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: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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.


Ultima,

The AVRIS equipment can detect more than temperature. I think I linked you to a perfectly satisfying explanation of why the EPA needed the data. So, yes, they were "...looking for other things."

Harte




posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
this seems like a great argument and all, but i cant get involved due to lack of chemistry leasons but...

how does thermate explain the countless eyewitnesses that reported hearing explosions?

the sysmic graphs that recorded vibrations?

i did always wonder why the steel collumns were severed in clean cut lengths, but figured these were the lengths that were originally installed and the welds broke during collapse.

and the hour rating on drywall doesn't mean a thing, it only refers to how much fiberglass is mixed with the gyprock. Installation is what counts and drywall is a trade that requires no inspections and anyone can do it.

burning drywall leaves sulpher residue? i had no idea, i didn't know that drywall could catch fire.

gotta love western construction, everythings is made to BURN.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
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!

Your bias caused you to simply seek out information which confirms your preconceived opinion, and once you found that information, you stopped looking - something we are all guilty of at times. This affliction is most prevalent amongst 9/11 investigators, on both sides of the argument.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is, contempt, prior to investigation."


I wonder why they say near the top of the page, "Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800 F."

That is curious, but irrelevant when the exact temperature data is provided. Who knows who they got to write up the blurb.

[edit on 2006-6-10 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tom goose
...the sysmic graphs that recorded vibrations?


Goose,

The seismic readings mentioned at a great many websites are being misrepresented, much like the blatantly false statements I referenced in an earlier post.

Here's a link to the seismic data from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades New York, the source that is so often misrepresented:

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

This observatory is operated by Columbia University.

Another link, www.scienceblog.com..., will take you to a story from November 2001 concerning these seismograph results. This is the earliest mention of the data that I have found.

I have never believed the WTC was "imploded" using any explosives. But I have been forced to waste an awful lot of time supporting my position. I resent websites that purposefully misrepresent the known data, and in many cases, either flat-out lie about it, or even just make up their own fantasy facts.

The seismographs you can find at the Lamont-Doherty webpage have been copied and altered by several unscrupulous website operators out there. It's been so blatant that this sort of thing has come full circle in the "conspiracy theory" population, meaning that such evidence of falsifying data have been pointed to by other conspiracy theorists as evidence that "Big Brother" (or someone - fill in your own evil overlord's name if you wish) has been monkeying around in their community, providing disinformation in order to purposefully make them look bad! (As if they required any aid in that area!)

Anyway, if you look, you'll see that the seismic vibrations, unlike what many of the whacko websites claim, actually coincide with the impacts, and the subsequent collapes, at the WTC.

Harte



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Anyway, if you look, you'll see that the seismic vibrations, unlike what many of the whacko websites claim, actually coincide with the impacts, and the subsequent collapes, at the WTC.


But there's something odd about that. I for one believe that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, but there was no seismic signal from that impact. The impacts on the twin towers both produced quite clear signals, despite the buildings exhibiting sway, despite the impacts being further away from the ground, and despite the seismic station being further from the event when compared to the Pentagon strike. Flight 93 also recroded clear signals.


www.mgs.md.gov...

Since the time of plane impact at the Pentagon had often been reported with large scatter, the United States Army contacted us to inquire whether we could obtain an accurate time of the Pentagon attack on September 11, 2001 based upon our seismic network. We analyzed seismic records from five stations in the northeastern United States, ranging from 63 to 350 km from the Pentagon. Despite detailed analysis of the data, we could not find a clear seismic signal. Even the closest station (Ä = 62.8 km) at Soldier's Delight, Baltimore County, Maryland (SDMD) did not record the impact. We concluded that the plane impact to the Pentagon generated relatively-weak seismic signals. However, we positively identified seismic signals associated with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The time of the plane crash was 10:06:05 ±5 (EDT).



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I'm just theorising, but maybe it has something to do with the geology of the respective areas?



