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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
That paper assumes normal thermite is used, and that the columns would need to be destroyed to cause a collapse. The use of "Nano-thermite" or thermate, cutting the columns at a 45 degree angle to utilize gravity to assist in column displacement, and an insulated mechanical device to concentrate the heat and direct the molten ejecta similar to the patented device Prof. Jones refers to, would all reduce the required quantities further.


He is calculating how much thermite is required to melt entire 12' sections of the box columns. Photographic evidence suggests that the columns were simple severed on an angle at least at the bottom of the towers.




posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Pretty much what I said, but in different words.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Pretty much what I said, but in different words.


My bad.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


Hydrochloric acid: source en.wikipedia.org...


The chemical compound hydrochloric acid is the aqueous (water-based) solution of hydrogen chloride (HCl) gas.


Hydrofluoric acid: source en.wikipedia.org...


Hydrofluoric acid is a highly corrosive solution of hydrogen fluoride in water. Gaseous hydrogen fluoride is sometimes called anhydrous hydrofluoric acid. Hydrofluoric acid is a very strong acid. This is because it has lots of free electrons and thus will bond to other atoms very easily (with exception to the group 8/0 elements) and disrupt structure. Hydrofluoric acid is notoriously known to dissolve glass (SiO2):

SiO2(s) + 6 HF(aq) → H2[SiF6](aq) + 2 H2O(l)



Another reason freon could not be the culprite is that if it gave off enough hydrofluoric acid to compromise the steel, it definately would have started to melt the windows. I didn't see any windows melting. If there are pictures or videos of this, could someone post please.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
They are just trying to "muddy the waters" by presenting ridiculous sources for the sulphur.

I think they are all aware that none of these vectors could have produced more than trace quantites of free elemental sulphur.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
They are just trying to "muddy the waters" by presenting ridiculous sources for the sulphur.

I think they are all aware that none of these vectors could have produced more than trace quantites of free elemental sulphur.


Why would you expect native sulphur, when that is not a product of the thermate reaction?

When analyzing for wt% sulphur, how do you distinguish between S from a thermate reaction and S from drywall? Isotope studies??



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75

When analyzing for wt% sulphur, how do you distinguish between S from a thermate reaction and S from drywall? Isotope studies??


That's a good question and one that I would like to find out myself. But first, I would like to find out if burning drywall (gypsum) actually leaves sulfates on steel. I have yet to be given proof that this reaction takes place. The only thing I've seen is Howard saying it does. BTW, gypsum board (drywall) is used for fire protection. It is rated at 2 hours I believe. That means it takes 2 hours for fire to evaporate all the water. Wouldn't this mean it would take 2 hours for a chemical reaction to take place? The towers didn't burn for 2 hours.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriffBut first, I would like to find out if burning drywall (gypsum) actually leaves sulfates on steel. I have yet to be given proof that this reaction takes place.


Gypsum is a sulphate to start with -- it doesn't need to burn. There's plenty of mechanism there to scatter gypsum everywhere.

In any event - I believe Jones said in the radio show "there's sulphur" and goes no further ... which could mean anything, or nothing.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I see what you are saying. I didn't think of it from that angle. So, I guess we need to find out from Jones if the residue is chemical or if it's just sitting on the specimens so to speak.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
There's a problem with getting your info from the Conspiracy Theory sites:


FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study, "Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)."
From:The "911 Research" Conspiracy siteMy emphasis.


Obtaining access to the site of a disaster is always difficult and clearly the search and rescue efforts and any criminal investigation must take first priority. However, in all studies of this nature, gaining access to the site as soon as possible is important in order to observe and document the debris and site conditions. For the future, it may be useful to consider some protocol or process whereby selected individuals from the BPST would be allowed on site in the initial days after a catastrophic event to gather critical data.

There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.
From: Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley (the guy from ASCE - the group that made up the BPS teams) before the Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives My emphasis.

