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: 31
172
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Members...



Notice the flashing yellow banner?

This thread is under review and posts that are not on-topic or are intended to insult other members of this site will be removed. Please allow staff the opportunity to catch up on this thread and remove those posts that should be. Posts submitted after this that continue to violate our terms and conditions and discuss one another will be removed and that member's posting privileges may be temporarily removed.

Please stick to the topic. Not one another.

Thank you.




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Where`s Ryan Mackey`s chemistry Ph.D.?

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

[...]

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



As this is your stated focus on this thread, can we continue to discuss the presence of thermite. Other issues like the claim of massive explosives used, based on photographic analysis, have been well addressed.

Mackey points out that thermitic material is nearly impossible to control in a timed ignition sequence, and delivers an extremely low payload in energy terms. In thin layers it would have little effect on structural integrity.

So why is the determination of it's presence considered critical, and if it were there, how could it have been used?

There is no evidence of steel beams with molten ends as a significant amount would produce. And I don't know of any hard evidence of other explosive material residues if it were some sort of ignition.

Jones implies nanothermite was used in bringing down the towers. How?


Mike



[edit on 7-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Look up Nils Andersen. That's real.

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


Turbofan, do you work for Steven Jones? Have drinks and dinner once in awhile so that is why you know this?

A recognized organization? He is not part of a recognized organization. His is a discredited professor who lost his job when he decided to push a private agenda for no good reason.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
For those interested in actual controlled demolition, it's an extremely exacting science.

Hudsons department store in Detroit was demolished in 1998 by Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI)

It was structural steel built and the largest single building ever imploded. 439 feet tall, 2.2 Million sq feet. But a fraction of the size of the WTC buildings.

As detailed below, bringing down a building of unusual height and breadth requires thousands of precisely positioned explosives and co-ordinated and split second timing.

This begs the question how thermite, nanothermite, or some super secret miilitary grade thermite could be effectively contribute to a CD, given it's unreliable and unpredictability, as well as low energy yield, as as form of ignition or as an explosive.



www.controlled-demolition.com...

CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations,

[..]

Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design.

[...]

Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.


M



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Jones seems to have lost his status as a Ph.D. only when questioning the
government. Up until then the world had no problem with Dr. Jones.



Still nobody has challenged his science, they just hide and smack talk
from a keyboard and claim "discredited".

Did you guys know I own 15 Ferrari's? It's true because I typed it
and I don't have to prove it...therefore my credibilty stands.


Love the GL's...love'em!

Don't worry about the planes hitting the towers, and their odd method
of collapse. It was all fire. Thermite couldn't have played a role, so
just forget the fact that a military grade of thermite was found in the dust.

It's perfectly normal to have traces of thermite in the WTC dust, but
there's no way in hell steel framed buildings should have resisted those
fires! Especially the building not hit by a plane.

A new phenomenon was discovered on 9/11 through office fire. It's true
because NIST says it has never happened before, and we learned
something else about fire that day. It was a great explanation and I'm
happy that a new frontier in science was discovered due to a group of hi-jackers!



[edit on 8-7-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
... nobody has challenged his science, they just hide and smack talk
from a keyboard and claim "discredited".



Plenty of people have challenged Jones's science online including a number on threads here.

You have been pushing for a debate with Jones. The referee is said to be 'science' which to me means this is will not be done with an independent mutually greed upon third party deciding the outcome. From what I gather Jones declines to have a debate online in an open forum. He refuses to send samples to acknowledged experts other than his cronies. So far no bonafide peer review is available, which would mean results being reproducible.

Essentially he only wants discuss this on his set terms.

As this is a forensic study, analyzing material found in the debris of an 2001 event, it asks not only that the chemical properties of the material be determined, but also an indication of it's usage. As far as I know, there is no evidence indicating thermite being an agent in the collapse of the WTC buildings. Jones has not addressed this to my knowledge.

Jones is inferring that thermitic material was instrumental in a controlled demolition of the WTC. The onus is on him to prove it satisfactorily.

