Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

Originally posted by turbofan
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.

I answered your question. Did you miss it? Or handwave it away? The top of the tower TELESCOPED into the rest of the tower where the forces of the rest of the collapse tore it apart. I thought at least THAT was obvious. But I guess not.

[edit on 4/15/2009 by GenRadek]

[edit on 4/15/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by pteridine

I have critiqued the paper and pointed out the shortcomings throughout these post.

I have not seen anything that you have posted that is supported by sciences, furthermore all I have seen are your opinions, and a genuine dislike for Professor Jones.

If you do not understand the paper or the critique, please ask specific questions and I will explain them to you in more detail.

I have asked you many questions in my last post to you, and you refuse to answer any of them.

As for reviewing or critiquing Jones work, I will wait to see what “qualified” scientists have to say in their peer review.

reply to post by impressme

Earlier you said "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!) "


I can and already did. I reiterate my previous statement to you: Read my posts. In my last response to Griff, I have shown how the DSC analysis is faulty. I have explained it about as much as I can explain it without insulting people's intelligence.
Earlier, I explained how the EDAX analysis was incorrectly interpreted and how the solvent susceptibility of the chips or the ridiculous conductivity measurements were not analyses that ruled out paint.
What don't you understand?

reply to post by pteridine

Earlier, I explained how EDAX analysis was incorrectly interprrted and how the solvent susceptibility of the chips or the ridiculous conductivity measurements were not analyses that ruled out paint.
What don't you understand?

What qualifies you to make the determination that Jones’ science was wrong?
Why don’t you let us know your background that gives you the knowledge and ability to critique Jones or any scientist.

Just curious, what scientific papers of yours have been published and by which organizations or universities? Of course, I know you will provide links.

reply to post by GenRadek


I didn't miss your answer, I asked you again because the first reply
goes against the video evidence and is quite frankly pathetic.

Telescoped into the remaining structure? With core columns intact?
While on an angle? Are you mad?

Do you recall the tipping of the upper section and sudden stop?
Do you recall that only a handful of perimeter columns were cut,
and a handful of core columns?

You do know the core columns run all the way up and down the core
of the towers....correct?

So please tell me and the others how the top section telescoped into
the bottom section while still connected by perimeter, and core columns
while on an ANGLE!

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

I would imagine this team of university professors (you know, people who have obtained doctorate degrees in research) is quite competent.

Have you contacted them yet to discuss their errors? Or are you just going to discuss it on an anonymous internet discussion board?

reply to post by impressme


I choose to remain as 'pteridine' on this board. As such, there is no way to prove anything I say regarding my education or background. Based on my critiques, do you think all I did was google 'analytical chemistry' and block copy the criticisms?

Originally posted by Griff
I would imagine this team of university professors (you know, people who have obtained doctorate degrees in research) is quite competent.

Have you contacted them yet to discuss their errors? Or are you just going to discuss it on an anonymous internet discussion board?

The team may have PhD's but that does not mean that they would be error free. If, for example, the DSC were normally used for a standard analysis that was done in air, and the team borrowed it for a few runs, they may have just run it as it was without replumbing it for an inert gas sweep. It may even have been run by a graduate student who was completely unaware of the necessity for an inert gas.
Turbofan volunteered to send them a critique and post their answer. I don't know if he sent the review of the DSC or the paint comparison.

reply to post by pteridine

I choose to remain as 'pteridine' on this board. As such, there is no way to prove anything I say regarding my education or background. Based on my critiques

Then we will assume you have no standing credentials.
Reviling the basic information’s I ask for would not identify you personally.

do you think all I did was google 'analytical chemistry' and block copy the criticisms?

Yes I do think you google your information, most if not all scientist would not waste their time on a conspiracy board, arguing they are always right they would go out and prove their Hypothesis and write a paper and summit their work for peer review.

Here's a video with an interview of one researher on danish news television. Subtitles in English included.

www.youtube.com...

Someone better save this before it's taken down..

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Namness]

At risk of being accused of derailing my own thread, I return to some unfinished business with GoodOlDave.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Like this hollow redwood and oak. Neither are about to implode nor even collapse under their own weight.

It depends. Is your hypothetical hollow tree on fire from 10,000 gallons of aviation fuel after a jet liner hit it?

10,000 gallons of aviation fuel might well be enough to burn a wooden object like a tree to a cinder, but no amount of aviation fuel will cause a tree to implode from top to bottom into a pile of sawdust and sticks. Burning and structural collapse are entirely different processes.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I looked at the photos of the columns as you did, and they clearly show they were snapped like a twig, not exploded, melted, nor cut.

Test your powers of observation. Does this column look "snapped like a twig" or melted and cut?



Are these men describing columns "snapped like twigs" or bent but unfractured?

