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: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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?


The difference being that when saying "nano-sized", we don't mean just a few particles being nano-sized, we mean all of them. Now, if you can produce all particles being nano from sandpaper, I'd like to see it. Not to mention that you'd save the nanoenergenic industry millions of dollars in production costs each year.




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

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


It is a Vanity Journal. This means you pay to get published.


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.


Well, you of course are entitled to your opinion. Many people (including truthers) correspond with him. I find him to be a pretty intelligent man.


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


Jones is an author of this paper.


i can agree with some of mackey's comments, but they don't undo the facts from the paper. the chips are thermitic, period.


Facts were omitted from the paper. So to conclude that the results of this paper our factual is inappropriate. The authors need to show what type of paint they used and what type of paints were used at the WTC.



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.


It depends how much you would need to get the needed effect. Would a 1/16 of an inch of therm*te be sufficient to cause the damage needed? I don't know.


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.


Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001
www.ehponline.org...


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


Your opinion is noted.


Do you happen to have anything that he has done that is wrong? I am not saying he is perfect, but if he is in err, I am sure he would like it brought to his attention.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

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


Did he make a mistake regarding Jones & Co.?

He always said nice things about you Griff.


Anyway, there is a Metallurgist at JREF. He has criticized this paper and does not agree with the conclusions.

If you are interested:

I am looking at the possibility that the material that Jones has is Kaolin or China Clay and Iron Oxide (not sure of the exact type, but I'm coming to the conclusion that it is Fe2O3 commonly known as haematite or red iron oxide). Both of these substances are widely used in the paint industry.


forums.randi.org...



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


I didn't mean to slight him at all. Just saying he probably doesn't have the background nor expertise to do a review. Now, pteridine seems to know what he's talking about. I'd much rather see him review the paper if he has the credentials.

It would be like me wanting to review the paper. I can't because I don't have the expertise in the matter. Just because someone is smart (Mackey) doesn't mean they can review everything. Hence the name peer review.




[edit on 4/6/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 4/6/2009 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
who makes paint that IGNITES at 430˚C?

nice try, debunko squad. actually, lame try.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


430 C in air will oxidize organic materials. That is 806 F, about the temp of a self cleaning oven.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Yes, but since we know that typical fires can reach ceiling temps to 1000C (as argued day-by-day here and elsewhere), wouldn't a paint that spontaneously, energetically (meaning explosively) combusts at half that temperature be a real hazard to buildings?

So, again, get on the ball and let OSHA know already.


BTW, since you feel that this is paint/primer can you post which paint/primer you suspect it to be so that we can check the combustion temperature on the MSDS sheet. Thanks.

That would be dry combustion temperature not when it is still wet.

[edit on 4/6/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 4/6/2009 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 

Griff,
I do not know what paint it is by brand and comparison data from that time period might be limited, anyway. It could even be the interface between the exterior columns and their aluminum covers. Analyses would indicate that possibility. Jones', et al., estimates of the amounts of material present in the dust almost preclude anything but a coating on the surface of the building structural members.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


So, in other words, you have nothing to refute on except your opinion. Well noted.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


BTW, since you feel that this is paint/primer can you post which paint/primer you suspect it to be so that we can check the combustion temperature on the MSDS sheet. Thanks.



If you're interested:


Yes we damn well do. That's what i've been trying to tell you a) I'm a materials scientist and b) I can evaluate Jones's paper c) I've shown that the material that he has is NOT thermite it's a layer of MIO (which is widely used in anti-corrosion paint) with a layer of red paint more than likely to be kaolin, Fe2O3 rhomboidal crystals and some sort of Carbon based binder (eg: urethane or epoxy etc)

"Sunstealer" at JREF: forums.randi.org...



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Yes we damn well do. That's what i've been trying to tell you a) I'm a materials scientist and b) I can evaluate Jones's paper c) I've shown that the material that he has is NOT thermite it's a layer of MIO (which is widely used in anti-corrosion paint) with a layer of red paint more than likely to be kaolin, Fe2O3 rhomboidal crystals and some sort of Carbon based binder (eg: urethane or epoxy etc)



If there is a grain of truth to this, so call Debunker, materials scientist evaluation, I would like to see his research. I would like to see his photos, compared to Jones analysis. Then I would like to see Mr Material’s scientist Debunker work put up for peer review.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

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...


