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.

 

Examination of WTC Steel - Steven Jones

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
A woman who he does not name sent him the samples he found the thermate in.


You obviously have no source for this as no thermate was found, thermate reacts and leaves by-products as in LARGE AMOUNTS of Flourine, Zinc, Manganese, Sulfur... these are by products of thermae, KMno4 and Polytetrafluoroethylene...

Also research Sol-gel and 1,3-diphenlypropane (1,3-DPP)… found in abundance in alll dust samples from ground zero.


“One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": “1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said.”


oaspub.epa.gov...


We (3 physicists and a geologist) have conducted
Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS), also X-ray
Fluorescence (XRF) and Electron Microprobe analyses
on residue samples from the scene.
• We identify predominately iron, with very little
chromium (should be abundant), along with uncommon chemical elements
in abundance such as fluorine and manganese.
Aluminum and sulfur are present (expected from
thermate reactions).
• 1,3 Diphenylpropane was observed in dust, and
interesting bit of possibly corroborative evidence.
• The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene
such as the flowing yellow-hot liquid metal, provide
compelling evidence that thermite reaction
compounds (aluminothermics) were used, meaning
thermite was deliberately placed in both WTC Towers
and WTC 7.


Nevermind.. you are talking about buckets and I am talking about chemistry.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
You can now find the PRELIMINARY results starting on page 80 of this paper, though I recommend reading the entire paper.

worldtradecentertruth.com...

The results and testing are ongoing and will be peer reviewed and published "soon".

More samples are coming in daily from what I am hearing so the chain-of-custody argument is about to go caput.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
More samples are coming in daily from what I am hearing so the chain-of-custody argument is about to go caput.


If I were a pro-official conspiracy theorist, I wouldn't be arguing things like that anyway.

You guys should look at the actual arguments being presented, instead of trying arguments like "Well how does he know it was from the WTC?" or "Why aren't structural engineers saying anything?", because those arguments go right down the drain as soon as more samples are obtained (as is happening now), or SE's begin coming out against the official story (which is also happening now). And then what do you say? "Well, I still don't believe it anyway!"?

If you would look at the actual technical arguments, you would never have to retreat from those sorts of arguments in the first place.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
EVERY single thing you have posted regarding where the sampleS came from is unequovically WRONG. Gove me a place to host the PDF. HE explains briefly where THEY came from. I am 100% certain that the final report will include a COMPLETE chain iof custody for the third and following samples as this is the only objection the official line towers can come up with.

NONE of the samples were taken with a sponge as far as I have read.

One was from ground zero.

One was from a monument and was a "large quantitiy" not a "sponge wiping".

This is probably why the response is no longer available until next months Journal of 9/11 studies.

It is pretty sad that the official storys credibility now rests on the chain of custody for these samples. Talk about a house of cards.


I don't need to read a PDF. I watched and heard the man say this. If he's changed his story, even more reason for me to dismiss the man.

EDIT: Our argument is getting out of hand, we disagree on a few details, but what we have in common is that neither of us believe the whole story. I'm editing this because I was just reading the remembering 9/11 thread, and SkepticOverlord mentioned that we (theorists) tend to dehumanize things as we bicker over the details. Let's not forget the victims; they are my motivation.

Agree to disagree, bro.


[edit on 7-9-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
I don't need to read a PDF.


Then why do you post here?


Originally posted by Astygia
EDIT: Our argument is getting out of hand, we disagree on a few details, but what we have in common is that neither of us believe the whole story. I'm editing this because I was just reading the remembering 9/11 thread, and SkepticOverlord mentioned that we (theorists) tend to dehumanize things as we bicker over the details. Let's not forget the victims; they are my motivation.

Agree to disagree, bro.


[edit on 7-9-2006 by Astygia]


Sorry, but this is a cop out. You ask for facts, etc. then kill the discussion by invoking my sense of reverence towards the victims? This thread is about a very specific topic to which I have been responding. If Jones said ANYTHING about a sponge and a bucket FINE, however, the samples that were and are being tested currently have NOTHING to do with a sponge and a bucket.