"I found it hard to believe that it actually bent because of the size of it and how there's no cracks in the iron. It bent without almost a single crack in it. It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this." "Typically, you'd have buckling and tearing of the tension side - but there's no buckling at all."

See my earlier post for the video of these and other steelworkers describing the extraordinary "level of deformation" of the steel "all mangled and just crushed and crumpled up."

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Unless you can show that the floors evaporated or winked out of existence during the collapse in some way, the floors necessarily had to have pancaked since every video footage of the collapse ever taken shows the floors fell straight down. Your not liking the fact does not in any way make it any less of a fact.

When buildings are brought down by controlled demolition the floors tend to fall straight down.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Besides, the debate is over what caused the initial structure failure which led to the collapse, not over the specific mechanical process of the collapse itself.

No it isn't. That's what NIST (and you, apparently) would limit it to, because the "mechanical process of the collapse itself" cannot be accounted for by fire and plane damage.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by EvilAxisAn analogy is something you can point to in the real world that actually happens. Something that resembles to some degree the implosion of the twin towers, but does not involve demolition charges. I can think of no such thing, nor apparently can anyone else.

...and yet I note you are entirely unable to explain why the analogy is incorrect. I think that pretty much says it all.

Again you seem unable to grasp that you haven't provided an analogy - "a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based". You must provide an example of something we can both agree exists in the real world. You can't offer your explanation of how you think the three towers collapsed as an analogy for how the three towers collapsed.

A tree that topples but doesn't implode is an analogy. I asked you to provide one counter-example - a self-supporting structure that can be imploded by localised damage and fire. It can't be a steel framed high-rise because, apart from on 9/11, it hasn't happened. I can think of examples, but they don't seem to help your case. A balloon?

I can and have pointed out why your explanation is incorrect, but let's go through it again.

First, consider your pancake or progressive collapse theory from an empirical standpoint. Has this process been observed or recorded in other steel framed high-rises before or since 9/11?

No. Never.

This fact alone gives us reason to doubt the hypothesis is realistic.

But because you are determined to pursue it, you must plead a special case. Perhaps the damage and fire conditions were more severe than ever before or since. Well, the damage alone cannot topple the building, far less cause it to implode, and the fires were not as severe as many other high-rise fires. So you must resort to suggesting the construction of the building made it uniquely susceptible to this never before witnessed progressive collapse when subjected to a combination of plane strike and fires.

The empirical problem is then hugely magnified because you have to plead this special case for all three towers that imploded on 9/11. It is magnified even further when we note that one tower was built to a very different design by different architects and was not struck by a plane.

So much for what many would recognize as insurmountable odds against the progressive collapse theory having any basis in reality. Let's ignore that it never happened before or since, but managed to occur three times on 9/11, and turn our attention to the theory as theory.


[edit on 16-4-2009 by EvilAxis]

Let's walk through it step by step:

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your analogy is flawed becuase you continue to presume the construction of the floors of the towers were box-like when they were not.

I didn't say the floors were box-like. The steelwork supporting the building certainly was - such as the "massive cross braced steel box-columns continuous for their entire height, from bedrock anchors in the sub-basements to near the towers' tops, where they transitioned to H-beams."

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
[The floors] were gigantic flat rings of concrete held up by a horizontal suspension frame running from the internal core to the external shell of the structure, so the suspension for each floor was only load bearing for the floor itself. This is in the public record and cannot be refuted.

I'm not sure why you think I'd want to refute it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
BUT, if you want an analogy, fair enough- imagine a structure with twenty floors. Each floor weighs 2,000 tons, but becuase the floors are suspended entirely at their circumference they do not support the weight of any of the floors above. They only support their own 2000 tons.

Again you emphasise that the floors don't support any of the floors above. You seem to regard this as remarkable, but I can't think of any building in which floors support the weight of floors above.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Now imagine the top floor dropping onto the floor below it. It weights 2,000 tons, BUT, since the laws of momentum state that a moving object will hit a stationary object with twice the moving object's weight, it means the floor below will be hit with 4,000 tons, way beyond its 2,000 ton support capacity, so the floor below will fail and begin falling too.

You're even less of a physicist than I am if you think the laws of momentum state "a moving object will hit a stationary object with twice the moving object's weight"! Maybe that's why you arrived at the wildly inaccurate notion that a 2,000 ton object will have the force of a 4,000 ton object having free-fallen from stationary the distance of one floor.

We'll put that aside though and also put aside doubts that damage and fire could result in a free-falling floor. Let's just imagine it falls onto the floor below with enough force to completely sever the floor below from all of its support connections. (In reality of course, this would rob the falling mass of much momentum, but let's put that aside as well for the moment.)

