Thermate would burn through wall board like paper. How do you know that the core colums could not be accessed? Did you build it?


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Most of them said they heard something like an explosions, it doesn't mean they were. Explosions are normal for a buring building, and failing steel sounds a lot like an explosion. If they truely believed that the towers were rigged with explosions, they would never keep quiet about it, the lost a lot of people that day.


You are making assumptions. You will call me a liar when I tell you this, but on Saturday I was at a party and a fella there lost his FDNY brother (actual brother) in the collapse. He will tell you that basically all of the firefighters believe it was CD.



Originally posted by Mr_pointy
No, you got it backwards, the ejections of beams cannot possibly be from explosions.
The amount required would be heard by everyone and pickup by all the cameras. Try calulating how much is required to throw out a given beam. In a real CD, gravity does most the work, the charges just take out the supports.


So, G provided enough force to eject the beams? You are basically claiming that G > G + explosives/incindaries. I suggest you check your math



Originally posted by Mr_pointy
In real CD, most of the damage to the material of the building, happen during collapse. The charges only take out the support, and most of the dust is from the collapse.


In an ordinary CD we are in agreement. Ordinary CD does not smolder for weeks nor pulverize vast quantities of concrete either... interesting.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Or they could be evidence of how much air pressure is being produced by the collapse.


Not going to have this argument in this thread. If there were so much pressure (even with the top of the building OPEN, I would expect FAR mor blown out windows, etc. We can argue about this in that thread though.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Yes, in a real CD.


The WTC towers were VERY loud during the collapse. I do not think you would hear small cutter charges while 1.5 million lbs. of stuff was falling around you.



Originally posted by Mr_pointy
If you can''t see or hear any, why would you believe they exist?


I believe in oxygen and I can't see or hear that... evidence leads me to believe that it does infact exist however.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
What the would leave behind, is a very distintive melting pattern.


Conjecture... Please post a source. It left behind pools of molten metal though.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Where do you hear this? If you bring up the sulfur found, that is not evidence of themate, it can be found in gysum drywall.


Please see: www.physics.byu.edu...


[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
They would produce very bright light lasting at least several seconds. Incediaries like thermite burn down, not sideways, they couldn't be used to melt a vertical column.


Haven't been keeping up with your History Channel?



Those are thermite charges being stuck onto steel columns. Apparently it does work after all.

And bright light was produced during the collapses, often referred to here as "sparklies", which was a very intense white, but was also rapid. Could have been another explosive, could have been thermite with sulfur and/or other additives as accelerates as proposed by Prof. Jones.

The molten material seen running out of WTC2's corner was also accompanied by a more extended appearance of an intense bright light, as can be seen in photos/video of that.



3. Many firefighters reported hearing explosions.


Most of them said they heard something like an explosions, it doesn't mean they were.


www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Pretty damned explicit, and those are just guys that happened to be interviewed for TV. I wouldn't assume anything about their coming out, either, as there is no medium of communication between you and them. The media isn't reporting, and gag orders were issued, and you would have to go through higher-ranks to get information legally. Unless you have direct personal contact, it would be hard.

These were no conventional demolitions, and we cannot assume conventional procedures or devices were used (probably foolish to do so given the nature of the institutions being accused, ie US military complex), so many references to CD that you make are questionable.



6. Squibs could be evidence of explosions.


Or they could be evidence of how much air pressure is being produced by the collapse.


Maybe you can be the first to tell us how much air pressure is going to accumulate when masses of solid debris are having no problem escaping from the collapse waves.

Griff has provided some figures on how much pressure would have accumulated max, as well, based off physics laws of combining gases, and the pressure would not have been much even with all of the air being maintained within the failing structures.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

by damocles: ok, im done ranting in and out of topic. try to debunk any of it, (i love an intelligent discussion) but i will ask for real life first hand experience not some bs from google. prove me wrong ill admit it, but i want hard proof.


REPLY: Well.......... you sure won't find it here, or in Jones's paper either.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
.................
Jones must REALLY piss off the gov't considering the responses this thread is getting.


Typical response from the "thermite/bombs in wtc conspiracy theorists" who do not know much of what they are talking about, hence when someone smarter than them and with more information on the subject comes along to debunk their theories, the "thermite/bombs in wtc conspiracy theorists" claim these "members are too smart, so they must be government agents...."


I am glad that we are getting more and more members who actually have some intelligent things to say about this topic. Professor Jones is showing himself to be an idiot by the day....

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
.................
Jones must REALLY piss off the gov't considering the responses this thread is getting.


Typical response from the "thermite/bombs in wtc conspiracy theorists" who do not know much of what they are talking about, hence when someone smarter than them and with more information on the subject comes along to debunk their theories, the "thermite/bombs in wtc conspiracy theorists" claim these "members are too smart, so they must be government agents...."


I am glad that we are getting more and more members who actually have some intelligent things to say about this topic. Professor Jones is showing himself to be an idiot by the day....

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Muaddib]


I have seen NO members use proper sources as Jones does to "debunk" him.

How is he "showing himself to be an idiot"?

PLease cite an example of this.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
.................
Jones must REALLY piss off the gov't considering the responses this thread is getting.


Typical response from the "thermite/bombs in wtc conspiracy theorists" who do not know much of what they are talking about, hence when someone smarter than them and with more information on the subject comes along to debunk their theories, the "thermite/bombs in wtc conspiracy theorists" claim these "members are too smart, so they must be government agents...."


I am glad that we are getting more and more members who actually have some intelligent things to say about this topic. Professor Jones is showing himself to be an idiot by the day....

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Muaddib]


I have seen NO members use proper sources as Jones does to "debunk" him.

How is he "showing himself to be an idiot"?

PLease cite an example of this.



How about claiming "Evidence of Thermite Found"?
Does that qualify? This type of reasoning seems to be contagious. This thread you started contains the same virus.

"Analysis of Steel Reveils Thermite and Thermate by products...Lets forget the
and part and focus on the "Analysis of Steel Reveils Thermite" part.

Where is this thermite that was reveiled?...not evidence of maybe something that kinda.. also is a bit or part of thermite....but the actual 'thermite' that you claim was 'found'?

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Vushta]

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
.but the actual 'thermite that you claim was 'found'?


The title says BY-PRODUCTS...

Thermate would be burned off leaving BY_PRODUCTS, so what are you asking me to find for you?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join