Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 67
172
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You are correct. In fact, even the WTC7 collapse time was not measured because the videos do not show all of the collapse because the view was obscured. No one knows how long the collapse took and no one knows how long it should have taken.




posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
In case you haven't seen, check out the new video prooving explosives:


Sorry turbo, these one really takes the cake.

It opens with "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth " but it turns out to be high school teacher David Chandler with a frame by frame highlighting of drywall pieces disintegrating. But they're called explosions.

It ends on:

"These explosions may seem small but the fact that there were explosions at all means there were explosives in the building"

Even in high school we knew generators and other equipment blew up under under extreme conditions. Dozens of secondary explosions were noted.

Mike



[edit on 13-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
have either of you figured out how to get iron spheres from paint yet?

How about getting iron spheres from a 430'C ignition temp.?

I mean if dry wall can break apart and accelerate off axis...then you must
have an answer for the spheres after all this time?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

check out the new video prooving explosives


Haha, i made a boo-boo. Silly o...


Originally posted by pteridine
You call that an explosion? What kind of explosive is this claimed to be?


The same type that fragments debris and sends it in several directions
aside from what gravity can provide.


Using the correct g gives 8.99 seconds for a brick dropped from 1300' in a vacuum. WTC 1 was 1368' from the top of the roof to street level; WTC 2 was 1362'. Dropping a brick in a vacuum, with g=32.174/sec^2, gives 9.22 seconds for WTC 1 and 9.20 seconds for WTC 2. All this proves nothing.


BsBray is correct in a certain respect, but you can take away some
fascinating points from the demo wave:

- it maintains a relatively constant speed as it descends down the tower
regardless of how much mass is ejected outward

- it's moving near free-fall speed despite the massive steel beams which
increase in size within sections closer to the base of the tower

- dust is created from a source other than gravity as it arcs up and away
from the central structure

Those points alone prove CD. you don't need to time the entire collapse;
but in any case you messed up the numbers for both as noted by NIST and
several videos.


Hey Pt., if I drop a car and a bowling ball from the top of the tower at the
same time, how long before each hits the ground?



[edit on 14-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
have either of you figured out how to get iron spheres from paint yet?

How about getting iron spheres from a 430'C ignition temp.?

I mean if dry wall can break apart and accelerate off axis...then you must
have an answer for the spheres after all this time?


There is no evidence for "iron spheres." We went over this already. You revert to recycling previous arguments whenever you seem to be losing an argument. An ignition temp is not the flame temp, it is the temperature where ignition starts, e.g., the flash point of gasoline is much lower than its flame temperature.

What happened to super thermite and the "Scholars?" Have you given up on them or have they given up on you?

The "evidence" of explosion in the video is laughable. Of course, he is surprised that in a structural collapse with multiple collisions that small pieces can "break apart and accelerate off axis" and must assume that it is caused by the explosives that were firmly attached to main structural members and supposedly caused the collapse. No flash, no bang, just a separation from a spinning piece of debris. Some theorist.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
BsBray is correct in a certain respect, but you can take away some
fascinating points from the demo wave:

- it maintains a relatively constant speed as it descends down the tower
regardless of how much mass is ejected outward

- it's moving near free-fall speed despite the massive steel beams which
increase in size within sections closer to the base of the tower

- dust is created from a source other than gravity as it arcs up and away
from the central structure

Those points alone prove CD. you don't need to time the entire collapse;
but in any case you messed up the numbers for both as noted by NIST and
several videos.


Those "fascinating points" cause me to say "so what?" No one knows how the towers would fall or how long it would take in a catastrophic collapse. No one knows how long it took the towers to fall because the videos do not show it all but only part of the collapse. The core of one tower was standing for seconds after the outer shell collapsed. Was that counted as part of the collapse time? What time does the seismic data give?

I note that you are not talkiing about thermite anymore. Why is that?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineThere is no evidence for "iron spheres."


No? Just pictures of iron spheres attached to partially reacted chips?

Care to waste more time in denial? Maybe some glasses to help you
see the colour photos?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine The core of one tower was standing for seconds after the outer shell collapsed.


You mean the same core that telescoped straight down (seen from a few
different angles)?

Gee, that looks really natural...

From day one I've been talking abuot thermite. Now I'm just explaining
the other evidence to you.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridineThere is no evidence for "iron spheres."


