WTC Steel Analysis Reveals Thermite and Thermate By-Products

Originally posted by esdad71
It is independant because it has nothing to do with the gov't. That is the only point i was trying to make.

If I hire a contractor he is NOT independant... he works for me. IF the defendant in a trial hires an independant "Expert" do you think he is going to be 100% impartial? I think that is naive if you do.

Originally posted by esdad71
The WTC site was not cleaned up in days, it was months. It burned for weeks, or have you forgotten this?

Collecting evidence from the largest crime scene ever should have not been expidited ONE BIT. Think of how long a single murder investigation can go on for. I do not beileve that "months" of rapid work and removal of evidence is enough time to examine much of it thoroughly. I really do not like how the posters here think it is OK to be casual with what could be critical evidence.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Formula1
Hey guys, Jet Fuel has sulphur. Just like Diesel Fuel does. I know, I have a 3 diesel engines and use the fuel. Look it up.

Not hard to believe that residue from that burn would show sulphur.

Jet fuel touched a small percentage of the steel in the towers and burned.

You conveniently ignore the tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel that burned in the fire after the collapse. WTC1 and 2 as well as WTC7 all held multiple 10,000 gallon tanks of diesel fuel in reserve for emergency generators that were located there in case of a major power outage. This amount of diesel makes the quantity of jet fuel look small and, if I recall correctly, diesel actually contains a lot more sulfur than jet fuel.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Formula1
Hey guys, Jet Fuel has sulphur. Just like Diesel Fuel does. I know, I have a 3 diesel engines and use the fuel. Look it up.

Not hard to believe that residue from that burn would show sulphur.

Jet fuel touched a small percentage of the steel in the towers and burned.

You conveniently ignore the tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel that burned in the fire after the collapse. WTC1 and 2 as well as WTC7 all held multiple 10,000 gallon tanks of diesel fuel in reserve for emergency generators that were located there in case of a major power outage. This amount of diesel makes the quantity of jet fuel look small and, if I recall correctly, diesel actually contains a lot more sulfur than jet fuel.
Harte

Gyp wallboard dust also has sulphur.



[edit on 8-6-2006 by Clark_Kent]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Collecting evidence from the largest crime scene ever should have not been expidited ONE BIT. Think of how long a single murder investigation can go on for. I do not beileve that "months" of rapid work and removal of evidence is enough time to examine much of it thoroughly. I really do not like how the posters here think it is OK to be casual with what could be critical evidence.

Absurd argument. Murder investigations can be long-lived, of course. In such a case you are looking for a perpetrator. But the crime scene itself is rarely if ever closed for more than a couple of days. Perhaps you should use a legitimate argument once in a while, rather than resort to absurdities. I assure you, no matter what you may think, there really are people here at ATS that can tell the difference.

Imagine the cost of shutting down an entire section of Manhattan for months, which is pretty much what happened. Now multiply that by however long you feel that it should have stayed shut down.

Harte

[edit on 6/8/2006 by Harte]

Originally posted by vor75
Listen to you (Slap Nuts) ... he hasn't even published anything (my bet is he won't anyway), he won't go into any details ... yet you take it as gospel?

I exchange e-mail with him frequently.

Originally posted by vor75
You're the one who said he "proved cold fusion" - so you do some research ... His work was NOT successful becasue no one was able to reproduce it.

Source? No one WANTED to reproduce his neutron counter. They never even tried as far as I know.

Originally posted by vor75
Because his work does not follow the scientific method, and does not stand up to peer review.

Source? How about the scientific method of the NIST and FEMA contractors? Their "results" are riddled with assumptions and sometimes guesses.

Originally posted by vor75
Back to the issue ... in the WTC there were many sources of Fe-slag, and there were many sources for S. S bonded to Fe is not the key ... because there's no way to analyze for S bonded to Fe.

You can only get separate wt% results for each... and if you're a sh*tty scientist with no idea where your sample has come from in the first place ... well, it presents a hurdle in the peer-review process.

I do not believe he is looking for S bonded to Fe... I am not a chemist so I will e-mail and ask what the compounds are that are proof of the sulphur acting as a catalyst and not just being present in insignificant quantities.

On a more simple level though... where would the melted Fe blobs on both come from ALSO in the presence of Aluminum-oxide?

I like how the "disbelievers" have to resort to name calling, etc. Do you have ANY sources for your charachter assassination of this man?

Originally posted by Harte
WTC1 and 2 as well as WTC7 all held multiple 10,000 gallon tanks of diesel fuel in reserve for emergency generators that were located there in case of a major power outage. This amount of diesel makes the quantity of jet fuel look small and, if I recall correctly, diesel actually contains a lot more sulfur than jet fuel.

Harte

Here you are basically conceeding the presence of the molten iron and attacking where the sulphur came from.

Can you source the WTC 1 and 2 diesel tanks? I know 7 had one.

I believe he is saying he can prove the S was part of the reaction... not just present on the sample.

