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: 18
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


But you forget one important thing with the core columns:
They were never solid one pieces of steel 110floors high. They were segmented, connected together by bolts. There was plenty of evidence of bolts sheering apart, and the connections failing, not just beams snapping. You forgot this little part. Plus what will the connections do when thousands of tons of steel are already moving down on them?




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

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


Well, gravity, obviously.


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


All right, fair enough. I'll need to go back and find the photo he posted, but in short, it was a photo of one of the vertical structural girders recovered from ground zero. The girder was bent almost completely upon itself, and the end of the girder visible to the camera was jagged and uneven, like a torn sheet of paper. No significant discoloration or disfigurement from fire was present. This confirms the photos taken by Joel Meyerowitz, who likewise photographed the structural columns at ground zero, which likewise were shown to have been torn/snapped at the ends.

It is clear from the photos that the girders were subjected to some massive stress that they were unable to withstand. It attempted to withstand it, bending in a ghastly position in the process, but in the end it was bent too far and it failed. Logically, this had to be due to either a) the mass of the floors fallign on it from above, pushing it sideways and down until it snapped, or b) it was connected to the floor as the floors fell and they were pulled down, rather than pushed down.

In case you do not fathom its importance, allow me to enlighten you- Regardless of what caused it, it still completely proves c) any scenarios of thermite or any other controlled demolitions are entirely rubbish because the ends of the columns were clearly snapped/torn, rather than cut/melted. We can bicker over whether the columns held up the horizontal support columns, what the dynamic load is for the columns, how much stress the columns may have encountered, or whatever,but in the end, these scenarios of thermite and/or controlled demolitions are still rubbish.

Becuase this evidence has been provided by both sides of the debate, it has to be considered legitimate.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 

Griff,
Iron spheres are not diagnostic for therm*te. If there is no aluminum present, there is no therm*te. If there is aluminum present, there MAY be thermite. Do I need to explain all of this again? I am generally patient with students but this is wearing thin.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by turbofan
 


But you forget one important thing with the core columns:
They were never solid one pieces of steel 110floors high. They were segmented, connected together by bolts. There was plenty of evidence of bolts sheering apart, and the connections failing, not just beams snapping. You forgot this little part. Plus what will the connections do when thousands of tons of steel are already moving down on them?


They're not connected?
Naaa..they just stacked the sections on top of
each other!


Wow, I really can't believe the pure BS excuses coming from this thread.

Regardless of whether they were connected or not (again > :lol
, I've
proved with YOUR own video that :

a. The top section continued to rotate after the "hinge snapped" at the
point at which you agreed to and confirmed.

b. The corresponding angle on the wide shot shows the top section
reduced to 1/3 it's original size before the support structure descends.

c. The tilting away from the west perimeter side reduced compression
loading THROUGHOUT the rotation, yet the top section is about 33% of
it's original size.

Don't bother replying with your nonsense. Go tell it to someone without
an education.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Griff
 

Griff,
Iron spheres are not diagnostic for therm*te. If there is no aluminum present, there is no therm*te. If there is aluminum present, there MAY be thermite.


I don't know where you're getting the idea there was no aluminum present?



The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately
100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
are intimately mixed in the red material.



The chemical signatures found in the red layers
are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each showing the presence
of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and
a significant carbon (C) peak as well.



Do I need to explain all of this again?


Yes, please explain it again. You failed the first time to convince me.


I am generally patient with students but this is wearing thin.


Does this mean you're a teacher? I still missed where you've shown your credentials. Hell, I'm still waiting for someone other than the typical jref crew to "duhbunk" this.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Elemental aluminum is not demonstrated. See figure 10. In the elemental mapping of the images using EDAX, the aluminum, silicon, and oxygen maps are congruent. That means aluminosilicates, not aluminum.

No aluminum, no therm*te.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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


Well, gravity, obviously.


So, you are saying that the top cap became severed in some way? Because that's the only way all the load of all floors would happen at once. Is this what you are saying?

Care to explain how that happened?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Okay, let us try that in a more straightforward manner...doesn't figure 15 show how the aluminum separated from the silicon and oxygen after being soaked in paint thinner for 55 hours? Doesn't this prove that the aluminum and silicon weren't bonded together? Would the MEK soaking cause them to separate if they were originally bound?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
So, you are saying that the top cap became severed in some way? Because that's the only way all the load of all floors would happen at once. Is this what you are saying?


No, this isn't what I'm saying. This is what every video of the collapse in existence says. It specifically shows the initial point of structural collapse began at the point of impact of the jets. Everythign below that point was stationary, and everything above that point started falling. I myself am merely pointing out what the videos are showing to you.

This is an irrefutable fact and it cannot be debated. Your not liking the fact does not in any way make it any less of a fact.


Care to explain how that happened?


