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.

 

National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Special 8/31/09

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Well I admit I likened the Presidents places of where he could be to my English counterparts Houses of Parliament (the office) to the Pentagon (the office), White House (residency of the number one politician) to Ten Downing Street (residency of the number one politician), over here in normal work hours there`s a pretty good chance our P.M. will be in the office depending on certain criteria, but you get my point
.

Thanks for making me do all that, i`m sure you do it on purpose
.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S. And stop being pedantic lol, near Shanksville then, you`re saying that if it were an inside job they would have deliberately attacked the school, knowing the President was in there
, and come on it`s not rocket science you hijack 4 planes and go on a building impact spree, what are your 4 targets?
.

[edit on 18/08/2009 by Seventh]




posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
From the patent for linear thermite charges:

-----
allow operators to penetrate a material in timeframes similar to explosive
shape charges
without the safety concerns and security risks associated
with explosives.

a thermite jet will more effectively handle discontinuities and interfaces that
normally disrupt and dissipate explosively driven shape charge jets.
When a
linear shaped charge is used for cutting steel on a steel bridge demolition
project, a large degree of preparation work must be undertaken to ensure a
successful cut or penetration.

a thermite charge offers improved performance over multi-plate materials
with limited or substantially no preconditioning.


a thermite charge's sustained jet also affords a greater assurance in cutting
plates of varying thickness, layered plate configurations, and any supporting
or reinforcing member.

-----

Looks to me linear thermite charges would have been the method of choice at WTC.
This patent is worth looking at in its entirety. dw



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(GEE....this sorta blows the whole notion of an "inside Job", now, doesn't it? IF UA93 had impacted the WH??? Certainly, the PTB, the "evil ones" behind this whole thing, would have KNOWN the Prez's schedule...right???)


Why is there so much supposition on the other side being held up as legitimate proof of anything? They did not think that the president was in the other three targets so there is no reason to believe they were aiming for him and not just standard American structures of power. In the given premise, the terrorists would be quite happy just to show they could have killed the president as to have actually done it.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

No, that's a really bad representation of what I was saying you should prove.

Why don't you recap your theory as to how all this stuff just happened to come together and do this, and I'll point out to you specifically what I want to see sources/references/evidence for. Okay?

Ie tell me your theory again, and I'll tell you what you need to validate it.


allright I will recap it for you sir since I do believe what I posted before is valid and should not be ignored and should be looked deeper into, to help in unlocking some of the mystery:

let us start with what we do know for sure. I dont know how long this recap will be, so please bear with me.

We do know that the steel beams were heated up from the fires prior to collapse. That is a fact. Now it is also a fact, that heated steel will oxidize more rapidly in a heated environment. Both WTCs contained tons of drywall in its construction. We know that gypsum is a major component in drywall. Gypsum (CaSO4 x 2H20) naturally decomposes and releases sulfur, and is accelerated when heated and wet. This turns into sulfuric acid, via sulfur mixing with water. Adding sulfur on heated steel will lower the melting point of steel. Sulfuric acid is also very corrosive. Also created can be sulfur dioxide, which is also corrosive to steel. Sulfates and sulfides are corrosive. Also numerous objects, when burned release sulfur dioxide, including burning fuels, organic materials, and office supplies, to name but a few.

Another fact: when steam or water is put onto a heated steel beam, the reaction itself is exothermic and corrosive. Pouring water onto hot steel above 400C creates hydrogen and Fe3O4. When you have free hydrogen which then mixes with oxygen, this creates more heat. This is called a reversible reaction in which hydrogen is released, and then turns back into water. In fact, this process is how hydrogen is manufactured commercially. Steam is passed over very hot iron which in turn produces hydrogen. And what happens when hydrogen ignites? And tons of water was poured onto the pile.
www.ucc.ie...

