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: 30
172
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
ok so it "might" be paint but how do you explain all 3 towers falling in such a manner that they all closley resemble controlled demolitions.




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Even bulk thermite cannot be timed in a demolition that would allow anything like the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. The theory that thermite did the deed is technically bankrupt.

This I will have to agree with. Thermite alone did not make any of the WTC towers globally collapse. The only thing the thermite would have been used for is to weaken the structure near the impact zones and maybe a couple/few other areas. The reason being is to give the impression that the buildings started to collapse from the intense fires.

After the weakening of the structure, conventional explosives took over:



The detonation sequence was heard by many civilians and first responders, and the flashes from the detonations was also seen by many as I described in my previous post that nobody has seemed to want to address.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
An avoided issue has been the lack of material evidence of supposedly thermite affected steel beams. Again, they characteristically would have noticeable iron "pigs" bubbled reformed molten ends. Nothing like this was reported or photographed.

A good summary of the nanothermite argument by Ryan Mackey of NASA's Jet Propulsion Labs is posted here.



forums.randi.org...

In Dr. Jones's paper at Bentham, he references work by a few scientists -- principal among them, Dr. Tillotson at LLNL -- who are legitimately researching nanothermite. So the answer is Yes, it does exist. The first papers on it came out in 2001, I believe.

However, it exists in extremely small quantities, and as far as I can tell has never been applied outside the laboratory.

It certainly has not been demonstrated cutting structural steel. Its properties are also such that it doesn't seem even remotely suitable for the task. As an explosive, it is difficult to ignite and low-powered. As an incendiary, it is of low heat content even compared to ordinary thermite, which also has not been demonstrated in such a context. Cast into a "sol-gel," it is also of low density -- the "gel" is related to aerogel, which is only a bit denser than smoke. It appears to be expensive (at best) to manufacture in large quantities. Dr. Jones and his co-authors speculate that tens or hundreds of tons would be required, and presumably applied in layers a few microns thick...

Dr. Jones's paper, referring to the existence of laboratory nanothermite and speculating that it's ready to topple skyscrapers, is rather like inferring from the existence of laser pointers that orbiting deathsats could have destroyed the buildings with beam weapons. It's perhaps physically possible, but so impractical as to beggar belief.

[...]

nanothermite can actually react with a supersonic flame front. However, as far as I can determine, this is caused strictly by thermal effects, such as radiation, and not through compression. There is no applicable Rankine-Hugoniot curve since compressing the nanothermite itself could lead to a temperature rise, but through different mechanisms, such as abrasion between the tiny little particles.

The upshot is that nanothermite can be a high explosive, but this is solely a function of grain size which drives the speed of the flame front. Because it is not a pressure-driven effect, while it can still produce a shockwave, it will be a particularly weak one. Unless packed with some medium that produces a large volumetric change when heated, it is unlikely to create much of an explosion. If so packed, it will be in all likelihood the least energetic explosive known to science.

I think the melting angle is less ludicrous than treating it like an explosive, personally. Thermite does, nonetheless, retain the ability to create high temperatures. But if used in this fashion I just don't see what making it "nano" would buy you.

Nor have I ever seen a plausible explanation for how it was controlled after it reacted. Again, see the Mythbusters exercise, using 1000 pounds of thermite, which didn't even come close to totally melting a light truck chassis. This demonstrates just how meager its effect can be on steel until the issue of controlling it is solved. It just isn't an efficient approach.



Mike

[edit on 6-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Where`s Ryan Mackey`s chemistry Ph.D.?


You have posted nothing there but speculation; this is just him yapping
and creating theories.

I have him quoted making errors about the characteristsics of hydrocarbon
combustion in a lean state which no `scientist`should make.

Your post is hardly a rebuttal for the paper presented by Jones. At best
Mackey is discussing the application of thermite which we have already
concluded was not the only source of energy used to destroy the tower.

THis thread is not to debate how the thermite was applied, but rather
why it is present in the towers to begin with...and it sure wasn`t used
to heat the hot tap water!

[edit on 6-7-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Harrit's response has to do with the primer paint that NIST said was on the structure based on information from the architect and engineers of the building. When he did find Zn and Cr he said that it must be "contamination from primer paint." We do not know that the red paint is primer paint from the WTC and we do not know if the formulation was changed over the time that the buildings were constructed. Often, A&E firms are permitted to substitute and this is never reflected in the original plans. While Herrit believes that he has proven that the red chips were not paint what he has shown is that they may not be the paint that was called for in the plans and not that they are not paint.
I still believe that it is paint because all of the available evidence points in that direction and there is no rationale for thin layers of thermitic material nor is there any way of surreptitiously applying it.
You still have not explained your analysis of the DSC trace. Do you intend to prove my analysis wrong or will you concede defeat?

