Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

page: 5
218
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by T0by

I can't really find many or any examples of thermite welding being used for the actual construction of buildings. Even so, lets assume thermite welding was used in the construction of the WTC or for repairs.

Does the composition of these materials change over time, are they able to be dated?

Are we able to tell apart thermite which was used in construction 20 years ago, and thermite which was used a year ago?

How long has Metastable intermolecular composite ( Super thermite ) been in production?



It doesn't matter if thermite welding was used in buildings. We are presently in the realm of nanotechnology which instantly rules out regular thermite and construction materials. Toxicity should be a concern as this stuff can't be filtered out from the environment.

Radiocarbon dating can be used to determine age but there needs to be a significant quantity to extract from.

Anyone can grind up some aluminum and iron-oxide(rust) powder to make thermite. However, to make the powder nano-sized will require a lab and special equipment. Example: www.freepatentsonline.com... Please look up nanotechnology for more information.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by platoslab]




posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by platoslab

Originally posted by T0by

I can't really find many or any examples of thermite welding being used for the actual construction of buildings. Even so, lets assume thermite welding was used in the construction of the WTC or for repairs.

Does the composition of these materials change over time, are they able to be dated?

Are we able to tell apart thermite which was used in construction 20 years ago, and thermite which was used a year ago?

How long has Metastable intermolecular composite ( Super thermite ) been in production?



It doesn't matter if thermite welding was used in buildings. We are presently in the realm of nanotechnology which instantly rules out regular thermite and construction materials. Toxicity should be a concern as this stuff can't be filtered out from the environment.

Radiocarbon dating can be used to determine age but there needs to be a significant quantity to extract from.

Anyone can grind up some aluminum and iron-oxide(rust) powder to make thermite. However, to make the powder nano-sized will require a lab and special equipment. Example: www.freepatentsonline.com... Please look up nanotechnology for more information.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by platoslab]


So if this is a much more recent form of thermite which has no business being there and was definitely not used in the construction of the building,

Then why are people going over the same old thermite debates?


Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
These so called "Scientists" are, and have been "9/11 Truthers" since the very beginning. How does this allow for their work to be non-biased and completely, factually analytical in nature?

Also, to those who dismiss Thermite as a welding element for general steel, you need to realize that Thermite is not simply used as a Welding Medium, it is in fact used to create a Molten Metal of its own right which is poured between joints. It is not the same as your standard welding (i.e., involving Arcs), of which I believe many of you are under the impression when discussing such an issue. It is a common Welding Style used in the presence of Heavy Iron and Steel Sections of a structure.



Are people really still debating the old thermite issues in a thread specifically about this new type of thermite found?



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


The general consensus of anyone who was in the know or who was involved was 93 was headed for Washington. That would be the reason it was shot down. You see, it took off late and almost not at all. Read some of the intel that is relayed in the commission report and before you call it #, read it. It is actually quite interesting.

Also, I did read the 25 page pdf that was linked in the OP. There was NOTHING to prove nano-thermite was used. It was an inconclusive test. Acetylene torches and nothing else. this is as good as when they tried to make molten metal in a saucepan/skillet.

This is not about debunking but common sense and not jumping on a bandwagon. If you showed good evidence, I would concede and not act the fool and say The government would never do that....



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


In that case, everyone should read the report before commenting. Including myself
I'll do that after work.
Thanks for the heads up on it not being conclusive, i'll check it out.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
These so called "Scientists" are, and have been "9/11 Truthers" since the very beginning. How does this allow for their work to be non-biased and completely, factually analytical in nature?

Why wouldn't it be? As if these scientists have some type of nefarious hidden agenda, like secretly working for another country or trying to destroy America. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I sure wouldn't accuse my own country of premeditated mass murder against 3000 of it's own citizens if I wasn't damned sure of the allegations. I don't understand anyone who thinks this could be done lightly. No one wants to imagine that this level of evil is possible anywhere, especially in America.

So why can't a "9/11 Truther" (or nine of them) simply be interested in the truth? It's getting to be a pretty rare commodity these days. After reading about a so-called "Scientist" who spent years and years fabricating studies and publishing numerous pharmaceutical reports about dangerous drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex -- without any suspicions being raised -- makes me wonder how many "Scientists" are being sponsored by Big Pharma, working for Big Money or influenced by Big Government.

Give me a scientist who values the truth over someone who's worried about his job or is economically motivated to compromise himself by contributing to yet another implausible NIST analysis or disingenuous 9/11 Commission Report.



[edit on 6-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Also, I did read the 25 page pdf that was linked in the OP. There was NOTHING to prove nano-thermite was used. It was an inconclusive test. Acetylene torches and nothing else. this is as good as when they tried to make molten metal in a saucepan/skillet.

This is not about debunking but common sense and not jumping on a bandwagon. If you showed good evidence, I would concede and not act the fool and say The government would never do that....