Continuing: The oxidation of steel is an exothermic reaction. It actually does create heat. In small amounts, like rust on an iron nail or your car door, you wont even notice the heat. However, when large masses of iron and steel begin to rust in a pile, the oxidation of the iron can create heat high enough to which it can self ignite and poses a big fire problem to large iron ore carrying ships. Heated iron also rusts faster. Adding moisture to it will cause even faster oxidation. This then can become a closed loop of rapid oxidation and generating high temperatures, which can pose a major fire hazard and complete destruction of the iron and steel. You can read up online about the real fire dangers associated with iron ore carrying ships and how it needs to be monitored closely when in transit. If you are unable to locate them yourself, i will most assuredly try to locate them for you to review. In fact it may even still be on ATS on an older thread I posted on months ago. If I find it before you I will pass it along to you.

Another corrosive agent is seawater. Firefighting efforts may have been using seawater on the pile as well to put the fires out. I unfortunately am unable to locate any mention of this happening at Ground Zero at any time, but it is reasonable to take into account that regular water standpipes may have been damaged after the attacks and unusable after the collapses. They had to get their water from somewhere. However this is only speculation on my part so please do not jump at me for this one. but if they did use seawater in the weeks and months later, saltwater itself is very corrosive. The salts can corrode steel quickly.

Now mind you, these are all not separate occurrences each happening one at a time. This is all happening at the same time in the pile. That is what is very important to realize when trying to tackle the understanding of what happened. It is all happening at once, obviously at slightly different rates and locations, as obviously this relates more to the fact that conditions were more or less not fully uniform in the pile, but then again some may have experienced more and some may have experienced less. However that point is moot since we are dealing with the fact that two 110 story buildings collapsed into a large area. Due to the chaotic nature of the collapses its obvious it will not be "perfect" in its distribution of the debris. However this should not be brought up as a negative point or used as ammunition against what I am saying, since that just gets into needless nit-picking over trivial matters.

And the following site also talks about corrosion and the corrosive agents in question:
www.corrosionsource.com...
The whole site has a lot of good info on corrosion such as the following.

Corrosive gases

Air, oxygen: The reaction between air and a material is normally called oxidation and is quite often observed as a separate discipline in regard to corrosion science. In most industrial cases where metal is in contact with air, the oxidation processes are not as much determined by plain oxidation by oxygen but one has to consider all possible contaminants of the air which can have disastrous consequences for the oxidation resistance.

Steam: Steam in contact with steel can effect the carbon level of the steel can also oxidize the iron.

Carbon, carbon oxides and methane: Compounds of carbon like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane can change the carbon level in the steel and subsequently influence the mechanical properties of the metal.

Sulfur containing Gases: Even in small amounts, sulfur in various forms can accelerate corrosion at high temperatures.

Hydrogen: Hydrogen gas is a reducing agent and in contact with steel at high temperatures can result in decarburization and the subsequent formation of hydrogen carbons; C(Fe) + 2H2 CH4

Nitrogen: Nitrogen plays in most cases no role in oxidation phenomena as it is overshadowed to the large effect of oxygen and most nitrides are only formed at high temperatures. However, active nitrogen produced from ammonia can form nitrides below 540oC.

Combustion gases: The gas mixture arising from combustion of fuels contains for a large part carbon oxides and water vapor together with nitrogen. In situations with incomplete combustion hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and several hydrocarbons are present as well as oxygen. Most fuels contain sulfur compounds so that sulfur oxides and even hydrogen sulfide will be present in the combustion gases resulting in more severe corrosive conditions.

Chlorine and hydrogen chloride: Dry chlorine and hydrogen chloride do not cause major problems as far as corrosion is concerned however, accidental or deliberate increases of the moisture in the gas result in rapid localized attack.


I am more than willing to bet money that all of these agents were in play in the pile. It is not something that should be ignored, because doing so leaves out a lot of important clues and information that can unlock and answer so many questions. There were undoubtedly tons of reactions like this during the months of burial, ongoing albeit at different rates depending on local conditions at each location. It is not unreasonable to assume that these reactions were ongoing.

Also plenty more information on iron and even the eutectic liquid is addressed here:
Iron Burns!

Now as to sulfidation and corrosion, its a little trickier to find information buried in manuals, but I did find this information relevant and interesting. It sheds some light on the effects and causes of sulfidation:
www.hbscc.nl...