Pardon me if I don't accept claims of some anonymous guy named "Mackey"from the "randi" internet message board



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

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]


YOU just have to prove several men of Arabic descent defeated the greatest military power in human history with boxcutters. Brought down 3 steel framed skyscrapers in NYC with 2 aircraft, then got through the greatest air defense system ever devised by man after it had been alerted to the presence of airborne enemies to attack the HQ building of the US Armed Forces.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


If there is a grain of truth to this, so call Debunker, materials scientist evaluation, I would like to see his research. I would like to see his photos, compared to Jones analysis. Then I would like to see Mr Material’s scientist Debunker work put up for peer review.


Go to the link... and as soon as Jones paper is properly reviewed... Im sure he can do the same.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Yes we damn well do. That's what i've been trying to tell you a) I'm a materials scientist and b) I can evaluate Jones's paper c) I've shown that the material that he has is NOT thermite it's a layer of MIO (which is widely used in anti-corrosion paint) with a layer of red paint more than likely to be kaolin, Fe2O3 rhomboidal crystals and some sort of Carbon based binder (eg: urethane or epoxy etc)



If there is a grain of truth to this, so call Debunker, materials scientist evaluation, I would like to see his research. I would like to see his photos, compared to Jones analysis. Then I would like to see Mr Material’s scientist Debunker work put up for peer review.


No real materials scientist would make a screw-up like this. From the text of the paper itself p-15-17 ...

"...2. Test Using Methyl Ethyl Ketone Solvent
By employing some means to separate the different
components of the material, the chemical compositions of
the different particles in the red layer were more accurately
determined. The initial objective was to compare the behavior
of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic
solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray
chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55
hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air
over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of
the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked
contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when
similarly soaked in MEK. It was discovered in this process
that a significant migration and segregation of aluminum had
occurred in the red-chip material. This allowed us to assess
whether some of the aluminum was in elemental form...."

They tested the red/grey chips AND paint chips in methyl ethyl ketone solvent. The red/gray chips did not dissolve in the solvent, the paint chips did.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blazers7




No real materials scientist would make a screw-up like this. From the text of the paper itself p-15-17 ...



......They tested the red/grey chips AND paint chips in methyl ethyl ketone solvent. The red/gray chips did not dissolve in the solvent, the paint chips did.


You are correct....what kind of scientist writes a paper and fails to tell you what kind of paint was used. (the truther scientists failed to disclose this.)

Mr. Jones has been caught being a wee bit disingenuous. Go to the link provided above and look into the "independent" testing he claims to have done a couple years ago.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blazers7


Pardon me if I don't accept claims of some anonymous guy named "Mackey"from the "randi" internet message board


Ryan Mackey is far from anonymous. HE is a scientist from NASA.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Blazers7




No real materials scientist would make a screw-up like this. From the text of the paper itself p-15-17 ...



......They tested the red/grey chips AND paint chips in methyl ethyl ketone solvent. The red/gray chips did not dissolve in the solvent, the paint chips did.


You are correct....what kind of scientist writes a paper and fails to tell you what kind of paint was used. (the truther scientists failed to disclose this.)

Mr. Jones has been caught being a wee bit disingenuous. Go to the link provided above and look into the "independent" testing he claims to have done a couple years ago.


Data you recommended has already provided this thread a fraudulent claim to expertise in materials science. I think you should worry about you own problems in recognizing poor evidence.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Blazers7


Pardon me if I don't accept claims of some anonymous guy named "Mackey"from the "randi" internet message board


Ryan Mackey is far from anonymous. HE is a scientist from NASA.


I accept nothing from an internet message board.

Here's why...

fakesteve.blogspot.com...

There's LOTS of people on the internet claiming to be lots of people. Few of them actually admit up front they are fakes, though.

The real Ryan Mackey from NASA will know how to get whatever information he wants out there formally released.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
delete double post

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Blazers7]




top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join