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.

 

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

page: 26
172
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Come on really? Jones, Gage and Harrit are going on mainstream media
to tell people "Well...ummm...we think it's therminte..but ahhh..it could be paint?"


Jones seems more than certain they have found your "smoking and loaded
gun", and they are even going to congress with the information this mid
July. I guess if you (some of you) guys actually watch videos, you would
know this.

Again, it's not paint. Those of you who claim these chips could be paint
forgot about the criteria I listed on the previous page. The three most
significant would be:

- narrow energy release which exceeds the CONTROL sample of a known
nano-thermite

- Absence of zinc in the chemical signature

- Iron spheres mechanically attached to partially reacted chips.

When any of you can propose a theory that satisfies at least those three
items, come back with your best shot.


[edit on 1-7-2009 by turbofan]




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Jones seems more than certain they have found your "smoking and loaded
gun", and they are even going to congress with the information this mid
July. I guess if you (some of you) guys actually watch videos, you would
know this.



A fair number of congressmen are aware of the claims being made by Jones et al. They have had hundreds of requests. They will ask for him to kindly supply a peer review paper or article outlining his research and analysis in a *recognized* professional journal or source as these American and international Structural, Civil, Mechanical, Fire, Construction Engineers, Architects, Demolition Experts, etc were able to do.

M


The Towers Lost and Beyond
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue,
Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk,
Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi
web.mit.edu...

Engineers Explain WTC Collapse
Architecture Week
www.architectureweek.com...

Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ.,
Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22
www.luxinzheng.net...

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
ojps.aip.org...&idtype=cvips

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
search.epnet.com...

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World
Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
www.hera.org.nz...

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
search.epnet.com...

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
search.epnet.com...

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
search.epnet.com...

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
proquest.umi.com...

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
webcat.library.ubc.ca...=TALL

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure
of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
ojps.aip.org...&gifs=Yes

Glover, N.J.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
weblinks2.epnet.com...&fn=11&rn=15

IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE
International Civil Engineers
www.icivilengineer.com...

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
proquest.umi.com...

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
ojps.aip.org...&gifs=Yes

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
ojps.aip.org...&gifs=Yes

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
www.agiweb.org...

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
proquest.umi.com...

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
search.epnet.com...

Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures
enr.construction.com...



[edit on 1-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
"To answer, approximately 70% of the weight of the material was removed in the removal of concrete and glass fragments. If we then consider the total mass of the dust generated during the destruction of the WTC buildings, we can roughly estimate the total mass of red material extant in the dust; I estimate this at about ten tons (order of magnitude estimate)."


Oh wow, this just adds even more questions then! Was this used for demolition, or as a fuse, considering Jones seems to be proposing things which contradict with both concepts.

I guess really it comes down to waiting for the next paper, or perhaps we could have a bet on which journal it will be published in.


Originally posted by jprophet420
I'm not a truther I'm just pissing you off with the truth.

You're a truther, and that's not meant as an insult. Believe me, you're not likely to piss me off by being obstinate on an internet forum.


I'm a taxpayer and I paid for the first investigation. Thanks for asking.

So what exactly? You don't want to pay another $1, or you think that someone else should pay, or that no more investigation is needed?


As I said Ive used SEMS. The signatures dont lie, and the signature from the chips dont match the signature of paint. I'm not an expert on paint itself, no.

So wait, you're not an expert on paint, but you can tell they don't match? Could you go into more detail?


Originally posted by turbofan
Come on really? Jones, Gage and Harrit are going on mainstream media
to tell people "Well...ummm...we think it's therminte..but ahhh..it could be paint?"

They're obviously not, which is pretty much my problem with this theory.


Jones seems more than certain they have found your "smoking and loaded
gun", and they are even going to congress with the information this mid
July. I guess if you (some of you) guys actually watch videos, you would
know this.

Yes, they have been very sure every single time they have made these claims, everyone in the truth movement is extremely sure of their conclusion, even though their conclusions radically differ from one another, or are as speculative as "there were bombs".


Those of you who claim these chips could be paint
forgot about the criteria I listed on the previous page. The three most
significant would be:
- narrow energy release which exceeds the CONTROL sample of a known
nano-thermite

Pteridine and I both pointed out that normal writing paper exceeds the energy content of nanothermite. Paper will also autoignite and burn in oxygen at around the same temperatures. This is proof of nothing on its own. Furthermore, if this material ignites at 430C, how would it possibly survive the fires in the WTC, which undoubtedly exceeded double that temperature in the upper layer?


- Absence of zinc in the chemical signature

How are we to know that this is actually a diagnostic test for paint? The only information I could find about the paint used in the WTC specified only a tiny amount of zinc. I did not do a full search of the NIST report yet though. Do you know how much zinc should have been found?


- Iron spheres mechanically attached to partially reacted chips.

Again, how do we know this is a useful test? As has been pointed out before, iron spheres are commonly found in things like fly ash, which is then used in concrete. Indeed I have read documents about iron particulate being used in paint, but being surpassed by Micaceous Iron Oxide.

