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: 59
172
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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?



I was unsure of what you were asking. Hence the question mark. I thought that you might be asking me about references to a "corrosive gas attack" - your words, not mine.

Again, i was merely saying that "particles" of sulfur may not have been necessary.

As for all the rest...... grow up.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
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?


I already answered you, yet you failed to register it.

i said I'm not interested in Jones' paper. We can discuss it when he gets his Pulitzer for cracking the case.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Without the sulfur the melting temperature of the steel would not have been lowered. Yes, it was necessary for the severity of the corrosion. FEMA tells you all of this themselves. It was the sulfidation that made the eutectic reaction itself so corrosive.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Without the sulfur the melting temperature of the steel would not have been lowered. Yes, it was necessary for the severity of the corrosion. FEMA tells you all of this themselves. It was the sulfidation that made the eutectic reaction itself so corrosive.


Yes, I know. I'm not disagreeing with that.

My only statement was in response to YOUR statement about tiny "particles" of drywall. I merely pointed out that sulfur containing gasses would be a better candidate.

Anything else is a misunderstanding.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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?


bump for bsbray.

What are you talking about here?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


This from page 56:


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

Because for one thing, we don't really know the sources of the material or how feasible it would even be to get such tiny particles of sulfur from drywall, etc. No references. These are tiny particles that have penetrated the grain boundaries of the steel and formed a eutectic reaction inside them, according to FEMA's appendix C, and they say themselves that this penetration by such small particles is exactly what caused the reaction to be as corrosive as it was.


See, now THIS is a reasonable question.

To my understanding of the situation though, plastics, carpet, wood, etc, contain elemental sulfur. The burning of these produce sulfur containing gases.

So it's not "particles" that peneltrated, but gases.



All I was saying, was that this theory should be tested. As you can read for yourself. Others apparently disagree with that idea.


And you assert that it was gases, not particles, as if you have proven it. So what references do you have?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineThis 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?


Or...it means the mixture was more efficient than any conventional thermite
available to the public.

Oxygen is not an the energy source in your scenario; the iron spheres
did not form due to ambient air. You do realize that the DSC temperature
shows approximately 430 degrees? What is the melting point of iron?
The reaction temperature had to be much higher in order for these
spheres to be produced.

This is what you're not proving to understand as you continue to reference
"air".



I already answered you, yet you failed to register it.

i said I'm not interested in Jones' paper. We can discuss it when he gets his Pulitzer for cracking the case.


So you just proved you haven't read the paper, yet you're dismissing
the substance as thermite?
No wonder you don't want to debate me.
Why the hell are you wasting my time if you wont even read the paper?

You call yourself a thorough and honest researcher? Either that, or
you don't understand any of it and continue to make excuses.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Or...it means the mixture was more efficient than any conventional thermite
available to the public.

Oxygen is not an the energy source in your scenario; the iron spheres
did not form due to ambient air. You do realize that the DSC temperature
shows approximately 430 degrees? What is the melting point of iron?
The reaction temperature had to be much higher in order for these
spheres to be produced.

This is what you're not proving to understand as you continue to reference
"air".



I already answered you, yet you failed to register it.

i said I'm not interested in Jones' paper. We can discuss it when he gets his Pulitzer for cracking the case.


So you just proved you haven't read the paper, yet you're dismissing
the substance as thermite?
No wonder you don't want to debate me.
Why the hell are you wasting my time if you wont even read the paper?

You call yourself a thorough and honest researcher? Either that, or
you don't understand any of it and continue to make excuses.


Turbo,
You are more confused than ever. Thermite efficiency doesn't get better than the thermodynamics allow, no matter how small the particles.

Then you take a quote from another poster and attribute it to me.

I read and understand the paper. I pointed out the DSC in air error. I pointed out the poor choice in solvents. I pointed out the discrepancy in energy and that Jones said that partial combustion of the binder could account for it. I didn't read it on some website and repeat it for entertainment purposes. It is you who don't understand the paper or the chemistry involved.
The DSC in air criticism is valid and Jones admits it by his statement. It is you who are blind to the science.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Originally posted by bsbray11

Because for one thing, we don't really know the sources of the material or how feasible it would even be to get such tiny particles of sulfur from drywall, etc. No references. These are tiny particles that have penetrated the grain boundaries of the steel and formed a eutectic reaction inside them, according to FEMA's appendix C, and they say themselves that this penetration by such small particles is exactly what caused the reaction to be as corrosive as it was.


See, now THIS is a reasonable question.

To my understanding of the situation though, plastics, carpet, wood, etc, contain elemental sulfur. The burning of these produce sulfur containing gases.

So it's not "particles" that peneltrated, but gases.



All I was saying, was that this theory should be tested. As you can read for yourself. Others apparently disagree with that idea.


And you assert that it was gases, not particles, as if you have proven it. So what references do you have?

You're still misunderstanding.

