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

page: 9
172
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



On the 9/11 Forum, Dr Greening contacted Dr Jones with his concerns. Details on this page and he provides Jones's response.

the911forum.freeforums.org...


"I believe it's more useful to consider how such materials could have been used to destroy the Twin Towers. And here's where I have problems, .... BIG problems.

I've already done a calculation, (see my post from a few days ago), of how much heat energy a layer of nano-thermite (such as the one allegedly found by Jones et al) could generate.

[...] my conclusion was that Jones' chips would do no more than slightly warm a WTC column!

So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!

Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed."


Correct me if I'm wrong... but are you admitting that explosives were used? What you quoted implies MORE explosives than even the Thermite proposed by Jones...

reply to post by sy.gunson
 



Thermite requires Sulpher and Aluminium to be present.

Guess what ?

United Airlines flight 175 had 4.5 tonnes of sulphur in it's fuel and 160 tonnes of aluminum.

Fancy that. All the ingredients needed for a thermite fire. Ah well there goes another conspiracy theory.

What a pity for all those people who wasted years of their life trying to prove a conspiracy.


So...what about building 7? wow, have you ever heard of a thing called denial? for real, I am not one to be harsh... but man... it is almost sad except for the fact that people have been trying to get this information out.


Wow... Great thread. SnF

I wished it wouldn't have come to this, but I think a lot of people are going to be getting slapped in the face with TRUTH in the near future(actually they are now, in this thread
). I hoped that all the Official Story people would gradually succumb to truth, and that it would have been smooth...but DAMN.

This is a harsh and swift kick in the rear to all those that have chosen not to SEE with their EYES.

Unless everyone has given in... and these are just disinfo agents left in the jungle like Vietcong in 'Nam.

Maybe we should send out a memo telling them the fight is over... and that there does indeed need to be a new investigation...

Then again... maybe we should just move on and let them stay in denial.





posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 11andrew34
 


Not likely considering the grade of thermite found in the chemical signature
vs. conventional thermite.

Also not likely due to where the samples were recovered: high rise building apartments, and hundreds of feet away from the base of the towers.

As I skim through the more recent replies since my last visit, there are
a few members supporting the chance that thermite was used as an
ignition source for other explosives

So, what is your argument ? That because of the application as an
ignition source for other explosvies, the thermite discovery is invalid?

I'm not so sure I understand your position(s)?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Actually, Dr. Greening said: "So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!"
It's becoming obvious that a thin layer of any sort of thermite can't do much and there would be no reason to paint it on a steel structure. The idea that it is some kind of fuse is even more of a stretch. I believe that Jones can't admit that the chips are not any sort of demolition material because it is the only sample he or anyone else has to analyze to support his predetermined conclusions.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Weren't samples taken from more than one sampe of dust?

Weren't samples taken by other researchers from different dust samples from the ones studied here?

Didn't they come up with similar results?

Where does the idea that there is not a lot of this thermite come from?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I was asking if they were testing a remnant found that was unignited or residue found from the reaction. Simple question. It does not take much to create a thermitic reaction.

Why would there be thermite left if it was used for the destruction of the columns?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


It's not up to Jones to figure out how the thermite was used; he's simply
reporting the discovery of a substance that should not be contained in
the WTC and supports the demolition evidence.

So again I must continue to repeat my question as GL's constantly avoid it;
actually let's try something else:

This grade of thermite found is non-conventional. What do you suggest
it was used for, if it wasn't used for clean -up purposes?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanerz
reply to post by pteridine
 


Weren't samples taken from more than one sampe of dust?

Weren't samples taken by other researchers from different dust samples from the ones studied here?

Didn't they come up with similar results?

Where does the idea that there is not a lot of this thermite come from?


It's lengthy, but if you feel like it, you could watch the AE911Truth 2008 presentation here.

They talk about finding samples from all over NYC at SOME point in the video, I just can't remember where.