The conspiracy sites are obviously not above flat-out lying when it comes to trying to make their case.


Originally posted by ThePieMaN

I traveled every day between Brooklyn and Queens on the Brooklyn Queens Expressway and it was not 2 months before I started seeing load upon load of steel being taken in big huge trailers to Staten Island. It was a matter of 2 weeks maybe 3 tops. It was under guard in Staten Island. For the most part the trucks were not escorted but all along the route were soldiers and state troopers from the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel to the Verrazano Bridge and to Freshkills and the Bridges going out to jersey.


Sorry Pie man, you misremember. The search and rescue effort lasted over a week. During the first month, only debris that could be reached without moving heavy equipment over the WTC's underground areas (pretty much the entire footprint of all the buildings in the center) could be removed. This is because the area could not support any serious load. the river had enctroached under the complex.

Already, working around the clock, 1,300 construction workers and other personnel — including 160 firefighters and 90 police officers — have removed an extraordinary volume of debris: 290,000 tons of the estimated 1.2 million at the site.

The rubble of the 22-story Marriott on the southwest corner of the complex is almost entirely gone and the land where it once stood has already been covered with a fresh, clean layer of blacktoplike material. Much of what was 4 World Trade Center, the squat, L-shaped office building on the complex's southeast corner, has been demolished, swept up and hauled off; an access road now runs through the site.

But most of the heavy lifting is still ahead, with the cleanup and recovery operation expected to last a year. Mountains of debris from the towers remain, as do the burned- out or smashed-in shells of the United States Customs House at the complex's northwest corner and 5 World Trade Center at the northeast corner. There are also six underground levels in the complex, caverns where most of the super-compressed debris from the towers has settled.
Source: New York Times Oct. 13 2001

The steel from the WTC was put completely under guard after a couple of truckloads of it were stolen:

The New York Police and FBI are investigating the theft of over 250 tons of steel from the remains of the collapsed WTC towers. Apparently, the steel was hauled away by trucks involved in the official clear-up operation (see September 12-October 2001), but instead of being taken to Fresh Kills—the FBI-controlled dump on Staten Island where it was intended to go—the steel was driven to three independently-owned scrapyards, two in New Jersey and one on Long Island. The London Telegraph says the scrap metal value of the stolen steel would have been roughly $17,500. Investigators believe the theft was organized by one of New York’s Mafia families. [Daily Telegraph, 9/29/2001]

Source
After this, trucks carrying the materials were equipped with GPS monitors.

It amuses me when people stress that the material was being guarded by "armed guards" or whatever, yet in the same post maintain that the material wasn't secured and wasn't treated as evidence. Not you, Pie Man, but others, including multiple conspiracy sites.

Harte



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
can ANYONE explain to me how its possible to wrap linear thermite devices around enough of the exterior support columns to bring down the buildings and NOT have anyone notice?


It wouldn't matter if people noticed if they thought you were doing something else to the column, ie something technical.


not to mention these are EXTERNAL WALLS we're talking about


The column I've seen with extremely hot molten metal coming out around it was one of the corner exterior columns. Those columns were larger box columns, and I would imagine that cutting those would probably deal more damage to the structure than any of the small perimeter columns would have. WTC2 even began leaning in that direction, where the corner columns had been taken out, early in collapse, before the purely vertical collapse began.


so, if they are external supports,,,and thermite is bright when it burns (think welder) how is it possible that all this thermite burning wasnt caught on every camera very clearly?





There are a couple close-ups of a white flame around a corner box column.

Also, the hot molten material running out of the building:




Here's an image definitively linking the section suffering from white flame to the section running molten metal:
img506.imageshack.us...

I've also found this and am wondering if anyone can help me find where it came from:



[edit on 9-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
great pics actually

but, to plant the thermite...they'd have had to hang a guy off the side of the building...unless ya'll wanna tell me they accessed the exterior columns from the inside....


