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.

 

Dr. Jones' MUST READ new article.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Styrene is a common byproduct present in office workstations, carpeting, etc. especially when they are burned.



Now compare the volumes of dust (all of it) with the volumes of the items you reference (only the volume burned prior to collapse) and explain why FEMA has not seen this phenomenom before, the chemical in question in this quantitiy or this widely dispersed or AT ALL in previous disasters.

Sorry for the run on. You are quick today Roark... did this project get bumped up on your list today?




posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Wow, are you saying thatthey have surveyed dust from similer disasters?

When did that happen?

Oh, yeah, dust from Katrina.



What do you think was in all that black smoke?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Wow, are you saying thatthey have surveyed dust from similer disasters?

When did that happen?

Oh, yeah, dust from Katrina.



What do you think was in all that black smoke?



Black smoke particles < .00001% of WTC "dust". Just an estimation.

Deflecting mood today Howie?

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The claim is hopelessly flawed
I've started another thread on it

research error



[edit on 24-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 24-7-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
A picture referenced and described by Jones supposedly showing smoke trails from Thermite/Thermate on the ends of a WTC spire which, upon even casual examination, is the same color and "size" of other dust in the area.
[link] www.abovetopsecret.com...
Please note the distortion from the cropping of the picture, and also that the contrast has been cranked up for the image.

Here's a link to the original picture (big difference):

[link] img512.imageshack.us...


So, so sad........


That is NOT my original picture, the original one has this link:
img512.imageshack.us...
Your link is a link to the ImageShack hosting page of this image, and you have to click on that "distorted and cropped picture" again to get the real 1200 x 1600 pixels image on your screen. Which still doesn't have my original link address, btw.

Do you realize you discredit yourself by your constant forgetting of posting the links you claim from?("A picture by Jones etc.")
And posting these unnecessary long links like above. Research first the posting possibilities and rules on this board.
Then you will understand that forum rules force us to change picture sizes, when they are above 680x680 pixels Wide x High, and they must be smaller than 200Kilobite in memory . We try to do that proportionately, all the time.
My original picture was 1200 x 1600 pixels. That's why I gave the original board post link as an added extra. That link was not the original photo, it was posted on this board somewhere in the past and saved by me. I do not have the original photo in my posession, but this comes damn near, ain't it so?

Thus, those 2 pictures you linked to, were both posted by me, LaBTop, in this forum thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The first, contrast enhanced one, was posted on this page :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
as the last post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The second, original one :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
was posted on this page :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
after Jedi_Master made clear that the first one seemed a contrast enhanced copy from the original.
I agreed with him.

Enhancing contrast? You enhance the differences in contrast of a picture.
Thus also the differences in light emitting appearances of different parts of that picture.

BTW, you knuckled yourself perfectly down :
Prof. Jones did not use my pictures, he obviously hunted down the original photographer of that special picture and used the original one :
From his paper: www.physics.byu.edu... :

An intriguing photograph (below right) taken by Rob Miller, photojournalist with the New York Post, provides additional photographic evidence (Swanson, 2003) for the use of thermite or a sulfur-containing derivative such as thermate. We see debris and dust as WTC 1 collapses, with WTC 7 seen in the foreground, across the street from WTC 1.

469x383 pixels.

This means this smaller part of the mentioned bigger 1200 x 1600 pixels original picture was cut out in these dimensions, to fit in Prof. Jones page.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
www.ornl.gov...
www.rsc.org...
""Pyrolysis of DPP at 375 °C in the gas phase (7) or attached to the surface of Cabosil (8) occurs by a free-radical chain reaction to produce toluene and styrene as the major products.""

(7) M. L. Poutsma and C. W. Dyer, J. Org. Chem., 1982, 47, 4903; K. E.
Gilbert and J. J. Gajewski, J. Org. Chem., 1982, 47, 4899.
(8) A. C. Buchanan, III, P. F. Britt, K. B. Thomas and C. A. Biggs, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 1996, 118, 2182; A. C. Buchanan, III and C. A. Biggs, J.
Org. Chem., 1989, 54, 517.

