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: 52
172
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 

Analysis for residue of demolitions would need some objects to analyze. If detonators, timers, wiring, unexploded devices, caps, det cord, etc. had been found, certainly tests would have been done on them. As it is, where would one start to test and what would one test for? Analyzing every centimeter of every face of every structural member is not possible. What should we test for? Nitrates, nitramines, aromatic nitro compounds, thermite, thermate, and a host of others would further complicate the problem. Of course, if nothing was found, we could start over looking for more and more exotic materials.
No demolition was evident, no physical evidence of demolition was discovered, and no tests were done. Tests were also not done for nuclear weapons, DEW, or bad gravity.




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Dear Truthers,

Please copy these links and paste them anywhere you see claims that the
chips are paint. This is Dr. Jones explaining the charts and why the chips
cannot be paint. You will also see reference to the two new independent
studies confirming the thermite paper:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 11-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


It is not beyond debate. The discussion is not closed. Your blanket statements concluding thermite convince no one. Jones has yet to prove anything.

"Get over it."



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Pt refuses to answer the questions in the previous post and cannot
explain the lack of Zinc and/or Maganese to support his paint claim.

He cannot describe why nano-sized spheres are attached to partially
reacted chips. The man is clearly disinfo.


The primer used in the WTC's as per NIST was flat out rejected as a
source of the chips as Zinc and Maganese were no where to be found
in the chemical analysis.

This has been PROVEN and DUPLICATED by various sources. Aside
from the chemical composition, Jones explains the evidence of thermetic
reactions and also schools Greening in an e-mail exchange which was
posted on 911Blogger.com (see link supplied by member Seventh).

Once again, here are the links for those that continue to complain and speak without reviewing the
videos:



Originally posted by turbofan
Dear Truthers,

Please copy these links and paste them anywhere you see claims that the
chips are paint. This is Dr. Jones explaining the charts and why the chips
cannot be paint. You will also see reference to the two new independent
studies confirming the thermite paper:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


THe science has been proven. You can wait for the forth coming
publication by Basile, or you can check the facts now. Get over it.
911 was an inside job and then proof is hitting you in the face.

This is beyond debate.

This is beyond opinion.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by pteridine


Analysis for residue of demolitions would need some objects to analyze. If detonators, timers, wiring, unexploded devices, caps, det cord, etc. had been found, certainly tests would have been done on them. As it is, where would one start to test and what would one test for? Analyzing every centimeter of every face of every structural member is not possible. What should we test for? Nitrates, nitramines, aromatic nitro compounds, thermite, thermate, and a host of others would further complicate the problem. Of course, if nothing was found, we could start over looking for more and more exotic materials.
No demolition was evident, no physical evidence of demolition was discovered, and no tests were done. Tests were also not done for nuclear weapons, DEW, or bad gravity.


Tests on the steels for explosive residues, also there are only so many causes responsible for these collapses, Pancake and heat damage have both been ruled out, the options are getting very limited.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S. Also the miniscule body parts found on the bank roof, something was responsible for blowing them over 400 feet and reducing people to parts no bigger than >-< (16th of an inch).

[edit on 11/08/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


What questions in whose previous post?

As to Greening, he has his opinions also. After Jones publishes his paper in a peer-reviewed journal [Bentham is not considered to be a peer-reviewed journal], others may agree with or challenge Jones. Regardless, more replications by disinterested parties will be necessary before anything Jones has done can be accepted as factual.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Tests on the steels for explosive residues, also there are only so many causes responsible for these collapses, Pancake and heat damage have both been ruled out, the options are getting very limited.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S. Also the miniscule body parts found on the bank roof, something was responsible for blowing them over 400 feet and reducing people to parts no bigger than >-< (16th of an inch).

[edit on 11/08/2009 by Seventh]


See my previous post.
What areas of what steel parts should be tested? What would you test for?

P.S. Remember the planes hitting at 400+ mph? How might those human remains made it to a roof below the impact point? Study hard, there will be a quiz.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Here are two questions you should answer:

#1. How do you achieve iron spheres from a gravity induced collapse?
In other words, how do you explain spherical shapes forming from steel
which is breaking apart?

#2. What mechanism allows for iron spheres to mechanically affix themselves
to the partially reacted chips?



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Here are two questions you should answer:

#1. How do you achieve iron spheres from a gravity induced collapse?
In other words, how do you explain spherical shapes forming from steel
which is breaking apart?

#2. What mechanism allows for iron spheres to mechanically affix themselves
to the partially reacted chips?



This one has been addressed. Jones, of course, ignores all the other factors and circumstances involved in the building fires and collapses, including the actual firefighting materials, smouldering in the debris for days afterward, contamination of samples, etc. Easy to get away with unverified claims when you have an uneducated uncritical audience.

Luckily some objective scientists are prepared to take him to task:


www.debunking911.com...

