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.

 

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

page: 17
35
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by rhunter
 


Well maybe if you would bother reading the links I posted earlier, you may see and learn something about chemistry. Rather than ridicule what you obviously dont understand, how about read it, and then let your mind grow. Knowledge is power.

But I guess things you dont understand will always seem like magic or voodoo. Sad really, as basic chemistry is being mocked by you. Oh well. I guess if you cannot figure something as simple as what rust (oxidation) is in terms of chemistry then how are you suppose to understand more complex issues like therm*te and other higher forms of sciences? not trying to insult you, but seriously questioning your reasoning.

Oh and here is a hint as to what combustion is:
combustion
Noun
1. the process of burning
2. a chemical reaction in which a substance combines with oxygen to produce heat and light [Latin comburere to burn up]

And for fun, what is rust? (ie oxidation) And how does it form?

[edit on 4/24/2009 by GenRadek]

Although you missed the point entirely, I was pointing out where your electrical engineer made a fallacious false analogy in his "lecture" on chemistry, especially the "low temperature burn" part.

en.wikipedia.org...


In an analogy, two concepts, objects, or events proposed to be similar in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with another property. The premise is that A has property X, and thus B must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B). In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not both share property X (e.g. size). [1] Thus, even if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they are the same size. One who makes an invalid analogy or comparison is often said to be "comparing apples and oranges".


"Rust" or ferric (III) oxide, Fe2O3 has a molar mass of 159.69 g/mol, a melting point of 1566 °C (1838 K), and a standard enthaply of formation of −825.50 kJ/mol.

2 Fe + 3/2 O2 ----> Fe2O3

Related chemical compounds are ferrous (II) oxide (FeO) and ferrous ferric oxide (Fe3O4) or magnetite.

So now you've attempted thread derails by appeal to God, appeal to magic, and appeal to voodoo?

Just wow.

BTW, I once majored in chemistry for a couple of years in college, but nice feeble attempt with your personal attack there, buddy. Swing and a miss though about what I do and do not understand. Try again.

Beware those flaming rusty cars and trucks as you drive around too.




posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I would not speculate on his sampling protocol as he was basically handed the stuff and you could not produce a chain of custody on them. I find that he puts sample spectra with samples in the SEM but there is no way to corroborate this information.

I am saying that from what I have read of nano-thermite and its development time line it puts a piece of the puzzle together on how it could have been possible to do this.

There is no way the concrete of those structures could have been so completely pulverized without a complete failure of all of the steel supports and in order to fall straight they have to fall in a uniform manner. It was clear to the people who saw the event and had explosive training that this is a fantastic job that was done. It could have only have been done by a handful of people on the planet.

Nano-energetics could explain how it could be done without the normal chemical traces of standard explosives being found. Their paper simply raises the how question in my mind. Their data is by itself not conclusive in my opinion either. If the nano-energetics were constructed correctly the left overs would be few and mostly bulk materials like the microspheres.

I would not reject this theory due to this paper not being perfect. The time line for the development of those nano-energetic materials is just right for them to have been incorporated and the opportunity to use them certainly could have been provided given the connections of persons that have motive and secure access to the structures.

I think we have to look at large scale testing that had to be done with such a new technology. If this theory is true I think the persons involved would have had to test it on a large enough structure to have data enough to accurately model the collapse that we witnessed. I would look for test sites next.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


WW,
I see that you still do not understand what I have written. Perhaps you should show, point by point why Jone's paper is good science.



I suggest you write your own Hypothesis to refute Jones journals and submit it for peer review. As for me, or WW, or my opinion, or what I don’t understand, this thread is not about me so please stay on topic.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I take it that your response means that you have no rationale for supporting the paper.

Refuting a paper that was not accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal is pointless. It already has been refuted by denial of publication.

Jones' team are not answering emails or responding to criticisms at this time, as Turbofan is discovering.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by UFOTECH
 


The paper is not only "not perfect" it is fatally flawed. Nowhere is elemental aluminum identified. Jones' theory has no support.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 


So I see that you have obviously missed what the person was saying. First off, what is rust and how is it formed? What is oxidation? Do you even understand that part? Iron combines with oxygen. Rust is formed.

Oh by the way, it wasnt a swing and a miss.

What is oxidation?


We often used the words oxidation and rust interchangeably, but not all materials which interact with oxygen molecules actually disintegrate into rust. In the case of iron, the oxygen creates a slow burning process, which results in the brittle brown substance we call rust. When oxidation occurs in copper, on the other hand, the result is a greenish coating called copper oxide. The metal itself is not weakened by oxidation, but the surface develops a patina after years of exposure to air and water.


Rusting of Metals


The conditions for iron to rust can then be easily deduced. The rusting of iron is at times referred to as slow burning. Why?