These are valid questions of course, but you seem to want to skip past them and jump right to the "It's definitely thermite" part. Considering that even if we accept it being thermite, there is still no known mechanism for it to destroy the WTC, there is no list of suspects for planting it, no schedule, no information whatsoever outside of the claim that this is thermite.

Can you provide any of that, or is this analysis all you feel you need to prove demolition?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Your comment about "point blank wrong" is, to coin a phrase, point blank wrong. Paints cure. Everyone calls it drying, but it is curing. Cobalt compounds are used in linseed oil based coatings as driers but what they do is help crosslink unsaturations in the presence of air.
MEK is not the best solvent to dissolve cured paint. That is why the best paint strippers contain methylene chloride instead of MEK. From a health and safety standpoint, MEK is better but from a paint stripping standpoint, it is not much.
Jones team botched the analyses from the beginning because he wanted to find thermite. As exponent and many others have pointed out, a thin layer of thermite does nothing. Ten tons of unburned fuse material defies logic. Jones is now trying to save face which makes his analyses and conclusions even more suspect.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


The science speaks. Nobody has offered a challange to the paper yet;
it's all just unfounded, weak excuse. Jones, Harrit and Gage will continue
to spread the news and grow their list while you all complain about 'paint'


Take a look here everyone and show me the 'tamper' used to crush
down on the remaining floors:



Top section breaking apart from the impact area > upward:



The pictures and video don't lie.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
The science speaks. Nobody has offered a challange to the paper yet;
it's all just unfounded, weak excuse. Jones, Harrit and Gage will continue
to spread the news and grow their list while you all complain about 'paint'


So can you answer my questions or not? Cheerleading for Jones et al is irrelevant when their results are questionable.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Here's an interesting link that I think comes closer to what's being speculated.

www.wipo.int...

I find particularly interesting when it talks about an energetic sol-gel booster material (FE302/AL) coating.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Few understand is how invasive preparing a building for demolition really is.
With steel structures the size of the WTC building the support and locations would require massive modifications. Concrete would need to be penetrated, aluminum coverings removed. Then the steel cut to the degree where it would break in the manner desired.

The extent of this work would be so extensive it would be impossible not to notice the building being virtually torn apart. Tens of thousands of feet of detonating cord would need installation. Everything would also have to be reassembled and repainted without notice. Essentially whole sections of the buildings would need to be out of operation for a week at a time, minimum.

More thought in this document below. Page 16 & 17 talk about the undertaking involved in controlled demolitions



www.911myths.com...
36-page paper in PDF.

Tim Wilson, Australian Civil Engineer, overview:

“Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. … Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.”

www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

[...]

Had there been explosives used, what evidence would all those investigators, steelworkers and demolition workers have seen at Ground Zero? Bill Moore of Brandenburg Industrial Service Co., former president of the National Demolition Association:

“Explosives used to demolish steel are called ‘linear-shape charges.’ They cut steel like a hot knife through butter and leave a very distinctive looking cut plus a copper residue. Just putting [normal] explosives on a piece of steel would do nothing unless the amount was huge. That huge amount would have blown out every window in Manhattan from the sound pressure.”

Brent Blanchard, senior writer at www.implosionworld.com:

“Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.”

Remember, 1.62 billion pounds of WTC debris was meticulously searched and sorted. As many as 1000 workers from 28 city, state, and federal agencies processed 7000 tons of rubble daily at Fresh Kills. The last truckload of rubble arrived on June 28, 2002. In addition to over 19,000 human remains leading to 1,215 identifications, here are some of the things that search turned up:

• Approximately 4,000 personal photographs
• $78,318.47 in domestic and foreign currency
• 54,000 personal items such as identification cards and driver licenses
• And not a single trace of explosive devices



M



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Here's an interesting link that I think comes closer to what's being speculated.

www.wipo.int...

I find particularly interesting when it talks about an energetic sol-gel booster material (FE302/AL) coating.


Indeed, this is about the closest I've seen to what Dr Jones claims to have found, but the multilayer foil in this document seems to be Nickel/Aluminium, with a larger 'sol-gel' of thermite.

Still, at least it's close, but then the question remains: Why would there be 10 tons of the ignition material, lots of it unburned? Wouldn't that mean there would need to be a much larger tonnage in the reaction portion? (202 on Fig 2)

These are obviously questions for Dr Jones, but anyone who is proposing that this material is Thermite is welcome to reply.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Jones speaks and you seem too be unaware that what he is doing isn't science.
Your photos are inconsistent with the idea that thermite was the demolition material. Thermite does not explode, so photos purporting to show displacements due to thermite make no sense. Are you now sayng that other explposives were used and that Jones is wrong?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineThermite does not explode, so photos purporting to show displacements due to thermite make no sense. Are you now sayng that other explposives were used and that Jones is wrong?


Oh? These aren't the greatest examples, but they get the point across. Watch the whole videos, not the 1st 10 seconds...they arent long, dont worry.