It means that DPP as a gas which is burning, emanates toluene and styrene.
Not the other way round.

Which is a moot argument btw, since it was not DPP which was reported, but a much more complex derivative of it.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
1. ""Comments on the papers by Prof Kenneth Kuttler, Dr. Frank Legge and Gordon Ross would be particularly welcomed. Don't ignore these papers...""

2. Prof. Jones and associates, just re-read these posts of mine from last year November :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
( from this page: www.abovetopsecret.com... )

www.abovetopsecret.com... (Prof.Jones still has his time wrong on this picture, btw.)

According to the shadows of the car and sun shining on the eastern wall of WTC 7, it was around 11:30 AM 9/11, not afternoon.
This is very important, since there is NO obvious large hole in the south facade, and nearly no SMOKE coming from WTC 7.
And that "large hole" should have been caused by falling debris from the second collapse, of WTC 1, the North Tower.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What if some really wicked mind would have used a thermite mix of iron oxide and depleted uranium, which could reach a max temperature of 4131°C, 7468°F , the boiling point of Uranium? And ignited the thermite mix with a sparkler.
Since we still have this explanatory problem with all that molten steel found in the deepest basements reported by several trustable sources.

( from this page: www.abovetopsecret.com... )

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We see the grave implications if we, or a serious neutral private investigation with access to everything they ask for, not blocked by blockheads in an evil administration, and backed by a reformed Congress and House, would come up with definite proof for even the most dickheaded "official theory" believer, that this administration was complient, or even planned 9/11.
The result COULD be a bloody civil war, with most of the US forces abroad, with a lot of their heavy equipment.
Can you imagine who would jump on the occasion?
That's why you have to be extremely carefull how to bring forward any solid proof, do it bit by bit, or all hell will break loose.
Leave enough room to let the greedy politicians revoke their decades long attitude, and step into the plate, to start a hard needed reform on all levels.
And I do care to much for all these fine and normal americans I know personnally and online, to set the stage for a bloody outbreak of violence.
Note: think about it: you own a Conspiracy site.
You see the postings go down, and the quality thereof.
You create your own team of intelligent opponents.
Ratings and postings rocketing to the sky again......Good idea, all benefit.

Just a thought.

www.abovetopsecret.com... (eutectic reaction mix with sulphur, which melted steel)
( from this page: www.abovetopsecret.com... )

www.abovetopsecret.com... (Seismic evidence of pre-collapse explosions in all 3 WTC charts)
and ESPECIALLY this one: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you convert the 2 charts of WTC 1 and 2 to the same sensitivity of 0-10 nm/s, instead of the offered by LDEO sensitivity of 10-100 nm/s, you will see that suddenly these 2 charts have collapse-preceeding peaks exactly as high as in the WTC 7 (0-10 nm/s) chart. And all three of them are identical, meaning they used the same type and power of charges for the first hard blow to all three structures.

The next post is from Long Lance ,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
who at last did me the favour of converting the WTC 1 and 2 seismic charts to a factor 10x bigger.
However, due to some strange glitch in the board software build-over, his 10x charts and the original WTC 7 chart are not accessible anymore.
So, I'll do you all, and especially Long Lance, a favour, and repost them here again, so you can observe these telltaling pre-collapse peaks clearly again :

(673x517 pixels)

(673x517 pixels)

(675x516 pixels)
And these are the original five PAL EHE charts :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
( from this page: www.abovetopsecret.com... )

Read the rest of my seismic posts in this thread and in two others:
www.abovetopsecret.com... ( ATS: The Complete 9/11 Timeline ( interactive ) thread )
www.abovetopsecret.com... ( ATS: Popular Mechanics Is Correct? (Seismographs) )
Then it's crystal clear that 3 identical heavy explosions preluded all 3 collapses.
Explosions which were comparable to the two plane impacts on 9/11, just compare the first two original LDEO 0-10 nm/s (plane impact) seismic charts, with the Long Lance 10x seismic charts of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses and the LDEO WTC 7 colapse original seismic chart.