Rusting of iron affects the quality of the iron. It is like the decay of the iron. Rusting costs the community a great deal of money. It has to be prevented otherwise articles made of iron will decay away. The students should then be guided to search for cases of iron rusting in their environment. What materials rust and where are they found.


Combustion reactions


All combustion reactions (such as the burning of coal) are exothermic. Incredibly, the reaction between iron and moist air that produces rust is a very exothermic process and generates lots of heat. Unfortunately, this particular reaction takes place so slowly that the liberation of heat is undetectable. Fireworks, explosives and fuels, on the other hand, all involve very fast and extremely exothermic chemical reactions.


astroventure.arc.nasa.gov...

www.enotes.com...


For example, an exothermic reaction occurs when a piece of steel rusts. Rust is iron oxide (Fe2O3), which is produced by the reaction of iron (Fe) with oxygen (O2). This reaction releases heat and is therefore, exothermic. However, it takes place at such a slow pace that it is impossible to observe a difference of temperature on the piece of steel. Fire is an exothermic reaction that occurs much faster.


Isnt the internet amazing?

Even kids can learn about chemistry and what rusting is!

www.highlightskids.com...


Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire.

That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air.

Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat. But rusting is a slow process that gives off very little heat. It becomes a fire hazard only when a lot of iron is allowed to rust in a closed-up space.


Wow. Simply stunning.

Iron Burns!


......it is important to understand that general rule in chemistry that most chemical reactions (e.g., oxidation of iron) are accelerated by higher temperatures. This is especially true of iron oxidation. This means, that the hotter iron metal in contact with oxygen is, the faster it will oxidize (burn). For example, it is a familiar sight at iron foundries to see hot iron rust forming instantaneously on red-hot iron beams. This hot rust usually falls off spontaneously (because of the difference in thermal expansion properties between iron and rust). Meaning, a hot iron beam, if combined with a large enough number of other hot iron beams in a confined or semi insulated pile (e.g., covered with cement dust), will burn CONTINUOUSLY until it consumes itself, (and thus will appear to have been "vaporized" to those not looking for the rust residue).


It would appear your attempt to belittle his analogy has backfired. Oxidation is an exothermic reaction.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The energy for thermite is low because the weight of the oxide is high. Burning aluminum in air would have a much higher value.


So, you are saying that aluminum itself would burn higher than thermite? Why even bother mixing in the iron oxide to make thermite then? Wouldn't that save a lot of time and money?



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by rhunter
 


So I see that you have obviously missed what the person was saying. First off, what is rust and how is it formed? What is oxidation? Do you even understand that part? Iron combines with oxygen. Rust is formed.

Oh by the way, it wasnt a swing and a miss.


All combustion reactions (such as the burning of coal) are exothermic. Incredibly, the reaction between iron and moist air that produces rust is a very exothermic process and generates lots of heat. Unfortunately, this particular reaction takes place so slowly that the liberation of heat is undetectable. Fireworks, explosives and fuels, on the other hand, all involve very fast and extremely exothermic chemical reactions.



For example, an exothermic reaction occurs when a piece of steel rusts. Rust is iron oxide (Fe2O3), which is produced by the reaction of iron (Fe) with oxygen (O2). This reaction releases heat and is therefore, exothermic. However, it takes place at such a slow pace that it is impossible to observe a difference of temperature on the piece of steel. Fire is an exothermic reaction that occurs much faster.

Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat. But rusting is a slow process that gives off very little heat. It becomes a fire hazard only when a lot of iron is allowed to rust in a closed-up space.


Although I can tell I am likely wasting my time even attempting to converse with someone with such clearly deficient faculties of logic, did anyone notice that recurring "very little heat" pattern in the majority of those sources?

To save yet more "semantical simon says" rhetoric from GenRadek, what is fire?

www.merriam-webster.com...

"Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English fȳr; akin to Old High German fiur fire, Greek pyr
Date:
before 12th century

1 a (1): the phenomenon of combustion manifested in light, flame, and heat.
2 a: fuel in a state of combustion (as on a hearth)
3 a: a destructive burning (as of a building)"

Note that is a logical AND with "light, flame, and heat" in 1 a (1) above. I am not confident in GenRadek's understanding of this either however.

Show me an example of where rusting of iron (a SUB-SET of oxidation reactions, like combustion reactions, but these ARE NOT necessarily EQUIVALENT) produces "light, flame, and heat" [at low temperature]. Let's take "low temperature" to mean room-temperature-ish (T



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I take it that your response means that you have no rationale for supporting the paper.


Why it is “pointless”, you will just dismiss the evidences.



Jones' team are not answering emails or responding to criticisms at this time, as Turbofan is discovering.


You have proof of that. Show your source.


Refuting a paper that was not accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal is pointless. It already has been refuted by denial of publication.


