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: 58
172
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I don't suppose he ever elaborated on why reproducing the theoretical mechanism that produced this crap at Ground Zero wouldn't work? If the answer is "no"... Enough said? Mr. Canoli even thought it was a reasonable idea to test your fracking theories.



Refresh my memory.

What are you talking about here?




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Well according to FEMA it was a liquid eutectic that formed on the columns. Your post is the first I have heard in my life of a corrosive gas attack on the steel. Have any references?


Any references that state that THIS is what happened? No.

I'm merely pointing out that "particles" aren't necessary to bring in the sulfur.

H2S and SO2 are well known byproducts of burning just about any material, both organic and not.

I'd also like to point out the common misconception that these 2 beams prove that steel melted. That's not entirely correct.

1: you have steel in the pile
2: It's hot from the fires
3:burning brings H2S and/or SO2 into contact with the hot steel. There MIGHT be "particles" in contact with the steel, but personally, I don't think this would be the mechanism
4:all chemical interactions occur faster at high temps
5:the sulfur combines to form a eutectic
6:the high temps results in a liquid eutectic - IT melted
7:the steel beam loses mass

So while the common statement is that the steel melted, it's inaccurate, since it skips steps 3-6.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Pssst...Hey Joey...did you happen to see the thermite paper and read it?

Maybe you missed that? There's also a video with Jones explaining the
content of the science in the paper which outlines your concerns.

If you don't like Jones' video, I linked an interview with Harrit whom
explains these same concepts and also breaks down the NIST paint
analysis.

Happy viewing!



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

Turbo,
Jones also tries to explain why his analysis of the red chips have them showing more energy per unit mass than theroetically possible with thermite. He says maybe it was combustion of the binder because he ran the DSC in air.
Will you now agree that a DSC under inert is a requirement for the proper analysis of the red chips and that the "oxygen excuse" was a valid argument?
Yes or No?



[edit on 8/20/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Pssst...Hey Joey...did you happen to see the thermite paper and read it?




You DO realize that bsbray and i aren't discussing that at this time, correct?

If not, please reread our exchange, this time for reading comprehension....



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Well according to FEMA it was a liquid eutectic that formed on the columns. Your post is the first I have heard in my life of a corrosive gas attack on the steel. Have any references?


bsbray, I posted this a few pages back:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My whole post mentions the different mechanisms for corrosion and the chemistry that would have been in the WTC debris. It goes through all the possible sources of the gases which helped accelerate corrosion.

It mentions how corrosive sulfuric acids, steam, salts, hydrogen, and such can deteriorate and create the effects observed in the pile weeks and months later. It would also explain the source of heat. This does require a little bit of going through chemistry and how exactly these gases can corrode the steel and the reactions that occur.

www.corrosionsource.com...

www.corrosionsource.com...

Also seawater I believe was used on the pile as well. This also is a very corrosive agent which can help corrode the steel as was observed.

www.corrosionsource.com...

You see, there are many many alternate reasons for why the steel and iron was discovered in this condition. They are much more plausible and sensible explanations than jumping to claims of thermites and desperately trying to squeeze water out this "rock". Its not going to happen.

Also this site gives more to the explanation of why there were such temperatures observed in the pile:

Iron Burns!

also regular iron oxidation can account for this as well. The above site goes into greater details.

I would encourage you to go through the sites listed above and just see how an understanding of chemistry is very important to understand the events witnessed at Ground Zero, weeks and months later. it is information like this which helped me come to a conclusion that the claims being made by Jones and his followers are based on faulty science and ignore basic chemistry facts. The fact that he completely IGNORED the obvious: ie corrosion as a factor and the corrosive environment in which the steel was subjected to for the time lengths, show me his incompetence and his inability to study or research just how corrosion works and what is the chemistry behind it. Corrosion and oxidation of the steel due to corrosive conditions in the pile are better explanations than some magical thermites that defy the laws of physics, chemistry and logic.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Also in the initial FEMA report, they also mention corrosion, however, they do not jump to thermites or any such source.

www.fema.gov...

They mention a few times "Hot Corrosion" in the reports. An explanation is found here as to what that term means:

en.wikipedia.org...

www.corrosionsource.com...

EDIT: to add links

[edit on 8/20/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineTurbo,
Jones also tries to explain why his analysis of the red chips have them showing more energy per unit mass than theroetically possible with thermite. He says maybe it was combustion of the binder because he ran the DSC in air.
Will you now agree that a DSC under inert is a requirement for the proper analysis of the red chips and that the "oxygen excuse" was a valid argument?
Yes or No?


No, not a chance because it has nothing to do with proving a thermetic
reaction.

Harrit gave an analogy of the DSC test in his interview which explained
something very clear. I always wondered how the iron balls formed at
430'C during the DSC test because the melting point is SO MUCH HIGHER.

Care to explain in your own words how this is accomplished? This should
highlight whether you understand why running in air means absolutely nothing.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Also in the initial FEMA report, they also mention corrosion, however, they do not jump to thermites or any such source.

www.fema.gov...



Of course they don't. They know the implications of the DSC's contained in it.

If thermite was used, then aluminum oxide would have been found in large quantities - oops, none are there.

And if thermate was used, then high levels of barium nitrate would be found - oops, not there either.

