Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

reply to post by bsbray11

BS,
You keep assuming that you are the only one with any technical education, which you regularly overestimate.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11

 

BS,
You keep assuming that you are the only one with any technical education, which you regularly overestimate.

I'm no expert. No degree, and phd, etc.

However, one isnt required to have one with reading through various arguments that yourself and bsbray have had.

From the standpoint of someone with my knowledge level, I'd say bsbray11 has demonstrated a level of knowledge that is considerably higher than yours on a regular basis.

At least he/she has the decency to show some form of evidence, be it diagrams/photos/whatever, in support of their argument.

Your best argument, that I have seen, has been based on your own opinion. And opinions, as they say, are like [SNIP].

The irritation you may be feeling right now is how one feels when they are subjected to someone else's opinion, as you have just been to mine. This is how many of us feel every time we read your posts.

Opinions are worthless my friend.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy

Thanks for your input. I'm sorry you don't understand my posts. General content lifted from other web pages is easy and anyone can get it if they want it, so I don't bother searching for keen diagrams and cartoons from school web sites to add to posts, especially when the details are so specific. Technical skill and experience is tougher to find and that is what I offer. Generally, I explain at whatever level the post will bear and answer questions. I think I must have explained the DSC error at least 15 times and will probably explain it again. There is no web reference to it that I know of, other than what I posted here and on JREF, so it is rather difficult to show examples. Perhaps a DSC textbook or an Analytical Chem textbook with a section on DSC will say that when you are looking to prove a reaction that runs in the absence of air, you shouldn't run it in air. Most assume some basic intelligence when it comes to these things and I do also.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy

 

Thanks for your input. I'm sorry you don't understand my posts. General content lifted from other web pages is easy and anyone can get it if they want it, so I don't bother searching for keen diagrams and cartoons from school web sites to add to posts, especially when the details are so specific. Technical skill and experience is tougher to find and that is what I offer. Generally, I explain at whatever level the post will bear and answer questions. I think I must have explained the DSC error at least 15 times and will probably explain it again. There is no web reference to it that I know of, other than what I posted here and on JREF, so it is rather difficult to show examples. Perhaps a DSC textbook or an Analytical Chem textbook with a section on DSC will say that when you are looking to prove a reaction that runs in the absence of air, you shouldn't run it in air. Most assume some basic intelligence when it comes to these things and I do also.

Yes I understand what your saying, and it makes sense to me even though we disagree on the topic of the thread.

The point I was trying to make, and its my bad for not being specific enough, is that it doesnt matter how much experience anyone has, because I have none in any field that would enhance my understanding of the physics at hand, yet my standing on the 9/11 issue has been established partly due to the means by which members such as bsbray and others use to prove their point. You can ridicule them as cartoon websites all you want, but your manner of criticism only further portrays your ignorance. In addition, again from my viewpoint, his 'cartoon' proved you wrong.

In other words, someone with my knowledge level will not be persuaded by you, or anyone on your 'side' such as genradak, cameronfox, etc simply because any one of you continually post 'why' you think the thermite theory is wrong. I think if you guys really want to prove your point, you would need to provide, in whatever way, some sort of professional analysis derived from your own controlled tests. Since none of you I presume have access to the apparent unignited thermite chips, there is no way any of you can do that, hence, we have the reason why your arguments are, at best, glorified opinions.

Lastly, my final question for you now would be why, without the ability to scientifically disprove Dr. Jones, do you continue to argue with anyone here about it? I would think that at this point, you would consider it a waste of your own time.

See, I put pteridine on ignore for a reason.

For him and the General and everyone else who hasn't had or doesn't remember physics 101, debunk this:

A force is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. Whenever there is an interaction between two objects, there is a force upon each of the objects. When the interaction ceases, the two objects no longer experience the force. Forces only exist as a result of an interaction.

www.glenbrook.k12.il.us...

Ok, that is the non-technical definition. Technically, in mechanics, a force is defined as a change in momentum or also a mass multiplied by an acceleration, or F=ma.