Then why are you discussing Jones report? It is all “pointless” right!
Why are you even posting to me it is “pointless” I do not believe in the government lie. I have science to prove the OS is a lie, what do you have? It really doesn’t matter what I think, this is a game of “control” right? It is a game of how you get me to refute all the government evidences and I spend hour researching and posting, and running in circles just to amuse you, then you just hand wave everything.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 


Apparently you are unable to understand basic chemistry. An exothermic reaction creates heat. Fire is not the only way heat is created. I thought they taught you that in chemistry. Heh, when you add a strong acid to a strong base, the mixture heats up! (and turns to water). I do not recall seeing any fire or flames though when it heated up, I wonder why?

On a small scale of rusting, you are not going to burn yourself on a piece of rusting nail, absolutely. However, when you have tons of heated beams, mixed with moisture and sulfur from the drywall decomposing in it, the oxidation will more rapid, and releases more heat. However, since you only think that fire and magic therm*te can only heat up steel, well... what more can I say? And you also forget whatever else that was burning falling with the pile continuing to burn in the pile.

What logic are you talking about? I have just shown you exactly what oxidation is, what exothermic reactions are, and why it is referred as SLOW BURNING because that is exactly what it is.

I'll even re-post this one paragraph since you obviously missed the important part:

Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat. But rusting is a slow process that gives off very little heat. It becomes a fire hazard only when a lot of iron is allowed to rust in a closed-up space.

And oh, what was at ground zero, in that huge pile?
I mean come on! Why cant you use that basic logic to complete the picture? But if i have to take you by the hand to have you understand the scenario even when everything is there for you to see, then, oh well.

I just hope others can learn something from the basic chemistry lesson above.

[edit on 4/26/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Can this theory of yours be recreated in a laboratory?



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Some of that dust from WTC-event has found its way to sewage sediment. No way around it. If nano-thermite was used, you're going to find it from there in ppm or ppb concentrations. So all you need to do is to go there, collect samples, concetrate your samples and analyze. If it was used you're going to find higher concentrations as you move towards where WTC used to be. Of course water flow is different in different parts of the system and as a result so is rate of sedimentation so you need to account these things. Anyways this would be a nice project for some chemistry major. If I lived there, I'd consider doing it


[edit on 26-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
NIST found that one floor had a factor of safety of 11. That's 11 times it's own load.
But, you will say dynamic load and I'll tell you that NIST also found that each floor could hold 6 in dynamic load.


No, that isn't what I am going to say. What I actually am going to say is that the floors began collapsing in WTC 1 at the 96th-ish floor, and in WTC 2 at the 82nd-ish floor, both where the aircraft had hit. Each tower had 110 floors, which means in WTC 1 the floor below this was hit with 14 floors, and in WTC 2, the floor below was hit with 27 floors. Since you yourself admit the floors had a safety factor of 11 and a dynamic load of 6, the best source of proof I have that the load capacity of the floors was insufficient to withstand the forces of the falling floors above is, well, you, actually.


So, tell me again how 6 floors worth of vertical support just gave way all at once again. You may say that the cap was over 6 stories tall. But, then I'd have to ask you what caused the cap to become detached in the first place to cause it to fall.


The problem is that your question is but one thing among a blizzard of things we will never know with any absolute certainty. There are many possible theories, most of them being admitted educated guesses, but the fact that we are essentially guessing, and that there are still many unanswered/unanswerable questions, is by itself not any license to introduce scenarios of conspiracy and sabotage simply to fill in the gaps.

Do you agree?



Not really. The vertical support columns held the floors from day one. No amount of floor failure would stress the columns anymore than they already are. Other than what is stated below.


Ummm, no they didn't. It was the horizontal support braces that held the floors from day one. Perhaps you meant to say the vertical support columns held the horizontal support braces from day one, but the strength of the vertical columns still would add no strength to the horizontal braces.


But, then we have to remember that the interior core columns were internally braced. What happened to the core that made it come down with the floors?


As I said before, one merely needs to look at the photos your partner evilaxis had posted to show what happened to the core that made it come down with thre floors. The besyt source of evidence to prove what I'm stating concerning the columns is HIM.

I find it interesting that the more the supporters of these conspiracy scenarios attempt to use real world facts, the more they only wind up disproving what they meant to prove to begin with.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Can this theory of yours be recreated in a laboratory?


This is a superb question, actually. Can these claims of controlled demolition and/or thermite be tested by successfully planting such devices in a heavily occupied building with the standard complement of inspectors, security, custodians, without any of the occupants noticing.

Right off the bat I'd have to say no, unless one employs lots of make believe rules concerning controlled demolitions I.E. "hidden inside the columns during construction", and/or make believe rules concerning the occupants I.E. "secret agents planted within the organizations".



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

turbofan, as you can see in the video, the area that was hinged did snap.



OK.


Now as it began its descent, is also impacts the area below, if it didnt already start collapsing from the failures of the floors from the other side.


