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.

 

A review of the Jones 'paper' part 1

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Do you think it was thermite? This is what I asked.


If it could have been underground "coal fires" then it could have been anything. Something made those fires in the debris either become so hot or continue to be that hot. Even controlled demolitions don't leave fires burning for weeks, so right there's one thing that contradicts conventional demolitions. So, something was very different from what we've seen in the history of everything....be it no steel skyscraper ever collapsing globaly from fire or no controlled demolition having fires burn red hot for weeks after collapse. Something extraordanary happened that day. And don't ask me "what, who, when, where ect." Vushta because I don't know and speculating only makes me look the fool if I'm wrong.

p.s....Do I count as a structural engineer that knows more than Jones? I doubt it because my specialty is rehabilitation of building facades/roofs/foundations not the physics involved in global collapse of a building. What expertise do these other engineers have? Probably more than me (and Jones) but would be nice to know. Professor Jones has enough of a grasp of physics I believe to come to the conlusion that a more formal investigation is required. That's all we are saying. Not "the gob'ment did it" not "treason"....not just yet. Just let's please have a formal, non-governmental, non intimidated (if you don't think the government intimidated those scientists and engineers then you have no idea how the government works) investigation.




posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
say, howard, correct me if i'm wrong(as much as i know that hurts you), but if something has a low melting point(like aluminum), then does it not also COOL QUICKLY?

so, 'glowing red hot' for 'weeks', as reported by several witnesses, including mark loizeau(or whatever his name is) of Controlled Demolition Inc.(the company hired to clean up the mess), and as indicated by nasa's satellite thermal spectral imaging, is not something aluminum is likely to do.

please read this post by 'astaire', bunkers and debunkers, alike. astaire, unlike howard, uses his impressive cognitive powers for good, instead of EVIL.

gordon ross, astaire, jones and many others are NOT STUPID, NOT 'buying into conspiracy theory', and NOT 'jumping to conclusions'. they are doing the reasoning, the experiments, and the math that they think is an HONEST representation of the collapse mechanisms.

'duhh' is 'common sense'(and a large list of sock puppets) over at physorg, btw. how do i know? i know his 'rap' and his 'M.O.'. he constantly links to his own poorly reasoned site, 'debunking911.com'.
that's site is about as logical as a a steering wheel designed for earthworms.

oh yeah, and howard, .....
. with friends like duhh, you don't need enemies like me.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The NASA data i am talking about is not from a satellite it is from a aircraft with the Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer system.

Do you think it was thermite? This is what I asked.
Harte


Well going by all the data from NASA and the report from FEMA i am going to have to say that i do believe that thier had to be some Thermite or other material used to keep the metals that hot for that long.

I don't know if i want to say it was a nuke although there were some reports of raditaton.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The NASA data i am talking about is not from a satellite it is from a aircraft with the Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer system.

Do you think it was thermite? This is what I asked.
Harte


Well going by all the data from NASA and the report from FEMA i am going to have to say that i do believe that thier had to be some Thermite or other material used to keep the metals that hot for that long.

I don't know if i want to say it was a nuke although there were some reports of raditaton.
[edit on 24-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]


Well, enough thermite to burn for, what, two weeks? You're kidding, right?

I mean, it's hard enough to explain dragging thousands of pounds of thermite into the building and getting all the burn charges set, along with remote ignition, I suppose (which, by the way, is subject to being accidentally set off by cell phones, taxi radios, police and fire radios, short wavers, and regular walkie-talkies used on a lot of jobs today.)

If you want thermite burning for two weeks, you just multiplied the amounts by a couple thousand percent. Now there had to be as much thermite as steel in the towers!

Notice I said "burns." That's because thermite is not an explosive, not when it's applied to cut steel members (heh heh heh. He said members - Shut up, Beavis.
)

Harte

[edit on 7/24/2006 by Harte]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
once again....

if you believe gravity alone can bring the towers down, why do you also believe that if there were bombs and incindiaries, that there had to be TONS of them.

as mark loizeaux (or whatever his name is) of Contolled Demolitions Inc. said, 'if i wanted to do it, i would plant a few key explosives and let GRAVITY do the REST'. (paraphrased, but that is the jist of it.

there was definitely ENORMOUS potential energy there, but also ENORMOUS-ER structural strength(that's why the towers never fell before the plane hit them, .....or immediately afterwards. the planes were like 'a pencil poking through mosquito netting').



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
once again....

if you believe gravity alone can bring the towers down, why do you also believe that if there were bombs and incindiaries, that there had to be TONS of them.


AGAIN:

Originally posted by Harte
If you want thermite burning for two weeks, you just multiplied the amounts by a couple thousand percent. Now there had to be as much thermite as steel in the towers!


Harte



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
If you want thermite burning for two weeks, you just multiplied the amounts by a couple thousand percent. Now there had to be as much thermite as steel in the towers!