MAybe you heard wrong? Maybe he said "STOP WASHING IT, scrape off the material and send it to me." I believe this is how the FIRST sample was obtained. She scraped a large bag of material off of the memorial.

There are now, however, LARGE samples being tested, but you would know that if you read the page I pointed out and were not here just to have a Monty Python style disagreement.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Actually, was my attempt to say exactly what I said: agree to disagree. You've got no more expertise than I do in this matter, you just take what you read and apply it, same as I do.

Quit trying to act so smug and superior about a guy that can't get his own facts straight. "There is steel, there is no steel...." I love how steel is "becoming available", they all said it was melted in Asia. Did they un-melt it? If this guy was at least consistant, I'd take him more seriously.

But since we're all over Jones...you love everything this guy says. Have you actually read his Answers to Objections and Questions?



"These findings are compelling to many, but one needs to be cautious until results are checked and published in a peer-reviewed journal....It is important scientifically to have an independent analyses performed, to verify the presence of thermite signature chemical elements. And to publish results in a peer reviewed journal. Realistically, both groups will probably need to submit simultaneously to be published in a major journal like Nature."


On August 7, 2006, he was Dave Ross’s morning radio show. During the broadcast, he estimated it would take approximately 1000 pounds of thermite to take down each of the WTC towers. When Ross asked Jones to describe the possible number and positioning of the charges, Jones consulted the Internet and described on-air that it would take about 100 pre-positioned locations, concluding this information based upon the positioning information from the implosion of the Kingdome. He explained that his conclusions were based solely upon quick math compared to another building done during the commercial break.

This guy's not a structural engineer. Stuctural engineers dismiss him. Do philosophy teachers also instruct physics students? Then why take a physics teacher seriously when he starts dictating engineering?

All that aside...I wasn't attempting to "cop out", just diffuse the situation before it grew hostile, which is why I said we can agree to disagree. If you wanna keep your attitude, be my guest, but it doesn't make your sources more credible.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
Actually, was my attempt to say exactly what I said: agree to disagree. You've got no more expertise than I do in this matter, you just take what you read and apply it, same as I do.


I have a BS in ME from U of M AA with a minor in Applied Mathematics... I do have some amount of expertise in the fields of Physics, Engineering and Mathematics. I have worked as a project lead at a Fortune 100 engineering firm for a decade.


Originally posted by Astygia
Quit trying to act so smug and superior about a guy that can't get his own facts straight. "There is steel, there is no steel...." I love how steel is "becoming available", they all said it was melted in Asia. Did they un-melt it? If this guy was at least consistant, I'd take him more seriously.


I do not think anyone would EVER claim it ALL went to China... only YOU claim others claim this. The argument is that TOO MUCH went TOO FAST for a proper investigation and it REAKS of coverup and is stifiling research.




"These findings are compelling to many, but one needs to be cautious until results are checked and published in a peer-reviewed journal....It is important scientifically to have an independent analyses performed, to verify the presence of thermite signature chemical elements. And to publish results in a peer reviewed journal. Realistically, both groups will probably need to submit simultaneously to be published in a major journal like Nature."


They will be published next month.


Originally posted by Astygia
This guy's not a structural engineer. Stuctural engineers dismiss him.


Not so fast my friend, there are now five SEs that are members of ST911.


Originally posted by Astygia Then why take a physics teacher seriously when he starts dictating engineering?


Because engineering is based on Calc and Physics? Did you attend University? Engineers turn to physicists when they need answers ALL OF THE TIME.

Your arguments are weak. You cite nothing and just type "what you heard" on a show. A source would be nice. Answering to the facts presented would be nice. A debate would be nice, but you insist on arguing symantics and such. Grow up and either debat the evidence being presented or do not post. you admit above that you did NOT EVEN LOOK at the document which is the basis for this thread which means you are simply trying to DERAIL it which I will remind you is against ATS policy.