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
A valid question, although they seem to have taken that into account if you read the report. Also the data was also collected from five different stations surrounding the event.

Anyway, off topic. My bad.

[edit on 2006-6-10 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Harte
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!

Your bias caused you to simply seek out information which confirms your preconceived opinion, and once you found that information, you stopped looking - something we are all guilty of at times. This affliction is most prevalent amongst 9/11 investigators, on both sides of the argument.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is, contempt, prior to investigation."

Wecomeinpeace,
While I understand what you are saying, and am perfectly willing to acknowledge my bias (see above post about seismographs,) I don't think it applies in this case.

See, I don't see how 400 degrees F can possibly make any difference. I've never argued that the steel in the WTC "melted" or that it was even weakened to any great extent. What most people ignore in this argument is thermal expansion and the effect it has on the fastenings at both ends of the horizontal struts supporting each floor of the towers. Anyway, the overflights only show the temperature of the rubble. There's plenty of things burning under there to cause any number of hot spots of a wide variety of temperatures. There was gas service to the building, as well as bottled gas there, all manner of authomobiles parked under there, and there was also all the rubble that collapsed there that had not yet been touched by the fires extant in the buildings when they were standing.

I don't think I missed the 1300 F hot spots mentioned at that site because I assumed the fires were cooler than that. I missed them because I have dial-up!


Harte



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
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, (and)"Seems to be not only complete nonsense, but also pretty darn far afield considering his Doctorate."


So when you say something that is not already accepted your not a 'good' or 'respectable' scientist? Do you understand that progress in science comes mainly from the dissenters as the historic record clearly proves?


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


I think what he is trying to suggest is that even if he had a working model it would have no commercial value as it would never be allowed INTO commerce in general. Cold fusion is a reality as over 600 experiments in laboratories all over the world has CLEARLY established. The fact that it's not 'accepted' by main stream scientist means ABSOLUTELY nothing considering that they deny reality untill their dead or denial becomes unacceptable due to public awareness.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
See, I don't see how 400 degrees F can possibly make any difference.

I disagree. It makes the super-hot natural fires in the rubble hypothesis just that much more unsupportable. But I've already been through the underground fires debates before (I've heard it all, from "coal fires" to "natural blast furnaces"), so after my few comments in this post I'll leave it for someone else to take up the mantle should they so wish - I'm mainly waiting for Prof. Jones' findings.


There's plenty of things burning under there to cause any number of hot spots of a wide variety of temperatures. There was gas service to the building,

I'm fairly certain that is incorrect. If there was anything, it was not gas mains, rather it was small, localized pipes. And even were there gas pipes there, they would have been shut off immediately as part of the rescue/cleanup, perhaps even as the disaster was proceeding. I can't be bothered googling to prove it, but simple common sense suggests this is true.


as well as bottled gas there,

In what quantities? Let's be reasonable here.


all manner of authomobiles parked under there

This comes back to the hydrocarbon fire max temp problem, and under what conditions those temperatures can be reached. And the thought of petroleum in car fuel tanks being the main source of a multi-week, 800 degrees Celsius "phenomenon" is a stretch at best.


and there was also all the rubble that collapsed there that had not yet been touched by the fires extant in the buildings when they were standing.

But you see all of these "stuff under the tower basements" explanations fall apart when you realize that the hottest spots were under WTC7. Most intriguingly, the hottest region is precisely under the East penthouse, which collapsed first, and had strengthened columns underneath it.

And there were no gas mains to WTC7 either.


www.house.gov...
Early news reports had indicated that a highpressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building; however, this proved not to be true.


Also the majority of the diesel from the tanks under WTC7 was recovered unburnt. q.v. NIST's WTC report.


What most people ignore in this argument is thermal expansion and the effect it has on the fastenings at both ends of the horizontal struts supporting each floor of the towers.