No? Just pictures of iron spheres attached to partially reacted chips?

Care to waste more time in denial? Maybe some glasses to help you
see the colour photos?


They were "iron-containing" and not "iron." They were attached to "partially reacted chips."
This means that the highly engineered thermite didn't even complete a reaction. It started and then stopped.
Please explain why the highly engineered thermite extinguished itself before it was done reacting.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Oh man, we already went through this many times. I believe the last time
this was answered, a few of us replied. I even gave you the analogy
of fuel emissions, as well as the failure rate of human produced goods.

Remember? Maybe you didn't read it? Sort of explains why this thread is
67 pages and you still don't have answers to questions.

Try searching this thread for answers, or give us all an example of
a human made product that is 100% reliable and 100% efficient.

THEN try to explain how the MOSTLY iron spheres are formed at 430'C



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Oh man, we already went through this many times. I believe the last time
this was answered, a few of us replied. I even gave you the analogy
of fuel emissions, as well as the failure rate of human produced goods.

Remember? Maybe you didn't read it? Sort of explains why this thread is
67 pages and you still don't have answers to questions.

Try searching this thread for answers, or give us all an example of
a human made product that is 100% reliable and 100% efficient.

THEN try to explain how the MOSTLY iron spheres are formed at 430'C


Yes, we did and you still haven't figured it out, have you? You are saying that all the highly engineered chips tested were part of the fraction that failed. None of the chips showed any partial reaction at all, so they hadn't failed in action but all of the samples failed to react completely when tested. This seems like a 100% failure rate of these highly engineered thermitic materials. How do you explain that? Does that paint a picture for you, Turbo?
Once again, the chips ignited at 440*C. The temperature of the flame is not known, is it? What was the flame temperature when the spheres formed, Turbo?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Oh Turbo...come on Turbo...yes Turbo





Originally posted by pteridine
Yes, we did and you still haven't figured it out, have you? You are saying that all the highly engineered chips tested were part of the fraction that failed.


??

No, never said that. Jones has shown instances of reacted and partially
reacted chips. Are you looking at the same science paper? Do I need
to highlight the picture numbers for you Pt?


None of the chips showed any partial reaction at all, so they hadn't failed in action but all of the samples failed to react completely when tested.


Wow, how nice of you to totally deny the evidence and photos in the science
paper.

Here are a pics of chips showing partial reaction. Wow...here's one!





Gee Wizzer!! Here's another!



Golly Bam Snappzies, Can you guess? ANOTHER!



Last but not least, some fully recated material producing spheres! SHA-ZOW!



Do you need me to hold your hand and show you how to research and
explain what you're seeing? It took me all of 5 minutes to find these
images.



Once again, the chips ignited at 440*C. The temperature of the flame is not known, is it?




We don't know the reaction temp, but we do know the approximate temp
required to melt iron and explosive reaction needed to form spheres!

Sorry guys, I didn't know we were dealing with such an uneducated "expert" when
I started debating Pt.

I love GL's when they try to deny pictures and stuff!



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   




Look at the pictures again. Do they show all spheres or is some unreacted red chip material visible? Yes or No, Turbo?
None of the chips, as received showed any partial reaction at all. That means that they had not failed in an attempt to use them. They hadn't failed in action. But then we see that the samples failed to react completely when tested, i.e., there was still red chip material after the reaction. This is a 100% failure rate.

Now about the iron containing spheres. Note that they are not all iron. There are other elements in there, too. What this means is that they have a complex molecular structure whose real melting point depends on that same structure. Let's compare the melting points of iron compounds to iron. Iron melts at about 1535*C. FeCl3 melts at 306*C. FeSiO3 melts at 1146*C, FeS2 melts at 1171*C, all the nitrate hydrates melt below 70*C, and the nitrosyl carbonyl melts at 18.5*C. This is a wide melting point range of iron containiing material, isn't it?
What is the molecular structure of the spheres. If you don't know, you can't know the formation temperature, can you. I have already shown that combustion is most of not all of the energy release from the chips. What is the binder made of, Turbo? If you don't know what is burning, you don't know how hot it is, do you and since you don't know what the spheres are, you don't know their formation temperature, do you?

