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: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
When Steven Jones added sulfur to the aluminum/iron oxide mix, he had some steel cut almost instantly, but his presentation on that isn't ready yet (you can download documents on it if you do some searching though). Thermite without sulfur would take a bit longer, probably a few seconds. I don't think it would be used except to take out core columns and the corner box columns as seen in WTC2.


Is it the addition of sulfur or barium nitrate that increaces the incendiary effects of some thermite? Not sure. I read somewhere that some forms of military thermite used for easier ignition and faster cutting used the addition of barium nitrate and sulfur only composed 2% of the mix while the barium was 29%.

[edit on 16-7-2006 by Vushta]




posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Now, dont get all referency on me here...

I read Mike Rueperts book "Crossing the Rubicon" a couple years ago, and one thing he goes about doing is documenting the company that had the contract for the airconditioner maintanance. He states that the entire buildings AC system had been under renovation for something li 6 months.

The company as he documents it was a well known mossad fron for moving thier agents into the united states. Yes, israeli does spy on us too. Note also, that an israeli firm broke contract in one of the buildings 6 months early suffering a huge penalty to move out ahead of the attacks, this was a week or two before 9/11. The jews take care of each other, thats just a given so i wouldnt be suprised. The isralies did warn us of immenint attacks.

The exlosives could not have been placed in a matter of days or a week....this i a process that takes weeks and months in buildings that are completely empty. Trying to do this under the front of working on air conditioning systems....that would be a very long term process.


i could be off on the details here on the company, if anyone has a correction for me, please do inform.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
And do you know where the chillers were in the buildings?

How could an air conditioning upgrade be used to disguise access to the strucutral components of the building? They are two different things entirely.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I wasnt trying to get into details here bud. Where ever the chillers are in the building, the cold fluid still has to be pumped to exchange sites through the building. cold air isnt pumped up ducts 50 stories, cold water is. At the location it is then used in an airconditioning system.

They use the same type of system at Southern illinois university where i study mechanical engineering. Each room has its own unit that operates on cold or hot water.

Your also assuming that it was operating on Chillers and not electric driven airconditioners on each floor. I wouldnt know either way, but chillers would be more likely due to the scale of the location and its efficiency in regulating such a large building.

Access would be provided in the fact that all of these systems that are possible would require either wiring or plumbing in the main structure of the building. all of whic would either have to be modified/turned off/ somehow addressed in an upgrade.


Structual components would have been in close proximety to any major conduits for electricity or coolants. Simply by having access to ventalation ducting you could gain access to structual components. When people are designing a building, they dont seperate these two things form each other on an access basis. This would make repairs to either more difficult and costly, secondly, thier would be no point to it as any seperation would be seen as a cosmetic issue rather than a security issues (were talking 1970's construction and design here, not a big issue then)


So there ya go, thats how an airconditioning upgrade could be used to gain access to structual components of a building

[edit on 16-7-2006 by merryfknpoppins]

[edit on 16-7-2006 by merryfknpoppins]



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   
You're assuming an awful lot.

Even if access to the general area of a structural member was achieved, was it the right spot on the right structural member? Multiply this problem X 100's. I believe that the steel was fireproofed and that would have to be removed. The structural members would still have to be prefailed..the detonator cords would still be running throughout the buildings etc. The idea of workers simply dressed in "air-conditioner guy" suits being able to get away with ripping fire proofing and cutting beams/columns and no one questioning that those activities seem a bit of an anomoly to an air conditioning upgrade is not credible.

The company that moved out of the trade center before 911 is bogus. I posted on this move quite awhile ago and will try and find it if it'll help....but you seem state that details are not that interesting so ..don't know if I'll bother, but anyway the company simply moved its headquarters from NY to ...somewhere on the southeast coast and the plan was in the works and its planned move published over a year earlier.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
You're assuming an awful lot.

Even if access to the general area of a structural member was achieved, was it the right spot on the right structural member?

Every one of these structual members should have been available for inspection for structual purposes. This may not have been the case, but the points at which therer were connections between steel pieces would need to be accesible to have thier condition regularly checked for maintannce (years)

Multiply this problem X 100's. I believe that the steel was fireproofed and that would have to be removed.