A piece of debris weighing a ton (a modest weight compared to a lot of debris ejected from the towers), or 907 kg, traveling over 500 feet or about 150 meters laterally, takes a large force to produce.

I actually worked this out somewhere before, but couldn't find it, so I'll just do it again..

We already know the mass, so to find the force applied we have to find the acceleration.

The vertical component of the motion had an acceleration of approximately 9.8m/s^2, the acceleration due to gravity. The horizontal component in reality did not accelerate over time, but was imparted with an initial velocity from a force and then just sailed out into the air, only having air to resist it, until it hit the ground. And we know the time it took for the debris to fall vertically from a height, say 1300 feet (ie the very top of the building, thus allowing the maximum fall-time before hitting the ground, just to give it more time to move outwards if it just does so naturally as General thinks) based on this acceleration. 1300 feet is 396 meters. Accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 from 0m/s, that gives a fall time "t" of right at 9 seconds (8.98...).

I found a physics calculator online for anyone who wants to check my work but isn't sure about the formulas themselves: tutor4physics.com...

To find the amount of force used to eject a ton 150 meters laterally, you have to find the average acceleration required to travel 150m in 9 seconds.

d = (.5)(a)(t^2) .. no initial velocity
150m = (.5)(a)(81) ... (.5)(a)(81) = .5 x 81 x a = 40.5 x a
150m = (40.5)(a) ... divide both sides by 40.5
3.7m/s^2=a

F = (907kg) (3.7m/s^2) = 3356 N


3356 Newtons, which did NOT come from simple gravity-driven rotation about a fulcrum. Those 3356 Newtons of force applied across a distance of 150m (F x d = W) is equivalent to 503,385 Joules of energy, to send a one-ton mass 150m laterally. That work, again, NOT done by gravity.

And notice that it is not equal to 0.


Can General or pteridine show how you can move any mass at all a distance of 150m in a direction NOT influenced by gravity, and without exerting any extra force? No? Didn't think so...

[edit on 8-6-2009 by bsbray11]

A Douglas Adams character, Wonko the Sane, built his house inside out so that everyone else was inside the asylum and he was outside. I feel kind of like him now. The truth is glaringly obvious, the proof is staring us all in the face, the governments story is so clearly fraudulent that even a child could see through it and yet...here we are. What do we have to do? How do I raise my child in this madness when those who are supposed to hold the public trust are the biggest lying scumbags the world may have ever seen?

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy


BS was posting about physics. Most of my arguments have been about the faulty analytical chemistry protocol as found in the Jones paper and the faulty reasoning that followed. Jones hasn't proved anything and many believe he has.
BS's cartoon is just a simple force vector diagram which has nothing to do with the collapse other than it is a force vector diagram. It really doesn't say anything about the collapse, per se. He doesn't post much chemistry so we rarely cross swords.
BS likes to insult and belittle posters whom he thinks are not as educated as he. I don't know why he thinks ATS members would have never seen such a thing as a vector diagram. If you read his posts, you will see the pattern. This last is another example when he denigrates Gen Radek. When that tactic fails, he shifts to logical fallacy arguments. I understand that he is just an undergrad feeling his sophomoric oats and his diversionary attacks don't bother me.
I think that if you argue with him and he doesn't like the outcome, he says he places you on ignore. He claims that I am on ignore.
I find that the arguments and counter arguments on the ATS boards are an interesting study of the ATS members and never place people on ignore, although I confess to impatience from time to time.

Okay people discuss the topic of the thread. NOT each other.

Thank you,
Moderator

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy


I forgot to answer your last question "Lastly, my final question for you now would be why, without the ability to scientifically disprove Dr. Jones, do you continue to argue with anyone here about it? I would think that at this point, you would consider it a waste of your own time."

It is likely a waste of my time given the polarity of this issue and the predetermined opinions of many, but one does not need samples to show Jones' faulty analyses and reasoning. Jones has made claims that are not consistent with his results and anyone who works in the sciences can see that. He even entered into the analysis with a goal to prove the red chips were thermite which biased his experiment from the beginning. These reasons are why the paper, as it now stands, will never be published in a reputable journal.
Jones may be able to redeem himself with paper #2, but he will have to learn to match the extent of his claims with the evidence. Of course, I will read and critique it, good or bad.

