Photos You Cannot Deny

reply to post by turbofan

Nice photos, Turbo. Where did you get them?

I choose not to post personal information but you should know that I have run DSC's and TGA's for many years. You have still failed to interpret Jones' DSC trace of the red paint. Do not feel bad, Jones misunderstands it also.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Maybe it was a conglomeration of explosives. There's evidence of conventional HE's from the puffs coming out ahead of the collapse. Then there's the extreme heat and cars up to a mile away all melted etc. They could have used (tried?) 3 or 4 types. It would be a good situation for experimenting with different kinds of munitions. Whatever happened it wasn't just jet fuel and the impact of a jet that caused all of the various kinds of damage that day. It seems to me that the weapons people had a heyday on Sept.11. The whole deal stinks to high heaven of conspiracy. Then there's WTC7. And certain people having advanced notice of imminent collapse. Silverman or whatever his name is and various state and federal agencies. Such a bogus deal. I have to turn my head away when I see (9/11 because I get so angry at the perps and their lies.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan

 

Nice photos, Turbo. Where did you get them?

I choose not to post personal information but you should know that I have run DSC's and TGA's for many years. You have still failed to interpret Jones' DSC trace of the red paint. Do not feel bad, Jones misunderstands it also.

Those are photos of my lab pt. Not bad for a HS drop out huh?

You shuold know that I have three Ferrari's and a Lambo for Winter.
My Saleen S7 is in the shop right now because the left front headlight
shines a bit too bright.

If you thnk I'm going to believe you (whom wont disclose his credit)
over nine Ph.D.'s you're nuts. Your assessment of the DSC trace implies
that LDRD has no idea what they're doing either.

Just remember, LDRD is a government lab that tested a known nano
thermite. I guess there's burned longer with less energy and therefore
they were mistaken too?

ldrd.llnl.gov...

Thanks, but no thanks pt. It's clear your assessment is incorrect...

Originally posted by turbofan

Those are photos of my lab pt. Not bad for a HS drop out huh?

If you thnk I'm going to believe you (whom wont disclose his credit)
over nine Ph.D.'s you're nuts. Your assessment of the DSC trace implies
that LDRD has no idea what they're doing either.

Just remember, LDRD is a government lab that tested a known nano
thermite. I guess there's burned longer with less energy and therefore
they were mistaken too?

ldrd.llnl.gov...

Thanks, but no thanks pt. It's clear your assessment is incorrect...

I did not say you were a HS dropout Turbo. I commented that I thought you were a HS junior because of your spotty reasoning abilities and emotional outbursts. If you claim to be an engineer or computer scientist, I will go with that for now.
I don't think that all the unfortunates listed on the paper were PhD's; perhaps you should check on their backgrounds and expertise. Maybe a few were on the paper as "courtesy" authors.
What government lab is LDRD? LDRD is NOT a government lab that tested nanothermite. LDRD is the acronym for "laboratory directed research and development." The lab that did the work you describe was LLNL [Livermore]. It is funded and owned by DOE but the researchers are contractors and not Federal employees. Be sure to check the web addresses you post.
As to the DSC -- look at the DSC trace in Jones paper. Is the exotherm over a 40 C degree range? Yes, it is. Is the heating rate 10 C/ minute? Yes, it is. When we do aerospace lab arithmetic, we see that the exotherm lasted four minutes, do we not? Doesn't this seem a bit long for an explosive, highly energetic nanothermite?
Given this, now what do you think is happening in the DSC trace? You may either appeal to authority and blindly support Jones or consider that, possibly, the exotherm may not be thermite at all but burning organic binder in paint. Jones will have to provide much more evidence and samples will have to be tested in more laboratories and provide the same results before any credible statement can be made regarding "engineered nanothermite was present it the WTC." If Jones was behaving as a scientist rather than a Hollywood producer he would tell you this, himself.
As to the photos of the WTC collapse, I do not deny that they are photos of the WTC collapse. The many astrological diagrams superimposed on them purport to explain how the photos show explosives. People show the large volumes of dust and say explosives pulverized tons of concrete and drywall. Some say that multi-ton pieces in the air prove explosives. Those people have no idea how much explosive it would take to powder that amount of material or lift the massive columns into the air. Here's a hint....if explosives made all the dust and threw those big column around you wouldn't have to find videos of windows being popped by compressed air to prove explosives.

Originally posted by pteridine If you claim to be an engineer or computer scientist, I will go with that for now.

I'm not an engineer; I'm a technologist working toward a P. Eng.