Insulting people because they choose to pass on an opportunity to argue his claims on his selected terms does not further anything.


Mike



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Bump for exponenet, or any other GL that can explain this:

I love the fact you use "GL" to describe me. Even this is not accurate, and so even when quoting another post you made, you managed to make another error.

What exactly would you like me to say? It's obvious that you have no intention of replying in a reasonable fashion to any questions I post, and that you rely on your personal interpretation of pictures to determine what you believe occured, rather than the scientific method.

I have no interest in a debate where one side is free to simply make proclamations and demand they be disproven. This is not a debate, it is a sermon, and I don't attend church.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The pictures don't lie Exponenet. Sorry to say, but I didn't make this
up. If not what I described, what is your alternative explanation of
what the photo progression shows?

Feel free to view to original video footage if you need more data.



Originally posted by turbofan
Bump for exponenet, or any other GL that can explain this:


Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by exponent
 


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 a. '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.


Mike, what other terms would you like? You can submit a peer reviewed
paper; you can sign up at the forum linked; or you can submit an e-mail
with all of the particular outlined in the challenge.

Come on, what are you guys waiting for, there's $1000.00 up for grabs here!



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Mike, what other terms would you like? You can submit a peer reviewed
paper; you can sign up at the forum linked; or you can submit an e-mail
with all of the particular outlined in the challenge.

Come on, what are you guys waiting for, there's $1000.00 up for grabs here!


turbo,

It should be pretty clear by now, no one here elects to debate Jones on the terms set. A prize fight where every aspect is to his advantage. Only he has access the samples, one has to accept his providence, his testing methods, his choice of referee, and so on. A one-sided affair.

If he really wants to debate, a number of academic institutions or private labs might consider taking up the challenge. Why is it so important someone out of nowhere confronts him? Is it the need for promotion - an attempt to give the claim some weight? Or is it because in a fair fight he'd be down for the count?

And for the Nth time, this is a forensic analysis of an event 8 years ago. After a murder, claiming you found traces of a dangerous drug in the drain is not proof of a crime. There has to be evidence it was actually ingested and was it demonstrably the cause of death?

Where is the tangible evidence thermite was an active agent in the buildings collapsing? Where is a viable explanation how it was used in a sequenced detonation given it's known unreliability and low energy payload? You remember what has been shown repeatedly - it wouldn't work as an explosive or even an ignition.

These issues will continued to be ignored because there are no answers.


Mike



[edit on 8-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
For a chaser, there is a definitive book on skyscraper fires “Fire in the Skyscraper” by Arthur Scheuerman, previously Batallion Chief of the New York Fire Dept.

No dramatic Youtube, but he summarizes his findings re WTC here:




extruther.blogspot.com...


NIST did not examine the Tower’s collapses after the point of collapse initiation because after the exterior walls began buckling and the top of the buildings began tilting when the buckling spread to the core and remaining perimeter columns allowing the building top to begin falling straight down, the chaotic impacts of heavy floors and walls colliding could not possibly have been accurately predicted by even the most powerful computers. NIST only examined the collapses to the point where progressive collapse would have been inevitable and this took intense computer work.

Those WTC Tower buildings were built with long span, bar joist floor trusses which can collapse into catenaries (cables in suspension) from the expansion effects of heat on the steel truss components. Steel expands immediately when heated. NIST found that the differential expansion effects between the composite steel and concrete in the floors causes separation of the concrete and steel trusses and buckling of the diagonal struts in the trusses. This catenary effect starts at low temperatures of 4000 C to 5000 C before the steel itself even begins to weaken. This collapse the trusses into catenaries over several floors along with the additional ‘thermal bowing’ effect in some of the trusses, caused ‘pull-in’ forces on the exterior wall columns. Thermal bowing is caused by the bottom chords of the trusses expanding faster than the top. This allows the top chord to go into suspension exerting immediate increasing ‘pull-in’ forces on the exterior walls. Photos taken by the Police helicopters showed the exterior column walls in the Towers to be bowing inward, on the long span sides of both buildings well before the buildings started to collapse.