CONTINUED:

[edit on 8/23/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Wow. A major scientific breakthrough?

Wait until all the foundries find out they can create their molten steel for pouring by using water.

Water is so much cheaper than natural gas or black oil.

They will save millions of dollars.

You are a genius General.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I would like for you to review the last link in my last post. It goes into detail on exactly what is sulfidation and what are its affects on steel. They mention everything including the intergranual corrosion. I do realize its about corrosion in coal gasifiers, however most of it is relevant to the discussion since it goes deeper into just how sulfidation occurs and what are the effects. I do realize it is not the exact same situation as the environment in the WTC piles (obviously) but the chemistry and explanations of sulfidation and effects of steel is most important.

The FEMA report mentions this, and after some review, what they describe is closer to corrosion due to sulfidation as a result of the sulfurious conditions in the pile as the cause of the effects discovered in the steel.

Thermite would have left evidence of very high temps, and this would have been very noticeable on review. any thermites burning on the steel would have shown the high temps. However most observed temps were nearly at or well below melting points of steel. Sulfidation and a thermite reaction would have been redundant and since sulfidation lowers the melting point of steel, that is moot when compared to the 3,000+F heat of the thermite reaction which would have cut through the steel with or without the sulfidation. Plus there would have been telltale evidence of thermite that was never seen: freshly molten NEW iron all over the steel beams. Nobody realizes the fact that if there was thermite, it would have left a layer or glob of new iron that would be completely different from the structural steel, and this would have been most obvious. Thermite also wouldnt leave a eutectic mixture that only shows the highest temperature reached was well below the melting point of steel.

As for "nano-particles" there is a whole range that can be considered nano-sized. Dust for one thing. Pulverized drywall. Corrosion of steel due to oxidation or some other corrosive reactions. Just throwing out the term "nano-sized particles" to hint of some sort of sinister going-ons is a fallacy. Flyash in concrete has very similar properties. You also have the reaction of aluminum and steel, which also is corrosive, (non-thermitic) Its called galvanic corrosion. It also is affected by higher temps and humidity. It causes the metals to dissolve and break down. Plenty of that in the WTC eh?

As you can see the list is quite long. The fact that Jones has failed to even consider such basic important facts of steel and corrosion should be another red flag to his predetermined agenda driven "experiment". When doing a proper investigation, one must go through ALL sources and possibilities. Most importantly, ignoring to do so just makes his "findings" even less credible, since a real metallurgical investigator would check the obvious first, and have therm*te very far at the end of the list.

I hope I did not waste my breath on all of this because I do believe that much of this is verifiable. Majority is just knowledge of chemistry and checking multiple credible sources to do a fact check.

I apologize if sounded snippy towards you earlier, but it is frustrating when any efforts to bring real discussion points and valid evidence is met with incredulity, ignorance, and handwaving away, or at the least, not even bothering to look into the links I provided which would help in understanding some of the sciences. Once again I apologize bsray.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Wow. A major scientific breakthrough?

Wait until all the foundries find out they can create their molten steel for pouring by using water.

Water is so much cheaper than natural gas or black oil.

They will save millions of dollars.

You are a genius General.



SPreston, please check your incredulity at the door. If you are not interested in fact or having an intelligent conversation, then please find your way out the door.

Adults are talking.

If you are willing to speak like an adult then come on back, but if you are going to act like a *snip* then please dont waste my time or others who are genuinely interested in having an intelligent discussion. Rather than behaving like a child, hows about you try and refute ANY of the facts I provided? Remember, incredulity is not a proper way to argue facts with. If you have something intelligent to say to refute what i posted, I am all ears. But if you want to continue acting like a child, then please stay out of the way.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

posted by GenRadek

SPreston, please check your incredulity at the door. If you are not interested in fact or having an intelligent conversation, then please find your way out the door.

who are genuinely interested in having an intelligent discussion.


Adding water to hot metal in order to make it hotter or even turn it into molten steel, is called having an intelligent discussion?

If you say so.

But NIST Engineer John Gross said there was no molten steel under the WTC.

