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.
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.
Originally posted by jprophet420
Can't find a product sheet or chemist to come forth and say this is paint. And I just put the challenge forth in this thread, these scientists put the challenge forth to the scientific community. Still no takers on either.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by jprophet420
I have explained why it has not been proven to be thermite. You throw out challenges and demands but you have no answers. Here is your chance to show Jones has uncovered the big plot. Based on the data in Jones' paper,
you are challenged to show that the red chips are thermite. Jones did not. You are challenged to show that a thin layer of any thermitic material can effect any demolition. No one has.
I know that you will do a good job.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
Been to College, thanks. Apparently you and Gen. have not.
The DSC graph does not represent something burning for four minutes!
You guys kill me, almost as much as the weight of air on a scale inside
of a balloon!!
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by jprophet420
Jones' paper proves nothing so how can you conclude that "it's not supposed to be there."
You haven't yet risen to the challenge of showing that a thin layer of any thermitic material can do anything to demolish a building but I see from your reply that you are beginning to understand Jones' motivations.
Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
A HUGE explosion is found in this one:
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."
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.
Originally posted by turbofan
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?
What I can tell you is that nine scientists have provided an acceptable
paper which satisfies the following:
Again nobody has an answer for this, because there is no evidence for it and nobody has bothered to think the theories through.
Originally posted by exponent
The problem is that even if we accept for purposes of argument that these chips are thermite. What then? How was this material used in the towers, and why? There are many questions which simply do not have a satisfactory answer because the 'theory' as it currently exists is "There was thermite in extremely thin sheets in the WTC". This theory (or really a hypothesis) makes no new predictions which can be tested
Originally posted by mmiichael
Fires remained burning well after the total collapse of both towers. The rubble created a 2000+ degree thermal blanket which eventually may have caused the production of some molten steel.
Accelerant -
When a fire is accelerated, it can produce more heat, consume the reactants more quickly, burn at a higher temperature, and increase the spread of the fire.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by mmiichael
Fires remained burning well after the total collapse of both towers. The rubble created a 2000+ degree thermal blanket which eventually may have caused the production of some molten steel.
You've shown conclusively with your post that you know next to nothing about how fire works.
Firstly, the fires were at the top of both towers. Show a single video where you can see fires still burning as the towers were collapsing. The fires were likely extinguished from the tons of dust suffocating them. And even if not, since the fires were at the top, then the fires would have been near the top of the debris pile also.
Either way, I still don't see a single flame burning as either building collapses.
Secondly, it takes heat in excess of 2700 degrees to melt steel. That temperature far exceeds any office or jet fuel fire. Then you said the rubble created a "thermal blanket". That's completely false. What happens when you put a blanket of anything over a fire? It starves the fire of oxygen and the fire goes out.
The only thing that could have fueled the fire to get it hotter than any natural office fire or jet fuel fire, would be some sort of accellerant.
Accelerant -
When a fire is accelerated, it can produce more heat, consume the reactants more quickly, burn at a higher temperature, and increase the spread of the fire.
Key words above are "more heat" and "higher temperature". Could the accelerant have been thermite/thermate or something else? Either way, for the temperatures to exceed 2000 degrees, it would require an accelerant.
Originally posted by mmiichael
And themite would not work as what you call an “accelerant” the properties of thermite has been gone over in a dozen posts here.
Originally posted by mmiichael
You demonstrate you either did not read the information supplied or did not comprehen it. As pointed out many times, steel does not have to melt to lose it’s strength, it’s ability to support a load.
Originally posted by mmiichael
The building collapses were caused by the loss of structural integrity. Weakened steel at critical junctures catalyzed a cascade of floors with less affected ones lower down succumbing to overload.
Originally posted by mmiichael
As for my use of the term “thermal blanket” I’ll just point out it is not the same as a bed blanket as you suggest.
Originally posted by mmiichael
It just means a containment or covering that holds in heat.
Originally posted by mmiichael
I suggest reading up on the unusual phenomena that occurs with large scale fires.
Originally posted by pteridine
I can see that all of that web surfing that you have done is in vain. Fires were burning under the rubble for many weeks, fueled by combustible contents of the buildings. Underground fires can get very hot and are extremely difficult to extinguish.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I suggest reading up on how fire works. One good place to start would be here:
firefightersfor911truth.org...
Then go read up on building construction. You've got much to learn.
conspiraciesrnotus.blogspot.com...
www.kitcomm.com...
I've been a firefighter, EMT and fire dispatcher for a good chunk of my life. I heard those so-called controlled explosions as the towers fell live on TV. One thing they drummed into our heads in the fire academy was that the most dangerous of all modern buildings are those made of steel.
Heck, our fire station/headquarters was a steel building and we were warned by our training officer to "surround and drown the thing if it ever burned (trust me, it happens-the alarm goes off, guys drop everything in haste to respond to the call and food left on the stove burns.). The reason that we were advised not to aggressively attack a steel structure fire is because steel weakens at a very low temperature in a regular fire, let alone one fueled by exploding avgas.
So, what were the "controlled explosions" as the WTC collapsed? The steel building support structure was giving way, sending the weight of the building's floors dropping straight down, each one taking out the next with its sheer weight and mass under acceleration. Bam! Bam! Bam! All the way to the ground. I remember vividly thinking, "Good God! The floors are pancaking on each other!" as the chain reaction slammed downward.
No conspiracy or science here-just fire science at work. God bless the brave ones of the FDNY who went into rescue mode inside the towers on 9-11, fully knowing what was going to happen to them.
Originally posted by mmiichael
So That's where you're getting all this nonsense from.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth is a known sham.
Originally posted by mmiichael
You don't even have to have any association with firefighting to be a member.
Originally posted by mmiichael
The real firefighter associations want to take legal action against them for petitions done in the name of the profession but signed by anybody with a pen.
"So, what were the "controlled explosions" as the WTC collapsed? The steel building support structure was giving way, sending the weight of the building's floors dropping straight down, each one taking out the next with its sheer weight and mass under acceleration. Bam! Bam! Bam! All the way to the ground. I remember vividly thinking, "Good God! The floors are pancaking on each other!" as the chain reaction slammed downward."