Now tell us about the compositions of the spheres and their formation temperatures.
Tell us about what is burning at 440*C and how hot the flame is.
Then we will be able to determine if the flame is hot enough to produce the spheres. Until you do, your arguments are groundless.

Of course, if all we want to do is to show a thermitic reaction, we should get some competent scientists to run the DSC under inert.

"Oh Turbo...come on Turbo" answer the questions.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   



Originally posted by pteridineLook at the pictures again. Do they show all spheres or is some unreacted red chip material visible? Yes or No, Turbo?


Ummmmmm...SOME unreacted chip material IS visible hence, "P A R T I A L L Y __ R E A C T E D"


None of the chips, as received showed any partial reaction at all.


Read the paper again PT. Notice the part that says, "before / after" analysis.

Understand what that means before stating more incorrect BS.



What this means is that they have a complex molecular structure whose real melting point depends on that same structure.


Golly gee, wow! A COMPLEX structure?! You mean this wasn't assembled
in mid-air by gravity as particles rained down toward Earth?!


Let's compare the melting points of iron compounds to iron. Iron melts at about 1535*C. FeCl3 melts at 306*C. FeSiO3 melts at 1146*C, FeS2 melts at 1171*C, all the nitrate hydrates melt below 70*C, and the nitrosyl carbonyl melts at 18.5*C. This is a wide melting point range of iron containiing material, isn't it?


First you need to look at the percentage of material in the spheres. Notice
which element is MOSTLY present and by how much.

Hint: iron RICH spheres.


Tell us about what is burning at 440*C and how hot the flame is.


Nothing is 'burning' at 440'C. It's called an IGNITION POINT!

Are you sure you're smarter than a Ph.D.?


We don't know how hot the flame is; we know the approximate temperature
to melt IRON and the fast thermal/pressure transition needed to form
SPHERES.

GO back and play with your chem. set until you grasp these basics.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Ok, partially reacted. All of the sample chips partially reacted in the DSC. That means that all of them self-extingushed before they completely reacted which means that here is a 100% failure rate in the highly engineered material. Couple this with unknown compositions of the spheres and the resulting uncertainty of thermitic reaction because of faulty DSC protocol. Then add to that the energetic impossibility that there was no combustion component of the energy released and what is the conclusion?
There is no evidence for thermitic reaction.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
All of the sample chips partially reacted in the DSC.


Incorrect. Where is your source for this claim? Read the paper AGAIN.


There is no evidence for thermitic reaction.




Is this kid for real? Shall I play circles with him again?

Naaa, because NOW Pteridine claims that because the spheres are not
100% iron, that we cannot know the flame temp. required to form the spheres.

Based on Pt.'s weak excause, he says a thermetic reaction cannot take place.

SOOOOOO....now we're left to prove what percentage of mass is iron.

If we can prove that the spheres are mostly comprised of IRON, then we
can prove a thermetic reaction.


Pt., do you agree with the above bolded statement. Yes, or No?

What would you say is enough of a ratio/percentage of mass to conclude
a thermetic reaction?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Is this kid for real? Shall I play circles with him again?


Perhaps so, perhaps not, but the Snide Uncalled For Comments, are going to get someone warned and possibly Post Banned.

Fair Warning?

Semper



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Fair enough; however can we also limit the amount of spin on presented
data?

I must say, after trying to get an answer using several analogies, it's getting
very frustrating.

We'll see if we can hammer this out using a percentage of iron to satisfy
Pteridine's state of uncertainty.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I found it very interesting that NATGEO in there supposedly scientific examination of the 9/11 conspiracies that they chose to do all of these completely 8th grade science fair type of tests/tricks. When they could have in one test completely destroyed(and explained the existence and the what is it, of the chips) Jones by simply testing the red chips in the dust samples.

Why didn't they do this? I mean really, to this day no one has come forward to explain or give alternate research as to what exactly these red chips are. They even show hi res photos of the chips yet make no effort to refute his findings.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
"They" wont acknowledge it because then "they" will be forced to deal with it.

The fact is, they can't prove otherwise (the science) and would therefore
expose the 9/11 cover-up.

This is the same reason NIST did not follow protocol to check for thermite
as per NFPA regulations.

If they looked, they would have found it...just like Jones did.



[edit on 15-9-2009 by turbofan]





top topics
 
172
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join