Thank you.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Since you are new here...I'll answer your questions.


Originally posted by Astygia

This guy's not a structural engineer.


Doesn't need to be....I'll get to why in a minute.


Stuctural engineers dismiss him.


Not all do. There are 5 SE's that have recently joined Scholars for 9/11 Truth...so no, not all SE's dismiss him.....including myself.


Do philosophy teachers also instruct physics students?


This is not a good comparison. Engineering is based off of physics. Physics is not based off of philosophy.


Then why take a physics teacher seriously when he starts dictating engineering?


Because it is the actual PHYSICS of the building's failure that he is discussing and he is very much qualified in PHYSICS.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
This guy's not a structural engineer. Stuctural engineers dismiss him. Do philosophy teachers also instruct physics students? Then why take a physics teacher seriously when he starts dictating engineering?


Just to keep you up to date, structural engineers have signed on with Jones, and Scholars with 9/11 Truth, including a structural dynamicist (not just guys that work with static loads anymore
).

Also, Charles Pegelow, one of the structural engineers now associated with S9/11T, of 30-years experience as a licensed professional, including specific experience with steel structures exposed to petroleum fires, articulated arguments very similar to Jones' in a radio interview with Jim Fetzer, which I posted as another thread here on ATS. It boils down to this: we did not see enough buckling for the official story to be true.



I'll give you a quick glance at the "scientific community", too, since you claim that Jones would have no relevance to structural engineering:

Engineers apply theoretical science practically to various fields. Engineers can be seen as a rank above construction workers, bricklayers, etc., because of their in-depth educations in their respective fields. However, they are below research scientists in the "food chain" here, if you will. Research scientists are people like Ph. D. physicists and chemists, ie people that have strong foundations in the bases of all modern sciences. Everything engineers do is based upon the work of these research scientists, like Professor Jones. In fact, look back through the history of the fields of engineering and what will you see? You'll see that physicists, chemists, even professors of philosophy pioneered fields such as civil (and structural) engineering, mechanical engineering, electronics engineering, etc.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I have a BS in ME from U of M AA with a minor in Applied Mathematics... I do have some amount of expertise in the fields of Physics, Engineering and Mathematics. I have worked as an project lead at a Fortune 100 engineering firm for a decade.


Then I stand corrected, please accept my apology. There's no way for anyone to know that, since it's not in your profile.



I do not think anyone would EVER claim it ALL went to China... only YOU claim others claim this. The argument is that TOO MUCH went TOO FAST for a proper investigation and it REAKS of coverup and is stifiling research.


Define "proper investigation". Authorities investigated it; does "because they want to" mean everyone else gets a shot too?


Not so fast my friend, there are now five SEs that are members of ST911.


And hundreds more that dismiss them, my friend.



Because engineering is based on Calc and Physics? Did you attend University? Engineers turn to physicists when they need answers ALL OF THE TIME.

No, I didn't go to college, 6 years in the Army instead. Based on what you're saying then, a phsyics expert is just as qualified as a structural engineer in these matters. Is that correct?


Your arguments are weak. You cite nothing and just type "what you heard" on a show.


Funny thing is, the star of that show is the same guy whose theory you are desperately clinging to.


A debate would be nice, but you insist on arguing symantics and such. Grow up and either debat the evidence being presented or do not post.


I see no evidence; only conjecture.

you admit above that you did NOT EVEN LOOK at the document which is the basis for this thread which means you are simply trying to DERAIL it which I will remind you is against ATS policy.

When did I say I didn't looking at the document? Unless you're referring to the dead link you posted.


Thank you.


My pleasure.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia

Not so fast my friend, there are now five SEs that are members of ST911.


And hundreds more that dismiss them, my friend.


Maybe you can link me to them all? Some sort of reference, showing how many are openly in agreement with NIST.