In keeping with Steven's pattern of applied-misapplied science, Jones has latched onto iron spheres found in a dust sample after the collapse. Once again he points to an anomaly and suggests it cannot be produced normally and are evidence of controlled demolition. And once again he's wrong...

NASA scientist Ryan Mackey addresses Steven Jones "Iron Spheres"

"Iron Spherules: Another curious phenomenon thought to be linked to the structural steel is creation of tiny spheres of steel or iron, found in the dust after collapse. Several researchers report this, including Lowers and Meeker who documented a few examples of particles found to be nearly pure iron and quite spherical, approximately 7 microns in diameter; and the RJ Lee Group, who identified small, round iron particles as evidence of high temperatures. The significance of these spheres is still debated, along the following lines:

* As discussed previously, there is no evidence at all for large amounts of melted steel. If the spheres are formed by melting steel, it must be surface melting or some other highly localized process.

* It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

* There appear to be several plausible candidate sources of the iron spherules in office materials or other building contents. Perhaps the most obvious is the flyash itself used in structural concrete, a residue of combusted coal, which contains iron spheres in a variety of sizes that would have been liberated as the concrete was destroyed. Another example is magnetic printer toner, used to print financial instruments, that could have been present in printer cartridges or found in a large volume of paper documents. This candidate has the advantage of matching the size, shape, uniformity, and elemental composition of the observed spherules from one report. We also cannot discount their origin in building contents, rather than building structure, without much more careful study.

* The quantity of these spherules is unknown, but thought to be very small – the iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3%, most of which was not in the form of spherules. A large quantity would suggest melting of steel on large scales, but a small quantity suggests otherwise.

* Small quantities of structural steel or other iron-rich objects could be partially melted through sheer friction, originating in the aircraft impact or the collapses.

* Much like the sulfidized samples, it is impossible to tell whether these spherules were created prior to collapse, after collapse, or both. After collapse, it is plausible for the debris to have reached much higher temperatures.

* As mentioned above, there is potential site contamination from salvage operations, in which numerous steel pieces were cut, involving nontrivial amounts of melted steel. It is also possible for the spherules to have been left over from the buildings’ original construction.

* Iron that appears to have melted may have merely oxidized, and surface chemistry effects of merely heated iron may give rise to tiny amounts of melting even at moderate temperatures.

* Chemical factors, combined with heat, could lead to eutectic mixtures of iron with other elements (such as sulfur) melting and dissociating at relatively low temperatures, potentially creating the iron spherules.

For purposes of this discussion, we will focus on the latter two inferences, and speculate that the spherules may be a result of a chemical process, catalyzed by moderate heat but below the actual melting temperature of steel. It is, therefore, possible (but unproven) that the spherules and the sulfidized steel are related. To further understand sulfidization, we should begin by attempting to understand the source of the sulfur. Sulfur is an abundant element, with numerous possible sources. The following is a brief list of some possible origins of sulfur:

* Diesel fuel, found in emergency generators and in vehicles in the WTC parking garages, contained a fairly high concentration of organosulfuric compounds, providing a possible source of sulfur in an energetically favorable form. WTC 7, where all but one of the sulfidized samples came from, had exceptionally large stores of diesel fuel to power emergency command and control equipment.

* Large banks of batteries existed in a few locations, as backup for computers involved in the financial services, and could plausibly have provided a significant quantity of sulfuric acid.

* Acid rain could have potentially exposed some surfaces to low concentrations of sulfuric acid over many years.

* Ocean water, bearing sulfate salts, was pumped onto the burning debris piles as part of the firefighting effort.

* Gypsum wallboard, omnipresent in large buildings, is almost entirely composed of sulfur-bearing minerals. However, this sulfur is not in an energetically favorable form, and some other chemical process would be required to react with steel structural members.

The Worcester Polytechnic Institute is continuing to experiment with sulfur compounds in an effort to recreate the reactions seen in the recovered steel. Given the complexity of the debris fires and the many chemicals present, it appears plausible that sulfidization could have occurred after collapse. Whether or not this could occur prior to collapse remains an open question



M


[edit on 11-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Originally posted by pteridine





See my previous post. What areas of what steel parts should be tested? What would you test for? P.S. Remember the planes hitting at 400+ mph? How might those human remains made it to a roof below the impact point? Study hard, there will be a quiz.


Unless untraceable explosive composites like Hydrogen gas was used then basic Pyrotechnic tests and forensics would suffice.

1700+ unaccounted bodies, not even strands of DNA were found, not all were in planes, how to reduce humans to minute particles and spread them in a 100 metre radius curtsey of a 2.1 Richter scale magnitude explosion.....



Steel testing, the end of this one would be a good pointer....




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


What 2.1 Richter scale explosion? None noted.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Seventh
 


What 2.1 Richter scale explosion? None noted.