Why would the fire proofing have to be removed? Were talking about a chemical burning in excess of 1500 degrees. Fire proofing is design to withstand building fires, not checmical fires. Couldnt thermate cut right through this also before getting at the steel.

Secondly, why couldnt someone remove the fireproofing. If you have acces without suspicion, someone workign inside could have taken all the time required.


The structural members would still have to be prefailed..the detonator cords would still be running throughout the buildings etc.


I dont understand this, what do you mean by prefailed? Well, i think i understand what you mean, but why would this be nessecity.

Detonators can be operated via high powered radios. Power would have been readily available in the areas with a little wiring.


The idea of workers simply dressed in "air-conditioner guy" suits being able to get away with ripping fire proofing and cutting beams/columns and no one questioning that those activities seem a bit of an anomoly to an air conditioning upgrade is not credible.


If they didnt have to do anything in regards to removing fire proofing or prefailing beams, then this would have been rather easy. simplyu placing the explosives and wiring power to remote detonators. Judging by what people are saying in regards to thermate, i would believe that this could be accomplished without prefailing.

in regards to the move of the company, a link would be appreciated. I still question the authenticity of it on a fundamental basis, especially since it was pointed out years ago. many things can be faked, so can publications. I know, its extreme thinking, but i still hold it to a grain of salt. Hit me with a link


The company that moved out of the trade center before 911 is bogus. I posted on this move quite awhile ago and will try and find it if it'll help....but you seem state that details are not that interesting so ..don't know if I'll bother, but anyway the company simply moved its headquarters from NY to ...somewhere on the southeast coast and the plan was in the works and its planned move published over a year earlier.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Never MIND the fact that they ACTUALLY FOUND CHEMICAL EVIDENCE OF THE THERMITE!

You got this proof where?Please source or link.I hope for truths sake it is not those wacky "scholars".Would love to see that "proof".You are aware that thermite is used world wide in the welding and steel cutting industries?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Uhh..yeah..chemical evidence of thermite?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Never MIND the fact that they ACTUALLY FOUND CHEMICAL EVIDENCE OF THE THERMITE!

You got this proof where?Please source or link.I hope for truths sake it is not those wacky "scholars".Would love to see that "proof".You are aware that thermite is used world wide in the welding and steel cutting industries?



Dude, did you read the title of this forum.

Here's the link to the research and testing that was done.
www.physics.byu.edu...

Scratch that, the professor hasnt released his results ont he chemical testing he was able to do on a sample, but that is the research that prompted the sample to be sent in to him.

Yes, we are aware that thermite is used in the steal cutting industry. We're implying that the steel was cut by thermite/thermate.....the steel cutting industry uses thermite for the same reason the demolotion industry uses it.

If you read this forum and listen to the audio, you'll hear and read that most importantly thermate residue was found on the tested sample.

We anxiously await the prublication of this physicists works.


Thermate or thermite would not have been used in the construction of the building. When your talking a big building like this, every piece comes to the job site in perfect construction condition. Pre cut, pre drilled and ready to be installed. This is why engineers get paid big lots of money to make the designs.


"wacky scholars" # sake man, did you read this forum at all or just go out there and start laying down your attempt at destruction of a healthy debate.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
So still no evidence.Just Mr Cold fusion said so,but more truths to be forthcoming.That is not evidence of any thing!Well it is of something! I'll keep that to myself.LOL!

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
So still no evidence.Just Mr Cold fusion said so,but more truths to be forthcoming.That is not evidence of any thing!Well it is of something! I'll keep that to myself.LOL!

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Duhh]


Line after, line, post after post, cetrtain posters here DEMAND PEER REVIEW, FACT AND EVIDENCE. Steven is NOT going to release his paper until the MOST RIGOROUS peer review process is followed or you all will just attck that procedure.

You are making a catach-22... RELEASE it NOW, but if he does you will yell, YOUR PEER REVIEW SUCKS and this is JUNK.

You can't have it BOTH WAYS. Do you want a SOLID PEER REVIEW or DO YOU WANT IT NOW?