Added to the thermal weakness of the ‘long span’ trusses present in the Tower’s design was the absence of diagonal bracing in the core, the weak column splices in both the perimeter and core columns, one bolt connections of the truss to core columns, missing bolts in the exterior column splices, large open areas allowing extensive fire growth and enabling large areas of the buildings to be affected by heat, weak plaster board enclosures for stairways and elevator shafts, etc., etc.

Building 7 had all the same deficiencies present in the Towers except that the bar joist, trusses were replaced with long span I beams. There were large growing fires on several floors as well as damage from the exterior columns of Tower 1 which pealed away during its collapse and hit the southwest corner and the middle of the south side of building 7, gouging out large sections. In addition to this damage, there were problems with water supply and the Fire Department decided not to fight these fires and ordered every one out of the building and out of the collapse zone (which was a large area including buildings and streets around building 7) as is the procedure when discontinuing interior firefighting operations at an uncontrolled fire. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had already collapsed well before it actually did.

Arthur Scheuerman,
Retired Battalion Chief, FDNY




[edit on 8-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Talking in circles as usual. You have nothing else. Also, you are wrong about Jones and his credibility. This is ALL in your ....yours and a few of the truthers that are left. Do you know about his cold fusion research? Look it up.

He is an agent of the government that is blowing sunshine to those who will listen.

The only proof of thermite is from burning dust and publishing to a non peer reviewed site that the owner attempted to retract what was posted.



[edit on 8-7-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael Why is it so important someone out of nowhere confronts him?


Why is it so important that everyone flaps their opinion around here
like they know something, but are chicken to face the 'man'?

It's important to me (and other I'm sure) to weigh the credibility of
the anonymous internet users who claim the paper is wrong...yet offer
nothing to support their claim.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Your opinion is unfounded. BYU employed him for several years as a Ph.D.

Have fun spreading your lies.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Why is it so important that everyone flaps their opinion around here
like they know something, but are chicken to face the 'man'?

It's important to me (and other I'm sure) to weigh the credibility of
the anonymous internet users who claim the paper is wrong...yet offer
nothing to support their claim.




This is a [non PC adjective] discussion group hosted by ATS. We come here to learn new things, share information, exchange opinions.

We may be bright teenagers or seasoned professionals in respected fields.
We're not here to discuss ourselves, for the most part. If we want to converse with someone we do so without prompting.

This incessant hustling to engage Jones has gone from irritating to suspicious.

I've responded with accumulated data, outstanding pointed questions, relevant quotes, links, etc. Others have provided hard science, detailed explanations, insightful critiques.

The response from you are are unsubtle intimations that we are somehow lacking because we don't want to directly debate some dubious ex-Professor and his unsubstantiated claims.

If he's so anxious to defend his position, let him join this discussion, or set up a forum somewhere.

I think you do not read what's posted by some of us, and just extract quotes as openings to provoke the sender. Key questions put to you are systematically avoided.

It's looking like a transparent attempt to line up recruits for Jones to generate some much needed feedback for his ailing campaign.

Try an ad on Craig's List.


Mike

[edit on 9-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I think I came to late, I cannot follow your links to his paper he refers to;
it comes up as a 404 message.
mabey it was removed....do any mods or members know where to find it?
ty



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Naaa, it's not. Jones even calls out the anonymous 'experts' to write a
peer review againt the data.

Nobody wants to take a shot. Too bad for you because in the scientific
community, their paper stands without challenge.

Oh well, Jones says to ignore those that hide behind internet alias...
maybe I should take his advice.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Jones says to ignore those that hide behind internet alias...
maybe I should take his advice.


Some of those people with internet aliases choose to ignore Jones who seems to prefer communicating through proxies.

Pass it on.


M



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
As detailed below, bringing down a building of unusual height and breadth requires thousands of precisely positioned explosives and co-ordinated and split second timing.


Or, apparently just one airplane per tower!

That worked perfectly, twice in a row.

