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: 45
172
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Seventh
 


You hurt your case with such an additude and langauge. Even if you had a point. Which I do not think you have *obviously*.


If people want to speak to others and use terms associated with gaming forums, then fine, who am I to disappoint them, and as much as i`d like to openly debate with you, you do not unfortunately have anything to debate.




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Next you send me to a twoofer site that does not link to the original source? You need to find the original source before you offer it as evidence.

Was this 50 ton press vaporised by cold fusion? If so then Steven Jones is your most likely perp.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
The ton didn't weigh 50 tons, it could press 50 tons, but it still weighed at least several tons itself. There was also a big concrete/steel door that was destroyed according to the same testimony (engineer Mike Pecoraro's).

And saying our memories are always fallible is just a way of dismissing all the testimony of explosions out of hand. Imagining up explosions that never happened doesn't seem like something police, firefighters, paramedics, etc. would do over and over and over and over again. Yes that is putting it nicely. I could use less padding and say it's stupid to believe they would have made all those things up and exaggerated and distorted them all, without there being actual legitimacy to what they are repeating.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by Seventh
 


Next you send me to a twoofer site that does not link to the original source? You need to find the original source before you offer it as evidence.

Was this 50 ton press vaporised by cold fusion? If so then Steven Jones is your most likely perp.


There are many sites offering evidence via eye witness accounts, you are the one that does not believe it, why should I have to dig around and find sites to prove something I already know as fact?.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. "Did you see that?" he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. "You didn't see the lights flicker?", his co-worker asked again. "No," Mike responded, but he knew immediately that if the lights had flickered, it could spell trouble. A power surge or interruption could play havoc with the building's equipment. If all the pumps trip out or pulse meters trip, it could make for a very long day bringing the entire center's equipment back on-line.

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. "We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.


www.chiefengineer.org...


Like I said before, presses 50 tons, doesn't weigh it, but still is extremely heavy and likewise for the door that was also destroyed:


They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


And you are obviously not paying attention then.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Seventh
 


And you are obviously not paying attention then.


Obviously.

Brought about by lack of anything worth paying attention to syndrome.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


More like brought about by preconcieved notions blinding any ability to see past your own nose syndrome. See? Now I am attacking back.
You arguments have thus far only consisted of "It just aint so." *to studies on cognitive science none the less* and "Look look look this means this.". And not to mention a great deal of silly ad hom because you are annoyed I am not just buckling under because of your silliness.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

mmiichael, I'm not exactly sure what disparity you're looking for me to address.

If it's the differences between the thermite paper and Manieri's conclusions, I'm trying to point out why I think his criticism is flawed and not very well thought out. When I read his paper I find logical flaws, incomplete arguments, selective arguments, a general ignorance of what I'm finding to be the latest technology, and substandard suggestiveness. Which is a shame because I would really like to read a well thought out rebuttal to this thermite paper, because then it would be easier on me in regards to having to look things up from scratch.

If it's the disparity between the amounts of aluminum and oxygen, I think that's one of the proofs that the thermite paper is making. They're claiming that there is elemental aluminum available for a thermite reaction to occur. That there is not enough oxygen for even a 1 to 1 relationship with aluminum, let alone the standard Al2O3. This is one of the points that would need to be addressed in any challenge to the paper, which this Manieri guy thinks he handled with a simple deduction, without any regard for the test results presented after the MEK soak.

But anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that this blog page is not a good criticism of the thermite paper.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

If it's the differences between the thermite paper and Manieri's conclusions, I'm trying to point out why I think his criticism is flawed and not very well thought out. When I read his paper I find logical flaws, incomplete arguments, selective arguments, a general ignorance of what I'm finding to be the latest technology, and substandard suggestiveness. Which is a shame because I would really like to read a well thought out rebuttal to this thermite paper, because then it would be easier on me in regards to having to look things up from scratch.

If it's the disparity between the amounts of aluminum and oxygen, I think that's one of the proofs that the thermite paper is making. They're claiming that there is elemental aluminum available for a thermite reaction to occur. That there is not enough oxygen for even a 1 to 1 relationship with aluminum, let alone the standard Al2O3. This is one of the points that would need to be addressed in any challenge to the paper, which this Manieri guy thinks he handled with a simple deduction, without any regard for the test results presented after the MEK soak.

But anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that this blog page is not a good criticism of the thermite paper.


NIcon,

Yours must be the first criticism of the Manieri work I've seen. But it's healthy and welcome. While I don't see as many shortcomings, admittedly he does not address every thermite paper issue with the same thoroughness. We don't know if he was unable to answer questions about things like the elemental aluminum or just glossed over them for expediency.

It is presented as a blog and the most thorough addressing of the Jones paper I've seen online. I think the paint comparisons and conclusions can't be ignored.

Ironically 'pteridine' on this list has been saying the same thing about the paint and in various messages has addressed the methodology and skewed conclusion of the thermite paper. Too bad they're not in one place for easier reference.

Many other any people elsewhere, online and in print, with an understanding of the chemistry involved have made the same observations about Jones's research.

You mention the ignorance of the latest technology as a weakness of the Manieri commentary. I presume you're referring to the experimental developments in nanotechnology and citations to a report by Gash et al from April 2000 "Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker."

This is a red herring that has left far more room for speculation than warranted. If we're talking about the same thing, the suggestion was that a specially formulated paint could applied containing nanoenergetic pyrotechnic material.

This viability of such pure guesswork has been satisfactorily addressed elsewhere. Even if it were possible, which is doubtful, a key issue would be the ultimate ineffectiveness with the low energy yield.

Let me know if that's what you meant.


Mike


[edit on 21-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

mmichael, I'm not sure how anyone can claim this is the primer paint by making the illogical leaps necessary that I tried to demonstrate in my ABCDE and Jellybean examples. Also, speculating that the formula may have changed goes against the other reason I don't think it's the primer paint. NIST tested what actually survived the collapse and found the paint that survived could withstand over 650C for over an hour. No combustion, no explosions, nothing, just some cracking. So to me that says, no matter what actual composition is in the paint, even if it was changed in the middle of construction, it is not the same as this stuff that reacts at 470C. So if anyone wants to convince me it's the primer paint, they most definitely have to leap these two hurdles. Anything other than that, to me, is just speculation trying to avoid the logic of these two arguments.

When this guy says "(which begins at 430°C!)" (dig the exclamation point) and "since the ignition temperature of commercial thermite is higher than 900°C" I don't think he's aware that what they are finding is the composition and size of the particles affects at what temperature they ignite. I read a paper where one composition reacted in the 200-300C range in comparison to another that reacted in the 500-600C range. And I'm also finding that most of the people do in fact run their DSC tests in oxygen. And even when they do find an unexpected reaction temperature, do they then run their test again in an inert atmosphere like is being suggested should be done here? No, they examine what remains and conclude a thermite reaction occured (please see pg 12/15 in this link I posted before for reference: e-reports-ext.llnl.gov...), just like they did for this paper.

So all I'm seeing so far against this paper is illogical speculations and undue demands.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


One day mmiichael, one can hope, you will stop judging things based on what your preferred clique thinks about them and start using your own head. When that day comes, you'll notice that it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks anymore. You have your own head.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Like I said before, presses 50 tons, doesn't weigh it, but still is extremely heavy and likewise for the door that was also destroyed:



A 50 ton press would prolly weigh only a few hundred pounds. And if it's covered by drywal, debris, etc, then you could indeed say that it was gone. Do you have any evidence that it disappeared somehow? Or explain how anyone could survive being around a "blast in the basement" that could do such a thing? Logic would dictate that a blast large enough to do as the TM suggests this means would also kill everyone in the area.

The door was a fire door, not a blast door. So it wouldn't take much to break the hinges and fling it against a wall or column. I would find it suspicious if it *was* a blast door, and got crumpled as described. But that isn't the case.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
A 50 ton press would prolly weigh only a few hundred pounds. And if it's covered by drywal, debris, etc, then you could indeed say that it was gone.


