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: 8
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   


Some of these internet scientists should study the research paper before
posting their comic relief.

Here are direct quotes from the study:



When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.




Now we compare a DSC trace obtained
for a WTC red/gray chip with a DSC trace obtained
for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29)).
Ordinary thermite ignites at a much higher temperature
(about 900 °C or above) and gives a significantly broader
trace than super-thermite [21].





7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?
We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter
in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the
formula:
Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L
= thickness (m).
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately
10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically
over 1010 ohm-m [31].
Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with
agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On
the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK
solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as
expected since MEK is a paint solvent.



As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts
vigorously at a temperature of approximately
430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching
fairly closely an independent observation on a known
super-thermite sample.


Did you read that kids? They compared the reaction of these 'chips' to a
known super-thermite sample.

Would any of these briliant duhbunkers like to post up a report on what
happens when you iginite paint chips and/or kaolinite?



We note
that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the
total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests
exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic
thermite reaction.


^^^See that ^^^ kids? The chips examined and ignited in their DSC
tests produced an energy release that EXCEEDS the theoretical maximum
of thermite.

Paint? kaolinite?


Try submitting that as a rebuttal to the peer reviewed paper. Until then,
you're just a failure...and a funny one at that.




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Paint chips? They are so desprerate the debunkers can make all the claims against the active thermitic material all they like, but the truth is starting to shine through with science. The paint chip science does “not” stand up to the debunkers claims. I have been saying this for years that explosives where planted in those towers.

Science is our weapon against those who protect the truth. It is so funny how every government agency that has been involved in the 911 deceptions, has done their best to stonewall, or hand-wave any studies of explosive being used to bring down all the WTC, the harder these agency avoid the issues, the guilty they started to look. (Frankly, it stinks of cover-up) After this wonderful report is peer reviewed and “accepted” in the Journal of Science, then we can start concentrating on proven which part of our government was involved in planting those explosives in all the WTC, and holding these traitors accountable for treason and mass murder. It was just a matter of time before this was going to happened, this is what happened when a government gets so corrupt and “greedy” I can’t say I am surprised. I will not forget how the Bush administration did everything in their power to not look into the events of 911. (Just silences) It took 18 months to “force” the Bush administration to put a commission together because the people in this country demanded some real answers, but all we got so far was nothing but LIES! It hurts me to say this, but I feel our government was complicit in the 911 attacks and the evidences that has been uncovered during these eight years, and the science that has been used is airtight.


[edit on 15-4-2009 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   




The truth may "shine through with science" but it doesn't shine very brightly with this black hole of a paper. Good science is not about politics and a scientist will follow the evidence. As has been pointed out throughout this thread, Jones doesn't do good science and is trying to force conclusions that support his position. It is either extremely bad science or fraud. Is Jones so blinded by his desire for the limelight that he would falsify conclusions or is he just completely incompetent? This is a conundrum that has yet to be answered. He seems to write conclusions, throw in some fancy analytical work to impress those who have no expertise in the area, and then hop on a soapbox to proclaim the "truth."

As to this "wonderful" paper being peer reviewed and accepted in any technical journal, other than a vanity publisher, that will not happen with the paper in its present state. It is so poorly written that it may not be able to be resuscitated at all, even with additional experimental work. The conclusions that Jones arrives at are completely unsupported by evidence and his analytical protocol ranges from faulty to nonexistent.

Jones, et al., flunked the exam.

[edit on 4/15/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


When DSC is run to show a reaction that does not need air, it is not very clever to run it in air. When things are heated in air, they tend to burn. Sawdust in the sample boat would have shown an exotherm. Jones apparently does not understand this point.

The paper is poor beyond all recovery. That is why it was published in a vanity journal. That means that the authors had to pay someone to print it, like a newspaper ad. The analytical evidence is misinterpreted at nearly every step. Conclusions are not valid and seem to be predetermined. The analytical protocol borders on the laughable; comparison of solvent resistance and electrical conductivity prove nothing except that the authors are frauds or incompetents.

Please take your own advice and read the paper for content before commenting. I will await your detailed technical review and rebuttal of the criticisms that I have made.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   




Thank you. Without realizing it, you only wound up proving whay I myself have been saying for years- the theorists' are so much in love with their conspiracy stories that it's become almost a matter of faith for them. Like the theologists' unrealistically pointing to some shroud with a vague outline of a dead guy on it as "proof of God's miracles", they will likewise point to anything that happens to come along which has even a veneer of support for their conspiracies, and willfully turn a blind eye to all evidence that does not. They're not out to find the truth. They're out to showcase what they themselves want to believe regardless of what the truth actually is.