Originally posted by bsbray11
To find the amount of force used to eject a ton 150 meters laterally, you have to find the average acceleration required to travel 150m in 9 seconds.

This is where you make a mistake. What you are assuming here is that the mass is accelerating horizontally throughout its entire fall, which is not the case. In fact the unit suffers an initial violent acceleration until it is ejected from the building, and a deceleration due to air resistance afterward. In fact what you need to divide is the average speed. 150m in 9 seconds is an average speed of 16 2/3m/s.

The problem is that we don't know how long the force was exerted to eject the mass but let us take a ballpark figure of 0.2s. This gives us the following formula to put into the simple equations of motion: en.wikipedia.org...

u=0
v=16.7
t=0.2

v = u + at or 16.7 = 0.2a
which can be rearranged as
a = 16.7/0.2

This gives us an acceleration of 83.3m/s/s requiring force 907*83.3=75,553.1N.

This is not a gigantic amount of force, using the ballpark of 10N = 1kg, this is the same as a weight of 7.5 tons. The upper sections of each tower weighed in the region of a hundred thousand tons.

There is nothing odd about the amount of force or energy imparted to these items, excepting for one or two unique elements which were discussed at Physorg, believed to be the release of stored elastic energy but that was mere speculation last i read.

Anyway, I only popped in because I saw some maths and noticed you were doing things a little oddly. I hope my explanation and correction is actually correct.

Don't know if this has come up in discussion here.

A while back I've read in print that the red chips are flakes of the industrial primer used to coat the unpainted steel beams. Primers are almost always red.

Apparently the actual paint manufacturer was tracked down and the formula for their primer exactly matches that of Jones's samples.

They only online mention of this I could find was a comment posted on a Jones Youtube video


[slight edit for clarity]

www.youtube.com...

heafers84 ...

How many times can Jones be told that Iron (Fe) and Aluminum (Al) is neither the product or reactant of thermite. For someone that has spent so much time with thermite it has to be concluded that he is blatantly lying to the ignorant.

Iron and Aluminum mean nothing together, you either need Iron-oxide and Aluminum (the reactant) or Iron with Aluminum-oxide (the product). He has never found Aluminum-oxide. Not to mention the Iron spheres could come from a number of different sources.

Not to mention these red chips have already been debunked. If most truthers did their research, these red chips are nothing more than red oxide primer. The NIST gives the manufacturer (... I believe its a Pennsylvania company) and blender number. The ingredients of the chips matches the exact ingredients of the paint. Congratulations Mr. Jones through your hard work and dedication you've found Paint, I hope your proud.

Mike

reply to post by mmiichael

Though I haven't made up my mind yet of what this could be and I'm following this line of inquiry closely, I don't believe it's the primer paint used in the towers. The reason I think this isn't the primer is because I found this about a month ago:

"The paint coating was not a paint in the traditional sense, but was actually a ceramic coating (Tnemic)(sic) containing no organic binders. Thus, when the coating was exposed to high temperatures, the coating did not burn as no organic binder exists to combust." - from NCSTAR 1-3C pg 219 (269/336)

Which would make sense because if it did combust at 450 degrees would NIST have used the paint cracking test to try to find the temperatures reached in the building?

Also, when this thread opened I found Figure D-2 on page 440 (154/258) of NCSTAR 1-3C Appxs which shows results of cracking of the paint after exposure to 650 degrees for an hour. And then figure D-4 shows the paint after exposure greater than 650 degrees.

So, unless I'm missing some kind of possible mutation of the paint, I don't believe it's the primer.

Originally posted by NIcon

Though I haven't made up my mind yet of what this could be and I'm following this line of inquiry closely, I don't believe it's the primer paint used in the towers.

[...]

So, unless I'm missing some kind of possible mutation of the paint, I don't believe it's the primer.

The only reference I recall is for the red oxide primer. Probably a number of different priming materials were used on metal, concrete, drywall, wood, etc.

