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.

 

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

page: 13
218
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Right. 5000 engineers and scientists are involved in a coverup. Plus how the hell was that much thermite and explosives placed without detection. Anyhow this thread is getting off topic. We were debating the thermite paper featured in the open access journal by Bentham. Help Mods!

[edit on 8-4-2009 by the_eighth_tower]




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
4. The NIST Report itself bears up well in comparison to the Scientific Method, as it provides a concise and quantified hypothesis, is supported by evidence as well as experiments, draws upon a large body of researchers and independent validation, and has been supported in many parts by peer-reviewed papers and others still in press.

Oh really? A six-month old report that took seven years to write and which concluded that a "new phenomenon" called "thermal expansion" is responsible for the collapse of WTC 7 supposedly "drew upon a large body of researchers" and "many parts of it have been supported by peer-reviewed papers?"

So let me get this straight. Before August 2008, none of this scientific evidence, large body of researchers, independent validations and peer-reviewed authors had ever heard of "thermal expansion" causing a steel-framed building with minor damage to collapse? (for the first time in history.) But now they're all in unanimous agreement?

Please, this strains all credulity. Do you not see the absurdity of these claims?

I could go on, but the rest of what this guy says is similar -- vague accusations, meaningless verbiage, ridiculous claims and the kind of gobbledegook that NASA is famous for. I especially like how he quotes Popular Mechanics.

If you want to see someone really dance, ask this NASA scientist what happened to the 13,000 original videotapes of every Apollo mission (including the Apollo 11 moon landing) that NASA supposedly "lost."



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
It seems like you are the one ready to derail the thread. Give us some support for Bentham and their study.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Unexplained high temperature corrosion on some beams does not argue for demolition. In fact, the corrosion would argue against thermite or demolitions which would have completely different effects. Where did the sulfur come from? Sulfur would be present in large amounts as gypsum. For every sheet of 5/8" firecore plasterboard, there is about 88 pounds of gypsum and this contains about 16 pounds of sulfur as CaSO4.2H2O. One of these sheets is 32 square feet of wall. Estimate the square footage of walls in any of the buildings, divide by 32 and multiply by 16 pounds....and then ponder once more over the source of the sulfur. 32,000 square feet of wall is 4,000 lineal feet of 8' wall and will provide 16,000 pounds of sulfur.
How do we get elemental sulfur from sulfate? We reduce the sulfate with heat and carbon to the sulfide. Where did we get the carbon? Black smoke and carbon monoxide from burning fuel, paper, polymer, and other carbonaceous contents. When did the beams corrode? Could they have been exposed to under-rubble fires burning for months in an oxygen poor environment? Would they and everything else be coated with plaster dust? Maybe we have a source of sulfur corrosion. We surely have no evidence of thermite.
No residue, no wiring, no fuses, no spent caps, no residual explosive, no op plans, no witnesses to demolition teams, nothing.

Thermal expansion is not a new invention of the NIST. Engineers allow for it with thermal expansion joints in bridges and other structures. Did you ever see an industrial steam line longer than a few hundred feet? Did you notice the way it was laid out and the expansion joints? Do you notice that power lines sagging in the summer are more taut in winter? If the bolts holding the building together were 3/4" diameter, how far would a beam have to move to shear bolts. Some of the beams in WTC7 were 50 feet long and, at 500C they would have lengthened by 5". Do you think that if some of these were expanding against structres that weren't that there might be some serious stresses on the building?


[edit on 4/8/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

You present yourself as being very knowledgeable, so perhaps you can help FEMA with their lack of understanding:


In Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed:

"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... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."

And since you're so knowledgeable, feel free to explain what caused molten steel to pool in the WTC sub-levels and fires that burned for three months despite being doused with non-stop streams of water. Last I remember, those oxygen-starved, black smoke fires that were 80 floors higher were not significant and could be controlled with two lines, according to transmissions from FDNY firefighters who were climbing the stairs before it collapsed.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_eighth_tower
The NIST report was prepared by scientists and engineers, not a bunch of psuedoscientific spammers.


[NIST:] "We conducted the study without bias, without interference from anyone," said Dr. Sunder. "We have only one single-minded goal in this effort."

While the Institute said it considered the possibility of a controlled demolition taking place at WTC 7, the notion was dismissed due to the absence of any recordings of an explosion sound.

No explosions? How could all those brilliant scientists and engineers at NIST have missed this:




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by pteridine
 

You present yourself as being very knowledgeable, so perhaps you can help FEMA with their lack of understanding:




1. FEMA has engineers and this is simple chemistry. They are saying that they can't be sure that the wall board caused this and maybe there was another source of sulfur they didn't know about. Apparently, they don't care to explore this further because the corrosion has no bearing on a possible demolition. All they would have to do is to dust steel samples with gypsum and heat under controlled conditions. I would select several temperatures and run in the presence of air, under Argon, and under CO.
2. Even slow burning fires can be very hot when there is no way to dissipate heat. Fires are the only possible explanation for any significant amounts of molten metal months later because without constant input of heat, all metal would cool regardless of how it was melted originally. Dousing with water obviously didn't reach all combustibles as they burned for three months.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
2. Even slow burning fires can be very hot when there is no way to dissipate heat.