[edit on 7/6/2009 by pteridine] Edit for response to different post

[edit on 7/6/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


"Concede defeat"?


What are you two years old? If you can read, I said I'm awaiting a reply
from my source to find out the details of the DSC tests performed by
the nine scientists.

This is called, "good research" which is something you should learn.

As for the paint...you better read the link because Harrit strongly disagrees
with your anonymous, unfounded, GUESS.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
 


"Concede defeat"?


What are you two years old? If you can read, I said I'm awaiting a reply
from my source to find out the details of the DSC tests performed by
the nine scientists.

This is called, "good research" which is something you should learn.

As for the paint...you better read the link because Harrit strongly disagrees
with your anonymous, unfounded, GUESS.


My age has nothing to do with my comment. Note that I do not sprinkle random smileys and LOL's throughout my posts. As you mature and develop better communication skills, you will probably avoid such things, yourself.
All you needed to do was to read the paper and interpret the results shown in it. You claimed technical expertise and implied that I had none. I found this humorous so I challenged you to interpret the DSC trace. Based on your previous responses and absolute faith in your guru, I expected that you would need help. I didn't realize that the folks you were counting on were slow to respond.
I did read the link you provided and I did see what Herrit claimed. What did you think my comments were based on? I disagree with him, of course, for the reasons I stated previously. I also think Jones misinterprets the DSC and doesn't realize that the exotherms take place over minutes and that comparing the two is pointless as two different reactions are occurring. You are consistent with him on that count.
For future reference, what you refer to as "research," most of the scientific world calls a "literature search" although such activity using only wikipedia and truther sites is called "light entertainment."

I look forward to the group response to my DSC challenge.

[edit on 7/6/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


If you were to demolish the buidings why bother with thermite? There was no need to show any structural weakening and thermite would have been risky from an evidence standpoint. It would just be an added complication with minimal payback and there is no evidence for it.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ukman2009
ok so it "might" be paint but how do you explain all 3 towers falling in such a manner that they all closley resemble controlled demolitions.


They all closely resemble controlled demolitions in the minds of a few. Consider that perhaps catastrophic failures look much alike regardless of impetus. We must conclude that the collapses were the result of the aircraft strikes until evidence is found to show otherwise.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
If you were to demolish the buidings why bother with thermite?

A great question to ask once we get our new investigation.



Originally posted by pteridine
They all closely resemble controlled demolitions in the minds of a few.

I don't consider thousands of professionals around the world, and millions of others around the world, a "few".

[edit on 6-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I can communicate just fine, thanks. The use of smiley faces is my
way of expressing my disgust with your conclusions without receiving
a warning from the moderators.

I don't need Jones to fight my battles; I need Jones to tell me exactly
what they did during the tests so I can further expose you.

The test results speak for themselves. It is my understanding that the
DSC tests were performed using nano-sized chips. If this is fact, then
you will have a tough time convincing me that a microgram of 'anything'
could burn for four minutes!

Aside from that, you still have not applied all of the available data to
your theor...I mean guess. You keep forgetting about the control
sample in the graph and that it is a known nano-thermite.

That known control sample is indeed thermite. That control sample
has a wider exotherm spike. By your analysis, the testing that LL
performed indicates their DSC tests do not support actual charateristics
of military grade nano-thermite.

Now that's funny.

You see, you cannot just look at one aspect of the paper and create
an assumption. The paper includes backscattered images, chemical
compositions of the chips, high power microscope images, resistive
tests, DSC tests, pre-post ignition analysis of the chips, etc.

So please excuse me if I tend to use emoticons to highlight your
absurb deduction of the thermite study...because Frankly, it's a joke.

What is even more pathetic is that I'm debating someone from a
keyboard who has not provided any credentials and begs to be taken
seriously.

When you have the balls to put your name up on this thread, with
some contact info and prove your worth...I might just take you
seriously.

Right now, you're just a kid with an internet education trying
desperately to hack down nine Ph.D.'s with very little success.

You're all talk. You have an opportunity to make $1000.00 and
prove me and nine Ph.D.'s incorrect, but your best excuse is:

"it's not worth debating"

Well then, kindly give up responding if there's nothing to debate,
or do the right thing and shut down the thermite paper as we know it!

Come on Petridine, ATS is counting on you!



[edit on 6-7-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


The site says no personal data and no personal data it is. You don't need it to refute my arguments, just technical knowledge.

What Jones did during the test is in the paper.

