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: 19
35
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Indeed. This is what the FEMA report said about a piece of steel recovered from WTC 7



Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

FEMA 403, Appendix C Limited Metallurgical Examination (PDF)
WTC.NIST.GOV


[edit on 1-5-2009 by EvilAxis]




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Nanotechnology-Produced Thermetic Research




From Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal April 2009,
Vol. 2, Pages 7 to 31, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11
World Trade Center Catastrophe," Footnote [20] Miziolek, A. W. Nanoenergetics:
an emerging technology area of national importance.
Dept. of Defense Amptiac Q 2002; 6 (1): 43-48.
AMPTIAC is Advanced Materials, Manufacturing and
Testing Information Analysis Center in Rome, New York.

Interesting, it's no wonder nobody could figure this thing out, technolgy was used on 9/11 that we had no clue about at the time.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Not sure if it has been mentioned here or not but was reading through the report from Linda Howe on the Jones papers


This, of course, is what we are saying in our paper that with the finding of unexploded reactive material in the World Trade Center dust, there needs to be a serious follow up - not just to confirm our results. That's been done (by two other science labs to date), but to find out who made this material and why it was in the World Trade Center?

-Jones to Howe

I had no idea their work had already been double checked by two other labs who have supposedly concluded the same thing as the Jones paper.

Is this why I have been unable to find anyone refuting what the Jones paper asserts.

Can't wait to see what the next developments will be in this saga.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter

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


It mentions a little bit here:
wtc.nist.gov...

and here:
wtc.nist.gov...

Did you read the NIST reports at all? It does mention creep quite a bit in them.



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:



Apparently you are having a hard time understanding chemistry here rhunter. No surprise. If you do not know or understand what oxidation is in relation to "burning" then how can understand something more complex? Also I see your understanding of english is a little off too. I suppose in your mind, when someone says they are going to burn off some calories by exercising, it means they are actively going to set themselves on fire then right?
To "burn" the calories?


Oxidation is an exothermic reaction. There are two kinds of exothermic reactions: fast and slow. Fast is, you guessed it! Fire! and explosion! a rapid event with fire. However, heat is what creates fire. Combustion with flames is rapid oxidation.
The second type is slow exothermic reactions. Iron rusting is a slow exothermic reaction. It does produce heat, however it is usually very slow. It does not produce light and also a small amount of heat, since it is slow.

However, it is known that when the steel and iron is heated up (by an external source) oxidation (rusting) occurs more rapidly. The more rapid the oxidation, the more heat can be released in the reaction. When moisture and sulfur are added to the steel, the steel rusts even more quickly, which releases more heat. and so on and so on. By the way, shipping companies dont like to discuss this very much but, there is a hidden danger of transporting iron ore pellets. Can you guess what it is? apparently it has something to do with oxidizing iron and water creating heat!

www.midrex.com...

Be sure to read the entire document as I am sure it will be very interesting and explains better of what danger iron rusting can be. Oh I just LOVE this little section here:

[EDIT to add: What is Direct Reduced Iron?
en.wikipedia.org...
www.britannica.com...]



CHARACTERISTICS OF BURNING DRI (Direct Reduced Iron)
Interesting aspects of burning DRI are:
• Neither the fuel, which is iron, nor the products of combustion, which are iron oxides, are gaseous. So, there is no flame. Burning DRI is similar in appearance to burning charcoal, red hot, but without a flame.
• A hot spot propagates very slowly. It may take days, sometimes more than a week for it to propagate through a stack. This allows ample opportunity for action to be taken to prevent further damage.
• Temperatures can become sufficiently elevated to partially fuse the iron.
• Temperatures can also become sufficiently elevated so that water sprayed onto hot DRI might evolve hydrogen. (The hot metallic surface of the DRI can catalytically dissociate the water.) With sufficient concentration of hydrogen and with a heat source (the burning DRI) available, of course the hydrogen will burn. This leads to a remarkable situation. Burning DRI has no flame, but if a light spray of water is added (light enough to avoid quenching the combustion) a flame develops!


Holy Toledo! A Grand Slam! Not only can iron heat up, but "burn" without flames! And what happens when water is added to "burning" iron? Hydrogen! and what happens to hydrogen when exposed to the heat?

Oh and what happened to this poor iron ore carrying ship?
www.register-iri.com...

You know, the conditions the piles of debris in the WTCs sound an awful lot similar to what happens to iron ore when it is wet and rusts! all the ingredients are there (heat, water, iron, time, *plus sulfur from the drywall) for the iron in the pile to experience a very similar reaction in the pile. And what exactly does sulfur do to the melting point of steel or iron? It lowers it substantially

(extra info! this is what happens when mixing sulfur with iron powder and heat: jchemed.chem.wisc.edu... )

But the heat from the iron rusting CAN create fire! Especially when water is added! Naturally there are some OBVIOUS differences between the debris pile of the WTCs and the cargo hold of an iron ore ship, however, the reactions inside both sound very very similar! and upon further review, the conditions described can be a source of the high temps in the pile for so long, and the observed effects done to the steel after all this time.