Just because it doesn't come up in every post does not mean that it has been ignored. The issue has been discussed to death, resuscitated, severely thrashed about, and then discussed to death again. But I hope we can keep this thread focused on the thermite and molten metal.


I don't think I missed the 1300 F hot spots mentioned at that site because I assumed the fires were cooler than that. I missed them because I have dial-up!

Fair enough...but dial up?? You have my sympathies, Sir!





[edit on 2006-6-10 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
[Removed double post]

How do double posts occur when all you're doing is editing an existig post?

[edit on 6/10/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   


Originally posted by Harte: Anyway, if you look, you'll see that the seismic vibrations, unlike what many of the whacko websites claim, actually coincide with the impacts, and the subsequent collapes, at the WTC.


One of the web pages linked to by Harte states that:



The Lamont seismographs established the following timeline:

8:46:26 a.m. EDT [1240 UTC] Aircraft impact - north tower Magnitude 0.9
9:02:54 a.m. EDT [1302 UTC] Aircraft impact - south tower Magnitude 0.7
9:59:04 a.m. EDT [1359 UTC] Collapse - south tower Magnitude 2.1
10:28:31 a.m. EDT [1428 UTC] Collapse - north tower Magnitude 2.3


Really? Rather depends on your presuppositions, does it not?

I see nothing on those web pages which shows that the seismic traces were caused by the plane crashes or by the collapse of the towers. All that's shown is that the traces occurred on the same morning and close in time to the events at the towers. It does not show what caused the seismic traces. Were they caused by the planes crashing into the towers or by something else? Were the higher magnitude traces caused by the "natural" collapse of the towers or by the detonation of high power explosives within and at the bases of the towers?

Harte's assertion reveals a deeply held bias which blinds him to other possibilities.

[edit on 6/10/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I don't find the good doctor's argument very compelling. I don't care how good a scientist he is, or how good his lab methods are. His steel samples don't provide any basis for any theory, for two reasons:

1) Lack of control. Having listened to his interview on PrisonPlanet, it seems that one of his samples came from material that a welder's wife scraped off of some steel that her husband was making into a 9/11 memorial. She stored the scrapings in a plastic container, and sent them to the good doctor when his paper about the WTC collapse came out. His other sample came from "a friend in the 9/11 truth movement" who "talked to someone, and got the sample". Stripping that down to plain English, it reads "I don't really know WHERE this crap came from, but I'm going to assume that it's from the WTC." He has no solid proof of origin (other than "somebody told me"), and therefore, no basis for ANY conclusion.

2) Lack of purity. One of his samples sat in a garage / workshop while it was welded...that couldn't possibly taint it with any sort of residue, or chemical traces, could it? The other sample was God only knows where...even if they *are* legitimate samples, they aren't in any way pristine.

Sorry to say it, folks, but regardless of whether you like the official story or not, bad evidence makes for bad conclusions, and this evidence is barely good enough to qualify as bad.

There's also the practical problem with the "thermite theory". How did They (whoever They are), fabricate several (or several dozen) demolition / cutting charges, place them with mathematical precision all over three very busy office buildings, and run detonator wire to them (given the amount of ambient RF crap in the NYC area, I wouldn't trust anything to a non-wire detonation) within a few days' time (remember the explosive-sniffing dogs that were on-site until (IIRC) 7 Sept?), and without *anybody* noticing all the activity?

Even if the charges and wires could be placed, how could you make sure that your demolition set-up would survive the 'cover story' impact of the airliners? Wouldn't it be the height of irony if the very thing that was to cover up your demolition caused it to misfire?

I''m not sure I buy the 'official' version of the WTC collapse, but I"m not sure that demolitions, thermite, or (for that special touch of utter crazy) pocket thermonuclear blasts in the basements) are any better as explanations. Call me skeptical.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by tom goose
this seems like a great argument and all, but i cant get involved due to lack of chemistry leasons but...

how does thermate explain the countless eyewitnesses that reported hearing explosions?