What government lab is LDRD?

copied the wrong link. In my "oxygen excsue" thread, I have it listed
as LLNL.

but the researchers are contractors and not Federal employees.

interesting...

Doesn't this seem a bit long for an explosive, highly energetic nanothermite?

See "oxygen excuse" thread for more inof on what DSC measures.

Given this, now what do you think is happening in the DSC trace?

Not 100% sure, but I knew it wasn't measuring the "burn" as mentioned
before. I did post up some info about heat capacity and other aspects
from the intense reading I've done in the past. Tonight, I found more
data that describes what DSC measures. Funny, you never mentioned
them.

You may either appeal to authority and blindly support Jones or ...

or... figure out how paint chips produce iron spheres; some of which
are attached to partially reacted chips.



[edit on 20-7-2009 by turbofan]

Exponent was looking for this thread I believe. Waiting for a reply...still...

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by exponentAgree, kinda. It's not energy generated by momentum as much as energy stored in the angular momentum. Other than that semantic argument, yes at some point the block has essentially no angular momentum.

The tilting block both had stored and kinetic energy; as in all of the
stored energy was not used instantly.

We agree that at the point the tilting stopped, the kinetic forces/energy/whateveryouwannacallit no longer acted.

We can estimate that the load was distributed amongst the many perimeter
and core columns at the point rotation ceased.

Agree, or disagree?

We can't really say for sure, once the block has rotated even a few degrees, many of the perimeter columns are disconnected and the global collapse has begun. At the point which rotation appeared to cease, the block was tilted by a significant proportion, and no column impacts would be axial.

What columns do you suggest played a role in securing the upper block
from rotating further and/or falling off? Would you agree there would
be two points of interest as a tilting object needs a fulcrum, and a vector
force to rotate? In this case we need a fulcrum and an arresting
(opposite) force to stop rotation.

We also know that all core columns were not cut, and approximately 4/5
were still intact when the floors stopped rotating.

Agree, or disagree?

We don't know this for sure, bending of the core columns would undoubtedly sever them at some point, they were very much not designed to take this sort of load. You'd have to go into a bit more detail before I can agree or disagree.

I don't agree that the ~32 core columns and ~200 perimeter columns
could not support the upper block after impact. There are a studies from
architects and examples of FEA that show the upper block should not have
even moved!

Also from video/photo evidence it is clear (to me, and others) that the
positioning, and destruction of the upper block is not from gravity alone.

Please refer to an angle between the top and bottom sections that would
indicate in your mind that core columns broke "post aircraft impact".

Select a time in a video, or angle in a photo at which time you feel any of
the arresting columns broke. Study them well, and study several different
angles of the South tower as your "point it time" must show the tension
side of the building (West wall) at full length.



[edit on 18-7-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 18-7-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo my friend, no matter how much evidence you supply be it the basic 3 laws of gravity, video, audio, eye witness accounts via FOIA avidafits or whatever, they do not listen or comprehend.

Let`s look at the whole Jones and Thermite fiasco....

In the nutshell and their response.... `It`s paint`, Jeezzz Fcking Wept, let`s look at this.... We have steel coated with foamed asbestos to act as a fire retardant, but to counter balance this they paint it with a solution containing Thermite... `Pissing` `Wind` spring to mind lol .

Let's for a moment throw ALL evidence out the window, and ONLY look at motive...

A - What's the motivation behind the Truth Movement?
Truth, Closure and Justice.
- Who are these people?
Widows, family members, Firemen, Policemen, First Responders, Eye witnesses, Journalists, Engineers, Veterans, Pilots, ...etc. etc.
- How long has the truth movement researched this event?
For years.
- How much budget, resources and judicial authority does the truth movement have access to?
Hardly any.


B - What's the motivation behind the Official Story?
War, Profit and new Laws.
-Who are these people?
Politicians, Mainstream Media, Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street Investors.
-How long did they research the event before coining the official story?
Less than one day.
-How much budget, resources and judicial authority does the OS crew have access to?
Infinite budget, resources and authority.

---------------------------------------------

But perhaps the most important difference between these two opposing camps:

Which one is in favor of an entirely new investigation?
Which one does not fear the floodlights, the fine tooth comb, the testimonies?

Anyone remember the weeks after 911? The flags? The slogans? United We Stand?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/683d4d701708.jpg[/atsimg]

Well, according to this poll
less than 50% of Americans believe that Al Qaida was behind the attacks.

Meaning the unanswered questions surrounding this event are tearing the USA apart. Divided we Fall. So let's get on with the new investigation.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Mr Change Himself:




[edit on 21-7-2009 by Psynarchist]

Thanks. I wish more people are able to see these pictures.