The fact of the matter is, by this report's own admission this material was found in four separate locations to the north, south, east, AND west of where the towers stood. Mathematical chance alone states this necessarily means the material had to have come from a gigantically large source for it to have even been found, and the most obvious gigantically large source of iron and aluminum in the area was the towers themselves.

This material almost certainly came from the structure itself. Some believe it came from the paint, while I believe it was from the structural materials itself, but regardless of where it came from there is still sufficient doubt against the findings of this report. To scream "Thermite" in mindless knee jerk reflex while ignoring the towers themselves contained 100,000,000 times the amount of raw ingredients for Thermite than any of these hypothetical demo charges could ever have contained, is being intellectually dishonest.

I wish I didn't I didn't have to say that, as I do believe your intentions are good, but there is no other way to describe what's going on.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


This is the same dribble I've read on other forums and it has already
been addressed by the authors here:

www.911blogger.com...

I wont speak for the scientists who conducted the study about the DSC
tests. What I'll do is submit your question directly to the team and post
their response.

You should however note the control sample used to compare with
the dust sample 'chips'. The energy release profile exceeds the curve
produced by Fe[2]O[3]/Al

So, what you're telling me is that your mixture of airplane parts and
WTC steel somehow outperforms nano-thermite?


When are you going to publish this discovery and blow away the authors
of the report?

Why don't you explain this in the mean time:

procision-auto.com...

How did the top of this tower blow apart before the floors beneath the
impact zone began to descend? Have YOU looked at the evidence?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Who said the top of the tower blew apart? Did you not notice the top of the tower already moving down BEFORE that cloud of dust and debris? Did you miss the part of the exterior columns bending INWARDS prior to collapse? Please elaborate as to what type of magical explosive can cause beams to bend inwards silently less than a minute before collapse?



So why is the building tilting over, BEFORE any visible debris being ejected? and again, why are those pesky columns bending inwards instead of outwards as expected with "powerful magical super duper therm*te explosives pixy dust"?




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The truth may "shine through with science" but it doesn't shine very brightly with this black hole of a paper.


What black hole?


Good science is not about politics and a scientist will follow the evidence.


Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, and what politics are these people following? You say good science is not about politics I will agree with you on that, however, the NIST, FEMA, 911 Commission reports all followed Bush politics don’t you agree?


As has been pointed out throughout this thread, Jones doesn't do good science and is trying to force conclusions that support his position.


Would you care to demonstrate that Jones doesn’t practice good science?


It is either extremely bad science or fraud.


Show some proof of your accusations. I do not see any facts here to support your claims. Where is this fraud that you mention, or are you just spouting your opinions again.


Is Jones so blinded by his desire for the limelight that he would falsify conclusions or is he just completely incompetent?


Would you care to back up your statements with some facts of Pro Jones falsifying conclusion? Incompetent? You have to be kidding right!


This is a conundrum that has yet to be answered.


Oh, it has been solved; it was explosives that brought down the WTC.


He seems to write conclusions, throw in some fancy analytical work to impress those who have no expertise in the area, and then hop on a soapbox to proclaim the "truth."


This is nothing but your opinion, and your desperate attempts to sabotage Pro Jones’ creditability; where is your proof?


As to this "wonderful" paper being peer reviewed and accepted in any technical journal, other than a vanity publisher, that will not happen with the paper in its present state. It is so poorly written that it may not be able to be resuscitated at all, even with additional experimental work.


You seem to show a genuine dislike for Jones and his scientific journals and I do not understand why. What is wrong with using science to prove something else did happened to the WTC other than the OS.


The conclusions that Jones arrives at are completely unsupported by evidence and his analytical protocol ranges from faulty to nonexistent.

Jones, et al., flunked the exam.


Really, why don’t you demonstrate just how Professor Jones conclusions are completely unsupported by his own science? (Oh that’s right you can’t!)



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
So what? What do bending columns have in common with exploding
upper floors?

Where is the other half of the top section in the linked photo?
I thought the upper mass was supposed to crush 1000 feet of tower?