OMG, READ IT PEOPLE. don't let people like esdad, here, tell you what's in there. you are badly misrepresenting the paper, esdad.

really. acetylene torches? that is completely wrong. there is NOTHING to do with acetylene torches. methinks you seek to muddy the waters with nonsense.

if you really did read the report, you either didn't understand it, or you are purposely obfuscating and misconstruing what it does conclude, and what it doesn't. it certainly doesn't claim to prove that thermate was used to demo the towers.
it only proves that there were tiny chips of a mysterious red/grey layered material that is thermitic, and quantifies that it is more energetic than TNT, HMX, TATB, or thermite, and tests to differentiate it from paint flecks, and identifies other properties of the material like ignition point, chemical composition, etc.

frickin' dark ages.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I have seen steel and aluminum melt and distort in a good oak campfire or the remains of a fully involved single family dwelling. Its not hard to envision molten metal at the bottom of that massive amount of rubble at all. You always have hotspots after a MAJOR structure fire ...and "thermitic compounds" .... Not trying to debunk your post OP just being a realist with a basic knowledge of fire science >>>DIRT



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Actually, it doesn't prove thermitic material because both the thermal analysis and the heating with a torch were done in air. If elemental aluminum were present as is claimed, then burning in air would occur. To prove thermitic reaction of some sort, the material should react when heated in an inert atmosphere.
The extraction with MEK and the backscatter data indicate an organic binder. The layering and use of pigment materials hint at some sort of paint but there was no analysis for paint, for some unknown reason.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I feel compelled to ask this question..

Could the thermite have been caused by other activities in the vicinity of the WTC before 9/11 all went down? Perhaps even controlled demolition of other structures? Maybe even thermite left over from explosives used for excavation nearby that happen to be blown around back to the WTC site long before the attacks even took place?

-ChriS



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

OMG, READ IT PEOPLE. don't let people like esdad, here, tell you what's in there. you are badly misrepresenting the paper, esdad.



That's the problem with alot of things, 9/11 included. Misinterpretation of facts, and a whole lot of disinfo thrown in along with that.

It sounds it does need to be read individually to avoid confusion here...
I'll do the same.

The more people read this, the less misunderstanding there will be, and the more people will be able to slam down those who speak crap.

It sounds like an important paper, which should be debated rationally and without bullsh**.

I just hope I understand it



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by pteridine
 



Iron is not an "oxidizing metal." You are confused about the chemistry


Am I?


Fresh iron surfaces are lustrous and silvery-grey in color, but oxidise in air to form a red or brown coating of ferrous oxide or rust.

en.wikipedia.org...

'Nuff said.



You are quite correct. If my memory serves correctly all metals corrode except for chromium. Before anybody starts with the my bumper rusted, that is not the chrome corroding, it is the iron under it, if you notice the chrome flakes off as the metal underneath it corrodes, due to the expansion that takes place as the iron corrodes.

Corrosion is defined as: any object, usually a metal, trying to revert back to its natural ore like state.

Iron produces a rust colored corrosion, hence the term rust. Nickle produces a blue/green powdery corrosion. Aluminum produces a white powdery corrosion...etc. It is all forms of the metal trying to revert back to its natural state.

[edit on 4/6/2009 by DarrylGalasso]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


You say BIlly that


really. acetylene torches? that is completely wrong. there is NOTHING to do with acetylene torches. methinks you seek to muddy the waters with nonsense.


Well, on page 15, Step 5, tell me what they are doing? I read it. It is written so a layman can understand what they are trying to accomplish and they did not find anything but a...it might be....


Actually, This thread should be closed for misidentifying itself in the title as there was NO active super thermite found. Just some concrete and paint...



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
(disregard the news reports and police/fire references to "secondary explosions.")


You mean that couldn't have just been a pillar collapsing, being precursor to another collapse, or a gas valve exploding? Yes, it totally had to be a bomb
You see what you want to see, and hear what you want to hear, but in the end you have 0 evidence other than your speculation based on no physical evidence or fact, as seen from the eyes of a trained professional. If there was "advanced engineering" around this, I'm sure they wouldn't be dumb enough to let someone be able to point out that it's a controlled demolition. Disregarding that, it looks nothing like a controlled demolition to begin with, it looks like a legitimate collapse; and yes, it is physically possible.


[edit on 6-4-2009 by yellowcard]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by strokker
I have seen steel and aluminum melt and distort in a good oak campfire or the remains of a fully involved single family dwelling.

Have you seen any high-rise steel-frame building collapse due to fire? I'm guessing not, because prior to the THREE buildings that collapsed on 9/11 (one with minimal damage), it's never happened. Not once. Even after raging infernos that lasted for days. And the WTC towers were specifically designed and constructed to absorb the impact of a fully loaded 707, which is comparable in weight and fuel capacity to a 767. Actually, the towers were designed to absorb multiple 707s.


Its not hard to envision molten metal at the bottom of that massive amount of rubble at all.