Or say, obtain oxygen?


Fires are the only possible explanation for any significant amounts of molten metal months later because without constant input of heat, all metal would cool regardless of how it was melted originally.

But how did these oxygen-starved, black smoke fires that were 70-80 floors high and burning at a small fraction of the 2700 F. temps required to melt steel become roaring infernos in the WTC's basement sub-levels? I still haven't figured out how the tower's free-fall collapse didn't violate the laws of physics, e.g. conservation of energy and momentum. Now you're trying to suggest that the fires transcended the space-time continuum? I never cease to be amazed by the cleverness of those cave-dwelling Arabs!


Dousing with water obviously didn't reach all combustibles as they burned for three months.

Obviously. Is there any end to the paranormal events that occurred that day? Those must've been quite the combustibles to burn for three months straight without oxygen, even after firefighters poured what they describe as enough water to create a "giant lake."


"You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."


I admire your perseverance and ability to provide straight-faced explanations to increasingly ridiculous scenarios. Thanks for playing.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
First of all any specimens collected from the WTC would have to be confirmed and labeled by forensic investigators. That these samples were collected by unknown people and pocketed or placed over a fireplace nullifys any scientific examination of said objects. Also please provide ONE peer-reviewed paper of the topic in question. Failure to do so means the argument is mute.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by the_eighth_tower
 


Check out the Journal of 9/11 Studies - this is a good start when trying to locate papers pertaining to 9/11.


*Stephen Jones has had all of his papers peer-reviewed - some in multiple forums.

However his detractors have yet to publish their designated Objection...

In the area of peer-review, Objections are not even considered until the 'Objector' publishes his objection in an established journal. Until the objector does this - his objections are not even considered by his peers in the peer-review forums.

Now, why can't you find us a peer-reviewed Objection to Dr Stephen Jones peer-reviewed papers ?

- Only when you do that will your argument not be considered "mute"- see quote below:

"Also please provide ONE peer-reviewed paper of the topic in question. Failure to do so means the argument is mute" - Your last post


Will you be surprised when you find out that no Objections have been published as response to Dr. Stephen Jones' work?

You should be - but in a bad way ;-(

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Post to the Topic and NOT the member

Thank you

Semper



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

But how did these oxygen-starved, black smoke fires that were 70-80 floors high and burning at a small fraction of the 2700 F. temps required to melt steel become roaring infernos in the WTC's basement sub-levels? I still haven't figured out how the tower's free-fall collapse didn't violate the laws of physics, e.g. conservation of energy and momentum. Now you're trying to suggest that the fires transcended the space-time continuum? I never cease to be amazed by the cleverness of those cave-dwelling Arabs!


Is there any end to the paranormal events that occurred that day? Those must've been quite the combustibles to burn for three months straight without oxygen, even after firefighters poured what they describe as enough water to create a "giant lake."



These things did happen. I'm not clear on where there was a violation of any law of physics. I also don't see how a thermite controlled demolition would account for what occurred.

You imply that you have explanations. What are they?


Mike




[edit on 9-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by pteridine
2. Even slow burning fires can be very hot when there is no way to dissipate heat.


Or say, obtain oxygen?



Oxygen's presence is apparent by continued combustion. These locales will induce drafts through a chimney effect. The fires, like mine fires, are difficult to extinguish. These would have many pathways for air to infiltrate as the collapsed structure would be porous and could also be fed air, from beneath, by the subway system. Slow burning fires buried in the rubble get hot and stay hot because they cannot readily dissipate heat.



I still haven't figured out how the tower's free-fall collapse didn't violate the laws of physics, e.g. conservation of energy and momentum.



Why would it. No matter what induced the catastrophic collapse, Gravity worked and physics prevailed. Check a high school physics text.


Dousing with water obviously didn't reach all combustibles as they burned for three months.


Obviously. Is there any end to the paranormal events that occurred that day? Those must've been quite the combustibles to burn for three months straight without oxygen, even after firefighters poured what they describe as enough water to create a "giant lake."



See my note on mine fires. FDNY probably doesn't deal with that sort of thing very often. Your conclusion of paranormal events is due to your lack of experience.


I admire your perseverance and ability to provide straight-faced explanations to increasingly ridiculous scenarios. Thanks for playing.


Likewise, I admire your perseverance and ability to provide increasingly ridiculous scenarios to which I may provide explanations. Thanks for playing.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Ansiroth
 


So there was a river of molten steel for 3 months burning...but nobody ever thought, even once, to take a picture of it?