Actually, I'm certified to do scafolding work in NYC. It really isn't that hard to get.


my ONLY problem with a couple of those pics as "proof" of thermite is that they are from parts of the building that were already obviously damaged....

linear charges of any kind are kind of tempermental. cant abuse them like that and hope they work.


Agreed.



and this is just me...but the pics of the 'molten metal' seem just a little too convienient...agian. just me.

why is no one picking them apart like they would a UFO pic?

maybe corroberating stills from video or other pics?

i mean, im open minded...you guys have some great points...but i still dont see it.


I wish the great minds of this site would collaberate and we could finally gain some insight. But, unfortunately some don't play well with others. Although, for the most part, I think we do gain some head way here when everyone looks at the "evidence" either for this or for that.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
My question is why would NASA spend the time and money to use a special U-2 equiped with AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer) to make 4 flights over the WTC after the towers were down. The data picked up 3 dozen hotspots with temperatures up to 1300 degrees in the debris field.

Did they suspect something was used to bring the towers down



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but, to plant the thermite...they'd have had to hang a guy off the side of the building...unless ya'll wanna tell me they accessed the exterior columns from the inside....


I'm sure if you were creative you could create a mechanism that would create a spark of sufficient heat to fall and ignite the thermite remotely. The thermite would've been planted beforehand and initiated this way.

That the corner of WTC2 was already damaged, I doubt mattered much in the long run. It was just one corner box column, apparently already damaged, and the building leaned in that direction when it began collapsing anyway. So I suppose it gave out nonetheless. The biggest problem may have just been that the damage offered a clear visual on the bright white burn. Nothing to hide it.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
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.


I say different. Prove me wrong. This doesn't prove a dang thing. Maybe you have something that amounts to a mole hill? Please post it.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
My question is why would NASA spend the time and money to use a special U-2 equiped with AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer) to make 4 flights over the WTC after the towers were down. The data picked up 3 dozen hotspots with temperatures up to 1300 degrees in the debris field.

Did they suspect something was used to bring the towers down


This must be a time-delay double post or something. I answered this question with references a page or two back.

Harte
Edited to say - Oh yeah, almost forgot, where'd you get 1300 degrees? I linked you to the original info, with the infrared photos, and it says a little over 800 degrees.

Harte

[edit on 6/9/2006 by Harte]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Edited to say - Oh yeah, almost forgot, where'd you get 1300 degrees? I linked you to the original info, with the infrared photos, and it says a little over 800 degrees.


pubs.usgs.gov...



Hotspot A: 1000°, 727°C, 1341°F

Hotspot G: 1020°K, 747°C, 1378°F



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Harte
Edited to say - Oh yeah, almost forgot, where'd you get 1300 degrees? I linked you to the original info, with the infrared photos, and it says a little over 800 degrees.


pubs.usgs.gov...



Hotspot A: 1000°, 727°C, 1341°F

Hotspot G: 1020°K, 747°C, 1378°F


Thanks for posting that, i was going to but you beat me to it.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Harte
Edited to say - Oh yeah, almost forgot, where'd you get 1300 degrees? I linked you to the original info, with the infrared photos, and it says a little over 800 degrees.

Harte

[edit on 6/9/2006 by Harte]


Oh sorry missed your post, i ddi not think anyone answered me.. Still seems like a lot of money and almost misuse of equipment to use that special aircraft, unless they were looking for other things.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Harte
Edited to say - Oh yeah, almost forgot, where'd you get 1300 degrees? I linked you to the original info, with the infrared photos, and it says a little over 800 degrees.


pubs.usgs.gov...

Hotspot A: 1000°, 727°C, 1341°F

Hotspot G: 1020°K, 747°C, 1378°F


Thank you Wecomeinpeace. It was right there at the site I linked all along. That's what I get for assuming that the rest of the page was all photos. I didn't let it load!

I wonder why they say near the top of the page

Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800 F.


Seems like they would at least have said "greater than 1,000 F."

Harte

[edit on 6/10/2006 by Harte]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join