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Now all this hits the next floor down. You incorrectly presumed it's supporting the 4,000 tons of floor above but it isn't- it's only supporting it's own 2,000 tons. THAT floor will be hit by the momentum of twice the weight of the upper two floors, which will now be 8,000 tons, way, WAY beyond it's 2,000 tons capacity. It too will fail and falls onto the next floor down. And so on and so forth, so the more it collapses, the more force is going to hit each subsequent floor becuase it's being hit with the mass of all the floors above it.

Once more - nobody is assuming the floors support the floors above. That's the job of the massive steel core and perimeter columns and again your calculations of momentum have no basis in science, but we'll let all that pass and get ready for the kicker...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Now get ready for the kicker- if you can imagine what the massive total force of momentum is that would be falling on the bottom floor, twenty floors down, THAT would be what happened at the point where the WTC began its collapse (the ninety-somethingth floor, with twenty floors above it). This is why your analogy fails- it wouldn't be a small box hitting a large box. It would be a large box hitting a small box, and the large box would keep getting larger the more it falls.

In a nutshell then, the progressive collapse theory is that a floor became totally disconnected from its inner and outer support connections causing it to free-fall onto the floor below. This broke all the supporting connections on the floor below, setting up a domino effect.

The domino analogy is obviously flawed because equidistant dominoes fall at a constant, not accelerating, rate as each domino's inertia has to be overcome. Likewise as each floor's structural integrity has to be overcome the momentum of the collapse could not approach free-fall velocity. In reality, I don't believe a domino collapse of the floors could propagate down the building to the bottom at any velocity. But this isn't about what I believe, so let's assume the floor connections are weak enough for it to happen.

Now you have your progressive collapse (albeit, nowhere near free-fall velocity). How did you achieve it? By theorising that the floors are breaking free from their connections to the building's load-bearing structures - the inner steel core and the outer steel perimeter columns.

Can you see a problem here?

You have no mechanism for the hard part - destroying the support structures of the building. You can't try to fudge it by saying the floors pulled the massive load bearing structures with them because your progressive floor collapse is dependent upon them detaching from their supports.

The pancake and progressive collapse "theories" are pure sleight-of-mind: Focus on the falling floors and perhaps you'll forget what was holding them up.



[edit on 16-4-2009 by EvilAxis]

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I didn't miss your answer, I asked you again because the first reply
goes against the video evidence and is quite frankly pathetic.

Telescoped into the remaining structure? With core columns intact?
While on an angle? Are you mad?

Do you recall the tipping of the upper section and sudden stop?
Do you recall that only a handful of perimeter columns were cut,
and a handful of core columns?

You do know the core columns run all the way up and down the core
of the towers....correct?

So please tell me and the others how the top section telescoped into
the bottom section while still connected by perimeter, and core columns
while on an ANGLE!

Well lets go by the videos.
We see one whole side sag down INTO the tower, which then breaks free on all four sides (ie it is no longer connected with the remaining structure). We can safely assume this part takes out the core columns with it. Once the top section starts its decent, it just plows its way downward, aided by gravity. Core columns were BOLTED together. Do you understand the fact that the forces of the collapsing top 20+ floors will snap the bolts and connections apart? A few 1" bolts will not survive hundreds of tons of sheering forces and lateral forces. Once the top of the tower twisted and sagged down, this meant the exterior columns and interior core columns have bent, then detatched from each other. Then the top begins it final collapse through the Tower, which push the exterior columns farther away just enough to snap the floor truss/exterior column connections (through shearing) which allows the floors to collapse ahead of the rest of the collapse of the exterior columns.

It practically behaved like an arrow getting split by another arrow (So called Robin Hood shot)


It just forced its way down destroying the tower. After that, gravity did the rest. However as it is evident by the "spires" that were witnessed after the collapses, some significant sections of the core survived for another 15 seconds after the collapse of the surrounding floors and exterior columns. Now this also puts another nail to the "bombs in the basement" coffin cause the core remained standing. Now the survival (allbeit a very short time) of the spires isnt surprising as all it does is show the complicated chaos of such a collapse, and the strange "quirks" of the collapse that are more related to the design and collapse than anything sinister. I do not understand this facination of when something looks a little out of the ordinary, it means it is automatically suspect and evidence of foul-play or sinister motives.

reply to post by EvilAxis


Lets use another simpler analogy with the force of the floors impacting each other.

Take a 15lb bowling ball. Now hold it out in front of you. Now have some one take another bowling ball and drop it from over 10ft right onto your bowling ball. What will happen? Better yet, try to catch the 15lb bowling ball when its dropped 5ft into your hands. Will it feel like the same 15lb that you were just holding stationary or will it feel heavier (if it doesnt break your arms)?

EDIT to add:

I think the reason the floor connections failed the way they did, was because of the way the collapsing tower debris above ever so slightly forced the exterior columns away from each other below (ie telescoped), which severed the connection just ahead of the rest of the collapse. The exterior columns stood for a second or two longer than the floors, but they too fell.