He didn't say it was covered up with drywall or debris, so there is no evidence of that. He just said it was "gone." I'm not arguing what "gone" means, because I don't know what "gone" meant to this man. He says enough elsewhere in the interview to shed light on the incident.


The door was a fire door, not a blast door.


I don't remember saying it was a "blast door" but it was made of concrete and steel, and I did mention that to you earlier. So it would have taken a damn lot of force to 'crumble it up like a piece of aluminum foil.' This guy's not a "conspiracy theorist," he's telling a magazine what he experienced in the basement. There is no point in trying to discredit what he's saying as if HE'S confused.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Seventh
 


You hurt your case with such an additude and langauge. Even if you had a point. Which I do not think you have *obviously*.


If people want to speak to others and use terms associated with gaming forums, then fine, who am I to disappoint them, and as much as i`d like to openly debate with you, you do not unfortunately have anything to debate.


I take exception to that good sir. I quite frequently use the term GG in this forum. It means Good Game. Its what you say after you utterly own someone in the video game world. If you can't (not you personally, in general) accept that a person can be educated and still be part of the video game culture, thats rather sad.

On the other hand constant bad grammar, smilies, and lolspeak does reflect poorly on one as an intellectual.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

He didn't say it was covered up with drywall or debris, so there is no evidence of that. He just said it was "gone." I'm not arguing what "gone" means, because I don't know what "gone" meant to this man. He says enough elsewhere in the interview to shed light on the incident.

I don't remember saying it was a "blast door" but it was made of concrete and steel, and I did mention that to you earlier. So it would have taken a damn lot of force to 'crumble it up like a piece of aluminum foil.' This guy's not a "conspiracy theorist," he's telling a magazine what he experienced in the basement. There is no point in trying to discredit what he's saying as if HE'S confused.



Indeed, he says a lot about what he saw. IIRC, he describes a lot of drywall and debris everywhere. And anyways, if you don't know what "gone" means to him, then how does the TM make the leap to mean other than just "gone". There is no indication that he believes they were vaporized, blown to pieces, etc. To the contrary, all that he and his buddy noticed was debris everywhere.

A deflagration can give a lot of damn force. And why would I discredit him? I'm trying to clarify the TM's and your interpretation of what he meant.

So far:

The press was gone means that a new investigation is needed. It is never explained why when it can be explained through mundane means, the evidence of which is given in his own testimony.

A fire door got crumpled and that means a new investigation is needed, even though there's a mundane explanation for it.

Okey dokey.....



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
A deflagration can give a lot of damn force.


Wow, sorry, that's a little too vague for me to even go near. Care to be a little more specific or even to quantify that with anything?

The fireballs were deflagrations, and they didn't even blow out all of the windows. Ok, and that is at the immediate impact site, not 1000+ feet of depressurization away. So you might want to rethink that theory for a second or two before you continue, and I know for a fact none of what you're suggesting would work out on paper. You have the thin walls of the elevator shafts and other air shafts that would have been destroyed much sooner by the same pressure required to do that to a door, etc. All of this is obvious.


A fire door got crumpled and that means a new investigation is needed, even though there's a mundane explanation for it.


There is nothing "mundane" about why that door is not still standing. You talk like you see this stuff every day.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to NIcon

You referenced the Gash et al paper of 2002, and it is a response to the 2000 paper from the same source cited in the thermite paper.

The potential of nanothermitics have been wide open to speculation. Few can speak knowledgeably on the subject given it's high degree of specialization. The attributed volatility and effectiveness as an explosive claim seem to keep growing.

There was an interesting exchange between Dr. Frank Greening, which I linked to earlier in this thread.
After pointing out the impracticality and inffectiveness of tehrmitic material as an agency of controlled demolition, Jones replied that it might have been used as a form of igintion to conventional explosives. This has also been roundly dismissed as a possibility given the inherent unreliability factors.
Nanothermite seems to be increasingly championed now as a primary cause, in part because few have the ability to refute the claim.

But some people have tackled the chemistry involved. Take a look at the discussion linked and excerpted here and let me know what you think:



www.rushmessageboard.com...

The paper by Harrit et al devotes some discussion to the existence of advanced nanoenergetics in 2001 fitting the profile of what they claim to have found in samples of dust from the WTC site.