Are you also calling him a liar?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Adding water to hot metal in order to make it hotter or even turn it into molten steel, is called having an intelligent discussion?

If you say so.

But NIST Engineer John Gross said there was no molten steel under the WTC.

Are you also calling him a liar?



Well SPreston if you had any real researching capability beyond the conspiracy sites, and an understanding of chemistry, you would see that it is true. However if you can find anything credible that shows this is not true, by all means please post it here.
However, molten "steel" has never been 100% proven by anyone, nor confirmed.
All I have done is put forward facts that are relevant to the discussion on what caused the corrosion on the steel beams, and the heat, and the appearance of molten "MATERIALS".

If you would like I will be most happy to provide you with links and sources on corrosion, oxidation, the process of commercially making hydrogen and what exactly hydrogen does when it burns, how sulfur is corrosive, how oxidation of iron and steel is an exothermic reaction, and how the combination of all of these seemingly "unrelated" events can combine to create what has happened to some of the steel in the WTC piles. I can supply you with pages and pages of facts. However I also realize that it will be a futile exercise since you have shown time and again you really are not interested in facts and no matter what i put forward it shall be dismissed with your trademark incredulity and handwaving away.

Who said anything about John Gross? I am not calling him anything, his statement does not affect what I posting about.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


A sad thought about the fellow in charge of the paper work and inspections is that he is not around to testify. Sad sad, sad. Some type of REINVESTIGATION should be done to insure things like this do not reoccur.
Sad that the goment couldn't stop the planes (we all know it was their job and they failed completely.) I will repeat that COMPLETLEY.
The entire CIA, FBI, Mossad, well the whole goment and it's supposed allies couldn't catch even one of the supposed perps.
Since OP posted nothing of the content of this National Geo. entertainment
special it is hard to comment on it.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Since OP posted nothing of the content of this National Geo. entertainment
special it is hard to comment on it.


I suggest you re-read the OP and click the link that was posted. This will give you access to the website along with many pictures etc.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Well SPreston if you had any real researching capability beyond the conspiracy sites, and an understanding of chemistry, you would see that it is true.


General? Um... well....you need to understand you can use facts with delusional minds.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by SPreston

Adding water to hot metal in order to make it hotter or even turn it into molten steel, is called having an intelligent discussion?

If you say so.

But NIST Engineer John Gross said there was no molten steel under the WTC.

Are you also calling him a liar?



Well SPreston if you had any real researching capability beyond the conspiracy sites, and an understanding of chemistry, you would see that it is true. However if you can find anything credible that shows this is not true, by all means please post it here.
However, molten "steel" has never been 100% proven by anyone, nor confirmed.
All I have done is put forward facts that are relevant to the discussion on what caused the corrosion on the steel beams, and the heat, and the appearance of molten "MATERIALS".

If you would like I will be most happy to provide you with links and sources on corrosion, oxidation, the process of commercially making hydrogen and what exactly hydrogen does when it burns, how sulfur is corrosive, how oxidation of iron and steel is an exothermic reaction, and how the combination of all of these seemingly "unrelated" events can combine to create what has happened to some of the steel in the WTC piles. I can supply you with pages and pages of facts. However I also realize that it will be a futile exercise since you have shown time and again you really are not interested in facts and no matter what i put forward it shall be dismissed with your trademark incredulity and handwaving away.

Who said anything about John Gross? I am not calling him anything, his statement does not affect what I posting about.


Your excessive posts of scientific mumbo jumbo are NOT tied to the happenings at the world trade towers by anything but smoke and mirrors.
No matter what pant load you try to leave on the reader.
The most important factor you have omitted is the element of time.
Were people before 1491 frauds for believing the world is flat or just miserably ill informed?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Your excessive posts of scientific mumbo jumbo...


Translation: "I haven't a clue as to what you're talking about, so I must handwave it away and bring up the flat earthers from centuries ago.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


Your excessive posts of scientific mumbo jumbo are NOT tied to the happenings at the world trade towers by anything but smoke and mirrors.
No matter what pant load you try to leave on the reader.
The most important factor you have omitted is the element of time.
Were people before 1491 frauds for believing the world is flat or just miserably ill informed?