Tell me you don't see that the upper floor section is reduced to about
half, and the remaining tower shown by the red line hasn't moved?
Go ahead, tell me you don't see it.

Here's a frame by frame analysis of the destruction. It's much better
than your tight focused camera view. Click here to observe the big,
complete progression. You can step through it at your own pace...
it's clear as day:

www.911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Thank you. Whithout realizing it you only wound up proving whay I myself have been saying for years- the theorists' are so much in love with their conspiracy stories that it's become almost a matter of faith for them.


You are certainly entitle to your opinions, however, this thread is not about conspiracy theorists love, or their faith so please stay on topic.


This material almost certainly came from the structure itself. Some believe it came from the paint, while I believe it was from the structural materials itself, but regardless of where it came from there is still sufficient doubt against the findings of this report. To scream "Thermite" in mindless knee jerk reflex while ignoring the towers themselves contained 100,000,000 times the amount of raw ingredients for Thermite than any of these hypothetical demo charges could ever have contained, is being intellectually dishonest.


So you believe it was from the structure itself, do you have any real science that supports your opinions.

You say there is “sufficient doubt” about Jones report, what scientist has made this ridiculous claim? I would love to see these so call “doubters” submit their scientific work that disproves Jones finding.


To scream "Thermite" in mindless knee jerk reflex


So you are saying that posters that do not agree with you are mindless?

As of the 100,000,000 times the raw ingredients for thermite, do you have some proof of this, which is supported by science? As of Professor Jones report being dishonest, would you care to scientifically demonstrate this?


I wish I didn't I didn't have to say that, as I do believe your intentions are good, but there is no other way to describe what's going on.


My intentions are good, I, only want the truth. I do not support he said, or she said, or opinions, I am looking for hard facts that is supported by science. The OS does not have any evidences to support it self but, hearsay, and the science that has been displayed does not stand up to par.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
 


This is the same dribble I've read on other forums and it has already
been addressed by the authors here:

www.911blogger.com...

You should however note the control sample used to compare with
the dust sample 'chips'. The energy release profile exceeds the curve
produced by Fe[2]O[3]/Al

So, what you're telling me is that your mixture of airplane parts and
WTC steel somehow outperforms nano-thermite?


My comments are based entirely on the paper and its failings. The concept that something would have more energy per gram than nanothermite seems to surprise you. Given the experimental protocol of the authors, they may think it is a discovery, too. The key part is 'kJ/gram.' When you read the paper you will see that. Obviously, elemental aluminum will have far more energy per gram than a mix of iron oxide and aluminum.
My previous posts pointed out that poor experimental design had reduced the DSC experiment to a combustion experiment.
The posts on 911blogger don't seem to say much of anything except gush about how wonderful the paper is. Apparently, there are no technically trained people on 911blogger, either.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
So what? What do bending columns have in common with exploding
upper floors?

Where is the other half of the top section in the linked photo?
I thought the upper mass was supposed to crush 1000 feet of tower?

Tell me you don't see that the upper floor section is reduced to about
half, and the remaining tower shown by the red line hasn't moved?
Go ahead, tell me you don't see it.

Here's a frame by frame analysis of the destruction. It's much better
than your tight focused camera view. Click here to observe the big,
complete progression. You can step through it at your own pace...
it's clear as day:

www.911research.wtc7.net...


First off, are you even remotely aware of the design of the WTC Towers?

Second, in order for it to move downwards, it NEEDS explosions PRIOR to any sort of descent. This is LACKING here at the WTCs. Instead what is seen is the tower moving downwards without a single "detonation" seen or heard prior to collapse. Your frame by frame analysis lacks the close up, as what is seen hapening to the exterior columns. From the close up you see the columns beanding inwards. Now where were the detonations prior to this, or beter yet, what type of explosives cause the exterior beams to bend inwards? I think you should at least know or understand this one fact about explosives and demolition: In order for the building to begin moving downwards (ie collapsing) the detonations MUST be first, not after the collapse. Do you understand this most basic concept? The floors were never "exploding" until the building started collapsing. Where were the explosions prior to the building moving downwards? You now this must be the first time where the building starts to collapse for about 5 seconds before the demo charges go off.