[edit on 4/16/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek

I think the reason the floor connections failed the way they did was because of the way the collapsing tower debris above ever so slightly forced the exterior columns away from each other below (ie telescoped), which severed the connection just ahead of the rest of the collapse. The exterior columns stood for a second or two longer than the floors, but they too fell.

Can you prove your theory? There is no research that supports that analogy however if there is I would like to see it the only thing close to what you are saying is the OS, the pancake theory. So do you believe the WTC pancake on its self ?

GenRadek - I give you credit for stepping in where others refuse.

We'll let them decide which is the better analogy for a steel-framed tower - a tree or a person holding out a bowling ball at arm's length.

So I'm the self-supporting structure - the steel core and perimeter columns.

My arm and hand holding the ball is the suspended floor. No floors below? All the weight at the far end? - which isn't supported? So be it.

The 15lb bowling ball dropping 10ft represents the upper part of the building which, for whatever reason, is free-falling down through the air.

So far so good. What happens next?

My hand is knocked away violently by the ball and perhaps my arm is broken. Notice, my arm is not detached from my body.

To make it more realistic let me place my hand over a wooden post (supporting the floor's inside and outside perimeter) and drop the ball on my arm. Does my arm snap off and fall to the ground or is it just injured in deflecting the ball?

Either way, I should draw your attention to something more significant: The rest of my body is intact. In fact I'm still standing and all my bones have not progressively collapsed.



[edit on 16-4-2009 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by impressme


Of course, you may assume what you wish.

To write technical papers about something, one must first have a reason. Usually, working in the lab on a project requires the approval of ones' superiors and this project would not be approved unless it was somehow being funded. Finally, a project such as this would need samples to analyze; something not so easy to come by. In this case, Jones worked with the dust because that was all he had.
He didn't find thermite because, if there was thermite present, it would be unlikely to be in the dust in any concentration. To assume that there was enough thermite to be dispersed in the dust clouds, far and wide, and be in detectable concentrations from four samples stretches the limits of belief.

reply to post by pteridine

You still have not answered any of my questions that I have ask you.
Where did I ask you what "protocols" scientists have to go through to present a paper eh?
Please show me? I say red, you say blue, I say black, you say white this is the game right?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I think the reason the floor connections failed the way they did was because of the way the collapsing tower debris above ever so slightly forced the exterior columns away from each other below (ie telescoped), which severed the connection just ahead of the rest of the collapse. The exterior columns stood for a second or two longer than the floors, but they too fell.

Can you prove your theory? There is no research that supports that analogy however if there is I would like to see it the only thing close to what you are saying is the OS, the pancake theory. So do you believe the WTC pancake on its self ?

You can see it occuring yourself in the photos and videos. You see the top of the tower and the way it comes down and into the rest of the tower. This can also be proven by how the exterior columns fall and are laying on the ground. It looks as if the exterior columns peeled back like a banana. This is indicitve of a telescoping collapse. Now, had the WTC towers been designed as the Empire State building, then we would NOT have seen anything remotely as what we saw with the WTCs collapses.

The collapse is covered by the dust and debris cloud but here and there you can see the exterior columns peeling back and falling away which also explain why some fell farther away appearing to be "thrown".

The reason wy there hasnt been as much "research" into it is because all the research was diverted to what caused the collapses. What happens after the initiation of the collapse is a work of gravity. It is mentioned a little bit here :
www.ussartf.org...

As for pancaking, there had to have been pancaking of the floors. I mean honestly, where are the floors going to go? disappear? The HAD to pancake onto each other. As to this being the main cause of collapse is doubtful, once the collapse initiated, the floors had to pancake onto each other al the way down. The WTC didnt "pancake" into itself. Over all it telescoped into itself. the floors did end up pancaking, but over all, the whole tower telescoped.

reply to post by GenRadek


Unfortunately, none of that happened. I don't know which video, or tower
you are looking at...but again you shuold reference my link of the
original media broadcast and step through it.

Also use the photo I linked to show the floors/perimeter columns have
not descended as you watch the upper floor blow apart.

We see one whole side sag down INTO the tower,

Into? Nope... more like leaning.

which then breaks free on all four sides (ie it is no longer connected with the remaining structure).

breaks free? Nope. If the upper section was disconnected it would
have fallen off the side. Again, are you looking at the same video link?

We can safely assume this part takes out the core columns with it.

Assume? That's great science...

According to the video evidence, no such thing happened. Where do
you propose these core columns which spanned the length of the tower
ended up? I don't see them sticking out of either side of the tower
in the video!

Once the top section starts its decent, it just plows its way downward, aided by gravity.

The top section is not descending; it's disintegrating from the bottom up.
This is physically and scientifcally impossible by gravity alone.

Do I need to reference frame numbers to prove this fact?

Hint: Explosives discovered by many scientists examining the dust samples.