Seeing that the point of initial structural faulure began at the point of impact of the jets, it stands to reason that the structural failure was caused by some abnormal events instigated by the impact of the jets becuase the impact of the jets was in itself an abnormal event.

What those abnormal events happen to be, exactly, well, I suspect they'll be discussing that for decades to come. The only thing we can irrefutably say is that it *wasn't* controlled demolition, thermite, nukes in the basement, lasers from outer space, or any of the other uninformed conspiracy scenarios I've seen here, so far. There were enough real world abnormal events occurring that day without having to introduce any imaginary ones.

Your not liking the fact does not in any way...well, you know the rest.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, this isn't what I'm saying. This is what every video of the collapse in existence says. It specifically shows the initial point of structural collapse began at the point of impact of the jets. Everythign below that point was stationary, and everything above that point started falling. I myself am merely pointing out what the videos are showing to you.


I am asking you how ''everything above that point started falling". What severed the columns to cause the top cap to descend as one unit?

So far you haven't answered me with anything but, "it just did".


This is an irrefutable fact and it cannot be debated. Your not liking the fact does not in any way make it any less of a fact.


I am not refuting it, I am asking you just exactly how it happened.


Seeing that the point of initial structural faulure began at the point of impact of the jets, it stands to reason that the structural failure was caused by some abnormal events instigated by the impact of the jets becuase the impact of the jets was in itself an abnormal event.


This is not true as I've stated before. Had the core columns been severed anywhere below the point of impact, the exterior would start to fail at it's weakest point....the impact zone.

It doesn't mean that the interior failure had to have happened in the impact zone for it to start to fail on the exterior there.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I am asking you how ''everything above that point started falling". What severed the columns to cause the top cap to descend as one unit?

So far you haven't answered me with anything but, "it just did".


No, actually I did answer it. Like I said, it was caused by a chain of events instigated by the impact of the aircraft. We know full well that an aircraft crashing into a building is going to cause internal damage, and we know there were fires inside the building from the aviation fuel setting everything on fire all at once. In what combination these events instigated the structural failure, exactly, will probably be something noone will ever entirely know.

However, I myself subscribe to the MIT report by Thomas Eagar, which stated that the unregulated fires caused uneven heating of the steel, causing some of the beams to expand and contract unevenly causing them to lose their structural integrity. Once that happened, the remaining columns could no longer hold up the extra weight transferred to it. Also, NIST fire engineer James Quintiere states that his research shows there may have been insufficient fireproofing on the columns to protect them from that type of fire, which I find credible.

I will be the first to admit these are educated guesses on their parts, but at least they have the advantage of using events that were certified to have been occurring in the towers to base them on, vs. introducing imaginary events in order to derive a predetermined, desired result as conspiracies are notorious for doing.


I am not refuting it, I am asking you just exactly how it happened..


As I said, we will probably never know for certain "just exactly how it happened". Since it did in fact happen, I have to presume that *something* was potent enough to have caused it. That's why we're both here, I presume- to discuss all the "what may have caused it" possibilities...as well as all the "what certainly couldn't have caused it" possibilities.



This is not true as I've stated before. Had the core columns been severed anywhere below the point of impact, the exterior would start to fail at it's weakest point....the impact zone.


You are presuming that the core columns necessarily have to be severed in order for it to collapse. You forget the two alternatives- either the columns were weakened in such a way that they could no longer hold up the weight, or the weight increased to the point where it exceeded the structural load capacity of the columns. My money is on all three, and occurring in varying degrees.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
However, I myself subscribe to the MIT report by Thomas Eagar,


The same Thomas Eager who failed to include the core in his equations/theory? The same Thomas Eager who started the "pancake collapse" theory that has been debunked by NIST themselves?


Also, NIST fire engineer James Quintiere


The same Dr. Quintiere who states that he wishes the NIST report would be peer reviewed and doesn't agree with them?


states that his research shows there may have been insufficient fireproofing on the columns to protect them from that type of fire, which I find credible.


I find it credible also. But, then we get back to the question of why the government is covering up this fact?


You are presuming that the core columns necessarily have to be severed in order for it to collapse. You forget the two alternatives- either the columns were weakened in such a way that they could no longer hold up the weight, or the weight increased to the point where it exceeded the structural load capacity of the columns. My money is on all three, and occurring in varying degrees.


Since 47 core columns held 60% of the weight of the building and 84 exterior columns held 40% of the weight, it is a fair bet that the core had to collapse/sever in order for the buildings to begin their descent.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Woah woah woah. Do you need to check your reading comprehension skills before you post such nonsense? Where did I say they were not connected? Oh I see, you are trying to twist my words to make me look the fool. And the auto-high fives star you without even bothering to read what I wrote. Should I repost what I posted earlier for you?