So the conclusion is obvious, thermxte is eliminated as the cause for these samples.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Answer my question above and/or come up with an alternate theory as
to what caused the iron sphere to attach themselves to partially reacted
chips.

It's about time you answered this question. YOu're not fooling anyone
wth your lack of understanding on this topic.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

It's about time you answered this question. YOu're not fooling anyone
wth your lack of understanding on this topic.


Where did I claim to know about Jones' paper?

Again, mix a little reading comprehension into the recipe. Please.

bsbray and I were discussing the 2 beams that FEMA investigated.

I don't really care about what Jones has to say. Notify me when he gets his Pulitzer. Then we'll talk.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
bsbray, I posted this a few pages back:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My whole post mentions the different mechanisms for corrosion and the chemistry that would have been in the WTC debris. It goes through all the possible sources of the gases which helped accelerate corrosion.

It mentions how corrosive sulfuric acids, steam, salts, hydrogen, and such can deteriorate and create the effects observed in the pile weeks and months later. It would also explain the source of heat. This does require a little bit of going through chemistry and how exactly these gases can corrode the steel and the reactions that occur.

www.corrosionsource.com...

www.corrosionsource.com...

Also seawater I believe was used on the pile as well. This also is a very corrosive agent which can help corrode the steel as was observed.

www.corrosionsource.com...

You see, there are many many alternate reasons for why the steel and iron was discovered in this condition. They are much more plausible and sensible explanations than jumping to claims of thermites and desperately trying to squeeze water out this "rock". Its not going to happen.

Also this site gives more to the explanation of why there were such temperatures observed in the pile:

Iron Burns!

also regular iron oxidation can account for this as well. The above site goes into greater details.

I would encourage you to go through the sites listed above and just see how an understanding of chemistry is very important to understand the events witnessed at Ground Zero, weeks and months later. it is information like this which helped me come to a conclusion that the claims being made by Jones and his followers are based on faulty science and ignore basic chemistry facts. The fact that he completely IGNORED the obvious: ie corrosion as a factor and the corrosive environment in which the steel was subjected to for the time lengths, show me his incompetence and his inability to study or research just how corrosion works and what is the chemistry behind it. Corrosion and oxidation of the steel due to corrosive conditions in the pile are better explanations than some magical thermites that defy the laws of physics, chemistry and logic.



I was wondering why there was no follow-up on this. Could your target participant have you on IGNORE? Reposting just in case.

250 floors of luxury office building contents burning for weeks. An incredible never to be reproduced combination of chemicals and environmental conditions. Sea water boiling at extreme temperature, molten aluminum, plastics, heating and coolant liquids, pulverized drywall, etc.

I would imagine there were any number of chemical reaction sequences that occurred over a very brief time at certain temperatures, that we'll never fully understand.

Mike



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


You were just dismissing thermite/thermate as a possible substance
in your prior posts.

Since you seem to be so educated on the science, please explain how
the iron sphere attached themselves to partially reacted chips.

When you show some ability to understand the science and come up
with an alternative explanation, you might be taken seriously when
trying to disprove Ph.D.'s



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

You were just dismissing thermite/thermate as a possible substance
in your prior posts.




Yes. As it relates to the steel that FEMA investigated only.

No where have I discussed Jones' paper.

Comprende?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



It's one in the same.

So then do you agree, or disagree with Jones/Harrit?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

It's one in the same.

So then do you agree, or disagree with Jones/Harrit?



They're not the same. Our discussion would have eventually turned into whether or not Thermxte could account for those samples. It's not.

No where have I commented on the chips, etc.

Your failure to see this is very telling.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Fine then.

Let's talk. Since we're in the thread I started about Jones/Harrit's paper:

Do you agree with their results of finding a type of nano-thermite?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


They can explain all they want, but Jones measured energy per unit mass exceeds that available for thermite nano- or not, therefore not all of the energy can be thermitic. Jones explains that maybe the binder was combusting and adding to the thermite exotherm and that is why the thermodynamics of the reaction were exceeded.
He gets more energy out than is theoretically possible with thermite. This means it isn't thermite or some of the binder was burning in air.
Now will you agree that the best thing he can do is to run the DSC in the absence of air and that running the DSC in air was a valid criticism of his work?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well according to FEMA it was a liquid eutectic that formed on the columns. Your post is the first I have heard in my life of a corrosive gas attack on the steel. Have any references?


Any references that state that THIS is what happened? No.


Uhhh, I said "FEMA"? Are you blind?

wtc.nist.gov...


A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature in this region of the steel beam approach 1,000 C (1,800 F) which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.



"Any references that state that THIS is what happened?"

Yes, like I told you the first time, FEMA. Learn to read, or to extrapolate data, use Google or even ask me for a specific link.


reply to post by GenRadek
 


Any reference that states it was a gas attack? Any metallurgical studies like FEMA's that conclude it was a corrosive gas attack? A link even? You know I don't consider you an authority about any of this yourself. Possibilities are not even theories, and theories aren't facts. Like I told someone else, I have nothing against speculation, but what is the point of trying to ram speculation down someone else's throat? Why does it have to be a gas attack for you?

[edit on 20-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

The eutectic mixture was a liquid, of course. The discussion was related to how the sulfur got there to form the mixture.



new topics




 
172
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join