Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse, page 28

privacy

Pages: << 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 171 times

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 08:46 PM by jprophet420

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.

I put the challenge out there but neither of you seem to take it. 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.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by jprophet420]

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 10:09 PM 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.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 10:56 PM 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!!

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 11:26 PM by mmiichael

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.

The WTC was constructed over a decade. Going back now 40 years, give or take.

Having some familiarity with construction, I know that formulae for paints, finishes, and protective coatings like fireproofing have changed a lot. Some materials are improved, some not used any more because of their toxicity, etc.

I imagine one can nail down materials used in those days by contacting manufacturers still in business or industry standards sources.

And there's an extremely good chance samples of red oxide primer flakes made it into the debris samples Dr Jones obtained. Ask him if he found any.

Question for you. If thermite was used to weaken the steel beams, wouldn't the aluminum cladding surrounding them, and the red oxide primers have to be removed for direct contact?

Can't see how that could be done unobtrusively and non-disruptively, drilling through concrete to get to a building's skeleton, exposing the steel beams, and then resealing and repainting it all.

Mike

[edit on 4-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 02:26 AM by jprophet420

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.

If the red chips aren't thermite, fine. If the red chips aren't nanothermite aka thermate fine. However if the chips aren't paint and are an incendiary theres a big ****** problem. So I could care less about "proving they are thermX". I care about proving they are one of many anomalies of the OS that warrant a new investigation. While Jones' paper doesn't prove its military thermate, it show that its not supposed to be there either.

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 10:24 AM by pteridine

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!!

Of course it does. Perhaps your college marketing and communications courses skipped over the remedial math. Note Jones' stated heating rate of 10 C/minute. Note the temperature scale showing about a 40 C span between onset of the exotherm and completion. Divide 40C by 10C/minute. You get 4 minutes. That means that the DSC exotherm took four minutes to go from onset to completion. During that four minutes, the carbonaceous matrix burned. You are challenged to provide an alternative explanation.

The weight of the air in your balloon should be fast approaching zero.

[edit on 7/4/2009 by pteridine]

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 10:29 AM 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.

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 11:19 AM by jprophet420

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.

Jones paper proves nothing? you haven't read it then. It proves:

1. the chips found have 40nm aluminum plates spread throughout them in a uniform fashion.

Well stop at the first bullet good sir. Show me ANY paint that uses nano technology. Don't prove anything else, stop the conversation and do this one thing. If you can do it, you have won.

This is how I can conclude that its not supposed to be there. Now, you show me how you can draw any other conclusion based on the following:

Paint does not have nano technology.
These chips do. (you claim the paper proves nothing, it proves this)
Therefore these chips are not paint.

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 05:09 PM by pteridine

reply to post by jprophet420

Jones argues for such elemental Aluminum materials but his paper is somewhat vague about them. He does some elemental ratios, which have some error in them, to show that some of the aluminum is unoxidized. Aluminum is always problematic as SEM sample holders are usually aluminum and can show the element if teh sample doesn't mask the surface of the holder from the electron beam.
Aluminum pigments have oxide coatings on them and are often platelike. Note that the size distribution is also important; having a few small particles in amongst larger particles does not prove nano-technology. He actually claims nano-particulate iron oxide as his evidence. All of this could have been resolved had he selected the proper solvent and separated the materials for analysis.
I think it is paint. Thermite in thin layers doesn't make any sense.

reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 11:18 AM by exponent

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

No offence intended P1DrummerBoy, but these are not huge explosions. Indeed this is barely more than a small gas combustion. You may have watched MythBusters when they dropped thermite on ice.

Would this have been high explosive, an amount needed to cut even a single steel column, nobody in that video would have survived with hearing intact. It's entirely possible they would not survive at all. It would be very similar to being close to an IED.

Please watch Gravy's video "WTC Not a Demolition" to get a better appreciation of just how powerful small weights of high explosives are.

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."

No need to do that, it's not really about us being right, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to hold it over anyone. The proof is out there right now though, you can disprove the conspiracies you believe in with just honest research.

We already saw how you were not aware of the situation with Marvin Bush, for example. Why not spend some time reading wtc7lies.googlepages.com... and see just how many of the things you have been told are completely false?

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've just come from posting in a Flight 93 thread, and what you fail to realise is that your statement here is about the best way of putting it I've seen on these forums. You don't attempt to imply that a plane did not crash there, simply that from your perspective it doesn't look like it.