Like I said, I will shoot him an e-mail. He usually responds fairly quickly.

Originally posted by Clark_Kent
Gyp wallboard dust also has sulphur.
edit on 8-6-2006 by Clark_Kent]

Calcium Sulfate

Originally posted by Harte
Absurd argument. Murder investigations can be long-lived, of course. In such a case you are looking for a perpetrator. But the crime scene itself is rarely if ever closed for more than a couple of days. Perhaps you should use a legitimate argument once in a while, rather than resort to absurdities. I assure you, no matter what you may think, there really are people here at ATS that can tell the difference.

So you conceede that the investigation WAS expedited for financial and other reasons?

I do not thinkt the scrap should have been left IN or AT ground zero, HOWEVER, it certainlly should have and could have been kept in a storage yard.

When did I say the inspections should have happened on site?

by slap nuts
I do not beileve that "months" of rapid work and removal of evidence is enough time to examine much of it thoroughly. I really do not like how the posters here think it is OK to be casual with what could be critical evidence.

You use the word I alot in your statements, as if since you email this guy you are omnipotent.

4 seperate reports, one over 10,000 pages, and you call this nonsense? This guy writes what could be considered a blog post about the wtc collapse, and suddenly he has the answers as opposed to the numerous professionals and doctors who worked on the other 4 reports.

They were not casual with any of the evidence. They saved what was needed. Did you listen to the mp3 yet so you can correct yourself?

Esdad,

Quantity does not ensure quality, and the only major reports issued on the WTC collapses were by two federal agencies: FEMA and NIST.

You should debate the actual information and not what messengers you think are more worthy bearers of information.

Even if professor Jones does show that this is from thermite, I don't think this will change anything. We already have people stating that sulfur can come from other things. Gypsum, maybe but can I see evidence that gypsum burned near steel changes the chemical composition of said steel. Fuel, same thing...burn some fuel near steel and show us the effects that it has on steel. Acid rain, OH now I remember...it was raining perfusely that day and I remember it stinging severely, come on.

No matter what, they will not believe. I also don't take this as gospell either because I'd like to see his report first.

As far as peer-review and such...how about NIST finding the same thing (sulfates on the steel)...that's pretty much corraborating evidence if you ask me. Without speculating where it came from, NIST and professor Jones have come to the same conclusion.

Sry OT but the diesel fuel tanks speculation was WTC 7.

BTW most of the diesel was recovered, and did not significantly effect the fires...(look it up)

The amount of sulphur in diesel in the US is very low, like a dozen parts per million or something...Not going to leave much sulphur behind.

Good post Slap!

[edit on 8/6/2006 by ANOK]

This is bullchit.
Everything was brought to the Arther Kill dump on Staten Island and stayed there for some time..

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

This is categorically false. A minimum of 50,000 TONS was shipped to China immediately. One would think that NONE would be shipped away as the site was a CRIME SCENE. There is NO excuse for this and to use it to "debunk" Jones is a joke.

The steel sent for the ship, coins, motorcycle, etc. was already melted back doen and delivered as "new" steel, NOT SCRAP.

I believe, that if it was due to structural integrity of the building that it fell (not being able to withstand the fires), that there should be amounts of left over debris from key areas around the impact zone and other areas of importance.

Because then it becomes an importance as to why it fell. Since it poses such a great threat to future business/skyscrapers around the world, it would be very beneficial for safety reasons to be able to loan out steel from those important areas for further study by other architectual and building companies/contractors.

However, it was solely up to FEMA and the NIST to study the steel and make the best possible "speculated" view as to why it fell, with steel being kept locked up afterwards or sent off.

I believe it was great irresponsibility that such a thing not be done considering the importance of such an engineering danger.

I mean, if you can by all means, produce an article or some sort of proof that there is debris from the majorly affected open for study somewhere, then that'll lay many of my suspicions and I'm sure that of others on this board surrounding the clean up and handling of the 9/11 materials.

I mean the NIST and FEMA already made their case, what further use of the steel do they need?

My question is why NASA's U-2 with an AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer) made four flights over the WTC after the towers were down and picked up temperatures up to 1300 degress in 3 dozen places in the debris field.

Why the time and expense to use a special U-2 ?

Howdy folks...

Just a FYI...

Freon-22 ( used in the heating and cooling of the WTC Towers ) when it decomposes or is heated, it emits hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids ( both contain sulfuric acid ), and both are highly corrosive...

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
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.

Wow, that's the second person I almost listend to that proved themselves to be a bit on the mentally challenged side tonight (Jones, not the OP).
I'm sure it's already been said, but you can't reduce the melting point of any alloy without changing the mixture during the manufacturing process. Adding things to thermite might affect it's combustion temperature but they certainly do not 'reduce the melting point' of the material it is being used against. What a retard
Cry straw man all you like, it's like a mathematician saying 2+2 = 22, it's really not complicated, common sense is practically all you need to work it out, no degrees required.
Thanks for that, I know know 110% not to bother even reading Mr Jones' work, christ that stuff is school education, everyone should know that if they pay attention... And this guy is the flagship physicist at the head of the 9/11 'Truth' Movement? Good luck guys, you're going to need it.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Howdy folks...