Near the end of this one is an explosion:

Thermite 1

A HUGE explosion is found in this one:

Thermite2

And for whomever it was that said thermite couldn't get through a car:

Thermits Explosion/Thermite Vs Car

I hope whoever it was, was simply misinformed. I'd hate to think that someone is spreading disinfo about thermite around ATS. Also, before some smart ass says it, I'm well aware that the explosion near the end or the "thermite vs car" video is the fuel, not just thermite


[edit on 1/7/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
A HUGE explosion is found in this one:

Thermite2

And for whomever it was that said thermite couldn't get through a car:

Thermits Explosion/Thermite Vs Car

I hope whoever it was, was simply misinformed. I'd hate to think that someone is spreading disinfo about thermite around ATS. Also, before some smart ass says it, I'm well aware that the explosion near the end or the "thermite vs car" video is the fuel, not just thermite


Thanks for the thermite car video. Two guys having fun from something called GIFPORN who make mostly ... well... you guessed it.

Notably after 3 explosions the steel framed car did not collapse.


M



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


The point is that it went through the car. It's been stated by some that thermite can't burn through a car. It did TWICE in that video.

I dont really car that the car didnt collapse. Why did you even bring that up??



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by mmiichael
 


The point is that it went through the car. It's been stated by some that thermite can't burn through a car. It did TWICE in that video.

I dont really car that the car didnt collapse. Why did you even bring that up??


It is know thermite burns through steel in a high quantity ratio.

A video online with it being rigorously tested on high grade steel beams by an Italian 9/11 investigator.

But it is does not work as a conventional explosive. A coating would do very little to thick steel supports. Even Jones has conceded that.

So if there was a controlled demolition, what was used?


M







[edit on 1-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Those little pops? The only point they get across is that when you are dropping molten metal onto a wet surface, you should expect steam explosions. This is why morons like those in the first two videos should not be allowed to play with thermite or, probably, sharp objects, either. Spend some time working in a steel mill or foundry and you'll understand why molds have to be water free. It's a wonder that those dolts didn't kill themselves. Molten iron does bad things to people as it burns through body parts and the steam explosions happen inside.

Thermite does not explode. It is not for blasting, it is for melting.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Thats fine with me. I simply remembered seeing videos with small explosions while using thermite.

The main thing is that folks around here have stated that thermite cant burn through a car...which is obviously BS



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Thermite will burn through a car body. Consider how much was needed to make a small hole through thin sheet metal. Note how much of it it ran off the surface.
How much do you think would be needed to melt a vertical column of one of the WTC buildings? Demolition with thermite can't be timed, so any proposals that have sequential timed demolitions automatically exclude thermite.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I already posted a video showing 1000 lbs of thermite not being able to cut through an SUV. Lets think about that.

If 1000 lbs cannot cut through sheet metal, please explain how it will cut through the columns of WTC 1 and 2? Please explain how you could put that around the columns with no one noticing? You can't and neither can Dr. Jones.

If we ballpark it and say there are 20 columns we need to cut, on each tower, that is 20000 lbs of thermite at least to try to do it. Lets say we are using super secret nano military grade thermite. Can we cut the amount by a 1/4?

that means that there is still at least 5000 lbs of thermite needed based on the video I posted. That is 2.5 TONS of explosive material. You are going to tell me all we have left is a few cured paint chips that drip metal balls????

Fantasy and conspiracy are two seperate things because we can prove conspiracy but I have yet to see a real unicorn



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Well, my friend, I'm certianly not at liberty to answer that one. I'm not a chemist or physicist or anything like that.

I'm simply an average Joe who has used his own common sense to see that there are very strange things in the OS

For what it's worth, in my opinion, there has got to be a reason why there are so many people, in many different professions, and from many places around the world, who are stepping up and using their own form of knowledge, be it architects, scientists, firefighters, whatever, to say "there were explosions" or "building like WTC dont symmetrically collapse due to fire" or "we discovered evidence of thermite in the WTC rubble dust".

There are just too many intelligent people out there to dismiss it. The way I see it, BOTH sides of this debate don't have the whole story. I think this entire country was deceived, and honestly, I believed the entire OS until about 2 months ago. Eventually researching the net led me here


In any case, is it possible that 9/11 went down as we are told? Absolutely. Is it possible we were lied to about everything? Absolutely. An independent investigation is the only way any of us will ever know what really is the truth. I guess I just get heated when I see childish types on here throwing out BS in, what seems to be, an attempt to do nothing more than just be obnoxious, and I'm well aware that this happens on both sides, but there are certainly more on the OS side, in my opinion. Despite your guys' side on this (Pterdine, Mmichael, Exponent), the three of you should certainly agree with that.

Wow this post turned into a rant didnt it? Must be the tequila



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Hey, I'll tell you what, man: If we end up with a new independant investigation, and the OS story holds up without a farce, you can be the first one to say "Told you so."

The mathematics of it are of little importance to me. IF, and only IF, the science proves beyond doubt, that that stuff IS thermite, what then? Will the mathematics of it matter? I wouldnt think so, because thermite certainly should not be there. But again, hopefully in time, we'll all know.




top topics



 
172
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join