Yes, the known thermite has a wider exotherm spike. Maybe it is the aluminum oxidizing at temperatures below the initiation of the thermite reaction. After all, it took 16 minutes for the exotherm from initiation to completion so we would have a tough time concluding that it was a self-sustaining thermitic reaction.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Yes, it has been answered several times. Science will be the ref. and
therefore there will be no bias.

Right now nobody is able to put up a fight for the thermite study.

Some of the lesser theories put forth here thought it was paint, but
now we find that Harrit has addressed that guess with some additional
literature.

If anyone cares to step up with a new theory, you know where to find
me. Once we get an interested party to debate Jones we will define
the details for the funds.

For sake of moving forward, if putting the funds in trust works best,
then that's what we will do.

I'm surprised that all of these big talkers haven't stepped up for the
easy $1000.00 prize and world recognition of killing off nine Ph.D.'s,
while shutting down one the strongest truth movement bodies to date.

Act now, and I'll even throw in a soup can!


Oh wait, you can't act now... the paint theor....guess has been squashed
for good! See here:

Harrit addresses, the "paint theory" June 20, 2009
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6-7-2009 by turbofan]



Jones won't even answer the email I sent that refers to wanting to independently test the material he has so what makes you think he would debate anyone??? Why would he not answer that if he has so much conviction in his 'truth????"

1000 dollar challenge...


Also, I love how you guys pick and choose what NIST does correctly and what they lie about. Flip flop...stick to a point. I admit, it is a good article but again you only seem to believe what FITS your story.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Are you kidding? YOu think Jones is going to give you dust samples
without some sort of University affliation, or science degree? Perhaps
a lab. affiliation...

Depending on how you approached the subject, I wouldn't be at all
surprised if he just deleted your message.

Do you honestly think that Jones would send some average kid dust
without knowing your intention, or your expertise in the field?

There are proper channels to take when requesting such sensitive
material and I can assure you lacking some sort of designation after
your REAL name will get you no where.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Jones doesn't want to give up any sample because then there could be opposing analyses. By controlling the sample he keeps control of the issue he has made.

Any progress on the DSC explanation, turbo? I hope that your sources haven't abandoned you and forced you to rely on your internet education. I'm still stuck in the past with books and papers so you should have the advantage, anyway.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones doesn't want to give up any sample because then there could be opposing analyses. By controlling the sample he keeps control of the issue he has made.




You're a funny character and quite a dreamer. Is that why he put his
name on a public access research paper with all of the data?

Just like I said, nobody is giving up limited dust samples to anonymous
people. I certainly would not, and I know you would not.


Any progress on the DSC explanation, turbo? I hope that your sources haven't abandoned you and forced you to rely on your internet education.


Would you like to post up your real name and degrees and I'll do the
same? Photo proof? Transcripts? Records of employment?

I'm up for it. Are you ready? Just say the word and I'll start the thread.

Internet education
I'm not the one who can't read a DSC graph!

Your explanation is forth coming. My sources haven't replied, but they
have lives and are busy unlike yourself who has requested a response
twice in one day. Keep waiting and sweating 'petridine'. Maybe I'll
write something a little later this evening while I'm waiting for Jones and
others to respond...ya know, just to get the ball rolling and show more of
your errors.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


All the data is his data. That is the point. He controls the samples so he controls what gets published.

I don't wish to reveal personal information. If you want believe that anyone could have just surfed the web and provided the analyses that I provided, you are welcome to do so.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Some kid? What do you think I did, write a note in Crayon saying

You bad, send me ur samplez so I can burned them up 2

I crafted a professional, non combative email that explained I wished to independently test his samples based on my disagreeing with the results.How do YOU know if I have the ability to test? How? If he deleted my email, then I smell fear. Plain and simple. I mean, if I was just some internet kid, why would he be afraid.

How about I craft another and tell him to send samples to Cal-tech or MIT for study? I am sure he would run from that also since it would be a real peer review.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Look up Nils Andersen. That's real.

Plain and simple you are not getting dust samples unless you are
part of a recognized organization.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Bump for exponenet, or any other GL that can explain this:


Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by exponent
 


Yawn


You're getting pretty old "exponent". I'm getting tired of playing circles
with you.

Here are a few stop images. Study them well, and please don't try to
deny the solid visual proof that the top section destroys itself before
the support structure (red line) begins to descend:

procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...

Go ahead 'exponent', try to talk your way around the linked photos.
Please explain how gravity smashes the section above the impact
hole, without crushing the 1000 foot of tower.

P.S. If you have been following my logic and watched some of the
video evidence, you would know that I believe there were multiple
sources of energy destroying the towers. Therefore, the explosions
you hear / see in the independent footage would indicate something
more than thermiate was used.




top topics



 
172
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join