WRONG! You see, this is the funny part of your theory. The hinged part
once had the most load and compression force avaialeble; when the
tower was 'hinged' and vertical.

At this time, the 'hinged' side did not fail and it had the most load to carry.

As the top section began to tilt and rotate AWAY from the hinge, the load
on those particular perimeter columns DECREASED.



When the hinge snaps, it means it is no longer connected to the rest of the tower.


Yup, see above.


The top section is already on the way down.


No it's not, it continues to rotate beyond 23 degrees and therefore
reduces the compression loads FURTHER. We can also find a point
in the original video where the top section is greater than 23 degrees
and the supporting floors have NOT descended.


Also it is important to notice that the "hinge" could have also been the core columns failing on one side, with the exterior columns connecting and holding up that side. Its important to remember the floor and columns design of the WTCs.


It's also important to remember, the columns ran the entire length of the
building and about 37 of the core columns WERE NOT CUT. Therefore
the building COULD NOT TELESCOPE. See the two previous answers.

See here for a side by side comparison of the increased angle and NO
downward motion after the hinge breaks:

procision-auto.com...

Notice the corresponding angle at this point in the wide angle still frame
shot. Not much of the upper section left. Nothing telescoped...and...
drum roll please....the tower has not descended past the red line:

procision-auto.com...

Proven by video replay:

- Top section continued to rotate after hinge breaks

- At last angle shown, corresponding wide angle still shot reveals top
section did not crush the remaining floors

[edit on 26-4-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 26-4-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by pteridine
The energy for thermite is low because the weight of the oxide is high. Burning aluminum in air would have a much higher value.


So, you are saying that aluminum itself would burn higher than thermite? Why even bother mixing in the iron oxide to make thermite then? Wouldn't that save a lot of time and money?


I am saying that energy per gram would be much higher for aluminum and would be higher than thermite for most combustibles in air as measured in a DSC in air. This difference is entirely due to the addition of an internal oxidizer which adds mass without adding energy.
The use of Aluminum by itself would not accomplish the desired effects that thermite produce because there would be no molten iron to transfer heat. Aluminum alone, in air, would combust but would have to be well mixed with air. Jones failed to prove reaction by burning in air versus reacting in the absence of air, which is what thermite would do as it had iron oxide as an oxidizer.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, that isn't what I am going to say. What I actually am going to say is that the floors began collapsing in WTC 1 at the 96th-ish floor, and in WTC 2 at the 82nd-ish floor, both where the aircraft had hit. Each tower had 110 floors, which means in WTC 1 the floor below this was hit with 14 floors, and in WTC 2, the floor below was hit with 27 floors. Since you yourself admit the floors had a safety factor of 11 and a dynamic load of 6, the best source of proof I have that the load capacity of the floors was insufficient to withstand the forces of the falling floors above is, well, you, actually.


And how exactly did these 14 floors and 27 floors come crashing down on the floor below all at once?


Ummm, no they didn't. It was the horizontal support braces that held the floors from day one. Perhaps you meant to say the vertical support columns held the horizontal support braces from day one, but the strength of the vertical columns still would add no strength to the horizontal braces.


You said that failing floors would put added stress on the vertical columns. I countered with the fact that the vertical columns held each floor individually from day one and that loosing a floor was not going to have any affect on the load a column would carry.

Now, you want to move the goal posts?


As I said before, one merely needs to look at the photos your partner evilaxis had posted to show what happened to the core that made it come down with thre floors. The besyt source of evidence to prove what I'm stating concerning the columns is HIM.


If all I needed to do was to look at photos to have an explanation, I wouldn't be asking the question.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


So, in other words, you are talking out your rear? Because, if I'm not mistaken, there was a product of iron spheres. How does aluminum produce iron spheres?



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I found this interesting from NCSTAR 1-3C pg 219 (269/336):
"The paint coating was not a paint in the traditional sense, but was actually a ceramic coating (Tnemic)(sic) containing no organic binders. Thus, when the coating was exposed to high temperatures, the coating did not burn as no organic binder exists to combust."



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff, I do believe it is actually possible. All you would need is a few tons of steel like the ones in the WTCs, but you would also need to heat the main beams to the temps prior to collapse, and also add and mix the tons of pulverized drywall, and water, plus all the organic and inorganic materials that would have been found along in the buried pile. Also you would need to recreate the same conditions in the pile (ie pressures, any area where oxygen can seep in, etc) and a lot of time. In essence this is a possible thing to test. But it would require still a lot of work. A good suggestion Griff.

I am pretty sure they have tested the rusting effects of a large amount of steel all jumbled together, as it has been recorded and obsereved by others in history, like the iron ore carriers, for example. I'm sure there is something on that as I doubt they would just go and pull it out of thin air for fun.




top topics



 
35
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join