Among their citations is a report "making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker" by Gash et al from April 2000. This study is available from the US DOE energy citations database here.

This report describes, for the first time anywhere, the processes for creating therite aerogels and xerogels with porous nanostructures that incorporate polymer sol-gels.

What I would like to point out is the density of these materials. The denser xerogels have a mass of 0.85 grams per milliliter, while the aerogels have a much lower density of 0.06 grams per milliliter. (Water at room temperature has a density of 1 gram per milliliter).

Because they are so porous, these materials have (internal) surface areas of between 190 and 560 square metres per gram. Taking the larger figure, a single gram of aerogel has an interior surface area equal to four large 2-bedroom apartments.

The materials can be ignited by a propane blow torch.

Gash et al conclude that their technique of manufacture is "a suitable method to control the composition, morphology, and density of the final material, all of which can affect the energetic and performance properties of the resulting pyrotechnic. We are currently in the process of evaluating the performance properties of these new materials."

That's where things stood in early 2000.

The key variable, however, is how much energy is released per gram of material.

In figure 30 of Harrit et al, we are given a comparison chart of the kilojoules released per gram of material of a number of munitions, along with what was released by their isolated samples (the red-gray chips) in the purported WTC dust samples. This ranged from between



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

mmiichael, thanks for the link. He/she brings up some good points which may have to be answered down the road (especially this 10 tons thing and also the military lab thing), but I don't see anything about the actual chips. I don't see any arguments being made about what these chips actually are. I have no problem with these possibly being "beyond the known cutting edge" as long as the chips are proved to be what they are claiming it to be. If they are proved, then that would just go to show we did not know where the "cutting edge" was in the first place.

One problem I had was this part:

"In figure 29, we learn that the energy yield of the red-gray chip samples is about twice that achieved by a new nanoenergetic as reported by Tillotson et al in May 2001, and that the reaction was achieved at an ignition temperature about 100 degrees lower (~440 C vs. 540 C).

Clearly, if the samples contain nanotherite, the purported materials would represent the most advanced nanotherite that existed in 2001. It was twice as powerful, ignited at lower temperatures, and contained novel organic materials of unknown properties."

It seems to me he/she is implying that the Tillotson sample is representative of what would be the most advanced in 2001. But I'm not sure why he/she is assuming that. I read a paper by the same Tillotson guy (and some other joes) from March of 2000 where he shows a totally different composition releases (what looks like) the same energy as the chips and it does it at 250C. (The paper is called "Nanostructured Energetic Materials Derived from Sol-Gel Chemistry" - March 15, 2000) But that only raises the question, does anybody know where the "cutting edge" is, except the people that are actually doing the work?

But now I must go to bed before I get stuck here until 5 in the morning....



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to NIcon
One problem I had was this part:

"In figure 29, we learn that the energy yield of the red-gray chip samples is about twice that achieved by a new nanoenergetic as reported by Tillotson et al in May 2001, and that the reaction was achieved at an ignition temperature about 100 degrees lower (~440 C vs. 540 C).

Clearly, if the samples contain nanotherite, the purported materials would represent the most advanced nanotherite that existed in 2001. It was twice as powerful, ignited at lower temperatures, and contained novel organic materials of unknown properties."


NIcon

I appreciate you concern for ignition temperatures but suspect there are errors or miscalculations introduced somewhere in the thermite paper. Possibly not factored in, ignition temperatures may be affected by specifics such as aging, previous exposures to other materials, the conditions the tests are done under, etc.

I always point out these are forensic experiments not pure experimentation. It's not about any batch of chemicals it's about a certain sample that were under unusual conditions.

It has been shown that the proposed enhanced nanotechnology still does not provide the energy payload required for the scale of explosiveness attributed to it. I feel the call to this unquantified destructive power is a convenient way of explaining away a number of difficulties with the demolition theory.

There still remains the questions regarding the propose materials actual effectiveness, the means to activate a sequence of timed explosions under the circumstances, and the lack of indicators such as residual deposits.

Late for me too. 3 AM.


Mike



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join