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: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Pot shot one: It is a high school lab method because high school labs have neither the instrumentation nor expertise to analyze complex substances. Using unknown paint with unknown characteristics and drawing conclusions based on the effect of MEK on the various unknown paints as compared to the sample is bad science. Actually, it is not science at all. The professors get an "F" and that is one reason why this will never be seen in a peer reviewed journal in its present form.

Pot shot two: Stevie Jones is a publicity hound without scientific scruples. This is apparent in his foolish attempt to claim that his captive "journal" is peer reviewed. Whose peers? His peers. They have conclusions and are finding and inventing data to fit. Jones was booted out of the University for cause and is over-reaching his technical skills. The only people he is fooling are those without technical backgrounds.

[edit on 4/5/2009 by pteridine]




posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Griff
 


Pot shot one: It is a high school lab method because high school labs have neither the instrumentation nor expertise to analyze complex substances. Using unknown paint with unknown characteristics and drawing conclusions based on the effect of MEK on the various unknown paints as compared to the sample is bad science. Actually, it is not science at all. The professors get an "F" and that is one reason why this will never be seen in a peer reviewed journal in its present form.

Pot shot two: Stevie Jones is a publicity hound without scientific scruples. This is apparent in his foolish attempt to claim that his captive "journal" is peer reviewed. Whose peers? His peers. They have conclusions and are finding and inventing data to fit. Jones was booted out of the University for cause and is over-reaching his technical skills. The only people he is fooling are those without technical backgrounds.

[edit on 4/5/2009 by pteridine]


I expect you will be peer reviewing this then? I'll bet Dr. Jones will not mind. I'm sure his and his partners would welcome it.

And I'll guarantee this: They will be more transparent in their methodologies and data than NIST was/is.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


The way this peer review process works is that the paper is submitted to a journal for publication. The editors then screen the paper and, if it meets criteria for their journal, they send the paper out for review. They can use the suggested reviewers provided by the author or can select their own. Usually they do a little of each. Three reviewers are usually a minimum for a journal; on important or controversial papers four or five are sometimes used.
If a Journal editor sends it to me, I would be glad to review the paper for publication. As it now stands, no Journal would publish it without significant rewrite....other than the captive Jones Journal.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I meant to write to them so that they can be schooled in their methodology. Since you know how the testing should be done, I'm sure they would appreciate your input. Question is: Would you be willing to "help" them out?



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 

Send me a U2U with a mailing address.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Griff
 

Send me a U2U with a mailing address.


With a little ingenuity, I went to the actual paper and found one:


Jeffrey Farrer
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by wasaamerican
Could there have been thermite in the airplanes???? Just a question.

Not a practical plan. Igniting it on impact would have been obvious. To do any damage, there would have to be tons of the stuff, and to melt beams it would need contact for seconds to minutes.


there was a post on ATS about a computer engineer that said that the power was cut for a period of 36 hours the weekend before, even security camera power was off, and there men in the building doing work that had no badge or indentifying company logos on any of their clothing. the computer engineer said that he was on the 97 floor over the weekend to monitor the shutdown. i'm paraphrasing, but i'll try and find the article.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff,
I thought that you had an inside track with a special address. I'll get to this sometime next week and post the same comments on the board when I mail it.
It will be interesting to see what happens and if they rebut my comments or edit their paper. [Part of the review process is that the author gets the comments back, anonymously, through the editor, and must address the comments. The author can do as the reviewer suggests or can rebut the comments with counter-argument showing that the criticism is not valid. The editor has the final say and can force compliance or allow the portions in question to stand.]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I meant to write to them so that they can be schooled in their methodology. Since you know how the testing should be done, I'm sure they would appreciate your input. Question is: Would you be willing to "help" them out?



Mackey was asked to be a reviewer for the paper that published this. He refused. They told him if he were to review papers there, he would have to submit his own at least once a year. (with a 50% discount!)

Mackey did read the paper and stated that he would have flunked it:

forums.randi.org...



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Mackey was asked to be a reviewer for the paper that published this. He refused. They told him if he were to review papers there, he would have to submit his own at least once a year. (with a 50% discount!)