In any case, yes, the samples were taken from multiple places, I believe some where even recovered from the Brooklyn Bridge. It's all in that video though.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Consider that it may not be thermite, at all. It may not have any real energetic properties and if it does, they may be incidental to its true purpose. The first thing is to determine if it has such properties by DSC in the absence of air. The kaolinite-like aluminosilicate content and the thin layer argue for paint. If it is present in ton quantities, it likely isn't unreacted thermite but is probably a paint.
There is a long way to go, yet, and each step must be done properly.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


Consider that it may not be thermite, at all. It may not have any real energetic properties and if it does, they may be incidental to its true purpose. The first thing is to determine if it has such properties by DSC in the absence of air. The kaolinite-like aluminosilicate content and the thin layer argue for paint. If it is present in ton quantities, it likely isn't unreacted thermite but is probably a paint.
There is a long way to go, yet, and each step must be done properly.


Check out that video I linked above. I'm 99.9 percent sure they state that they have 'tons' of the fine dust with the nano spheres which contain exact ratios of the required elements to justify it being the product of a thermate reaction.

The apparent unreacted chips which you are questioning are limited from what I understand.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanerz
reply to post by pteridine
 


Weren't samples taken from more than one sampe of dust?

Weren't samples taken by other researchers from different dust samples from the ones studied here?

Didn't they come up with similar results?

Where does the idea that there is not a lot of this thermite come from?


The paper describes the four dust samples used and shows where they were collected. One was from the WTC, #2 was from the Brooklyn Bridge, and #'s 3 and 4 were 6-8 blocks north of the WTC and fairly close together. They were not collected by researchers, per se, but by interested parties and given to Jones. It is reasonable to assume that they are actual dust samples and that no collusion was involved. To my knowledge, no one else has studied the red chips and it is not known how much of them there are in samples. Jones estimates this and assumes an even distribution throughout the dust. Another estimate of the total amount of dust allows an estimate of the total amount of red chip material that would have been present. This says that a large amount of red chip material was present and implies that much more was actually present if a significant amount reacted.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by 11andrew34
 


Thanks for the reply. It's not part of an argument...see the opening of my post again. Or I guess I should just save you the trouble of looking it up again and say again that this isn't my beat and I'm reasonably assured the human cloud computing going on here and places like here on the net and the experts in the labs and such are well on their way. It's only a matter of time before a definitive picture of the whole thing is ready.

It was just the first thing kicking around upstairs on the topic of thermite being found, and I hadn't seen anybody ask that and get an answer yet.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Right, so we got NANO-sized particles in many samples of how many total tons of dust produced from the collapses? And someone is trying to say that they can say there was only enough to act as a fuse?

The fact is that this stuff is unconventional, that the only place to really acquire it is our military, and it was found in proper ignitable ratios together in a mass, not all necessarily in seperate pieces all over.

Common sense tells me I can't just go make some of this specific stuff myself, facts tell me it's worth $1100 for 2.2 pounds, yet it is showing up in the various samples of the tons of dust from various locations around NYC. How much, based on these samples alone, could we suppose would show up if we had all the dust, if the entire area was scoured, if the molten pools didn't set off the rest, etc.?

Isn't it really common sense to understand that nano tech is so far from the public consumer domain in demolitions, let alone almost all aspects of the study?

This isn't conventionl thermitic material... this is the currently known granddaddy of thermitic material. It costs a lot, obviously meaning it is hard as hell to produce, and yet it shows up in these samples.

You don't even need scientific facts to understand that an investigation is needed. It's like seeing a dead person lying on the ground with a hole in between their eyes, then concluding it was a mugging/murder from some random thug. Even though the recovered bullet was made of spent uranium.

Wish I knew the quote from the old Athenian who said it was illegal for the people to let the gov. go unquestioned in their motives. JFK quoted him.

Short version: nano-scale thermitic material.

Even shorter version: NANO.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by shanerz
 



Yea man I agree with you 100 percent. I've stated before that I am not an expert in ANY field of study that would give me an understanding of this stuff. I only have the evidence presented to me through that video, and a few others, that I get my information from.

You DONT need a degree to see it though.