Yup, CDI, who did the clearup from the WTC sites, incidentally, should simply have flown a plane into that building. Or not... it worked for WTC7.

Are you sure you can't see the internal contradiction in your argument?

Actually, it gives me a great idea. Maybe I should set up a demolition company that uses US surplus planes (there's got to be a few spare KC-130s sitting out in a desert somewhere) to knock down buildings! It would be spectacular, not involve nearly so much tedious planning, and cheap! Just have to get Global Hawk installed and I could just crash the planes into unwanted buildings and watch them fall.

That's my kind of job!



[edit on 9-7-2009 by rich23]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Let's look at this post sentence by sentence.


Originally posted by esdad71
Talking in circles as usual. You have nothing else.


Contentious rhetoric with nothing to back it up.


Also, you are wrong about Jones and his credibility. This is ALL in your ....yours and a few of the truthers that are left.


First, we see the pejorative word "truther". This is an emotional appeal, then. As for the assertion that it's "all in your ."...

Where else does credibility reside, other than in people's .s? As for the numbers, you minimise them without any evidence. Do I have to post a list of all the organisations that want the events of 9/11 to be properly investigated?


Do you know about his cold fusion research? Look it up.

He is an agent of the government that is blowing sunshine to those who will listen.


Well, I have looked it up. This "cold fusion" smear is something pushed by Fintan Dunne, who runs a site that purports to expose CIA Fakes but criticises some of the people most crucial to bringing vital elements of the emerging story to the public. I even put together a little thread analysing his website. You can find that original thread linked from this thread about why these cold fusion allegations are groundless.

All his criticisms are based on innuendo. There's nothing there.

So, it's interesting that you should be taking this line. I'm really not one to throw around allegations of disinfo willy-nilly about posters to this site. But Fintan Dunne is a disinfo agent, I'd put money on it. His site is all about blaming the G8 for 9/11! Anyone who's looked seriously at the evidence knows that goes nowhere, although certainly the intelligence agencies of several countries were involved.

So, you're echoing the line of someone whom I'm sure is a disinfo agent. You might want to think about that. The smear, as I've demonstrated in the thread, is without foundation.


The only proof of thermite is from burning dust and publishing to a non peer reviewed site that the owner attempted to retract what was posted.


That is such an inaccurate summation of the situation that any honest reader who's got this far down the thread and followed all the links will see it as such.


[edit on 9-7-2009 by rich23]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
For a chaser, there is a definitive book on skyscraper fires “Fire in the Skyscraper” by Arthur Scheuerman, previously Batallion Chief of the New York Fire Dept.


I'm glad you think it's "definitive". It seems to fudge the crucial issues from the extract you presented...


NIST did not examine the Tower’s collapses after the point of collapse initiation because after the exterior walls began buckling and the top of the buildings began tilting when the buckling spread to the core and remaining perimeter columns allowing the building top to begin falling straight down


That, simply put, makes no sense. It certainly suspends the laws of physics. If the building top had started to tilt, one of two things is necessary for it to fall straight down: a restraining force on the opposite side to the tilt, or an upward force on the same side. Neither is described here.

This catenary effect starts at low temperatures of 4000 C to 5000 C before the steel itself even begins to weaken.

Low temperatures?


Photos taken by the Police helicopters showed the exterior column walls in the Towers to be bowing inward, on the long span sides of both buildings well before the buildings started to collapse.


I think I'd like to see these pictures.


...missing bolts in the exterior column splices,


And where does the evidence of that assertion come from? Not from any post-collapse examination of the building, that's for sure.


The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion


Not quite LMAO but certainly AQSPAML (a quirky smile plays about my lips). We can therefore completely disregard witness testimony that there was a countdown prior to the collapse. That's all right then! They must have been malcontents or "somehow misheard" the countdown. Oh, hang on, where have I heard that phrase before?


The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had already collapsed well before it actually did.


If you read that sentence carefully it exposes itself as complete and utter speculation.

The clue is in the word "somehow". It's a bit of a giveaway, really.




top topics



 
172
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join