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

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
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.

Sounds like a deal. I have often said that to others who post alternate theory. If you can give good, solid proof, then that is one thing. I, personally, have still yet to see that.

Fact is I feel that Jones if a disinfo agent and you can check the thread. I sitll think the smoking gun is 93

reply to post by esdad71


Funny you say that about 93, because that is what got me into the 9/11 conspiracy in the first place.

Now, I don't know your background, but just so you don't think I'm a complete moron, I scored high enough on my ASVAB (sort of a military SAT, so to speak if you arent aware) to be in the nuclear field. That's not in any way to brag, but simply to show that I have some intelligence.

Now, when I first heard about the flight 93 issue, and I saw the photos of the post-crash, the FIRST thing that went through my head was that there is No F'N WAY a plane crashed there!

Now I realize that there is the deal with it burying itself, or is shattered into tiny pieces...you know, whatever.

From the POV of someone like me, its ludicrous to think a plane crashed there. I kinda hate it when those who agree with me get trashed on for thinking that, because in all honesty...it really doesnt look like a plane crashed there.

Yes, had 97-99 percentile in my ASVAB also. That was in 10th grade when you were not supposed to take it yet but since i was in JROTC it was OK.

93 to me crashed there, and the ground was softer there because there was an abandoned mine. However, i do believe that it was shot down. There is too much evidence to support that rather than mutiny in the skies.

That is the problem i have with the truthers is that i do not believe the official story in its entirety. I still believe and always will feel that the WTC craziness is to keep people from looking closer into 93 and also 587.

I equate this paper to his Cold Fusion papers. Look it up on google and read some of the news articles from the early 90's.

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Funny you say that about 93, because that is what got me into the 9/11 conspiracy in the first place.

[...]

From the POV of someone like me, its ludicrous to think a plane crashed there. I kinda hate it when those who agree with me get trashed on for thinking that, because in all honesty...it really doesnt look like a plane crashed there.

I don't know about others, but I don't buy into what's called around here the Official Story, and I don't think many do.

I have my reservations about 93.

The focus has shifted to controlled demolition which I think very much is a research dead end. The building were hit by airplanes, there was incredible damage and death. If the shells of the buildings remained standing not all that much would be different.

The fixation with measuring collapse timing and hunt for chimera explosives only serves the perpetrators in taking the heat off them.

I buy into NIST's evaluation for now, because there is no alternative explanation with anything approaching the weight and depth of it's analysis.


Mike

Originally posted by esdad71
93 to me crashed there, and the ground was softer there because there was an abandoned mine. However, i do believe that it was shot down. There is too much evidence to support that rather than mutiny in the skies.

Being shot down is my personal thought there as well. The debris field is way too big for a crash if you ask me. Surely you've read Rewey's thoughts on the soil there? Although I don't know his background either, his analysis is decent, and he brings up a lot a valid points as well.

That is the problem i have with the truthers is that i do not believe the official story in its entirety. I still believe and always will feel that the WTC craziness is to keep people from looking closer into 93 and also 587.

This is a good point. When I heard that certain authorities wanted to purchase..what was it..1200 acres or so, at the crash site, that just seemed very strange.

I equate this paper to his Cold Fusion papers. Look it up on google and read some of the news articles from the early 90's.

I've seen you bring that up. I'll just say this, that I won't discredit the man for what happened in the past. A failure before certainly doesnt mean failure now by any means, but hey, to each his own

Originally posted by mmiichael

I don't know about others, but I don't buy into what's called around here the Official Story, and I don't think many do.

I have my reservations about 93.

Well then we agree on something

The focus has shifted to controlled demolition which I think very much is a research dead end. The building were hit by airplanes, there was incredible damage and death. If the shells of the buildings remained standing not all that much would be different.

If the shells of the building remained standing, I doubt anyone would have given the collapse a 2nd thought. As for it being a dead end, I'd go 50/50 with you there.

I think there is potential for the scientists all over the world who are looking into this stuff to provide solid results. However, I think the hardest part is not the research, it's the issue of how would they convince Congress to have a new investigation?

When you REALLY think about the ramifications of such an investigation..I mean it could include multiple Presidential Administrations...FBI...CIA... I mean those 3 ALONE...just think about it, and thats probably only the tip of the iceberg.

The fixation with measuring collapse timing and hunt for chimera explosives only serves the perpetrators in taking the heat off them.

I have no idea what you mean here...?

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy


Realize that I am only giving you the links to make a decision for yourself. My point is that he has done this in the past. He has not changed. Back then, I feel that he was approached for his Cold Fusion research. BYU+GW1+CIA+= DARPA research into Cold Fusion.