As far your question regarding the amount of dust...well that is one thing that they are saying, is the fact that they have samples from all over the city, and each of those samples are virtually the same in the sense that they contain SO much of said evidence for thermate reactions, its very probable that ALL the dust in the area would tell the same tale.

There is no way to prove that unfortunately, but at the same time, no one can prove otherwise, either.

But again, your entire post is exactly the thoughts I had when I created my account...its mind boggling that ANYONE, ESPECIALLY AMERICANS, still try to help cover up the BS 9/11 official story.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
This is turning into quite an interesting topic, thanks, and I see some arguments that appeal to me on both sides right now.

I'm wondering, has Jones been able to get many other professors/professionals to accept his theories/evidence?

I understand that it will be difficult for some to express such a controversial opinion, but there are still many tenured professors, and universities with strong enough academic freedom that some professors could get on board if they felt it was good work by Jones. Even if they didn't feel they could endorse him totally, many could take the route of declaring his work interesting and requiring more experiments/investigation.

An example I'd give of how the system of academic freedom is still mostly working in the USA, is Ward Churchill. He wrote an essay in 2001, calling BS on the 9/11 story, and although he did end up getting fired in 2007, he won through in the end. A court accepted he had academic freedom and it was wrong for the university to fire him, and awarded him $1m in damages.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by jimminycricket]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
You can prolong the inevitable with the "paint" excuses, and continue to
dodge the obvious despite the mounting evidence that supports a demolition,
but you can't deny the study from Jones. There are too many instances
besides "oxygen" pointing to a type of thermite.

It's a good thing that some opponents are challenging the nine
scientists because it will only further expose the crime of the WTC.

Looking at the photos below just screams anything but gravitational collapse,
or 'natural' occurance. In any of these photos there is about 700-1000 feet
of tower remaining, and NOTHING on top crushing the structure.

The demo wave continues to fall and accelerate as mass is ejected upward
and outward. With increasing resistance in the lower sections of the tower
and decrease in mass above the demo wave; the "collapse" should stop,
or at the very least decelerate.

Gravity doesn't throw pulverized conrete upward and out in an arcing
manner. Structures do not destroy themselves from the top down at
near free fall speed.

These photos don't lie unfortunately. The thermite study is sound science
and has yet to be formally challenged. WTC 7 falling from fire is nonsense. You have the chance to question Jones, but you fail to
take up the opportunity while further spewing opinion and broken theories
into the discussion.

If that makes you feel good, go nuts.

You also have to deny the 'squibs', the angle cut core beams; the fire
fighter testiomony of liquid flowing metal; video of molten iron; audio of
explosions; first responder testimony of bombs/explosions; lobby video
and photo of blow out glass and marble sections of wall; thermal images
of ground zero showing temperatures above jet fuel/office fire weeks after the
incident...

It's incredible that anyone could believe gravity brought down any of those
towers on 9/11!


















[edit on 4-6-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
It has been claimed that the steel joists "FAILED" because the fire retardant which is "SPRAYED" onto all the internal fixtures of these joists had not been maintained with the correct stuff - the company which had been made responsible for this was the same company doing security for the WTC which has been linked to Bush and Kuwaiit

www.commondreams.org...

What would stop this company replacing the retardant with thermite - the contractors would have no idea and those who supplied would not know what it was for - it could be said for insect problems !

Again the WTC security teams were ordered off site for mysterious purposes in the months leading up to the event - perfect time to spray the internal structures with thermite.

If only 20 stories were sprayed the resultant molten steel would be enough to weaken huge areas of the building.

Combine this with explosives in the basement to take out the footings and core and the buildings would be weakened significantly.

The planes could them simply be guided in with remote technology such as they have been using for well over two decades - the same technology which is now used to fight the wars in Aghanistan and Iraq.

The hijackers role would have been simply to over power the pilots and turn off the tracking devices while the planes were flown either remotely or by preprogrammed computer.

This scenario is easily achieved by a limited number of people and explains within the realms of possibility how this could be achieved.

The only remaining problem would be to issue stand down commands to military interceptors and we all know about THAT !



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


Actually, Dr. Greening said: "So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!"