Bump for "exponent" or anyone else who can finish the answer for him.

Look back on page 8 for the history of the discussion. This is a wake up
call for anyone who believes the NIST explanation, or the OCT.

Where are all you guys in my thread where 3 trolls have been repeatedly deflecting every opportunity to have a reasonable conversation???

When theres so much evidence pointing in one direction, how does anyone whole heartedly believe in the official story? None of makes sense, it doesn't answer many, many crucial problems with that day, and ultimately by definition is more close to a "conspiracy theory" that the theories put forth by the truth movement.

I never really believed in disinfo agents, I figured it was just ignorant zealots who were simply that dumb. But as of late, watching these fools continually change the subject to an unprovable, and ultimately, irrelevant point, really convinces me their cant - really - be that many ignorant zealots.... can there?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This is basically what has Judy Wood so bugged. It's looking more now like she is off the track with her theory of some kind of beam weapon being used in the attack and that the Stephen Jones camp may be correct with the nano-thermate evidence, but the fact is that a lot of the tower seems to have gone up in smoke, never even hitting the ground.

It is also looking likely that the large numbers of incinerated vehicles near the towers were incinerated by active dust emanating from the towers. I can't think of any other hypothesis to explain that phenomenon.

It's a strange convoluted story, 9/11. Only in Amerika.

ACTIVE DUST?/ What/ How can dust be active enough to ; Melt engine blocks...melt paint on half of a vehicle while the other half remains pristine...tires melted down to the steel belts...etc, etc. etc....ad nauseum.

Many of the vehicles affected were blocks from the Towers, and could not possible have been affected by ' falling debris' of any kind ( not that falling debris could mimic the effects seen in the photos Woods site shows).

There is only ONE real answer to the ' toasted cars' events, and that is DEW. NO OTHER excuse even comes close. No other event that day can explain it. Thermite in the Towers? Sure. I am sure there were mulitple means of reducing the Towers to a fine dust, and no one means can explain all the effects seen.

There is also vast evidence that ' holes' were created in certain buildings...holes that blew the material out from the units, leaving a gaping hole STORIES DEEP. No conventional explosive could generate that much energy without a nuke reaction, and that is not seen.

No, DEW is the ONLY way to explain the toasted cars and vast holes sweeping across the WTC complex. It is as if an operator using the DEW focused on certain areas, but nothing being perfect, the beams swept across areas where effects could be seen, such as the cars toasted.

I defy anyone to come up with an INTELLIGENT and LIKELY way to explain the effects seen on the vehicles OTHER than DEW. it cannot be done. That means DEW is the most likley scenario, and the only one that explains what we see totally.

reply to post by richierich


Are you claiming that the same directed energy weapon that knocked over buildings only seared the paint off of some cars and didn't melt them into scrap?

I took a few days off and returned hoping to see a 'theory' about the
upper section of the south tower from "Exponent", or anyone else...
but nothing?

How about the video link of the close up flashes happening in the towers?
Did anyone give those a look? Are you convinced yet?

Originally posted by turbofan
How about the video link of the close up flashes happening in the towers?
Did anyone give those a look? Are you convinced yet?

I saw the video and thought that they looked like reflections from window glass. Given that there were no sharp explosions associated with them or obvious damage to the structure, I would conclude that they were not demolitions of any sort. Yes, I am convinced.

reply to post by pteridine


Look again, some are coming from within the impact hole. No windows in there!

There is even a close up of one flash blowing somethng off the side of the
tower.

Wrong on both accounts...

reply to post by turbofan


It looks like window glass being blown out from the stresses of the fire. It does not appear to be explosions of any significance. The part that was "blown off" looked like a window. I am still convinced.

reply to post by pteridine


WHAT ABOUT THE FLASHES COMING FROM WITHIN THE IMPACT HOLE?!?! NO WINDOWS...BIG HOLE... NO PRESSURE BUILD UP?!!!



[edit on 28-7-2009 by turbofan]

When viewing the pic in the oppening post i can't help seeing a volcano in the smoke i.e. as if the smoke originated from a volcanoo erruption when viewing the picture midway up...

erruption=explosion Right?

reply to post by turbofan


Could be glass falling in front of the hole from above. It could be electrical. Might even be due to the use of all caps in a post.
It looked like the other flashes where glass was being popped out of the windows. It wasn't intensely bright. There didn't seem to be a shockwave. No recordings of the sharp noise from a high explosive. If the inner columns were being blasted, it would seem that there would be a series of explosions and many windows popped simultaneously because the charges would have to be fairly large.
I am still convinced.