Link

He is also not in the same sense a 'die hard' truther as he split the original truther group when it got to crazy. He is looking at reasons it could not scientifically happen...but why and why so many years after 9/11. A seminar. Then, he is released from his job in in essence he becomes a 9/11 truther martyr. Someone who was FIRED for his beliefs in 9/11. Hmmm....makes someone like me wonder.

I just do not see in this paper concrete proof but that is my opinion and nothing more. It is not fact.



[edit on 2-7-2009 by esdad71]

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
I think there is potential for the scientists all over the world who are looking into this stuff to provide solid results. However, I think the hardest part is not the research, it's the issue of how would they convince Congress to have a new investigation?

When you REALLY think about the ramifications of such an investigation..I mean it could include multiple Presidential Administrations...FBI...CIA... I mean those 3 ALONE...just think about it, and thats probably only the tip of the iceberg.

I look at things like what I consider the theft of the 2000 election and how it got shoved under the rug. Few may remember but there was to be a release of a press funded reinvestigation of the discrepancies which was called of after 9/11.

The Supreme Court allowed that one to slip by. And they're the least politicized branch of the govt.

So 9/11 is out in the cold with Congress from what I can see. That doesn't stop the writers and researchers from coming up with answers. There desperately needs to be a "Deep Throat" to supply in situ testimony, name names, etc. That one has not emerged so far may be telling.


I said: "The fixation with measuring collapse timing and hunt for chimera explosives only serves the perpetrators in taking the heat off them."

Translation:

The search for explosives that made those destroyed building even more destroyed has become a distraction of choice from the search for the people behind it all. Who knew what, who acted as facilitator, why? Should be the primary focus.


Mike

Originally posted by exponent

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.

Why must I answer your questions when you continue to dodge mine,
'exponent'? Have you not viewed the video evidence of the tower collapses?

Have you not viewed the still frame captures and studied the destruction
of the top sections of the twins breaking apart before the support structure
descends? This is NOT possible with a gravitational collapse.

If I must give you an answer while you continue to deny the evidence, I
will reply with (ask) this much:

What is the total mass of all three towers (1,2 and 7)?

What is the efficiency of the grade of thermite used at the WTC?
IE: 100 pounds of thermite for every 10,000 pounds of mass

How was the thermite applied, and/or what mechanism was used to
accelerate the thermite?

IE: RF triggered device?

We can assume the efficiency is not 100% because there are unreacted
chips in the dust.

Other than that, I cannot answer your question because it would only
be speculation. What I can tell you based on studying the photos and
video is that gravity did not destroy the towers alone.

What I can tell you is that nine scientists have provided an acceptable
paper which satisfies the following:

- rapid rate of destruction
- sounds and feelings of explosions from witnesses
- flowing (liquid) metal at all three towers as per first responders
- video of flowing molten metal from tower
- powdered dust covering a large radius of the WTC many inches thick
- iron spheres found in dust which are also attached to partially ignited chips
- intense heat measured by infra-red instrumentation several weeks after 9/11
that is higher that jet fuel and/or office fires
- destruction of upper block of towers above impact area
- acceleration of collapse for all towers
- angle cut core beams photographed at WTC
- energy release of 'chips' exceeding that of a known nano-thermite

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Alone, or a few grouped together
may be excused for "coincidence", however the probability of all of these
phenomenon together being anything but a controlled demo is slim to none.

Now, 'exponent' I kindly ask you to view the photos / video and explain
how the top section of WTC2 breaks apart before the remaining tower
descends.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

I'm sorry but could you please post some info as to support you claim? thats all I want. If indeed you are the expert on paint, find this:

A paint company that makes paint with no epoxy layer that will not dissolve in MEK in 55 hours, that has uniform 40nm aluminum plates an uniform 100nm iron spheres in it. thats all you have to do to completely discredit the claims made by Jones and the other scientists.

I can't find any but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But if no-one can find any it means foul play, and so far no one can find any.

reply to post by jprophet420
If no one on this forum can find such a paint it means that no one on this forum has found such a paint. Remember that there was no internet when the towers were built and information was on...wait for it....paper. Unless all of that was digitized, we may have a tough time tracking down the formulation.

Being shot down is my personal thought there as well. The debris field is way too big for a crash if you ask me.

Then, you have never seen the results of a shoot down. Flight 93's crash site is nowhere near the size of what one would see had it been shot down. Not to mention the data recorders show that the engines were intact as well as the fuselage until the moment of impact.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by pteridine


come one petridine, you have to stop talking out of your head and start
watching the Jones presentation.

They (the scientists) know what primer was used in the WTC and did
comparitive tests.

www.youtube.com...