But you forget one important thing with the core columns:
They were never solid one pieces of steel 110floors high. They were segmented, connected together by bolts. There was plenty of evidence of bolts sheering apart, and the connections failing, not just beams snapping. You forgot this little part. Plus what will the connections do when thousands of tons of steel are already moving down on them?


No can you PLEASE tell me and point out where I stated they were not connected. Come on now, shouldnt be hard. Unless you are trying desperately to twist the facts. I wonder why?

Also you still overlook the fact thatthe top section drops DOWN through the tower. Why cant you understand this part? The top sagged down, with one part acting as a hinge, and then it just drops down once the entire structure fails.

If I were you I'd check my reading comprehension skills before typing a response, and I wouldnt blatantly LIE to try to make the other look bad.



[edit on 4/29/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
The same Thomas Eager who failed to include the core in his equations/theory? The same Thomas Eager who started the "pancake collapse" theory that has been debunked by NIST themselves?



Probably not, since the report I read specifically incorporates the core columns in his scenario. Namely, this one-

www.tms.org...

...and it's not really a case of debunking, either. It's a case of different authorities looking at the evidence on hand and arriving at different conclusions. You'll notice that the FEMA report is different from the NIST report, as well. It doesn't mean any of them are wrong, per se. It means that there are a number of legitimate possibilities that might have occurred, but noone is sure which one is the one that really did occur.

I'm not certain why you're pursuing this thread, as you're only proving my original point- there are plenty of real world theories on how the towers collapsed, without needing to introduce any of these conspiracy stories into the mix.


The same Dr. Quintiere who states that he wishes the NIST report would be peer reviewed and doesn't agree with them?


Yes, that is the one. It's clear he wishes the report to be peer reviewed because he's hoping it will lead to a second look at his own theories.


I find it credible also. But, then we get back to the question of why the government is covering up this fact?


Oh, rubbish. There is no coverup of Dr, Quintiere's work. All you need is a 30 second google search to find all you want to know about his theories. What possible reason would the gov't have to cover up possible dangerous flaws in NYC building codes?



Since 47 core columns held 60% of the weight of the building and 84 exterior columns held 40% of the weight, it is a fair bet that the core had to collapse/sever in order for the buildings to begin their descent.


You're neglecting to include the fact that there were raging fires within the building. A column heated to the point where the steel would contract and expand unevenly will distort and lose it's structural integrity regardless of what its normal load bearing capacity is.

Tens of thousands of aviation fuel setting 4,000 square feet of office space ablaze all at once certainly doesn't help a building's load bearing capabilities, no matter how you look at it.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, I also recall that the engineers who investigated also said the beams experienced "creep" where the steel is sufficiently heated to where it is softer and begins to slowly deform due to the regular and extra loads its being exposed to. This was more noticed in the WTC7 of signs of creep in the structural beams. This would also account for the building's structural integrity failure the way it did.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, I also recall that the engineers who investigated also said the beams experienced "creep" where the steel is sufficiently heated to where it is softer and begins to slowly deform due to the regular and extra loads its being exposed to. This was more noticed in the WTC7 of signs of creep in the structural beams. This would also account for the building's structural integrity failure the way it did.


So have you got any numeric values or sources for that WTC7 "creep" assertion?

Also, it got truncated a little by the post character limit before, but I am still waiting for GenRadek to:

"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 less than or equal to 100F or ~311 Kelvin).

Edit: Apparently this forum does not like less-than symbols.

Sorry, but I will stick with my college textbooks and college- and professional-level sources rather than "wisegeek" and grade-school "chemistry" websites. Perhaps GenRadek can find a reference to ferric oxide Fe2O3 resulting from "burning" (combustion, or fire) processes on this college-level page:

mysite.du.edu...

For example, GenRadek's "wisegeek" oxidation reference page incorrectly states:

"This is why stainless steel doesn't rust and ordinary steel does. The stainless steel has a thin coating of another metal which does not contain free radicals."

GenRadek's Oxidation Reference

Stainless Steel (such as 304 and 316 alloys are not corrosion resistant due to plating or "thin coating" processes), but I don't expect GenRadek to comprehend the difference here either.

www.azom.com...

www.sandmeyersteel.com...

Much like Wikipedia, consider the source...


[edit on 30-4-2009 by rhunter]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Dr Shyam Sunder, lead investigator into WTC 7, explains why NIST dismissed the demolition by thermitic material hypothesis:



Argument 1: A conventional demolition would require "a huge amount of charges to be placed".

Sunder doesn't expand on this, thereby glossing over the absurdity of an implosion NIST attributes to office fires being impossible to replicate without huge amounts of demolition charges. He also bypasses NIST's refusal to test for any demolition residues. Remember - they did not even analyse the steel from WTC 7.