It's not? How about after the seventh sub-level "hotspots" have been constantly doused with water for three months straight? Firefighters said they sprayed enough water for a lake, on wreckage that was last seen with black smoke from oxygen-starved fires. Do some research into what kind of temperatures are required to liquefy structural steel. Here's a hint: it's considerably higher than the maximum temperatures possible in any fuel fire, even under controlled combustion.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I, for one, would like to see sources from somewhere other than, "In my experience," or the various 9/11 conspiracy websites. A bunch of you say, "Yeah, it happened, look at this," or, "Thermite is this this and this, see here" and link to a 9/11 website... That's like me trying to convince someone Abrahamic religion is correct and linking to the Old Testament.

I enjoy non-biased sources more than clearly biased ones.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
(disregard the news reports and police/fire references to "secondary explosions.")


You mean that couldn't have just been a pillar collapsing, being precursor to another collapse, or a gas valve exploding? Yes, it totally had to be a bomb
You see what you want to see, and hear what you want to hear, but in the end you have 0 evidence other than your speculation based on no physical evidence or fact, as seen from the eyes of a trained professional.

Now wait. Before you start pontificating about alternative explanations of collapsing pillars, exploding gas valves and speculation that you've already decided isn't based on physical evidence or facts, I have just one question: DID YOU WATCH THE DAMNED VIDEO?!

If you had, you would've HEARD the numerous "secondary explosions" as described by police, firefighters, federal agents, TV anchors, news reporters, rescue workers, WTC building employee and eyewitnesses, all whom were interviewed AT THE SCENE, DURING 9/11. You would've SEEN and HEARD law enforcement and FDNY firefighters clear the area after a "secondary explosives device" was found.

So instead of interpreting what I'm supposedly seeing or not seeing, what I'm hearing or not hearing, why not have a look for yourself? Unless of course you're afraid of watching five minutes of news clips from 9/11 that few remember seeing.




Originally posted by Highground
I, for one, would like to see sources from somewhere other than, "In my experience," or the various 9/11 conspiracy websites.

I enjoy non-biased sources more than clearly biased ones.

Then here's your chance. You won't find anything better than the above compilation of news clips from a variety of networks and local TV stations, with interviews of police, firefighters, rescue workers, WTC building employees, news anchors, reporters and eyewitnesses -- all of whom are describing what they saw and heard on 9/11.

Watch it if you dare...



[edit on 6-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
The Source of This Report Cannot Be Trusted

This paper was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, which the OP's linked source describes as 'a peer-reviewed, scientific publication.' This is stretching truth beyond the limits of elasticity.

The Open Chemical Physics Journal is published by Bentham Open Access, essentially a scientific vanity publisher, the quality of whose peer-review process can be gauged by this reaction from an anthropologist.

More about Bentham and its dodgy operations here.

The source for this story isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Just to remind you folks of what happened that day, some of those 'secondary explosions' that occurred after the impact were actually the sound of bodies in alot of cases hitting the ground or the glass above. It was real. I find it funny how you believe people that heard some thing in some cases but not if they SAW planes hit the buildings...real planes...LOL..what kind of logic is that?


Golden, also to clarify, the WTC was not designed to withstand multiple hits of a airliner but to withstand the impact of one that was of course, in the fog, and if there was a collision the structure would stand long enough to allow evacuation. I know who you are quoting and it is incorrect.

Again, they OP is incorrect as well as the title as there was NO active nano thermite. I bet it was a brick they were testing...



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Well, this confirms my previous assumptions.

The molten pockets of metal were telltale signs of thermite use.
I've made my own thermite in the past... no I don't suggest you do it, it's incredibly uncontrollable once ignited.

There are very few cases in which they use thermite for welding. Buildings aren't amongst them. Railroad construction is one of the cases because they aren't concerned with what lays beneath the tracks.

The uncontrollable nature of thermite makes it so that if you attempted to use it to weld standing steel structures, you'd have a molten metal flow traveling down beneath where you're welding, which not only would be messy, but incredibly dangerous and destructive.


The only reason I can see thermite being in a building is for it's demolition.

Not even laboratories doing tests on thermite would have it above the first floor... at least, not if they're sane.

It burns through everything... the floor, concrete, steel, you name it, chances are thermite will pass through it in seconds.


I only tried it once, and it was about a half thimble of the stuff... won't touch it again. WAY too hot and destructive to be experimented with safely.


I know a number of structural engineers who feel the same way, that there could be no excuse for such deposits of liquid metal other than deliberate and plentiful thermite use.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
we need to stop this judicial interference and have this brought in front of an irreversable decision by a jury on wether or not the cases should be heard.
and if the people have no standing to see this followed thru,shouldn't it be the same if the people of the united states attack the government>?
its apparent thaat they have totally seperated themselves from us.
if they have disenfrachised us from the protection of the constitution,doesn't it work both ways?
i never heard the term no standing until obama pressed for it with his hiding of his inelegibility.
well i guess if it worked for that,beat the dog till it dies!
but when you think about it,the federal government has no more power than the people do,
so logic takes me to the point where government has no standing to oversee the people. anybody get my point?


[edit on 6-4-2009 by Spectre0o0]






top topics



 
218
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join