Wow! Research kicks a$$!

[edit on 5/1/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


and part two!




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.

Much like Wikipedia, consider the source...
[edit on 30-4-2009 by rhunter]


Now I fail to see how "has a thin coating of another metal" = "thin coating process".

But again, I see your lack of understanding what you are reading and context is showing through. Especially after this:


Stainless steel is the name given to a group of corrosion resistant and high temperature steels. Their remarkable resistance to corrosion is due to a chromium-rich oxide film which forms on the surface. When ordinary carbon steel is exposed to rain water, for example, it corrodes forming a brown iron oxide, commonly called rust, on the surface. This is not protective and eventually the entire piece of steel will corrode and be converted to rust. But when enough chromium (more than about 10%) is added to ordinary steel, the oxide on the surface is transformed - it is very thin, virtually invisible and protective in a wide range of corrosive media. This is what we call stainless steel and there are several different types, and many different grades.


www.nickelinstitute.org...

Ahh wow. You know, I believe what happened here is that the site I used is more for the layman using easier to understand terms and ideas. It was more "dumb-ed down" for easier understanding for people who are not interested in the whole technical reasoning. However, since you obviously did not bother to look farther into the matter, you would have discovered that what was said is in effect true! It is just that this page was not for hardcore researchers, but more for common folk to get a general understanding of what was being explained.

So in the "wise-geek" site they took this: "Their remarkable resistance to corrosion is due to a chromium-rich oxide film which forms on the surface."
and simplified it to this: "has a thin coating of another metal".

See? Simplified for the common man!

heh, I'm surprised you didnt manage to figure this out, or at least understand the context. sorry rhunter, better luck next time.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


And some more information on the safe handling of iron ore in different forms, and how to make sure the ship is safe from having the iron from rusting and heating up.

www.hbia.org...

rhunter, if iron rusting is so safe and the heat so small, then why the heck are the iron ore carriers so afraid of their loads of iron ore from heating up and creating a problem? I mean, like you said, how can iron rusting create light, flames and heat? Well as you can see, it can.

Heh, hey no harm no foul! I do hope some people learned something here today. Our little talk on what oxidation is, what is an exothermic reaction, what types of exothermic reactions are there, how iron rusting in a large pile can heat up to dangerous levels. Ahh, research research research!



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


I think this answers a little bit of how the mixture could have been created:

www.911research.wtc7.net...


A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron.


Now therm*te burns at a VERY high temperature. The did not find therm*te level temps anywhere in the debris or steel recovered.

Now as to when this occurred can be guessed, but my bet is already deep in the piles and debris after the collapses.

Its important to investigate the more common explanations first, before jumping to more outrageous or extreme ideas. Like when a plane crashes, it better to investigate the probable (realisitic) causes of the crash, rather than jumping the gun and saying a UFO shot it down, or gremlins are what caused the in-flight failure. I'm just sayin folks!



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Now therm*te burns at a VERY high temperature. The did not find therm*te level temps anywhere in the debris or steel recovered.


Therm*te level temperatures could only be directly detected if measurements were taken while the thermitic reactions were occurring, before the steel cooled. It's a fast reaction and nobody was likely to be measuring steel temperatures while the buildings were being demolished.

This comes back to your denial of the abundant evidence, some of which I listed on p14, that steel was melted. I understand the bind you're in - you have to deny its existence because you have no plausible explanation for it.

Even the head of the company contracted to remove and then destroy the steel stated that "molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators."


Mike Donoho, Fire Department Chief:
What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse...
The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel.



Two weeks after the attack, the rubble, the pile, is still 7 stories tall. Below, in the pit it burns like the gates of hell. It is 1200°, so hot that the steel work lifted by the grapplers comes out soft. I've never seen anything like this.



Abolhassan Astaneh, the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel:
I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center


World Trade Center Hot Spots


Ground Zero official:
Eight weeks later we still got fires burning. Every now and then one of the pieces of equipment will dig in - we'll open up a small area, the oxygen will rush in and you'll get this plume of brown black smoke coming up. That's because that fire just got more oxygen. So I mean these things are burning - at one point I think they were about 2800°.



The grapplers were pulling stuff out, er, big sections of iron that were literally on fire on the other end. They would hit the air and burst into flames, which was pretty spooky to see.



This fused element of molten steel and concrete and all of these things all fused by the heat into one single element.


9/11: WTC high temperatures & molten steel

Professor Niels Harrit interviewed by Alex Jones, May 1st, 09:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
To all the folk reading this, you have to consider the fact that "BS baffles..."...