3. Read this again :
Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns,
by Derrick P. Grimmer, Ph.D., 16th November 2003.
Version 1.0, November 23rd 2003.
cooperativeresearch.org...,104



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

"Then it's crystal clear that 3 identical heavy explosions preluded all 3 collapses.
Explosions which were comparable to the two plane impacts on 9/11, just compare the first two original LDEO 0-10 nm/s (plane impact) seismic charts, with the Long Lance 10x seismic charts of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses and the LDEO WTC 7 colapse original seismic chart.


REPLY: So the experts who do seismology for a living are wrong? (The Popular Mechanics article) The one's who actually recorded the events?



Some people just have too much time on their hands.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
www.ornl.gov...
www.rsc.org...
""Pyrolysis of DPP at 375 °C in the gas phase (7) or attached to the surface of Cabosil (8) occurs by a free-radical chain reaction to produce toluene and styrene as the major products.""

(7) M. L. Poutsma and C. W. Dyer, J. Org. Chem., 1982, 47, 4903; K. E.
Gilbert and J. J. Gajewski, J. Org. Chem., 1982, 47, 4899.
(8) A. C. Buchanan, III, P. F. Britt, K. B. Thomas and C. A. Biggs, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 1996, 118, 2182; A. C. Buchanan, III and C. A. Biggs, J.
Org. Chem., 1989, 54, 517.

It means that DPP as a gas which is burning, emanates toluene and styrene.
Not the other way round.

Which is a moot argument btw, since it was not DPP which was reported, but a much more complex derivative of it.


I should have said Polystyrene, not styrene. My bad.

Pyrolysis of polystyrene will produce diphenylpropane.

www.dipic.unipd.it...

chemeducator.org...

And you are right; it is a moot point since that is not the compound detected in the air samples.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
cooperativeresearch.org...,104

The above long and laborious article gives no mention that the collumns were supposedly enclosed in concrete after the first bombing. I would hazzard a guess that anyone removing the concrete, at any elevation, would be noticed.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
gives no mention that the collumns were supposedly enclosed in concrete after the first bombing.


Can you site any source that says they were enclosed in concrete? If so, the official story lacks this. Also, concrete covered steel columns will definately NOT fail due to fire. Concrete is an excellent fire retarder....much better than the fireproofing materials used in construction.

Or is it that the steel columns (encased in concrete and surrounded by gypsum board) could have been heated to 600C + ? I seriously doubt that.

[edit on 7/24/2006 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Simple question...

How could you enclose the colums in concrete after the building was built? Seriously... put like Durarock around all of them?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
It wouldn't be impossible Slap Nuts but I would guess be extremely more expensive and time consuming to pour concrete around the columns than to have them sprayed with more fireproofing. I'd still like info on this encasement of the columns before we start argueing against this "fact".



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff:
It wouldn't be impossible Slap Nuts but I would guess be extremely more expensive and time consuming to pour concrete around the columns than to have them sprayed with more fireproofing. I'd still like info on this encasement of the columns before we start argueing against this "fact".


I DID say "supposedly".... but I'll try to find this as soons as time permits. I believe what I heard/read indicated the columns at the lowest levels; those damaged in the 1st bombing, which would not have been difficult at all, if true.

I'm looking for pictures, but I did find this, which indicate concrete encasement:


"he .... (Robertson, Robertson and his then-partner John Skilling were the original structural engineers for the Twin Towers. The offices of his firm, Leslie E. Robertson Associates, helped repair the structural damage caused by the February 1993 bombing.) began to talk about the comparative blast power of the two planes’ fuel loads. The Oklahoma City bomb that destroyed the federal building, for example, was the equivalent of 192 liters of jet fuel. The Boeing 767 that hit the first tower was estimated to be carrying 45,600 liters of fuel."

"A lot of people have told me, ‘You should have used more concrete in the structure,’" Robertson said. (A concrete-and-steel frame is believed to be more fire-resistant.) He showed a chart plotting the strength-versus-temperature-performance of steel and concrete. At the incendiary levels that raged in the towers, the two materials differ little in performance.