Don't assume that they agree with NIST just because you haven't heard from them. Griff is a civil/structural engineer, and he isn't with Scholars for 9/11 Truth, but is he therefore in favor of the official story? Certainly not. Instead, he's on here trying to explain things to you, even though you don't seem to be interested in an objective discussion at the moment. I would venture that most structural engineers in this country have not even read the NIST Report.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
Define "proper investigation". Authorities investigated it; does "because they want to" mean everyone else gets a shot too?


Even the NIST and 9/11 Comission COMPLAINED that FEMA, the first investigators on site got rid of too much evidence too fast... I will find the sources, but I feel as if it is a waste of time.


Originally posted by Astygia
And hundreds more that dismiss them, my friend.


Please provide a source for your claim. Not, I will not accept the hundred super smart SEs that claimed the "steel melted" as they are dumber than a box of rocks.


Originally posted by Astygia
Funny thing is, the star of that show is the same guy whose theory you are desperately clinging to.


I was addressing YOUR COMMENTARY on the show. You could at least provide direct and accurate quotations instead of your degraded memory paraphrasing.


Originally posted by Astygia
I see no evidence; only conjecture.


Because you did not read the article which is the basis of this discussion. Electron scanning microscopes do not provide CONJECTURE... nor does x-ray flouresence testing.


Originally posted by Astygia
When did I say I didn't looking at the document? Unless you're referring to the dead link you posted.



Originally posted by Astygia
I don't need to read a PDF.


I think that about sums it up.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Even the NIST and 9/11 Comission COMPLAINED that FEMA, the first investigators on site got rid of too much evidence too fast... I will find the sources, but I feel as if it is a waste of time.

Source me.



Please provide a source for your claim. Not, I will not accept the hundred super smart SEs that claimed the "steel melted" as they are dumber than a box of rocks.


The Popular Mechanics article, for one, claims to have used over 300 experts, although I admit they don't mention what field these people are "experts" in.



I was addressing YOUR COMMENTARY on the show. You could at least provide direct and accurate quotations instead of your degraded memory paraphrasing.


If I still had the video, I'd quote it. But paraphrasing or no, you obviously knew what I was talking about because you addressed it.



Because you did not read the article which is the basis of this discussion. Electron scanning microscopes do not provide CONJECTURE... nor does x-ray flouresence testing.


They haven't provided anything yet, because it hasn't been published. This, you and me going back and forth quoting this and that, is conjecture. Welcome.



I don't need to read a PDF.

I think that about sums it up.


Not attempting to derail the thread. You are basing so much on simple claims...if the official story was made up of this exact same scenario, you wouldn't accept it, and you know it.

But maybe it's me. Maybe I just don't know enough yet. I'll wait for this journal.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia

Please provide a source for your claim. Not, I will not accept the hundred super smart SEs that claimed the "steel melted" as they are dumber than a box of rocks.


The Popular Mechanics article, for one, claims to have used over 300 experts, although I admit they don't mention what field these people are "experts" in.


Wow man. Just, wow. Great job on backing up your facts.

The PM article cited 1 relevant "expert" on a legitimate WTC collapse issue: the squibs. That person was NIST's Shyam Sunder. I'm not even sure if he's a structural engineer, but there you go.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
Source me.



By the time NIST starts its investigation, much of the crucial steel debris from the WTC collapses has already been destroyed (see September 12-October 2001). They later refer to there being a “scarcity of physical evidence that is typically available in place for reconstruction of a disaster.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. xxxvi pdf file]


wtc.nist.gov...


Originally posted by Astygia
The Popular Mechanics article, for one, claims to have used over 300 experts, although I admit they don't mention what field these people are "experts" in.


Then how do you make the statement that:


Originally posted by Astygia
And hundreds more that dismiss them, my friend.


Based on that? You are just making things up.