Where is this quotation coming from? Do you have a recording of this conversation between Jones and Greening? This F R Greening seems like an idiot; imagining that different pulverized ingredients can combine themselves into thermite by accident. Is this a similar theory to the ridiculous idea that an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite amount of time can eventually type out the complete works of Shakespear?

Perhaps your desperation is causing your misplaced faith in Frank R Greening? Why is it you have still not challenged Dr Jones directly and cornered him in debate?

Go debate Dr. Jones. What are you waiting for? Are you afraid?


posted by mmiichael

I got the impression Greening know what he was taking about



And do you too get the impression that Greening knows what he is talking about? Do your impressions also outweigh applied science?

By the way, Frank R Greening is the halfwit who runs 911Myths.
www.911myths.com...


Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster
by F. R. Greening

(ii) Molten Aluminum Reactions
The presence of molten aluminum in the Twin Towers during 9-11 was first documented by FEMA. Reports of spontaneous, and sometimes highly energetic, reactions between molten aluminum and gypsum, known to be present in large quantities of wallboard used at the WTC, are noted in /13/. While it is well known that molten aluminum is very reactive to oxides, it is also reactive to sulfates. Hence consideration should be given to the possible role of molten aluminum in producing SO2 through the reaction:

3CaSO4 + 2Al  3CaO + Al2O3 + 3SO2

This reaction only occurs between molten aluminum and finely divided CaSO4 and therefore requires crushed wallboard material exposed to sustained temperatures of at least 550 C. The presence of molten
aluminum in the Twin Towers has been discussed in /13/, where it was shown that the airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into WTC 1 & 2 on 9-11 represent a source of about 10,000 kg of molten aluminum. Reports of spontaneous, and sometimes highly energetic, reactions between molten aluminum and materials present on the Twin Towers such as pulverized concrete and gypsum are noted in /13/. If we assume that the molten aluminum reacted with equal efficacy with these materials, we estimate that up to 1000 kg of aluminum may have reacted with CaSO4. The stoichiometry of this reaction then implies that as much as 3500 kg of SO2 could have been released in WTC 1 & 2 by reactions between CaSO4 and molten aluminum.

www.911myths.com...



Before concluding this discussion it is worth considering claims for the presence of molten metal in the WTC rubble pile. The evidence for molten metal is entirely anecdotal; however, S. Jones in Ref /12/ suggests that the “pools of molten metal” observed within the rubble pile are in fact molten iron or steel produced by the thermite/thermate incendiary devices supposedly used in a controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7. In support of Jones’ hypothesis it is readily calculated that the 1.6  1010 J of heat energy released by the ignition of 4000 kg of thermite/thermate would be capable of melting about 6,000 kg of structural steel which would then be at a temperature of 1539 C. And we can readily agree that complete
combustion of all carbon-based materials in the WTC buildings, including jet fuel, diesel oil, wood, plastics and fabrics would be incapable of generating such temperatures.


www.911myths.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

...By the way, Frank R Greening is the halfwit who runs 911Myths.
www.911myths.com...


Awesome post SPreston, but Jesus...Who in their right mind pays for THAT site to keep running? I hope they interrogate him when there is a new trial for assisting in the coverup, then throw his ass in jail for Accesory After The Fact.

Out of curiosity, I went to that site again, clicked on "WTC (demolition)" from the left hand side tabs, and then "As did the suspicious removal of the WTCs bomb-sniffing dogs", and I want to address his final paragraph in that section. It says:

"Presumably there would have been at least one other dog in tower one, perhaps others working different shifts. It looks like these at least were fixed and not wandering the building, but this would still pose a problem for vehicles bringing explosives. Maybe the WTC wasn't quite so insecure, after all." **emphasis my me**

Now of course, this paragraph is taken out of context, but I've bolded certain words and you get the idea of what I'm trying to convey. "Presumably...perhaps...it looks like..." I mean DAMN. This man sure does assume a LOT, and that's just one paragraph.