[edit on 24-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
.

I'm looking for pictures, but I did find this, which indicate concrete encasement:


"he .... (Robertson, Robertson and his then-partner John Skilling were the original structural engineers for the Twin Towers. The offices of his firm, Leslie E. Robertson Associates, helped repair the structural damage caused by the February 1993 bombing.) began to talk about the comparative blast power of the two planes’ fuel loads. The Oklahoma City bomb that destroyed the federal building, for example, was the equivalent of 192 liters of jet fuel. The Boeing 767 that hit the first tower was estimated to be carrying 45,600 liters of fuel."

"A lot of people have told me, ‘You should have used more concrete in the structure,’" Robertson said. (A concrete-and-steel frame is believed to be more fire-resistant.) He showed a chart plotting the strength-versus-temperature-performance of steel and concrete. At the incendiary levels that raged in the towers, the two materials differ little in performance.


[edit on 24-7-2006 by zappafan1]


how does that indicate that the columns were encased in concrete?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   

I should have said Polystyrene, not styrene. My bad.

Pyrolysis of polystyrene will produce diphenylpropane.

www.dipic.unipd.it...

chemeducator.org...

And you are right; it is a moot point since that is not the compound detected in the air samples.


1. Pyrolysis of pure polystyrene will produce styrene, not 1,3-diphenylpropane.
2. Pyrolysis of a specific mixture of polystyrene, polyamide 6 and polyethylene (3:1:1 by weight) will produce, among much bigger amounts of other decomposition products, circa 10% of 1,3-diphenylpropane.


Quote 1:
On pyrolysis, depolymerization of the polystyrene occurs and the product is styrene.

Quote 2:
Figs. 4 and 5 show characteristic pyrolysis products from the thermal degradation of two ternary mixtures—a mixture of poly(vinyl chloride), polystyrene and polyethylene (1:6:3 by weight, mixture 1) and a mixture of polystyrene, polyamide 6 and polyethylene (3:1:1 by weight, mixture 2). The obtained products differ significantly in both cases.
-snip-
Different products are obtained during the thermal degradation of mixture 2,
compare Fig. 5. The conversion of polyamide 6 into e-caprolactame is about 95%
resulting in an amount of 18% by volume e-caprolactame in the pyrolysis gases.
The amount of e-caprolactame is consistent with the available amount of
polyamide 6 in the mixture and a residence time of 26 min. The yield of styrene is
about 38% by volume in the pyrolysis gases
whereas only a small amount of
ethylbenzene is formed. The amount of styrene dimer increases up to 25% by
volume and the amount of styrene trimer up to 15% by volume. Apart from that,
1,3-diphenylpropane occurs with an amount of 10% by volume.

The yield of styrene decreases when polyamide 6 is present in the mixture. In this
case a larger yield of styrene dimer and trimer is obtained.


You will only obtain 1,3-diphenylpropane in a specific test mixture 2, and at low yields, at a very specific temperature.
In the case of the burning WTC buildings and burning post-collapse debris heaps, there are very different temperature ranges to take in consideration (see NASA's hot spots measured by their planes), and when we consider temperatures above the fixed temperature of 380° C in above tests, I can asure you that the probability of increased occurances of derivates of 1,3-diphenylpropane will increase logarithmically with higher temperatures.
Not even considering, the totally different setup of all constituents in these WTC fires.

I would suggest you to find the make-up of the plastics used in the manufacturing of computer monitors and housings, and keyboards, since you or your links expect them to be the source of that specific 1,3-diphenylpropane derivative at decomposing temperatures.

BTW,

And you are right; it is a moot point since that is not the compound detected in the air samples.