As to you snipe about cold fusion, lets see you produce a neutron counter then an expiriment that actually creates cold fusion... Just because the energy is not enoug to have commercial value does not reduce the astonishing quality of his discovery.

What have you invented/discovered lately?



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
No..you're spining.
First ..if this is going to be peer reviewed, it'll be the first thing Jones has had peer reviewed...unless it counts as peer review to have comments by people not trained in the fields they're 'reviewing.

Second, you seem to be implying that people wanting evidence from Jones are 'jumping the gun' by demanding basic things like proof of custody or criteria for what would constitute 'proof of thermite'.

Don't you think that shoes fits on Jones foot a bit better?
HE released the idea that he found "evidence of thermite' before the process of peer review was completed.
It would be a valid question to ask who makes up the 'peer review'. If its a bunch of theologians/ philosophers/doctors/lawyers/engineers (has he found any structural engineers to back his claims yet?)..the review will have little meaning.



You are making a catach-22... RELEASE it NOW, but if he does you will yell, YOUR PEER REVIEW SUCKS and this is JUNK


Well...if the peer review is from people whos expertise is unrelated to the science needed for review.....welll then it would suck.



Do you want a SOLID PEER REVIEW or DO YOU WANT IT NOW


Obviously whats wanted is solid review. But time has nothing to do with it. Its the quality of the review panel and their expertise in the needed fields.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
No..you're spining.
First ..if this is going to be peer reviewed, it'll be the first thing Jones has had peer reviewed...unless it counts as peer review to have comments by people not trained in the fields they're 'reviewing.


Vushta, your charachter, intelligence and ability to debate logically have been impeached a hundred times on here so I will only waste a link on your pathetic post today..."

Dr. Jones and ST911 have far more skill, resources and EXPERIENCE than you are able to comprehend... Their perr review process IS LEGIT.

Your buddy ROARK tried to attack the process and Mr. Fetzer shut him down here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
You're joking right?

This dodging response:




We have extensive experience with publishing and editing. I edited the journal SYNTHESE for 10 years, founded and edited MINDS AND MACHINES for 11, and founded and edited a professional library, STUDIES IN COGNITIVE SYSTEMS, which has 30 volumes. I have published 27 books, David Ray Griffin 30. We have also served on multiple editorial boards. Check me out at my academic web site, which is found at www.d.umn.edu... . If we don't know what we are doing in relation to "peer review", I can't imagine who does. Steven's paper was reviewed by four Ph.D.s, including two in physics. That is very appropriate, since his is a paper in physics. David's and mine were multiply reviewed. I have no doubt that we are making appropriate use of the phrase, "peer reviewed". If you want more, go to the piece I have archived on Hoffman. It is quite revealing on other issues as well. Thanks.


..shuts Howard down??
Its simply more blowing smoke. He wrote some books. So what?





. If we don't know what we are doing in relation to "peer review", I can't imagine who does.


How about someone with the expertise in the applicably fields for starters? His argument is bogus. He seems to want people to be impressed because 2 people with phds in "physics" reviewed Jones paper. So frikkin' what? If the criteria for validity and an 'impressive' peer review is contained in the scope of 2 phds in "physics", by what means can the expertise of hundreds of "phds" (as a starting point to their knowledge and training)....in the exact applicable fields to review a structural failure, be deemed to be trumped by some people with a couple of phds and a strong opinion?
Silliness.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
No..you're spining.
First ..if this is going to be peer reviewed, it'll be the first thing Jones has had peer reviewed...unless it counts as peer review to have comments by people not trained in the fields they're 'reviewing.


Vushta, your charachter, intelligence and ability to debate logically have been impeached a hundred times on here so I will only waste a link on your pathetic post today..."


Yeah right.

Nice dodge though.



Dr. Jones and ST911 have far more skill, resources and EXPERIENCE than you are able to comprehend... Their perr review process IS LEGIT.


I'm sure they do...too bad its in fields that have nothing to do forensic investigations of structural failures.

You claim that their review process IS LEGIT.
You've arrived at a conclusion.
What is it based on?



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

I'm sure they do...too bad its in fields that have nothing to do forensic investigations of structural failures.

You claim that their review process IS LEGIT.
You've arrived at a conclusion.
What is it based on?