Third, if you answered NO to the first question, then this will probably go over your head. When the tower started to crumble, it began to telescope into itself. Yes thats right. It telescoped. You can see how the top 30 floors tilt over and down, then start to fall into the rest of the structure. The way the Towers were designed is a contributing factor to how it collapsed the way it did. What you call "explosions caused by bombs" is actually the debris and dust from thousands of tons of drywall/concrete/office supplies getting crushed and pushed out by the tremendous air pressures escaping each floor. If you bothered to research the size of each floor, take a guess how much air was in between each floor. And where will all that air go when it is trapped on top and the bottom? You can see the floors falling and "pancaking" down but the exterior columns remain standing, until the rest of the debris comes down and snaps the rest of the columns off.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I have critiqued the paper and pointed out the shortcomings throughout these posts. If you do not understand the paper or the critique, please ask specific questions and I will explain them to you in more detail.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The message to Dr. Jones has been sent. When I receive the reply,
I will post it here.

Care to give your background, and field of study? Are you an expert
in chemistry, or a related field. Are you claiming to have more
experience and knowledge than Dr. Jones, or any one of his co-authors?

Again, given the mounting evidence of explosives, do you stand by your claim that the
composition of WTC and aircraft debris can produce an energy release
greater than super-thermite?

What is your answer to my question abuot the upper block of the tower
blowing apart in the photo I linked above? How can the upper mass
lose half of the total dimension before the support structure descends?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Are you serious? Where did half of the upper block end up? it's supposed
to crush the tower, not blow itself apart.

Look at the red line...where is the other half of the upper floor section?

It used to be just as tall as the adjacent tower.

Come on...what's your answer. Tell me where the other half went, and
tell me why the tower hasn't crushed below the red line.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Turbofan,

My arguments stand on their own. You may infer what you wish of my education, experience, and credentials.

I stand by my statement regarding energy output per gram. Remember, it is a combustion experiment when run in air.

[edit on 4/15/2009 by pteridine]

[edit on 4/15/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The control sample of a known super-thermite was also tested using
DSC and gave off less energy in air!

Look at figure 29.

You're trying to tell me and everyone else that some magical debris
falling from the Twins created a more powerful reaction than nano-
thermite.

These excuses are reaching higher than ever.



[edit on 15-4-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


That is exactly what I am telling you. This is only thermodynamics, not magic. Consider the stoichiometry of the reaction. In the absence of air, aluminum reacts with iron oxide to form iron and aluminum oxide. The exotherm [heat evolved] comes from the oxidation of the aluminum. The total weight includes iron oxide, but heat evolved comes from the aluminum, so heat per gram is lower than, for example, just aluminum burning in air.
In the presence of air, anything that is combustible will provide heat. Paint binder, newspaper, anything that burns. That means that the experiment proves only that there was something combustible in the sample.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I must ask pteridine.

Why are you going on and on about combustion in open air when the towers where not in a vacuum?

Or is it usual for a paint/primer to combust more energetically than thermite/ate?

If so, have you written your paper to OSHA yet?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by pteridine
 

Why are you going on and on about combustion in open air when the towers where not in a vacuum?


One more time. The thermite reaction is a redox where elemental aluminum reduces iron oxide to elemental iron and is, in turn, oxidized to aluminum oxide. The elemental iron so produced is in a molten state which has its uses. The heat output is the result of the difference in heat of formation between iron oxide and aluminum oxide. The reaction does not need air, even if air is present.
Now consider the DSC experiment. A DSC measures heat flux, endotherms and exotherms, as the temperature is ramped up. An endotherm is heat flowing into the sample material and an exotherm is heat flowing out. When, for example, a mineral that has water of hydration in it, such as plaster of paris, is run, at some temperature the crystal structure breaks down and the water is released. The heat flowing in, the endotherm, is measured and shows up as a reverse peak [valley] on the trace. When a sample is heated in air, and has anything in it that can combust, it will burn and we will see a peak/exotherm.
If we want proof of a reaction that runs without air, we would have an inert gas, such as Argon or Helium, flowing over the sample so we could see the reaction and not have any combustion happen. If we run the reaction in air and get an exotherm, that doesn't prove the reaction. It could be the reaction or it could be combustion. Jones experiment is just that. He doesn't prove thermite because he runs the DSC in air and claims thermitic reaction. He doesn't know what it is; it could be sawdust, plastic, or chickenfat. He uses this to claim thermite but it is a false conclusion.
This is such a gross error that it casts doubt on his entire experiment and, when coupled with the embarassingly foolish "paint analysis," says that the team is generally not competent and that the paper provides no evidence for thermite.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join