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.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Another total rant. And you have no idea what you are talking about when you go on blindly speculating reasons as to why there are so many people here to argue with.
So what was the problem with the authors' conclusion that a nano-composite eutectic is present in the WTC dust?
Originally posted by mmiichael
...not to determine what it is he has by ruling out other possibilities. He will not allow an uninvolved third party to attempt reproducing his results.
His stated implication is that thermitic material was involved in the destruction of the WTC buildings. He offers no satisfactory explanation of how charges were sequenced, how they could have provided the continual heat or sufficient energy to do substantial damage to the steel beams.
Independently observed, physical characteristics on the steel are lacking. Molten and resolidified iron pools (the term “pigs” is used) typify melting at separation points of steel and iron. The ends of beams would have molten ends. Nothing like this was seen by those sorting the debris or photographic evidence.
Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
As far as him allowing 3rd parties to get involved, I obviously can't say for sure, but is anyone actually attempting to get some samples to do their own independent tests?
[...]
Jones, as we all should be well aware, is simply saying that he has evidence that there is an anomoly (sp?) in the chemical compostition of the dust found at various areas of NYC from 9/11. These anomolies call for a new investigation, and it is the duty of THAT investigation to answer those questions, not Jones.
[...]
Weren't there photos of the beams which almost looked as if they were cut clean at an angle?
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by pteridine
Honestly now, Jones was not the only scientist writing the paper, all 8 scientists concluded it was not paint, its open to peer review, and the samples used have chain of custody in tact and can be requested.
And of course its NOT paint.
Of course it IS paint until proven otherwise.
Originally posted by jprophet420
It has been proven to not be the paint used in the construction of the WTC. That alone is enough for a new investigation.
11-settembre.blogspot.com...
Abstract: A recent paper claiming "active thermitic material" in dust collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers after their collapse is found to have shortcomings in its methodology.
The paper also fails to explore adequately alternative, non-thermitic explanations for its findings.
*
Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum;
*
alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C;
*
photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings;
*
DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer.
The paper also does not consider the chemical composition of the corrosion-proofing paints and of the vermiculite used as thermal insulation and soundproofing at the World Trade Center and extensively documented by NIST.
These products contain exactly the same elements and exhibit the same structural characteristics as the allegedly thermitic material found by the paper's researchers in their samples.
The researchers therefore appear to have been somewhat hasty in reaching their conclusions.
[...]
a clear attempt to influence the less than careful reader by suggesting explicitly the analogy between the analyzed samples and the products of thermite reaction, without investigating whether a similar spectrum might be due to other causes and reactions.
In other words, the authors jump immediately from the incorrect assessment of the presence of highly reactive elemental aluminum to the (evidently highly desired) conclusion that the collapse of the World Trade Center involved some sort of thermitic reaction of a mysterious product that is triggered at low temperature, provides twice the energy of ordinary thermite, and is characterized by the presence of nanoparticles that give explosive properties to a substance that otherwise is only an incendiary.
These are dramatic claims that need to be backed by equally dramatic evidence, not by suggestions.
The paper also does not consider the chemical composition of the corrosion-proofing paints and of the vermiculite used as thermal insulation and soundproofing at the World Trade Center and extensively documented by NIST.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Given that the paper has already concluded that it is NOT paint, then it's NOT paint until proven otherwise. Not the other way around, which would be idiotic. They have an obvious eutectic.
'Thermite uses its own oxygen source' -- even if this eutectic doesn't have its own oxygen source (and apparently "debunkers" aren't even sure if it does or not), if it works on external oxygen, then it works on external oxygen. I'm sure someone could have counted on oxygen being present in NYC air that day either way.
So is this just the best they could come up with? Or are they intentionally being stupid just to buy time until someone can find a REAL problem with the paper? I don't think there is really any intelligent disagreement with any of these findings.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Given that the paper has already concluded that it is NOT paint, then it's NOT paint until proven otherwise. Not the other way around, which would be idiotic. If you have a counter-claim then PROVE it. Where is the peer-reviewed paper showing these to be paint chips, what kind of paint it is, who manufactured it, etc., because I still haven't seen any kinds of paint that match what is in the paper. They have an obvious eutectic.