This one.......




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Those are the buildings falling not any explosions that caused the buildings to fall.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Seventh
 


Those are the buildings falling not any explosions that caused the buildings to fall.


It`s a peak that lasted .8 of a second that reached 2.1 the actual tremor lasted 10 seconds, the exact time it took to fall, and that`s over 800 feet from the ground which is the pinnacle seismic data is recorded from.

It was several explosions look at the picture, there is debris over 100 metres higher than where the actual building tip was.

This is what propelled parts of the building weighing over 400,000 lbs 200 metres away and embedding into neighbouring towers.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


No evidence of such an explosion. The seismograms were the result of the collapse.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Originally posted by pteridine


Analysis for residue of demolitions would need some objects to analyze. If detonators, timers, wiring, unexploded devices, caps, det cord, etc. had been found, certainly tests would have been done on them. As it is, where would one start to test and what would one test for? Analyzing every centimeter of every face of every structural member is not possible. What should we test for? Nitrates, nitramines, aromatic nitro compounds, thermite, thermate, and a host of others would further complicate the problem. Of course, if nothing was found, we could start over looking for more and more exotic materials.
No demolition was evident, no physical evidence of demolition was discovered, and no tests were done. Tests were also not done for nuclear weapons, DEW, or bad gravity.


Tests on the steels for explosive residues, also there are only so many causes responsible for these collapses, Pancake and heat damage have both been ruled out, the options are getting very limited.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S. Also the miniscule body parts found on the bank roof, something was responsible for blowing them over 400 feet and reducing people to parts no bigger than >-< (16th of an inch).




From what I've seen all your provide info is just rehash of Truther sites, blogs, videos. Because they state these things over and over again, with the some misinformed analysis, doesn't make them crystallize into fact.

For every photo of the WTC building looking like a bomb is going off, there are 500 that show the gradual loss of support and collapse.

One can spend days looking at seeming anomalies. And listening to aberrant testimonies. But there is such a thing as weight of evidence.

6 people claim they saw a missile hit the Pentagon. 400 watched an airliner crash into it. The Truther site will give you the version of those 6 people. And then they'll tell you the government is covering it up.

People called debunkers, skeptics, disinformation agents, etc - are interested in the truth. But they don't want to be conned by hostile agenda driven fruitcakes selling videos and T-shirts.

For every claim you have to look at the counter claims. And you have to be prepared to admit you might have been misinformed or misled.

Whatever misdeeds people in the US admin and intelligence agencies might have been responsible for, in 8 years there hasn't emerged a shred of supportable evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. This despite a sub-industry trying to show this is the case, and credentialed opportunists like Jones and his cronies trying to cash in on an easily deceived audiences.

None of this will register, I;m sure. But maybe something you should think about before Googling those sites for ammunition. They're shooting blanks.


M



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


From what I've seen, you're just propagating Mackey's garbage and
you don't understand what you are reading.

Mackey's reply is all theory and he has NOT studied the dust samples.
He claims the spheres may be a result of torch cutting but he fails to
explain how the welded spheres ended up several stories high in
Janet's appartment, or hundreds of feet away where other dust samples
were collected.

Mackey also fails to explain how the spheres are attached to paritally
reacted chips. His response is worthless. He knows nothing about this,
and it's clear he is scared to debate anyone of the scientists.

Mackey chickened out of a debate with me as Ron Weick was setting up
the confrontation on hard fire. Mackey is a coward. He knows nothing
about the dust. He does not have samples. He doesn't have the
equipment. His reply does not address the anomalies. His reply is worthless.

Furthermore, nobody here is able to explain the origin of the iron spheres
and why they are attached to partially reacted chips.

One explanation has been presented and scientifically backed up, PROVEN
with experiments. Jones and Harrit figured it out. Basile duplicated the results.

911 was an inside job. Stop your disinfo tactics.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

From what I've seen, you're just propagating Mackey's garbage and
you don't understand what you are reading.

Mackey's reply is all theory and he has NOT studied the dust samples.
He claims the spheres may be a result of torch cutting but he fails to
explain how the welded spheres ended up several stories high in
Janet's appartment, or hundreds of feet away where other dust samples
were collected.

Mackey also fails to explain how the spheres are attached to paritally
reacted chips. His response is worthless. He knows nothing about this,
and it's clear he is scared to debate anyone of the scientists.

Mackey chickened out of a debate with me as Ron Weick was setting up
the confrontation on hard fire. Mackey is a coward. He knows nothing
about the dust. He does not have samples. He doesn't have the
equipment. His reply does not address the anomalies. His reply is worthless.

Furthermore, nobody here is able to explain the origin of the iron spheres
and why they are attached to partially reacted chips.

One explanation has been presented and scientifically backed up, PROVEN
with experiments. Jones and Harrit figured it out. Basile duplicated the results.