Pay attention this time - I'm not saying that it was definitely due to sulfur containing gasses. I merely offered the suggestion that IMHO sulfur containing gasses were a more likely candidate, rather than micro "particles" of drywall. If you took my wording to be a positive statement, well, I've corrected that now, so please try to keep up.

As anyone can see, i said that you had a good question. I never agreed that it was a good idea that this should be tested, because it already HAS been reproduced in a lab as a direct result of 9/11. They were investigating whether or not this could indeed happen, and it did.

Since I don't keep links anymore, if you can be civil, I will dig it out for you.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

So you just proved you haven't read the paper, yet you're dismissing
the substance as thermite?


You're one confused individual, aren't you?

I've never stated whether or not Jones has found thermite at all in his dust. Like I stated, I don't care what he says he's found, until I see a significant % of material scientists agreeing with him, and he gets his Pulitzer for bringing the evil Bush regime to justice. I won't be holding my breath.

Any more statements that assert that I have made any comments about the dust will be a lie from this point forward. You've been notified.

Again, all i've said regarding thermxte in this thread concerns the 2 samples that FEMA investigated. The DSC for THOSE prove that there wasn't any thermxte anywhere on them, and so it can't be any alternative reason for the eutectic melting.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


So a team of Ph.D.'s and engineers produce a scientific paper that has
not been formally proven false; two other independent scientists reproduce
the results and agree it's thermite...but you want to wait for more?

Why? Is the bandwagon method going to change your mind if the science
has already been proven?



Does science change with group size... or something like that?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


So a team of Ph.D.'s and engineers produce a scientific paper that has
not been formally proven false; two other independent scientists reproduce
the results and agree it's thermite...but you want to wait for more?

Why? Is the bandwagon method going to change your mind if the science
has already been proven?



Does science change with group size... or something like that?



Science certainly does change with consensus. A Danish chemist, a physics prof, some lab managers, a water tester, make a highly contentious claim. They don't say where the tests were performed, there are serious problems with their procedures and conclusions. Some unnamed other guys jump in on the bandwagon. Just guessing their affiliaitons.

No credible academic journal will accept the first paper. A Dutch magazine specializing in environmental issues takes the second.

It is not a requirement of professionals to examine every scientific paper that comes down the pike. Yet we have a large number of interested structural engineers, demolition experts, chemists weighing in with their knowledgeabler analysis and criticism. A resounding "no proof" is their response.

And with the claim of thermite as an explosive agent we have no enlightenment how the material would be applied to effectively cause a controlled demolition beyond vagues speculations No substantiation of by recording, witnesses, or forensically.

But we do have thousands of pages backed up by testing, analysis, visual confirmation, that the collapses were due to aggravated structural failure. Tens of thousands of professionals worldwide have looked at the data and do not find serious fault.


Mike



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Turbo,
No one has proved anything. They are speculating. I think that they found paint and when they properly complete their analytical work, they will have to conclude such.
Are you ready to concede that DSC in air was in error and that Jones has not proved thermite?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



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


That is a good question Mike. I am surprised no one on the other side even bothered to take a look or do and research into this. I mean, this is some good information and facts that should not be ignored and could better explain the events and processes in the pile.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Is the bandwagon method going to change your mind if the science
has already been proven?


Who has it been proven TO?

Do a significant % of materials scientists agree? No? Maybe that's cuz virtually nobody's examined these samples?

Like I said, when that happens, and material scientists agree, THEN I'll bother.

Why anyone would waste their time worrying about this latest "smoking gun" is beyond me.

More like a naked gun. Pure comedy gold.....



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael...No credible academic journal will accept the first paper...


If we could leave all the personal opinions about the science out of this for a second...

Do you suppose, given the nature of this information, that one reason a majority of publications would not want this presented in their media would simply be BECAUSE of it's nature?

What organization, in their right mind, would publicize (sp?) this type of stuff, knowing full well the potential consequences?

[edit on 21/8/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


The science was abysmally poor which is why it was published in a vanity journal.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Since I don't keep links anymore, if you can be civil, I will dig it out for you.


Alright then.

Good luck finding it.


[edit on 21-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Do you suppose, given the nature of this information, that one reason a majority of publications would not want this presented in their media would simply be BECAUSE of it's nature?

What organization, in their right mind, would publicize (sp?) this type of stuff, knowing full well the potential consequences?




Any publisher would give anything to have a solid work proving the US blew up the WTC. The media would go ga-ga. Look at Woodward & Bernstein getting Nixon thrown out of the White House, Iran-Contra. Seymour Hersh and a dozen books damning the US govt for decades.
Michael Moore's movie, books like HOUSE OF BUSH, HOUSE OF SAUD. They win awards. They sell. The writer live to ripe old ages.

But there are also hundreds of flaky books with the usual dot-connecting speculation. They come apart under close examination. Eveyone's learned what to expect from the Conspiracy experts.


Mike



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


The science was abysmally poor which is why it was published in a vanity journal.


What will be your excuse if Basile publishes in a "non-vanity" journal?


GL excuses...gotta love'm



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join