I'm willing to bet that Dr Jones' reports dont use presumptuous phrasing such as this, and as often. If I'm wrong, please let me know.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
This is interesting. A detailed peer review analysis of Jones by 2 PhDs. They are Truthers but are critical of his science.

This should underline that even those non-accepting of the Official Story
have severe problems with Jones.

Foreword, Introduction, and Conclusion excerpted. Good presentation.


M




nomoregames.net...

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?

A peer-review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research

by Morgan Reynolds
Ph.D. in economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1971
M.S. Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1969
B.S. Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1965

& Judy Wood

Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science, from the Department of
Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1992
M.S. Engineering Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1983
B.S. Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering), Virginia Tech, 1981


Abstract-Foreword

Disturbed about the content and quality of physicist Steven E. Jones' 9/11 work, Drs. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood conducted a peer-review. This review covers ten major issues which include demolition of WTC 7, demolitions of WTC 1&2, evidence for high-energy explosives, thermite, glowing aluminum, No Big Boeing Theory (NBB) and other issues. In the "truth movement," it is vital that we police our own. If we don't, the defenders of the OGCT certainlly will. You can be sure that it will get mighty ugly when defenders of the OGCT find major errors. This is the purpose for having research peer reviewed.

[...]

I. Introduction

Four years after the event, a Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, suggested that the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was not caused by impact damage and associated fires but by pre-positioned explosives. Jones’ paper caused a stir because of his credentials and apparent expertise in physics, mechanics and chemistry. Jones is the only full professor in physics at a major university who has publicly expressed skepticism about the official 9/11 story. Jones’ background includes research in the controversial area of "cold fusion," perhaps the biggest scientific scandal of the last half-century. Cold fusion violates standard physics theory because there is no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature.

Within weeks of Jones’ arrival on the 9/11 scene Dr. Jim Fetzer, a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, founded a new organization?Scholars for 9/11 Truth?and invited Jones to become co-chair, effectively second in "command." The society grew rapidly to 300 members and Fetzer and Jones made notable strides in publicizing shortcomings in the official 9/11 story. Steven Jones’ star continues to rise: "Now he [Steven E. Jones] is the best hope of a movement that seeks to convince the rest of America that elements of the government are guilty of mass murder on their own soil," writes John Gravois in the Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23, 2006. Canadian chemist Frank R. Greening says members of the 9/11 conspiracy community "practically worship the ground (Jones) walks on because he’s seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side."

Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars’ discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.

The steep ascendant of one scientist puts many of the 9/11truth movement’s eggs in one basket. The question is, are we being set up for a fall? The time for applauding Jones’ stepping forward has passed. Events force us to take a hard look at Jones’ growing influence on 9/11 research.

[...]

XI. Conclusion

Steven E. Jones, BYU physicist, rocketed to the top of the 9/11 research ladder based on position and credentials. But nearly a year later, his contributions range from irrelevant to redundant to misleading to wrong. He has not turned up a single item of value. The majority of what Jones says is political and his physics is egregiously wrong (SJ: aluminum "cannot" glow yellow in daylight), deceptive (SJ: WTC demolitions can be treated alike), nonexistent (SJ: jet liners crashed into WTC, a jet liner might have crashed into the Pentagon) and shallow (SJ: thermite is key to WTC demolitions).

The proof that 9/11 was an inside job was well developed by internet researchers, not academics. The question now is whether participation by academic researchers will hamper or help in expanding our understanding of 9/11 and bringing the perpetrators to justice. Early returns from the most highly sought-after research on 9/11?that of physicist Steven E. Jones?predict little or no good will come from the academic establishment on either 9/11 truth or justice. Proof that government/media lied and 9/11 was an inside job is being confounded and rolled back.




[edit on 5-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
That's all fine and dandy, but this is not a review of Jones' paper, or
the science. If I'm not mistaken, the site you referenced has been
floating around long before the study was released.

It's no secret that Jones and Wood don't get along. Let's stay on topic
here and link references to the paper, or rebuttals against the paper;
not character assassinations.

Do you have an updated source to show Woods' review of the latest
study by the nine scientists?





new topics
top topics
 
172
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join