Mackey did read the paper and stated that he would have flunked it:

forums.randi.org...



ryan mackey saysMaybe Dr. Jones should join Bentham. He seems to like publishing there, and I imagine they'd offer him the discount as well.


so, if he didn't join, how did they publish this paper?
looks like mackey could have published his first one free. lame excuse.

mackey is a lousy debunker. just good at obfuscation and misdirection like any two bit illusionist. he also talks out of one side of his mouth. i wonder if that's a physical, or a psychosomatic thing.

funny thing, too. it's not jones' paper. there are many authors from varied disciplines that produced it. it is quite robust.

i can agree with some of mackey's comments, but they don't undo the facts from the paper. the chips are thermitic, period. in my opinion, even if the thermite was a thin painted on layer, does not prove it wasn't explosive microthermite. in fact, painting it on would be a stealthy way of rigging the building.
also, only thin chips were found, but that was AFTER the demolition. any larger samples would have been destroyed as they destroyed the building, leaving the characteristic iron microshperes, which are ALSO to be found in the dust.

for a scientist, mackey's not very good at putting two and two together.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 

The chips burn in the presence of air. If they were thermitic, they would react under an inert atmosphere. That has not been shown, so you have no way of knowing if they are "thermitic."



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Active Thermite????? I highly doubt it. With a building of that size, there are miles of high capacity wiring for any number of uses. The power requirements of the TV transmission floors would probably be enough to supply a city of 20,000 residents. This large diameter wiring does not use ordinary connectors, as they can weaken due to heating. What is typically used to connect these lengths of wire together, especially the grounding wires, is a process known as "CADWELDING" (look that up in wikipedia or google). The process places a mold around the two wires to be joined and powdered metal is poured in. This powder consists primarily of Aluminum and either Iron Oxide, Tin or Copper. The powder is ignited and the two lengths of wire are permanently joined. The connection is not affected by either heating or flexing. The wire itself will fail, before the weld will. Cadwelding is often required, for use in lightning arrestor wiring. The powder burns unbelievably hot, for the few seconds it takes to complete the weld. It is, in many ways, exactly like thermite. The fact that a building like the WTC might have had cadwelding materials in it, is of absolutely no surprise to me. I would be more surprised if it were not found in small amounts. The one similarity that cadwelding powder and real thermite have in common is that they are both relatively difficult to ignite.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Yes, because a systems safety manager has the right background, experience and education to be a reviewer.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Two of the contributors discuss the background, process and implications of the paper, just before publication with Visibility9/11 in the following podcasts:

Kevin Ryan interview

Talks about how NIST blankly refused to test for explosives residues.

Prof. Steven E. Jones interview

Talks about the peer-review process in relation to the publication, confirmatory experiments done by other scientists and attempts to debunk the findings.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

One of the most intriguing aspects of NIST’s diversionary posture has been their total
lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the
substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and
Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators
(Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only
after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to
their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.
The extensive evidence that explosives were used at the WTC includes witness testimony


www.democraticunderground.com...



I have no dought that themite/thermate. Was the leading cause that was used to demolish the WTC. We can clearly see in the photos below of Thermit, thermate running down the side of the WTC, there is no disputing this, and we can clearly see in the photos of the molten pools of steel it so hot that it is still glowing weeks later



Thermite Experiment
www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

Actually there is quite a bit to dispute and no real evidence for any thermite or thermate. BTW, your writing is very similar to that of WonderwomanUSA who has been banned, for some reason.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



Can you explain how this aluminum became nano-sized?


I think too much is being made out of this "nano-sized" moniker. If by "nano sized" you mean, "really tiny particles" then I would have thought it would be obvious- when the towers collapsed, everything was banging against everything else, and huge amounts of aluminum particles would have been scraped/rubbed off the sheathing by simple friction, the same way you wind up with nano-particles of wood after rubbing sandpaper over a board. You saw the videos of the collapse Just as I have. Hou could there -not- be particles of aluminum scraped off?




Weak argument. First, you say it would take tons of thermite, but yet you think fire did the exact same thing.


No, actually, the reverse would be true- you claim the fires damaging critical points of the building could not have caused the type of domino effect of structural failure that we saw, and yet you claim that demolitions planted in those same critical points could have.

The difference is, we definitely know aircraft smacked into the towers, we definitely know there were fires up at the ninety-somethingth floor, where the aircraft hit, and we definitely know that's the point where the towers started to collapse. It is your thermite demolition claim which is the hypothesis.




Second, if this material is easily applied (like a paint) who is going to be the wiser?


Weak argument. Thermite doesn't explode. It simply burns really hot. Such a paper thin layer of thermite would have burned off immediately when the aircraft's tens of thousands of aviation fuel ignited.




You've seen photos of every piece of steel? Wow, you got a better look than the NIST team then.


I am referring to Joel Mayerowitz' Photographs, and he took many, many photos of the debris during the cleanup of ground zero, including the support beams. He obviously didn't photograph every single one, but the problem for you is that for even one beam to have been snapped like a twig, it necessarily means the force of the collapse was sufficient enough to destroy them by itself, without the need of any demolitions.




I would say un-reacted thermitic chemicals is "a whisper of evidence" left behind. Eh? I wonder why NIST still refuses to do an analysis of the steel for chemical residues?