OH!!! I GET IT!
Real facts are nothing more than scientific mumbo-jumbo and smoke and mirrors, and crappy, error filled "papers" printed in a pay-to-print vanity journal is science gold?

*excuse me while the laughter dies down*

So I take it you are not interested in facts, you never were interested in facts, and even if God himself came down and said there was no "inside government job" and it was done in fact by extremist Muslim terrorists, you would believe that He TOO is a part of the conspiracy.

So rather than go on and on and on with your incredulity and antics, hows about explaining how what I typed is wrong, how it has nothing to do with the steel discovered and the observed effects on it, and explain how all of it is non-admissible to the discussion? Since understanding chemistry is mystery to you, and it all looks like "smoke and mirrors" please refute anything I have said, coherently and most importantly INTELLIGENTLY and backed up with actual facts.

And here is the IRONIC TWIST! You are behaving exactly like the flat-worlders when explorers and scientists of the time said the world is round, AND like the people who believed the sun and the planets revolved around the Earth.
My my my, how the tables have turned!

[edit on 8/23/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Since OP posted nothing of the content of this National Geo. entertainment
special it is hard to comment on it.


I suggest you re-read the OP and click the link that was posted. This will give you access to the website along with many pictures etc.



It suggests that this is old hat stuff. Previously aired. Did you see it in it's entirity before?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Your excessive posts of scientific mumbo jumbo...


Translation: "I haven't a clue as to what you're talking about, so I must handwave it away and bring up the flat earthers from centuries ago. [/quote






Read carefully. Ok got yer spects?
Element of time!!!!!

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


Your excessive posts of scientific mumbo jumbo are NOT tied to the happenings at the world trade towers by anything but smoke and mirrors.
No matter what pant load you try to leave on the reader.
The most important factor you have omitted is the element of time.
Were people before 1491 frauds for believing the world is flat or just miserably ill informed?


OH!!! I GET IT!
Real facts are nothing more than scientific mumbo-jumbo and smoke and mirrors, and crappy, error filled "papers" printed in a pay-to-print vanity journal is science gold?

*excuse me while the laughter dies down*

So I take it you are not interested in facts, you never were interested in facts, and even if God himself came down and said there was no "inside government job" and it was done in fact by extremist Muslim terrorists, you would believe that He TOO is a part of the conspiracy.

So rather than go on and on and on with your incredulity and antics, hows about explaining how what I typed is wrong, how it has nothing to do with the steel discovered and the observed effects on it, and explain how all of it is non-admissible to the discussion? Since understanding chemistry is mystery to you, and it all looks like "smoke and mirrors" please refute anything I have said, coherently and most importantly INTELLIGENTLY and backed up with actual facts.

And here is the IRONIC TWIST! You are behaving exactly like the flat-worlders when explorers and scientists of the time said the world is round, AND like the people who believed the sun and the planets revolved around the Earth.
My my my, how the tables have turned!

[edit on 8/23/2009 by GenRadek]


Ok, If you can relate any or all of the science you type---- giving you the benefit that it is science.
You have little or no reference, you know to any of it.
I know it is way to simple for a dude of your knowledge and intellect to trivialize over that.
But---- here is the skinny my man.
You do not relate the science to anything in particular.
You ramble this and that in conjunction to not one specific thing that is known or suspected about the collapse.
No proof that the mumbo jumbo applies to a BOXED I BEAM a sheet of dry wall or anything in the time period, from the plane hit until the demolition, Case closed . 1492er's claimed the moon was made of Swiss cheese not their feet.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Real facts are nothing more than scientific mumbo-jumbo and smoke and mirrors, and crappy,


The bottom line to all of 911 is this:

BOTH sides have real facts and evidence. That means neither is 100% right. We need a new investigation until one side has 100% of the facts on their side. That is how science works. Denial of this is apathetic and futile. Every single person with a scientific mind understands this.

Thank you for bringing up that point good sir.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


me too!
second line



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join