Argument 2: Although a single charge on column 79 would destroy the building, "most people would not know it was the critical column", and, if they did, "even the smallest charge would lead to an incredibly large sound half a mile away."

Putting aside NIST's thesis that a failure in column 79 would cause a free-fall global demolition of the building, let's examine the "loud sound" objection.

There were witnesses to and recordings of loud explosions from WTC 7.

Tris McCall, eyewitness:


Just before the fall of the North Tower, we saw a large explosion coming from the street-level area around World Trade Center 7. I remember thinking that it looked distinctly like a bomb had been detonated underneath the city, and, of course, that's exactly what I thought had occurred.

...the strange explosion I saw coming from Building 7 between the Tower collapses has never, to my knowledge, even been acknowledged by the city or the government.


Michael Hess witnessed an explosion inside WTC 7:


I walked down to the eighth floor where there was an explosion and we've been trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke all around us for about an hour and a half.
Michael Hess, Sept 11, 2001

Corroborated by Barry Jennings:


...we made it to the eighth floor. Big explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor, and I turned to Hess and said "this is it - we're dead".
Barry Jennings, Sept 11, 2001

In the same interview, the man who rescued Jennings said:


Both staircases - the backside was completely blown away.


In a later interview Jennings described how as he entered WTC 7 the lobby was undamaged but when he left it "was in total ruins".

This explosion was hours before WTC 7 imploded, but if NIST were trying to find cause, and given their commitment to a progressive failure, why would they ignore unequivocal evidence of a large explosion within the building which according to credible witnesses caused massive internal damage?

Professor Quintiere (former chief of NIST's fire science division) criticisms of NIST's methodology before the Committee on Science House of Representatives are damning and should be read in full by anyone who believes NIST conducted a genuine scientific investigation. In reference to NIST's departure from investigative protocol he said:



In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report...

when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions.


They also ignored witnesses reporting explosions as WTC 7 came down:

Craig Bartmer, NYPD


I didn't hear... any indication that it [WTC7] was going to come down and all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming "get away, get away, get away from it"... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started peeling in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the #'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! I think I know an explosion when I hear it.


Kevin McPadden, first responder:



He goes over and he says you gotta stay behind this line because they're thinking about bringing the building down. They didn't say what building, they just said "bringing a building down". So we're like, "OK, we'll take their word for it, you know. We'll stay behind the line." He came back over with his hand over the radio and what sounded like a countdown and at the last few seconds he took his hand off and you heard 3, 2, 1 and he was just saying "just run for your life, run for your life" and then it was like another 2, 3 seconds you hear explosions, explosions like BABOOM! It's like a distinct sound, it's not like when, compression, like boom! boom! boom! boom! boom! like floors that were dropping and collapsing. This was BABOOM! Like you felt a rumble in the ground, like almost like you wanted to grab onto something. To me, I knew that was an explosion.




...the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was... well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.

Download WMV radio broadcast 9/11

Like the Hess and Jennings interviews, this testimony was recorded on the day of 9/11.

NIST's theoretical bias is inescapable. They would hear no explosions and speak no explosions. They were determined to contrive a thesis without reference to explosions and the structural damage they caused. To this end, they adopted the 9/11 Commission's Modus Operdandi - ommission of evidence to escape being caught in the lie. Their "on-this-day-only" thermal expansion theory has zero forensic basis.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
When it was pointed out that thermitic demolition would not necessarily produce loud explosions, NIST had this to offer:

Dr Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead investigator into WTC 7:

The issue of thermate did not even reach, in our judgement, a level of importance sufficient in fact to do a detailed analysis. We could rule it out fairly easily for several reasons:

In order for a thermate reaction to take place, there has to be materials...

You would have had to place about 100 lbs of thermite right in proximity to the column and it had to have always adhered to the column...


So to sum up:

NIST ruled out conventional controlled demolition because it would make loud noises. They did not explicitly claim there were no loud explosions. They implied it - thereby avoiding accusation of direct lying.

They ruled out thermites because they would have to be placed in the building and attached to the columns. In their opinion, this was therefore "unlikely to have happened", so they did not conduct an analysis.

In short - NIST refused to consider controlled demolition.



Leaked Confidential and Predecisonal NIST Report on Building 7:


At 4:38 p.m. all of the windows between 13-44A and 13-47C were open, and the fires responsible for opening the windows had died down to the point where they could no longer be observed. Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified.



[edit on 1-5-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


It's funny they would conclude it unlikely for a eutectic mixture to adhere to a column surface, because that's exactly what FEMA found in their analysis of rubble from WTC7 and WTC2 in their report, appendix C or D, I forget which (but they're right next to each other). A eutectic reaction had lowered the steel's melting point and eaten holes through the sampled columns.

Here's one of the pieces recovered:




new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join