What is your source for the thermite REACTION occuring for weeks? The pile was insulated. IT owould retain heat and continue to melt metal for weeks, but where is the source for the REACTION happening for weeks?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Harte, can I see some figures on that, and how you were able to assume each variable, and then take them all for granted?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
AGAIN:

Originally posted by Harte
If you want thermite burning for two weeks, you just multiplied the amounts by a couple thousand percent. Now there had to be as much thermite as steel in the towers!


Harte


a quantative statement with no quality.

so, once again, .....

if 'as much thermite needed as there is steel' is to be an absolute truth, why is it that in the ABSENCE of thermite, the underground fires are capable of sustaining that 'forge level' heat for weeks?

if, 'underground bellows' can stoke the fuel, why can't isolated pockets of thermite/ate reactions be the source of the undying heat?

is it because, the official lie needs these doublethink double standards in order to remain 'vaild'?

OF COURSE!!



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Harte
If you want thermite burning for two weeks, you just multiplied the amounts by a couple thousand percent. Now there had to be as much thermite as steel in the towers!


What is your source for the thermite REACTION occuring for weeks? The pile was insulated. IT owould retain heat and continue to melt metal for weeks, but where is the source for the REACTION happening for weeks?


Reread the post.

My source was the quote I provided from ULTIMA1.

Can anyone tell me how quickly thermite burns? Is anyone here prepared to say that the thermite was still burning during, and after, the collapse?

How does a thermite burn translate into "hot spots" weeks later, other than there being a whole lot of thermite (two weeks worth), especially given the absolute fact that there were still ordinary fires burning in, and under, the rubble at the time?

Anyone care to discuss the thermal conductance of steel in this light? You know, the conductance of heat in a solid (or anything else) is directly proportional to the temperature difference between the hot and cool parts that are in contact (delta T). You've all made the argument that fires couldn't have sagged any beams or struts because the WTC was one gigantic "heat sink." Why does this not apply in this case?

Once struts, box columns, braces or whatever are cut with a thermite burn, which I maintain was finished before the collapse (assuming there was such a burn,) why would it continue to "melt" anything at all? Where's this heat source, once the thermite has burned?

How did this steel manage to maintain it's liquidity throughout the collapse, when most of it would certainly have been exposed to moving air, as well as contacted by cool, unmelted members.

Once the collapse is finished, how did all these melted parts, having been completely and randomly jumbled in the collapse, manage to regroup enough to not only remain molten, but to further melt other metals that weren't originally burned by the now-gone thermite reaction?

Harte



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
How does a thermite burn translate into "hot spots" weeks later,


Molten metal insulated by asbestos and a pile of god-knows-what else rubble will stay hot for a very long time whether the reaction is continuing or not.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

How does a thermite burn translate into "hot spots" weeks later, other than there being a whole lot of thermite (two weeks worth), especially given the absolute fact that there were still ordinary fires burning in, and under, the rubble at the time?

Anyone care to discuss the thermal conductance of steel in this light? You know, the conductance of heat in a solid (or anything else) is directly proportional to the temperature difference between the hot and cool parts that are in contact (delta T). You've all made the argument that fires couldn't have sagged any beams or struts because the WTC was one gigantic "heat sink." Why does this not apply in this case?

Once struts, box columns, braces or whatever are cut with a thermite burn, which I maintain was finished before the collapse (assuming there was such a burn,) why would it continue to "melt" anything at all? Where's this heat source, once the thermite has burned?

How did this steel manage to maintain it's liquidity throughout the collapse, when most of it would certainly have been exposed to moving air, as well as contacted by cool, unmelted members.

Once the collapse is finished, how did all these melted parts, having been completely and randomly jumbled in the collapse, manage to regroup enough to not only remain molten, but to further melt other metals that weren't originally burned by the now-gone thermite reaction?


Can you answer any of your questions with the "coal mine fire" theory? Then, why is it hard to answer your questions with the added heat from thermite/mate?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Harte
How does a thermite burn translate into "hot spots" weeks later,


Molten metal insulated by asbestos and a pile of god-knows-what else rubble will stay hot for a very long time whether the reaction is continuing or not.



I'm saying that by the time the collapse finished is more than enough time for any metal that was melted using thermite to re-solidify.

Has anyone here ever cut steel with a torch? How long did the steel remain molten? Seconds in my experience. Same with welding.

The molten metal (if any) would be either in fairly small globs or particulates, like a splash, or would still be in contact with unmelted steel, which is considerably cooler and certainly would conduct away the heat required to maintain a molten state. This is assuming no constant heat source.

On the other hand, a continuous fire, which we know for a fact existed in several spots (including the "hot spots" found by NASA) could provide enough heat to match any conditions that were found. As an added bonus, there's no need for speculation in the case of the observed fires, whereas the thermite theory is nothing but speculation.

Harte



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
I'm saying that by the time the collapse finished is more than enough time for any metal that was melted using thermite to re-solidify.