I posted quite a long exerpt out of the Sierra Report in your new thread around Prof. Jones and Kevin Ryan's remark about 1,3-diphenylpropane as a compound in aero gels used to mold explosive thermite charges.
(Your new thread : www.abovetopsecret.com... )
It is full of remarks about sampling of DPP in DUST samples.
Which has not been done by EPA, btw. And the sampling they did, was, amazingly, done with out of date methods and aperati.
It were outsourced firms which directed us to their very strange way of sampling of DUST, AIR and WATER, during the -critical for sampling taking- first weeks of such an immense historical happening on US soil.

They did not use f.ex. their own stringent advises for asbestos sampling in their own offices, but a totally outdated method.
And accepted the removal of a stringent warning in their first report on 26 September 2001. And let it be replaced by a confirmation that it was save to return to work for all New Yorkers.

How about that for criminal behavior of the White House (who forced them to do so) and compliancy at their side?

[edit on 24/7/06 by LaBTop]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
(The Popular Mechanics article)


IS this the BIBLE to you guys? IT is NOT PEER REVIEWED... HENCE IT CANNOT BE CITED OR TRUSTED FOR INFORMATION.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
[

"he .... (Robertson, Robertson and his then-partner John Skilling were the original structural engineers for the Twin Towers. The offices of his firm, Leslie E. Robertson Associates, helped repair the structural damage caused by the February 1993 bombing.) began to talk about the comparative blast power of the two planes’ fuel loads. The Oklahoma City bomb that destroyed the federal building, for example, was the equivalent of 192 liters of jet fuel. The Boeing 767 that hit the first tower was estimated to be carrying 45,600 liters of fuel."

"A lot of people have told me, ‘You should have used more concrete in the structure,’" Robertson said. (A concrete-and-steel frame is believed to be more fire-resistant.) He showed a chart plotting the strength-versus-temperature-performance of steel and concrete. At the incendiary levels that raged in the towers, the two materials differ little in performance.



Bolded by me.

Let's look at this quote for a second. It says that the Oklahoma City bomb was 192 liters of jet fuel (how they are comparing a bomb with jet fuel burning I don't know). If the 767 has 45,600 liters of fuel...that's 237.5 Oklahoma City bombs. Now, if the one bomb in Oklahoma City did all that damage (i.e. half the building was gone)...don't you think that 237 "bombs" would have utterly destroyed the floors hit and caused an imediate collapse? I don't think you can compare bombs to jet fuel. One is designed to explode with force...the other is designed to burn efficiently but when it does explode, it doesn't ALL burn (unless the reports of fuel pouring down the elevators/fuel burning office equipment is wrong). Bottom line...bombs and jet fuel cannot be compared.

Second part. So, Robertson even shows that at the temps at the towers that the steel's performance would have been the same as concrete? Doesn't that put to rest the arguement that we can't use other buildings as a comparison? I mean if at those temperatures it doesn't matter whether it was steel or concrete, then we can compare other buildings that have concrete in them?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Oh the irony of comparing the Oklahoma Bombing to the WTC towers.

* There were multiple news reports on the day stating that unexploded devices were found in the building.

* The BATF and FBI had offices in the building, but not one badge-carrying BATF or FBI agent turned up for work that morning.

* All of the building wreckage was shipped off and buried under armed guard.

* The four ASCE engineers who headed up the "investigation" were the exact same four who headed up the WTC investigation and are the ones who state that there was "unfettered access to the WTC wreckage steel".

* A top level army ordnance expert, Brig. Gen. Partin (and other accredited explosives experts, FBI agents, et al) studied the event in depth and since then has been lobbying congress to reopen the investigation, only to be blocked at every turn. He has lectured on the issue for years and maintains to this day that there were clear cutter charge blast patterns on the destroyed columns, and that the damage pattern in the building was flat out impossible to have been caused by that fertiliser truck bomb.

* A million other inconsistencies...

Sorry, a little off-topic, but that just had to be pointed out. It's even funnier when the OKC bombing is cited as the only example of "progressive collapse" other than the three buildings that collapsed on 9/11.







[edit on 2006-7-25 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace


[edit on 2006-7-25 by wecomeinpeace]


What is this a picture of? I can take a good guess, but can you point me to the thread?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join