This is circular logic. You cannot show the remains in question are thermitic compounds and not remains that should naturally be found in the debris given the construction of the towers, so you cannot claim it is evidence of anything unusual.




"Yeah, It's fun to hypothesize conspiracies as a mental exercise, but trying to flesh them out in the real world doesn't always work. If anything I posted is incorrect, please enlighten me."

Your wish is my command.


I do thank you for your response, and I do appreciate your point of view, but I cannot say it really disproves anything I said.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 




Just curious why you wouldn't believe the firefighters who saw flashing lights during the detonations and who said it looked just like a controlled demolition, or the WTC building engineer who heard explosions from the sub-levels both before and after the planes impacted the towers?


I do believe the firefighters who say there were explosions. We heard explosions ourselves during the news casts. I'n not refuting there were explosions. I'm refuting the claim these had to be explosives, rather than the gazillion flammable items in the building that would naturally explode when they catch on fire I.E. fuel tanks for the backup generators, high voltage power transformers, etc.



It's one thing to conclude it would've been too massive and sophisticated to be a controlled demolition, but another to ignore or dismiss the MANY witnesses who heard "secondary explosions" or the firefighters and law enforcement who warned of "secondary devices."


Without meaning to, you just refuted your own claim. Controlled demolitions are set of in mathematically calculated sequences to make the building fall down the way they want it to. they wouldn't be going off in random intervals, as flammable objects would when the fires reached them in turn.

You likewise refuted the claim these were thermite charges. Thermite doesn't explode. It just burns really really hot, so the firefighters would never have seen nor heard them from outside the building.



Not true. There are many photos of standing girders at the base cut at an angle. I've also read posts from professional salvage workers who say they'd NEVER cut beams at an angle. It's not only much more difficult, but highly dangerous.


That makes no sense whatsoever. They would need to cut them at an angle to control the direction they'd fall. I do the same thing when I cut down trees. I don't want to get hit by some big falling thing any more than they do.



What makes you think Bush was anything more than a trained chimp who did what he was told? If you think Cheney, Rumsfeld and the PNAC "New Pearl Harbor" cabal was incapable of pulling this off, well, you should think again.


Unless you're claiming that Cheney et al., went around and personally planted the explosives themselves, you'll need to concede they'd require the help of the exact same infrastructure of public service goofballs that Bush would.


It's a much bigger stretch to argue that 9/11 could've been missed by U.S. intelligence agencies or intercepted by fighter jets over several hours by the world's most sophisticated military.


The sophistication of our military had nothing to do with it. It was compounded human error, from one intelligence agency refusing to share information with another, to security personnel crapping out on their responsibilities, to the chain of command failing to relay instructions properly. The 9/11 commission report explains the failings better than I can, here.


For anyone who's taken the time and effort to investigate 9/11 beyond the ridiculous and impossible official story, it's way beyond hypothesis, but there's nothing fun about it. To think that our own government is capable of first degree mass murder of their own citizens is horrific and unsettling.


You misunderstand me. Have all the 9/11 investigations you want, as far as I'm concerned. We know it was an iceberg that sank the Titanic but all the researchers visiting the wreck are still turning up interesting facts.

The question, however, is, since you obviously want to believe it was a conspiracy, would you honestly accept any investigation if it didn't certify it was all the result of a conspiracy? If not, then having any further investigations will be moot.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Actually there is quite a bit to dispute and no real evidence for any thermite or thermate.


This thread is not about me, so stay on topic.

Your statement of thermite, or thermate is only your “opinion” do you care to show real evidences that there wasn’t any thermite, or thermate at the WTC. (I guess not!)

What would you call the melting steel that is running down the side of the WTC before it was blown to bits? In addition, do not say it was the aircraft fuel burning because the firers are out where the impact hole is. What ever it is, it is so “hot” that it is practically glowing as the liquid steel pours down the side of the trade center.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 


Actually there is quite a bit to dispute and no real evidence for any thermite or thermate.


This thread is not about me, so stay on topic.

Your statement of thermite, or thermate is only your “opinion” do you care to show real evidences that there wasn’t any thermite, or thermate at the WTC. (I guess not!)

What would you call the melting steel that is running down the side of the WTC before it was blown to bits? In addition, do not say it was the aircraft fuel burning because the firers are out where the impact hole is. What ever it is, it is so “hot” that it is practically glowing as the liquid steel pours down the side of the trade center.


Impressme,
Here's the way this works: You claim thermite/thermate and you have to prove that it was there, I don't have to prove that it wasn't. So far, the paper in question hasn't proved anything of the sort.
What would I call the molten material running out of the building before the collapse sequence? Molten material of an unknown composition. You say it is steel but there is no evidence for that.


[edit on 4/6/2009 by pteridine]



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join