Well check out the following. Source: www.webspawner.com...

THERMITE BOMB: Thermite can be made to explode by taking the cast thermite formula and substituting fine powdered aluminum for the coarse/fine mix.

THERMITE FUEL-AIR EXPLOSION: This is a very dangerous device. However here is a general description of this device affectionately known as a HELLHOUND.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
well that sucks. I brought up "thermate explosives" in another thread, because iv'e heard it before, only to find i got a lot of tension over it and could not find a google page to back it up. so i switched to thermal explosives, which is i guess what i meant because i needed an explosion that was intensly high in energy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

the post i made was 3/4 the way down, and people started comeing back at me on the second page. maybe you want to infrorm these fellas if this is true.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by tom goose
well that sucks. I brought up "thermate explosives" in another thread, because iv'e heard it before, only to find i got a lot of tension over it and could not find a google page to back it up. so i switched to thermal explosives, which is i guess what i meant because i needed an explosion that was intensly high in energy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

the post i made was 3/4 the way down, and people started comeing back at me on the second page. maybe you want to infrorm these fellas if this is true.


Maybe you should stop using google, try altavista



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Or maybe you shouldn't use anonymous web pages about making bombs as a source.

Please elaborate on how they used thermite with m-80's in it to bring down the WTC.


Also, that page talks about using thermite like a sparkler bomb, so no melting of steel would occur with this thermite bomb.

It makes no sense that they would use thermite, and also use special made thermite bombs, when normal explosives would work just as well, if not better.


Not to mention this part.


The result is a small explosion. The thermite ball burns in a split second and throws molten iron and slag around. Use this carefully !


Which is not what we see in the so called "squibs".

[edit on 11-6-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Or maybe you shouldn't use anonymous web pages about making bombs as a source.
[edit on 11-6-2006 by LeftBehind]


Well it would be quicker then having to do a lot of drilling and shaping charges.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
A touch of common sense is needed in this discussion


1) Hard evidence is lacking as to the source, purity, testing methods and depending on who you listen to credibility of the results quoted

2) Anyone out there ever seen the chemical composition breakdown for the smoke that the WTS was putting out ? - if not go take a look the amount of trace elements in that toxic soup was incredible

3) For those folks wanting a source of sulphur/Aluminium/etc - check the building materials used during the construction of the WTS and in the subsequent office fit outs over the years - hell just check out the standard chemical composition of the dry wall and the insulators and you'll get a surprize.

4) Any of you ever been to a high rise construction site ?- know what they use to weld structural girders? - Thermite and thermite derivitives

The WTS tradgedy was just that, a tragedy. To continue to try and find consipracy theories and plots where there are non not only cheapens the memory of those who died but distracts attention from the real consipracies and the real criminals who used 9/11 to freight train thier own agendas through into law and degrade not only the freedoms and rights of Americans but the safety and human rights of all free democracies everywhere!.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fenrir_Wolf
A touch of common sense is needed in this discussion


1) Hard evidence is lacking as to the source, purity, testing methods and depending on who you listen to credibility of the results quoted

2) Anyone out there ever seen the chemical composition breakdown for the smoke that the WTS was putting out ? - if not go take a look the amount of trace elements in that toxic soup was incredible

3) For those folks wanting a source of sulphur/Aluminium/etc - check the building materials used during the construction of the WTS and in the subsequent office fit outs over the years - hell just check out the standard chemical composition of the dry wall and the insulators and you'll get a surprize.

4) Any of you ever been to a high rise construction site ?- know what they use to weld structural girders? - Thermite and thermite derivitives

The WTS tradgedy was just that, a tragedy. To continue to try and find consipracy theories and plots where there are non not only cheapens the memory of those who died but distracts attention from the real consipracies and the real criminals who used 9/11 to freight train thier own agendas through into law and degrade not only the freedoms and rights of Americans but the safety and human rights of all free democracies everywhere!.



How dare you post the truth!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join