Take note of the scientific argument on the part of the debunkers...long words, lots of scientific gobbledygook.... are these folk really soooo clever or are they using the "BS baffles" technique ??
I suspect the latter...

Also notice the "putdowns" used to insult or mock the so called truther...


Regardless of their tripe, please never forget thae fact that NO steel hi rise structure in the History of Mankind has ever collapsed as a result of fire....NEVER.

Yet on 9/11 3...yes 3 fell down...heck, one of them never even had contact with planes, let alone jet fuel "softening(for the first time ever)the steel till it was so soft it was comprimised....no plane!!

See through their trickery...research...investigate....then see the debunkers for what they really are.....people who have an unspoken agenda .



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
Regardless of their tripe, please never forget thae fact that NO steel hi rise structure in the History of Mankind has ever collapsed as a result of fire....NEVER.

Yet on 9/11 3...yes 3 fell down...heck, one of them never even had contact with planes, let alone jet fuel "softening(for the first time ever)the steel till it was so soft it was comprimised....no plane!!


Well, if you're gonna go that route, then it's also the case that never in the history of mankind has a million eyewitnesses see an aircraft hit a building, and turn out to not actually be an aircraft.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


"BS baffles"...

There's a professional engineer here with the username Valhalla, actually the wife of one of the 3 amigo's I think, and she was absolutely disgusted with NIST's assertion that creep could lead to a global collapse scenario within a 2-hour time period, creep being a phenomena that in all other cases takes long periods of time and results in certain kinds of deformations only, not shear failures, etc. I remember her even saying that a NIST employee was once on one of her engineering teams, and she fired him, because she said she had no respect whatsoever for NIST's competence after reading that report. It's in posts on this website somewhere.

And she doesn't (or at least didn't) think it was an inside job, and bashed conspiracy theorists for the longest time before reading that report. Being as how her job puts her with similar responsibilities as the people who made that report, I think that's why she couldn't ignore how lame it was.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Interesting, it's no wonder nobody could figure this thing out, technology was used on 9/11 that we had no clue about at the time.


Ive been saying this for some time now. Its HOW they got away with it.

You cant consider what you dont know exists. Lets face it, there was a MASSIVE jump in technology from 1995 to 2001 (you only need to look at how far the home personal computer advanced in that time to get an understanding of the leap technology took), much of which still hasnt been revealed to this day.

It was this the perpetrators of 9/11 took advantage of to create their 'New Pearl Harbour' which they knew wouldnt be revealed for many years to come.



[edit on 3-5-2009 by Nonchalant]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
This discovery, confirming earlier work by Steven Jones, does not prove that there was a conspiracy to blow up WTC1 and WTC2. The US government can always admit in the last resort that super-thermite was sprayed onto beams and girders in the two towers YEARS before 9/11 in order to assist their controlled demolition when the decision was eventually made to bring them down, this being kept secret for commercial reasons. A major component of the claims made by the 9/11 truth movement proving conspiracy can therefore be easily refuted.

Instead of being a smoking gun, this gun fires only blanks!



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


As many people do, you forgot WTC 7.

So they primed all three buildings (and how many other skyscrapers?) with nano-thermites causing them to self-destruct during a fire, then instigated a multimillion dollar report to cover it up - but there's no conspiracy, no smoking gun!

Besides, the destruction would have been piecemeal and asymmetrical if fire was the trigger. What triggered the super-thermite to take out the structure below the fires?


[edit on 3-5-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What does an engineer firing a NIST employee have to do with Jones' assertion that thermitic material was found in the dust from the WTC? If she wishes to post on Jones paper, she is welcome. Second hand opinions don't add to the discussion.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 

The Jones paper confirms nothing other than Jones' team screwed up when they ran the DSC in air other than an inert gas.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


it's not just jones that wrote the paper.


Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen


why do you keep using the debunkers' whipping boy as the sole author?



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Thermitic material is Jones' claim to fame and it is what he is working to prove in spite of the evidence. He and Harrit are the corresponding authors and I believe Jones to be the true driving force behind the paper. He had the samples and set the agenda hence, I refer to the paper as Jones' paper.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

posted by billybob
reply to post by pteridine
 


it's not just jones that wrote the paper.


Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen


why do you keep using the debunkers' whipping boy as the sole author?


Niels Harrit has been Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, for 37 years. Professor Harrit was interviewed on two of the most respected Danish television channels and his research and the claims of the article was treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.

Apparently Professor Harrit is the foremost researcher of the Article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust).





The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark.

At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2).

On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.

The first interview has been subtitled in English.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


An associate professorship after 37 years is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Regardless, the DSC was done improperly and the conclusions are not valid. Jones provided the samples and the agenda. Herrit signed on and blew the analyses.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join