Wow...you mean there's another gap in the "911 truth" theory?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 
Steven Jones did not undergo scientific peer review. He subjected his papers to a 911 conspiracy buff peer review. Given the limited technical skills and lack of objectivity by the reviewers, it cannot be considered a "peer review."
It is likely that his errors in logic and generally bad science prevent him from publishing in actual scientific and technical journals. As such, he is essentially invisible to most of the scientific community, save those that visit ATS, so rebuttals will only occur when he has actually published something worth reading in a scientific peer reviewed journal.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
What's happened to people's critical thinking skills?

The world's most extensive intelligence operation, with 16 different agencies and a global monitoring system that intercepts and analyzes every single phone call, fax, email and carrier pigeon dropping somehow fails to detect a sophisticated terrorist attack after being warned by numerous allies.

The world's most sophisticated military -- which spends more than the rest of the world combined -- is somehow stymied for hours as hijacked planes fly unmolested towards the country's most sensitive targets.

For the first time in history, fire causes steel-framed high-rise buildings to collapse -- at free-fall speeds without resistance from lower floors. None of the planes' virtually indestructable black boxes are recovered.

Another building that's not even hit or seriously damaged collapses for no discernible reason. The BBC presciently announces it's collapse before it occurs.

Oxygen-starved fuel fires belching black smoke that aren't hot enough to compromise massive steel structures magically transform into roaring infernos beneath the wreckage. Without a source of oxygen, fires still burn so hot that pools of molten steel form. They continue to rage for three months and are only extinguished after firefighters pump a "giant lake's" worth of water on them.

The AP reports that a car bomb has exploded at the Pentagon. The story changes to a plane impact. A CNN reporter at the scene says after his close-up inspection, he can find no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the building. The jet reportedly flies at several feet above the ground, through an impact hole that's half it's diameter and simultaneously disintegrates into confetti while punching through a half dozen two-feet thick walls constructed of steel-reinforced concrete, brick and limestone. No video or photo of the plane is ever seen. A month earlier, the hijacker pilot is denied the rental a Cessna 172 after the check pilot reports that he "can not fly at all."

Another plane crashes in a Pennsylvania field, purportedly due to brave passengers who battled hijackers and brought it down. Again, there's no visible wreckage -- just a smoking crater. The county coroner doesn't know of any bodies or body parts. Press reports quote sources who say wreckage is scattered over an eight-mile radius.

No Arab names appear on any airline passenger manifest. An ex-Naval officer files a FOIA and discovers there are no Arab names on any government autopsy reports. A half-dozen "hijackers" come forward to complain and claim they knew nothing. The government says forged or stolen IDs may have been used, but later confirm the original identities are correct. The FBI says Osama bin Laden doesn't appear on their Most Wanted Terrorist list for 9/11 because there's "no hard evidence" against him.

Eight years later, multi-trillion dollar wars still rage in Iraq and Afghanistan while the country slips into another Great Depression.

And life goes on...



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   


Red hot steel being extracted from the debris. The first time I found this picture and posted on another 9/11 thread, the caption under the picture said that it was taken two months after it happened. Red hot steel with molten steel dripping down off of it.



More red hot steel.



Video of firefighters talking about the molten steel they saw and described it as like being in a foundery, like lava from a volcano. I know how you people love to ignore firefighters when they say things that don't jive with your existing opinion like in the video Fleece posted earlier, but here's more. By the way, discrediting firefighters and people who were there that day just because the video it's in is on youtube is weak. If the video was hosted on another site, you'd just discredit them all the same. Like I said before, what a way to show respect (to yourself). I will also say that I did months of research years ago to come to my conclusion and I went to youtube exactly zero times because it didn't even exist yet. I read information from both sides and came to my own conclusions.

Also, kerosene (jet fuel) doesn't burn at or anywhere near 2000 degrees even in perfect conditions and the black smoke seen pouring out of the buildings indicates that conditions were not perfect and that temperatures were much lower than even 1000. I don't know where people get that kerosene burns at 2000 degrees, but it doesn't, not even in perfect conditions. Futhermore, it burns for only 10-15 minutes before it's all burned up. Once again, not hot enough to weaken steel, not even close and certainly nowhere near what is needed to produce molten steel three months after the incident in spite of a "lake" of water being pumped onto it.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Well, that's enough for me to think that something is very, very strange about 911 and that coupled with the funky official report and the governments terrible record of telling the American taxpayers the truth about much of anything.

Show me the tapes of the [surveillance cameras everywhere] Pentagon and perhaps I will change my mind but until then; call me a "Conspiracy theorist wacko" if you want. All the phony, poorly contrived, scientific BS of the OS can't trump common sense.



[edit on 9-4-2009 by whaaa]



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join