This is an acceptable point, and I am sure that if you researched into it you would find for example the details of DNA recovery which is quite convincing. At least you are not yet proclaiming yourself to be correct

On to turbofan:

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?

What are you talking about? I answered your questions. Perhaps you should go back and actually read my posts before responding with such nonsense.

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.

I'm sorry, what exactly do you think happened and how do you know it isn't possible? Can you show me the studies you have done to determine this?

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

Oh so you haven't done such a study? You're just guessing as usual and expecting me to somehow debunk it. I see.

Firstly, there is no such thing as the 'efficiency' of a grade of thermite when it comes to its relationship with a building. Such a notion is meaningless. Secondly: Nobody has any idea about the 'thermite' used at the WTC, because all Jones seems to have found is a slowly reacting chip, which would have no significant effect on the towers whatsoever. So uh, at the moment the ratio is infinitely small, as nobody has demonstrated or proposed a mechanism where incredibly thin slices of thermite could actually damage the building.

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

IE: RF triggered device?

Again nobody has an answer for this, because there is no evidence for it and nobody has bothered to think the theories through.

Here we come onto an interesting section, where you come up with a list of things completely out of nowhere, with no basis whatsoever, which I will proceed to annotate:

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

rapid rate of destruction
It does not, because you have no mechanism of destruction, nor details of application, so it could not possibly match this.
sounds and feelings of explosions from witnesses
Thermite does not explode in this sense, it certainly does not produce a shockwave similar to a fuel air explosion or a high explosive, so this is totally wrong
flowing (liquid) metal at all three towers as per first responders
This is not even accurate.
video of flowing molten metal from tower
This does not match with thermite whatsoever as it failed to even melt the Aluminium exterior and of course, has no way of being tested as steel.
powdered dust covering a large radius of the WTC many inches thick
How in the world could this possibly be an effect of Thermite? Thermite melts, it does not pulverise! You have clearly done no appropriate research here and are just inventing things to try and make your point appear proven.
iron spheres found in dust which are also attached to partially ignited chips
This is the first claim that could actually be valid. Yes, thermite does produce iron spheres, and could be diagnostic when other sources are eliminated. They of course, have not been as this would likely eliminate thermite as a cause
intense heat measured by infra-red instrumentation several weeks after 9/11
that is higher that jet fuel and/or office fires
This didn't even happen, so it is complete rubbish
destruction of upper block of towers above impact area
This is a non sequitur
acceleration of collapse for all towers
And again, what exactly does thermite have to do with this?
angle cut core beams photographed at WTC
Again makes no sense, how would microscopically thin sheets of thermite cut a beam at an angle?
energy release of 'chips' exceeding that of a known nano-thermite
This is a finding of the paper, how is it therefore explained by the paper?

[edit - readability]

Only a single one of these claims even holds up to the most basic of scrutiny. Please stop completely inventing things from your own mind to try and claim that you occupy a strong position.

You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about, which is evident from your attempt to claim that someone making a spurious claim automatically explains many features about the collapse. If this truly is the case, I demand you explain to me how Thermite caused say 4 of those features. Once you have done this I will reply to any question you can put forward.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by exponent]

reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 12:08 PM by jprophet420

Again nobody has an answer for this, because there is no evidence for it and nobody has bothered to think the theories through.

Again, that question is not relevant to what the red chips are. One step at a time. Questions don't disprove theories.

The first step is admitting that the chips are anomalous. Even if they turned out to be some form of unique or extremely rare form of paint, in the end their properties are not consistent with any common substance.

Again me saying nothing like this exists is not proof of anything, however no one being able to identify the source means it is as of yet unidentified.

reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 12:22 PM by exponent

reply to post by jprophet420

This is actually a very good post. You are right, questions do not disprove theories.

I also agree that the chips are currently unidentified, but I don't think it's fair to say they have properties which are not found elsewhere. Not enough testing has been done to eliminate other potential sources, no matter how much you insist it has.

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, but as you can see people are still producing massive lists of things it supposedly explains.

reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 01:09 PM by mmiichael

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

Good that you point out this isn't just an ordinary breakdown of chemical components. This is part of a forensic investigation. So issues come into play as to contamination of the sampling, it's age, source, and demonstration of it's supposed activity 8 years ago.

And there is a way to determine if quantities of thermite were used to damage steel support beams in the WTC buildings as implied.

Molten and resolidifed iron pools (the term “pigs” is used) typify melting at separation points of steel. The ends of beams would have these characteristic roundly jagged ends if significant quantities of thermite had been directly applied.

Nothing like this was seen in the debris either by those doing forensics, or photographically.