Now what excuse will you use next?

reply to post by turbofan


The video seems to be what was in the paper. I couldn't stand watching the entire thing. The exotherm occurs over about 40 C which is about 4 minutes. Note how the thermite sample peak and the red chip peak do not have the same shape nor the same onset temperature. I'll remind you that this exotherm takes about 4 minutes from start to finish so don't think it was evidence of any explosion.
The high energy output per unit weight is because it is a carbonaceous matrix burning in a stream of air. Anything that burns would have a higher energy per unit weight in air than thermite. Peanut butter would trounce thermite. Note also that Jones shows nothing else to compare it with. Why? That is because it would probably look more like a paint or plastic than a thermite. He also doesn't run it under inert. That is because he is a charlatan more interested in promoting Jones than anything else. This is what I have been telling you and you still don't understand. Jones doesn't care about any of this. He is not a truther; he doesn't care about what happened. He cares about Jones being a celebrity. If he ever takes this to Congress, and they ask for a technical review, he'll get his starstruck head handed to him because his science is beyond bad and is either incompetence or fraud.
Of course, he'll claim he was misunderstood, etc., and the non-technical folks will whine and complain that Jones was mistreated. [Who are the sheeple, anyway?] He brought up the fuse material because he hadn't planned on how to explain the fact that thin layers of thermite can't demolish any steel structure. Of course he also forgot that he estimated that ten tons of the unburned material were in the dust. Ten tons of unburned fuse? How many tons of fuse were burned? What fuse comes as a thin layer? How was it contained? This is so ridiculous that you should suspect him as a disinfo agent.

Ask Jones how ten tons of unburned thermite that looks like paint was involved in demolition.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan

 

. I'll remind you that this exotherm takes about 4 minutes from start to finish so don't think it was evidence of any explosion.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE clarify this statement! Are you implying that
the DSC measurement process indicates the chip in the 'eplosive state'
as it would in the real world????????

reply to post by turbofan

No. I'm saying that it was a combustion over 4 minutes. It didn't do anything but burn. The shape has more to do with the homogeneity of the combusted material than anything else.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan

 

No. I'm saying that it was a combustion over 4 minutes. It didn't do anything but burn. The shape has more to do with the homogeneity of the combusted material than anything else.

OK, now I know I've wasted my time for all of these years debating
with GL's.

Put this guy on ignore quickly, but before you do ask him how a
Differential Scanning Calorimeter works and WHY the KNOWN
control sample of NANOTHERMITE "burned" (

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Sorry to tell you but your 'friend' has been pushing the "Oxygen" excuse
which has already been slammed. I think you should start reading
information from professional scientists, rather than "pterdine".

If "pterdine" really wants to engage with Jones, I will pay-pal him
$50.00 if he registers on that site with his real info and puts Jones
to rest.

I don't know who 'pteridine' is or his profession. I can see his knowledge and assessments conform to that of other professionals in the field of chemisty and thermodynamics.

If Jones is prepared to debate 'pteridine' or anyone else, let him choose a neutral online discussion forum. People post on these forums anonymously and wish to maintain that. Jones only has some credibility among a circle of mostly non-scientific types. Winning an argument with him is not an accomplishment. But might be interesting and fun.

For the anonymous record:

'Thermite' or 'nanothermite' requires a consistent high temperature to ignite and is notoriously unpredictable, and difficult to control.

A high temperature is achieved because the heat content is high relative to the mass and thermal capacity of the reactants. But the actual total heat content is extremely small, maybe 1/20th of paper.

The only practical uses for nanothermite are where a tiny, precise application of extreme heat is valuable - melting tiny platinum wires, applying to miniscule samples of moon rock to boil off spectroscopy volatiles, etc.

Conventional electrical or knotted cord ignition methods would not work as initiation.

No pressure wave would exist as 'thermite' does not explode - it burns profusely - similar to a kids sparkler.

On 9/11 no video tapes, photos, or witnesses saw the unmistakable ‘sparkler’ effect display any significant quantity would have produced.


Mike


[edit on 3-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by turbofan


You mean how it burned with oxygen being blown over it? WOW! Fun fact! When you are trying to make a campfire with twigs and sticks, blowing on the small flame and embers will make the fire grow bigger and burn hotter! Gee! I didnt know YOU didnt know that by adding oxygen to fire will make the fire burn hotter and burn whatever is there being set on fire.

Now if only Jones's crew used an oxygen free environment to check if its thermite.

[edit on 7/3/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by turbofan


Do you think that the exotherm may have been due to oxidation of the elemental aluminum in the known sample? You should consider taking a few science courses when you get to college.