Read their lists of degrees and experience and you will find your above statement to be 100% incorrect.

I proveided a link to you... follow the link to Fetzer's response to Hoffman. I will not retype it for your convenience here.

Questions for you Vushta...

WHO do you think is QUALIFIED to do these peer reviews?

What group of skills would you assemble (degrees, experience, etc.)?



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by merryfknpoppins
I wasnt trying to get into details here bud. Where ever the chillers are in the building, the cold fluid still has to be pumped to exchange sites through the building. cold air isnt pumped up ducts 50 stories, cold water is. At the location it is then used in an airconditioning system.


The chillers were in the sub-basement. There were four sets of mechanical floors, 7-8, 41-42, 75-76, and 108-109. From there the air was ducted through shafts to each floor.

Are you suggesting thatthey were working on the chilled water risers? Why? What would they have been doing to them? They are just pipes.


Originally posted by merryfknpoppins
They use the same type of system at Southern illinois university where i study mechanical engineering. Each room has its own unit that operates on cold or hot water.


Uh, no. That is not the same. That sounds like a univent system. A univent system has a separate fan unit on the exterior wall of each room with individual intakes. Those have nothing in common with a central fan unit system.


Originally posted by merryfknpoppins
Your also assuming that it was operating on Chillers and not electric driven airconditioners on each floor. I wouldnt know either way, but chillers would be more likely due to the scale of the location and its efficiency in regulating such a large building.



Mike's assignment that day would be to continue constructing a gantry that would be used to pull the heads from the 2,500 ton chillers, located in the 6th sub- basement level of the tower. 49,000 tons of refrigeration equipment were located in the lower level of the tower. The 2,500 ton units were the smallest in use.


source



Originally posted by merryfknpoppins
Access would be provided in the fact that all of these systems that are possible would require either wiring or plumbing in the main structure of the building. all of whic would either have to be modified/turned off/ somehow addressed in an upgrade.


Why? Have you ever been involved in a building HVAC upgrade? If they were switching from a pneumatic to a DDC system, it’s possible, they would have installed new electrical controls, but it is doubtful they would have made extensive modifications to the building to do this. The first rule in building renovation: get in and get out as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Wiring closets are generally separated from structural components by fire walls.



Originally posted by merryfknpoppins
Structual components would have been in close proximety to any major conduits for electricity or coolants.


Close, but not always directly adjacent. Furthermore you have firewall and fireproofing issues to deal with. The fireproofing in the core area contained asbestos.


Simply by having access to ventalation ducting you could gain access to structual components. When people are designing a building, they dont seperate these two things form each other on an access basis.


It’s nice that you see things in such simple terms. After you graduate you will learn to see how things work in the real world.

Not all of the core structure was located adjacent to duct or utility shafts. There were elevator shafts, elevator lobbies, toilets, etc. in the core also.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


Read their lists of degrees and experience and you will find your above statement to be 100% incorrect.

I proveided a link to you... follow the link to Fetzer's response to Hoffman. I will not retype it for your convenience here.

Questions for you Vushta...

WHO do you think is QUALIFIED to do these peer reviews?

What group of skills would you assemble (degrees, experience, etc.)?


Do you always answer a question with a question?

I don't--it seems a cheesey way to have a discussion.

Who do I think is qualified?
People with the track record of knowledge in the appropriate fields. What fields? A few may be SE's, ME's, people qualified to conduct forensic investigations, failure analyists, people working in finite element analysis..etc.

Could you point out any of these in Jones's list of 'peer review experts'?--cuz I missed 'em.
Thanks.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Who do I think is qualified?
People with the track record of knowledge in the appropriate fields. What fields? A few may be SE's, ME's, people qualified to conduct forensic investigations, failure analyists, people working in finite element analysis..etc.

Could you point out any of these in Jones's list of 'peer review experts'?--cuz I missed 'em.
Thanks.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Vushta]


preferably someone who doesn't think that a building is like a tree, or a building collapse is like a falling billiard ball.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
preferably someone who doesn't think that a building is like a tree, or a building collapse is like a falling billiard ball.


These are called ANALOGIES. They are used to help the less intelligent/uneducated understand foregin concepts.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join