I am saying large pools of molten metal, possibly heated to THOUSANDS OF DEGREES F, that are instantly covered with millions of lbs. of insulating materials WILL NOT instantly solidify as you suggest. I suggest that the "R factor" of such a MASSIVE insulation, that included a lot of asbestos, would be so high that the metal would stay molten for quite some time. Given the particulate size of this insulation, I think it is a safe assumption. This ultra hot metal could also provide enough energy to keep combustables burning for quite some time.

If I recall, thermite heats to 7,000F... That is a LOT of thermal energy under a LOT of insulation.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I am saying large pools of molten metal, possibly heated to THOUSANDS OF DEGREES F, that are instantly covered with millions of lbs. of insulating materials WILL NOT instantly solidify as you suggest. I suggest that the "R factor" of such a MASSIVE insulation, that included a lot of asbestos, would be so high that the metal would stay molten for quite some time. Given the particulate size of this insulation, I think it is a safe assumption. This ultra hot metal could also provide enough energy to keep combustables burning for quite some time.

If I recall, thermite heats to 7,000F... That is a LOT of thermal energy under a LOT of insulation.



Sure, it could happen if you started out with a large quantity of metal, liquified it all, then buried it.

The problem is, that is not what's been stipulated.

Small quantities of metal were (supposedly) liquified on each floor, or every other floor, or whatever. You first would have to gather these small quantities together before you could even start talking about a "pool."

In order to do this, the molten metal would have to flow across either materials that are "THOUSANDS OF DEGREES F" cooler than the molten metal, or through MOVING AIR also "THOUSANDS OF DEGREES F" cooler than the metal itself, and even then the metal would somehow have to end up pooling on an extremely good insulating surface - all without any metal solidifying in the process.

Not likely, like I said. There was more than enough time during the collapse for any molten metal to re-solidify. Also like I said, you ever cut any metal with a torch? Ever used an arc welder, tig, mig or other? Metal prefers not to stay molten, even at temperatures much greater than ambient.


Harte



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well, enough thermite to burn for, what, two weeks? You're kidding, right?

I mean, it's hard enough to explain dragging thousands of pounds of thermite into the building and getting all the burn charges set, along with remote ignition,
Notice I said "burns." That's because thermite is not an explosive, not when it's applied to cut steel members (heh heh heh. He said members - Shut up, Beavis.
)

Harte

[edit on 7/24/2006 by Harte]


Pics of molten iron across street from WTC 2

www.explosive911analysis.com...

1. who said it would take thousands of pounds when you have a device called a thermite cutter designed to cut beams.

www.explosive911analysis.com...

2. You can get thermite to explode.

THERMITE BOMB: Thermite can be made to explode by taking the cast thermite formula and substituting fine powdered aluminum for the coarse/fine mix. Take 15 grams of first fire mix and put in the center of a piece of aluminum foil.


[edit on 27-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. who said it would take thousands of pounds when you have a device called a thermite cutter designed to cut beams.


I suppose that it would depend on exactly how many beams you needed to cut, wouldn't it?

The columns alone, or the core supports as well?

The floor struts and beams, or no?

This is thermate/thermite we're talking about here, we also need to add in the amount of explosives that would be used, or not, depending on whether or not you believe explosives were used.

But the amount doesn't really matter as far as what I'm saying in this thread (though it certainly does matter in the overall picture.)

I'm saying that even if thermite was used, that still doesn't explain any of the "molten metal" nor the hot spots found weeks later. The amounts of metal that would be melted by thermite burns would be individually small, relatively speaking. The moten portions of the columns and what have you would also be distributed throughout the building. These two facts, along with the stipulation that the thermite burns would have occured some time prior to the collapse, mean that any metal melted by thermite would certainly have re-solidified during the collapse, with perhaps a small quantity resolidifying within a few seconds of the end of the collapse.

The reason that's a problem is that Jones' only apparent reason for stipulating that thermite was used at all is the presence of molten metal which is more easily explained by sustained fires than by any use of thermite.

Harte



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Great point Harte.
This point is as basic and as impossible to answer in the context of a CD as the question (which is yet to be answered) of how the charges were placed.

If there was a demo caused by thermite, the chaos of the collapse would have dispersed the thermite all over the place. The mechanism to accumulate it into concentrated areas simply doesn't exist.

But both Slapnuts and BsB offered some points that unwittingly worked against the theory of CD.
I think bsb pointed out that there were subway tunnels that were damaged. These same tunnels could function as air drafts in a forge to provide o2 for combustion. Slapnuts just pointed out that the piles were insulated. these 2 factors could produce some super heated areas from heat building faster than heat was able to escape.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I missed this part of your post Griff.



because I don't know and speculating only makes me look the fool if I'm wrong.


The last thing you look like is a fool. Honestly you seem open to new infomation and aren't a robot to "the theory". Just wanted to point that out, but please do not refrain from hurling feces at me if you think I'm wrong. lol

I often make a fool out myself in life. I think thats pretty normal.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join