[...]
So is this just the best they could come up with? Or are they intentionally being stupid just to buy time until someone can find a REAL problem with the paper? I don't think there is really any intelligent disagreement with any of these findings.
11-settembre.blogspot.com...
The conclusions of the study are obviously favorable to the "alternative" hypotheses. In other words, they suggest that a nanothermite-based substance was used on 9/11 in the Twin Towers and was applied by unknown means, in unknown locations, at an unknown date by unknown individuals, yet it was able to cause the collapse of the two giant steel buildings and of the relatively smaller WTC7 building.
After examining the paper, which we can now describe as pro-conspiracy in its conclusions, I would like to present a few thoughts and consider whether there might be other working hypotheses that should be examined before jumping to the hasty conclusions presented in the paper
[...]
In practice, the red layer of the wafers identified by the researchers contains exactly the same elements that we now know were present in the corrosion-resistant coating used during the construction of the World Trade Center, including the organic base constituted by linseed oil and alkyd resin.
It's not just a matter of the same chemical elements being present. The presence of fossil flour in the paint, too, is compatible with the porosity observed in the samples of the red layer. If one considers, moreover, that mica is also often present in fossil flour, then the presence of laminar particles mixed with crystalline particles of iron oxide might also be explained.
[...]
These panels were bonded by means of adhesive to the internal face of the columns, in direct contact with the corrosion-proofing paint. Vermiculite has practically no structural strength, and its use is limited to thermal insulation and soundproofing work. If impacted, it breaks into pieces. The Twin Towers contained enormous amounts of vermiculite in direct contact, by means of adhesives, with the painted face of the perimeter columns.
Yet the researchers that signed the study do not appear to have considered and investigated correctly this possibility before claiming residues of "active thermitic material" in Ground Zero dust.
3. Thermal Behavior
When the chips are heated to about 430ºC (806ºF), they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC
Although a trace does not capture the increase in temperature once a sample ignites, the area underneath it approximates the sample's energy density.
The thermal behavior of the chips is analyzed using an instrument (a DSC) that measures the flow of heat into and out of the sample as its temperature is gradually increased.
When the samples are elevated to about 430ºC, they ignite in a run-away reaction that reaches at least 1535ºC. The fact that the reaction reaches those very high temperatures is evident from the reaction's residue of minute solidified iron-rich sphereoids -- residues that had clearly experienced temperatures above the melting point of iron to create molten droplets that became spherical under the influence of surface tension.
A measure of a pyrotechnics' performance is its energy density: how much energy can be packed in a given weight or volume. Estimates of the energy densities of chips ignited in the DSC shows them to be similar to those of conventional high explosives and conventional thermite.
Whereas structural and chemical analysis of the chips shows that they were designed as some kind of pyrotechnic, thermal analysis shows that, despite their fragmented form and age, are still active pyrotechnics, and ones with impressive energy densities.
Although building rubble can contain flammable materials, it is not possible that legitimate materials in the Twin Towers or residues of them formed in the buildings' destruction would be capable of reacting to produce temperatures above the melting point of iron.
Conclusion
As this simplified summary of the findings of the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe shows, the distinctive red-gray chips found consistently in dust samples from the destroyed Twin Towers are clearly an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material. It is not even remotely possible that the material could have been formed spontaneously through any random process such as the total destruction of the Twin Towers. Nor is it possible that the material was present in the Towers for some innocent reason.
Originally posted by turbofan
Read it and weep Pt!
911research.wtc7.net...
you see, just like I said before, DSC is not measuring the "burn time" of
anything!
Originally posted by turbofan
and you are anonymous, no credit.
Keep up the character bashing while you ignore the info, that's real
good science.
Originally posted by turbofan
Farrer is listed as a Ph.D. on STJ911; Ryan is listed as a chem. engineer. (not a Ph.D.).
Andersen reviewed the paper; he is a Ph.D.
So we'll go with your numbers and still call it a landslide for credible
authors and associates.
The point is, the science has been presented. The other point is, I've
supplied explanations of what the DSC measures.
The last point is, I'm not interested in pointless discussion about character
slamming. It's getting old.