One must recall the WTC complex was put up over a number of years. As we know from the asbestos, which was only used on the lowest 38 floors of WTC 1, part way through, building construction codes changed.

So there may even be different materials used for the same purposes in the same building, i.e. primers.

Note, the asbestos had been spray covered to meet required health and safety specifications, though some still like to claim it had to be removed from every building.

Come to think of it, what is the coating used to immobilize asbestos flaking?

Mike



[edit on 8-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Come to think of it, what is the coating used to immobilize asbestos flaking?

Mike

I thought they would usually use thermite. OMG!

reply to post by mmiichael

Well, I would rather not speculate that the prescribed primer was changed in mid-construction and that somehow NIST missed this documentation and/or samples. But if you could show that this is so, I'm all ears.

I believe some people are speculating that the gray layer is actually flakes of the columns to which the primer is connected. So if any of the other possibilities you mentioned are not metal, I would believe you would have to find the source which was applied in a two-stage application. I'm not sure what the coating over the asbestos is, nor the process of application, but if it's a two stage application, that might be something to look into.

...He even entered into the analysis with a goal to prove the red chips were thermite which biased his experiment from the beginning. These reasons are why the paper, as it now stands, will never be published in a reputable journal...

Fair enough. But regardless if he has a biased opinion or not, when this paper #2 is released, what would you say if he unquestionably proves it is thermite? Science is science, I don't see how him being biased would really matter in that instance. In any case, I guess we wait for his paper.

That takes care of the chips. The main point that convinces me, though, is the dust samples, and what has been discovered within it.

It may have been somewhere in this thread, I remember reading that it would take an very precise mixture of various elements in which, when ignited, produced those nano sized, round shaped particles which made up a majority of the dust.

I'm curious to hear your take on that.

Sometimes you need to calm down and take a step back and look at the points made by both sides:

1: Jones work was Biased, I.E. it set out to prove that there was thermite.
2: Some sources have 'debunked' Jones theory by explaining that the chemicals were from primer.

Based upon those 2 items it would appear that Jones work is indeed "not 100%", that is until you look at the contradictory evidence:

1: The NIST report set out to prove that thermite/CD was not used and is therefore equally as biased.
2: No sources that opposed Jones work, including the NIST report even looked at the evidence. Beyond that, it is fact that the scientific method was averted in the making of the NIST report.

Now it becomes clear that neither side has presented an iron clad case.

Do you see the problem with this, do you see the gravity of the situation now? Yes, the CT cannot be proven, however the OS cannot either. The problem is that the government took our money (taxes to pay for the investigation) and came up with "can't prove either side" and is OK with that. Every American citizen should be outraged at this. In a country with supercomputers and oh so many resources, we couldn't even prove an "open and shut case". There is no excuse for that and anyone who accepts it, no matter what they believe, is part of the problem.

reply to post by jprophet420

The problem is that the government took our money (taxes to pay for the investigation) and came up with "can't prove either side" and is OK with that. Every American citizen should be outraged at this. In a country with supercomputers and oh so many resources, we couldn't even prove an "open and shut case". There is no excuse for that and anyone who accepts it, no matter what they believe, is part of the problem.

That is a very good point. When you look at it like that, both sides ought to be angry as hell.

reply to post by jprophet420


Right on. The whole deal about us all paying the taxes for a BS report was discussed in another thread before, it's another factor that makes me want another investigation regardless of the Richard Gages and the Dr. Jones's.

Originally posted by jprophet420

1: The NIST report set out to prove that thermite/CD was not used and is therefore equally as biased.

2: No sources that opposed Jones work, including the NIST report even looked at the evidence. Beyond that, it is fact that the scientific method was averted in the making of the NIST report.

I would say both your claims are wrong. NIST primary purpose was to determine the causes of the collapses, not to disprove anything. Employing the scientific method, their conclusions precluded the controlled demolition theory. And separately NIST investigators addrssed the claim of controlled demolition and possibility of thermite being used.

A summary below of NIST questions and answers, including the thermite claim.

wtc.nist.gov...

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
- -

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

Mike