Just a FYI...

Freon-22 ( used in the heating and cooling of the WTC Towers ) when it decomposes or is heated, it emits hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids ( both contain sulfuric acid ), and both are highly corrosive...

In addition to the sulfur in gypsum there were 10,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil and 1,000 gallons of diesel oil from ruptured petroleum storage tanks at 130 Liberty Street.

www.mta.nyc.ny.us...

If you e-mail those who worked on the earlier samples (Barnett, etc) they will be glad to tell you their top suspects of where the sulfur came from.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Clark_Kent]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
My question is why NASA's U-2 with an AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer) made four flights over the WTC after the towers were down and picked up temperatures up to 1300 degress in 3 dozen places in the debris field.

Why the time and expense to use a special U-2 ?

The Environmental Protection Agency requested it, through the USGS who went to NASA for the AVIRIS request:

(Both "externals" below are from:www.911ea.org...)

Scientists rush to Manhattan

Like the rest of the world, the USGS team watched the storm of dust roll across Manhattan after the terrorist attack on Sept. 11. With its world-class laboratories and sensors that can detect minerals on a distant planet, the Denver-based team was already making arrangements to get NASA's infrared sensors and aircraft over ground zero as the EPA and the U.S. Public Health Service requested its help.

Responding to requests from the White House science office, the NASA team flew over Manhattan four times between Sept. 16 and Sept. 23, while USGS scientists collected samples of the dust from 35 locations below.

See, AVIRIS can determine much more than temperature from the infrared signatures it reads:

Part of that technology was a remote-sensing unit designed for use in exploring planets, called Airborne Visible Infrared Spectrometer. AVIRIS, the size of a Volkswagen Beetle, reads the infrared signatures of minerals reflected from the ground into its sensors. Then, they are compared with the unique peaks and curves -- similar to a fingerprint -- of the signatures of thousands of minerals and materials in the Geological Survey's vast database.

The EPA wanted to know what contaminants were in the huge clouds of dust settling over Manahattan.
The above-linked website source has it's own version of a conspiracy theory, one I might add that is far more believable that Dr. Jones'. They maintain that the EPA was aware of severe contamination in the dust, but said nothing to protect various entities from liability.
Here's a link to what the USGS says about the AVIRIS and the overflights they requested from NASA:
pubs.usgs.gov...

That site includes the thermal images.

Coincidentally, I was wondering where you got your "1300 degrees" figure, considering that the USGS says " Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800 (deg.)F."

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
So you conceede that the investigation WAS expedited for financial and other reasons?

Of course it was "expedited." Like I said, imagine the cost. Do you think that anyone would claim it was purposefully slowed?
However, even expedited, there was more than enough time for collection of any amount of any kind of samples, and such samples were, of course, taken.

Originally posted by MasisoarBecause then it becomes an importance as to why it fell. Since it poses such a great threat to future business/skyscrapers around the world, it would be very beneficial for safety reasons to be able to loan out steel from those important areas for further study by other architectual and building companies/contractors.

However, it was solely up to FEMA and the NIST to study the steel and make the best possible "speculated" view as to why it fell, with steel being kept locked up afterwards or sent off.

FEMA's job was in regard to the emergency response to the disaster. As such, they only address the collapse of these buildings in that light. It is the NIST that exists for the purpose of establishing engineering standards. Regardless of the lack of trust coming from the fringe element concerning any government-established agency at all, the NIST's very reason for existence is exactly what you describe. If we were to send out "...steel...for further study by other architectural and building companies..." then what is the purpose of even having an NIST in the first place? Architectural firms and contractors are not equipped to do this sort of study - providing them with samples to examine would most likely have resulted in these private entities sending the samples to the NIST themselves! That is what they do when they need this kind of analysis.

Besides that, imagine the screams of the conspiracists had private corporations been the ultimate arbiters of the reasons for the collapse. What a "good ole boy" network that would create!

Harte
Edit - typo and fix quotes


[edit on 6/8/2006 by Harte]

Originally posted by Jedi_MasterJust a FYI...

Freon-22 ( used in the heating and cooling of the WTC Towers ) when it decomposes or is heated, it emits hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids ( both contain sulfuric acid ), and both are highly corrosive...

Not quite:

Hydrochloric acid – HCl
Hydrofluoroic acid – HF
Sulphuric acid – H2SO4

Freon-22 I believe is chlorodifluromethane, which is CClF2H or CCl2F2.

Freons (one of those nasty CFCs) are so useful because they are chemically inert (not corrosive) at least at sea-level and normal temperatures. I supose it may release HCl and HF when burned, but not S.

Vor.


[edit on 8-6-2006 by vor75]