Originally posted by Astygia
If I still had the video, I'd quote it. But paraphrasing or no, you obviously knew what I was talking about because you addressed it.


And you were WAY off totally 100% wrong stating something as FACT.


Originally posted by Astygia
They haven't provided anything yet, because it hasn't been published. This, you and me going back and forth quoting this and that, is conjecture. Welcome.


Click on the link...



Originally posted by Astygia
Not attempting to derail the thread. You are basing so much on simple claims...if the official story was made up of this exact same scenario, you wouldn't accept it, and you know it.


Simple claims? How are FEMA published ADMISSSIONS SIMPLE CLAIMS?

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Like I said, they didn't explain, but right now it seems we're down to 'my source vs. your source', which is getting us nowhere.

Again, maybe it's me. Perhaps I am unintentionally derailing this thread, it's not my intention though. I suppose we'll have to see what the journal says, even though it seems like its gonna be biased.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Astygia]

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
This thing sadly wont get through peer review because the evidence is tainted.

He recieved it from someone whom, without documentation or witnesses, obtained the piece and gave it to him.

Theres no verifying it came from the WTC, or if it was tampered with.

Unless he, personally, with witnesses, pulled it out of the wreckage, scientifically speaking, it has to be thrown out.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Why is it hard to get a sample???

HERE IS WHY!


In the month following 9/11, a significant amount of the steel debris from the WTC collapses is removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of the US. [US Congress, 3/6/2002] Each of the twin towers contained 78,000 tons of recyclable steel. Much of this is shipped to India, China, and other Asian countries, where it will be melted down and reprocessed into new steel products. Asian companies are able to purchase the steel for just $120 per ton, compared, for example, to a usual average price of $150 per ton in China. Industry officials estimate that selling off the steel and other metals from the WTC for recycling could net a few tens of million dollars. [New York Times, 10/9/2001; Reuters, 1/21/2002; Reuters, 1/22/2002; Eastday, 1/24/2002; CorpWatch, 2/6/2002] 9/11 victims’ families and some engineers are angered at the decision to quickly discard the steel, believing it should be examined to help determine how the towers collapsed. A respected fire fighting trade magazine comments, “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.” [Fire Engineering, 1/2002] Rep. Joseph Crowley (D) will later call the loss of this evidence “borderline criminal.” By March 2002, 150 pieces of steel from the WTC debris will have been identified by engineers for use in future investigations (see March 6, 2002). [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. D-13] A study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which commences in August 2002 [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 8/21/2002; Associated Press, 8/21/2002] , will have 236 pieces of recovered steel available to it. Of these, 229 pieces are from WTC 1 and 2, representing “roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 85 pdf file] New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg defends the decision to quickly get rid of the WTC steel, saying, “If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that’s in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn’t tell you anything.” Officials in the mayor’s office decline to reply to requests by the New York Times regarding who decided to have the steel recycled. [New York Times, 12/25/2001; Eastday, 1/24/2002]


Soucre: www.cooperativeresearch.org...



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Unless he, personally, with witnesses, pulled it out of the wreckage, scientifically speaking, it has to be thrown out.


Why do you think that all st911 is asking for is a RELEASE OF THE EVIDENCE for a proper investigation to occur?

They want FEMA to hand them a sample so that this simple argument cannot be used any longer...

SO, in summation... why do you think FEMA and NIST will not release the evidence?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Slap Nuts, I am honestly not meaning to run you in circles. Until now, I had no idea of your or Griff's education. And I hadn't seen that part about FEMA, thanks for the info.

By "simple claims", I mean it seems like you're just taking this guy's word for it. I have a hard time doing this. When I watched the documentary I mentioned, I was at the point where you just start to accept that the official story doesn't add up, and I wasn't listening with a skeptic's mind. I was virtually drinking everything this guy had to say...and then the bit about the metal fragments in the bucket came up, and threw me.

If you've got a source that can clear this bit up for me, I'd appreciate it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join