911 was an inside job. Stop your disinfo tactics.



9/11 was an inside job and I'm a disinfo agent. Thanks for the update.

You get replies turbo because you're so amusing. Who exactly appointed you the referee, judge, and jury of who is putting out objective scientific analysis and who is faking it?

Jones tellingly has changed the goalposts of his claims too often. Is the super-duper-magic nanothermite the explosive, the ignition, or what now? How many tons of it were required? Why zero forensic evidence of explosives? Lots of internally conflicting claims.

I'm no chemistry whiz, but you show no ability to digest and respond to the scientific data sent to this and other threads. Just parroting wonky online claims from pseudo-scholars the overwhelming majority of professionals consider to be just con-artists.

Nothing resembling solid evidence has emerged in 8 years to demonstrate controlled demolition. And thousands have looked.

Jones is caught up in a loop of trying to fob off a claim made a few years ago about thermite. It was lousy science but turned out to be great attention getting PR.

Harrit and a few other wannabes joined in. Farrer was Jones's lab manager, Farnsworth a student. Ryan was a water tester. Legge works for an IT company in Australia, Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst, and Gourley works for the Environmental Protection Agency. No credentialed scientists in the field of structural engineering or thermodynamics could be found to sign on.

But in the wonky world of conspiracy one can always find people who will happily confirm or even offer to reproduce results just for the publicity.

No credible journal would touch the stuff with a 10 foot pole, as seen by the embarrassing publication in Dubai based Bentham who also accept random generated nonsense papers for a fee. The mercy publication in Holland in Springer's ENVIRONMENTALIST is a joke. The magazine deals with air quality control. It may claim to be peer reviewed, but it's not a thermodynamics related publication. So where are the field expert peers that reviewed the advanced chemistry? What are their names and credentials? Where are their comments?

Where is the bonafide American or British journal publication? They're always looking for something controversial.

Why is the rest of the scientific community rolling it's eyes and saying nothing?

Are a millions scientists in a couple dozen countries all brainwashed, or disinformation agent?

Or is there something seriously wrong with the thermite claim and the bad science behind it?


disinfo Mike




[edit on 12-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I'm not a referee, I'm just logical.

Why are more scientists looking at the dust and releasing publications?
Two more scientists looked at the dust, they both agree with Jones/Harrit.
One of them is producing a paper for review; the other may as well.

Why did Dr. Greening speak out against the government story, and
now agrees with Jones that the chips are not paint?

Is this a sign of scientists rolling their eyes?

How can you post Mackey's garbage and not understand it? I asked you
to interpret his words, or at least come up with a theory of where the
spheres originated, and how they mechanically attached themselves
to the partially recated chips.

You have not done this. You have not come up with a theory that makes
sense. You have not presented a scientific reference against Jones/Harrit.

Your argument has no weight in this discussion. Please come back with some
solid evidence against the paper with names, references, and some sort
of explanation.

Until then, the science stands. It has been proven twice over indepedently at this point.

See the video for these facts and more.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I'm not a referee, I'm just logical.

Why are more scientists looking at the dust and releasing publications?
Two more scientists looked at the dust, they both agree with Jones/Harrit.
One of them is producing a paper for review; the other may as well.

Why did Dr. Greening speak out against the government story, and
now agrees with Jones that the chips are not paint?

Is this a sign of scientists rolling their eyes?

How can you post Mackey's garbage and not understand it? I asked you
to interpret his words, or at least come up with a theory of where the
spheres originated, and how they mechanically attached themselves
to the partially recated chips.

You have not done this. You have not come up with a theory that makes
sense. You have not presented a scientific reference against Jones/Harrit.

Your argument has no weight in this discussion. Please come back with some
solid evidence against the paper with names, references, and some soft
of explanation.

Until then, the science stands. It has been proven twice over indepedently at this point.

See the video for these facts and more.



Yawn.

Theory: Overheated overstressed steel beams in unusually designed buildings failed to support the structures which collapsed. Attested to by a hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence, forensic, visual, testimonial. 99% of the experts in relate fields worldwide concur.

The vast documentation is out there and available. You're job to find it.

Hints: Go past the 20th page on Google after all the Truther websites and videos. Look for links at those government or debunking sites you dismiss.

Then you enter the real world of scientific investigation and discussion. The cumulative scientific publishing domain it's journals and archives are online.
Also check a dozen resources with indexes for articles in academic and trade journals. Usually something like $20 a pop credit card.

It's a vast world, you'll be amazed by the tremendous volume, depth, and specialization. A lot of stuff on the science of 9/11. Many new precedents and scientific anomalies. You'll find Jones, Harrit, the various lab managers, and even critics like Greening, Mackey, et al - don't even rate footnotes.

Happy Hunting
.

Mike



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join