From all evidence molten steel did not cause the collapse of the Towers. Jet fuel combustion and fires on the floors impacted along with collision damage that exposed naked steel caused severe structural compromises that initiated the cascading. Steel loses it's support strength at a temperature far below it's melting point.

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. What fire fighters saw under WTC6 was more likely molten lead and brass, maybe even glass. There were no ingots of steel recovered to my knowledge.

Mike

[edit on 5-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 09:09 PM 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.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]

reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 10:21 PM by mmiichael

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.

I’m afraid you’re the one who knows nothing about fires. There’s more to them than seeing flames on a video. Of course fires get hotter than they would in open air when they are contained. Check any reliable source about fires that smoulder in ruins sometimes for weeks. And themite would not work as what you call an “accelerant” The actual properties of thermite has been gone over in a dozen posts here.

Little point in discussing molten steel either. You either did not read the information supplied or did not comprehend it. As pointed out many times, steel does not have to melt to lose it’s strength, it’s ability to support a load.

The building collapses were caused by the severe loss of structural integrity. Weakened steel at critical junctures catalyzed a cascade of floors lower levels succumbing to overload.

As for my use of the term “thermal blanket” I’ll point out it is not the same as a bed blanket as you suggest. It just means a covering that contains heat. The reason pots and pans have lids. Blankets if you prefer.

I suggest reading up on the many unusual phenomena that occurs with large scale fires. A building with the infrastructure of those in question and all the different materials drenched in jet fuel is not like as bonfire.

Mike

[edit on 5-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 10:21 PM by pteridine

reply to post by _BoneZ_

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.

reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 10:41 PM by _BoneZ_

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.

Actually, thermite is an incendiary and it's by-product is molten steel.

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.

Well, you've demonstrated that you did not read my post, or comprehend it. Nowhere did I say that steel melted to cause collapse. But there was molten metal at the bottom of the debris pile. And that's what we're talking about.

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.

I'm not going to even go into how wrong and way far off you are on this.

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.

Nowhere was I suggesting a "bed blanket". Where do you get these ideas from?

Originally posted by mmiichael
It just means a containment or covering that holds in heat.

Oh, that's where you were getting "bed blanket" from. You were thinking about it. Yes, a covering would hold in heat, but it would not make a fire hotter. In fact, it would make a fire die due to lack of oxygen. Unless................................there was an accelerant to make the fire get hotter as was already described by the definition in my previous post. Ask any firefighter. They'll tell you the same exact thing.

Originally posted by mmiichael
I suggest reading up on the unusual phenomena that occurs with large scale fires.

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.

reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 10:45 PM by _BoneZ_

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.

That's all well and good, but the fires still wouldn't get hot enough to have pools of molten metal under the rubble without an accelerant. In other words, it doesn't matter what combustible contents were burning, it wouldn't have been enough to exceed 2000 degrees without an accelerant, period.

Again, asking firefighters these questions would get you your answers so as to not make yourselves look so foolish.

reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 11:06 PM by mmiichael

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.

So That's where you're getting all this nonsense from. Firefighters for 9/11 Truth is a known sham. You don't even have to have any association with firefighting to be a member.

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.

Check out details here.

conspiraciesrnotus.blogspot.com...

And for a refreshing bonus, words from a real fireman on fires in steel buildings.

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.

Mike

[edit on 5-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 11:35 PM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by mmiichael
So That's where you're getting all this nonsense from.

Actually, my step-father was the assistant chief, and then chief of the local fire department here. Been around firefighters most of my life. Oh, and not to mention the many firefighting resources online that might do you some good to read.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth is a known sham.

Known huh? Care to share that info with us?

Originally posted by mmiichael
You don't even have to have any association with firefighting to be a member.

You don't have to be an architect or engineer to be a member of AE911Truth. You don't have to be a Scholar to be a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. And you don't have to be a pilot to be a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. What's your point?

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.

Care to back that claim up? It surely wasn't in the link you provided.

"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."

This poor person doesn't have the slightest clue what he was talking about. Firstly, it was his opinion. Secondly, NIST already said that the pancaking theory had no merit and did away with it. Third, if floors truly were pancaking, it wouldn't sound like "bang, bang, bang" or "boom, boom, boom". It would sound like "bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb". We're talking about roughly 10 floors pancaking per second, you wouldn't hear timed booms or bangs at that speed unless it was from the timed detonations taking out the cores of each building as they were collapsing.

So, in essence, your witness that you quoted was debunked by NIST. Try again?