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: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Also I have found the posts I made about oxidation and the fire hazards of iron ore carrying ships. It just goes to show how somethings we never would expect can happen:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

hope you find these most interesting, as well as the links provided.




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Simple answer?

Cuz you're a waste of my time.

The TM is full of nobodies, that thinks because their mom's answered all their inane questions when they were growing up, that they NOW expect the same treatment.

Welcome to the real world, kid....


So now this is two threads in which you are going to post on every page how much you do not care and this does not matter? We have already seen that trick and it was not all that impressive the first time around. You care or else you would not be here on every page reminding us that you don't. You cannot answer it. You sir, are a LIAR.

If I was not worth your time, then you would not be going to the trouble to look up websites and insert links into a post just for me. You took the time to address my question and tell me where I could find the answer. Apparently I was worth your time, just not worth your time? You step all over yourself when you go off script.

I asked you because I do not think you are smart enough to understand it. I believe you believe whatever you have been told and if it sounds super duper smart, it must be right. You have wasted so much of the time you claim I am not worth and yet, you have said nothing. You offered nothing. You have added nothing. I thought it might be interesting if you could display just one tad of intelligent independant thought. How many chances have I given you? So far you have wasted them all you tell me how little I matter and how little you care...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over etc.

[edit on 8/26/09 by evil incarnate]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over etc.



This is how often that I've attempted to inform various troofers of facts. Without fail, they are either too stupid to understand, trolls, or willfully act as if they don't understand. It has proven to be a waste of my time.

Now, if you want me to explain a little to you, then fine.

But first, go read those, for they explain it for me. Then come back and ask intelligent questions, and I will reply in kind.

If you can't, then I have been proven correct.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I was talking about a professional engineer whose job it is to already understand the things you are posting links to. I can't remember what kind of engineer Val is, I want to say either civil or aeronautics, but what I'm getting at is that you should send her those links yourself and see what she says about them in regards to NIST's report; she still posts (Valhall).

Your 2nd post about the ships and ore, it's an interesting theory I guess but I'm not really buying it. Do you have anything to link that phenomena to Ground Zero, or are you just arguing that the phenomena exists so there is theoretically some possibility of it? Because I think the independently-confirmed paper showing active thermitic material in the dust has more going for it than the two links you posted.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I was talking about a professional engineer whose job it is to already understand the things you are posting links to. I can't remember what kind of engineer Val is, I want to say either civil or aeronautics, but what I'm getting at is that you should send her those links yourself and see what she says about them in regards to NIST's report; she still posts (Valhall).

Your 2nd post about the ships and ore, it's an interesting theory I guess but I'm not really buying it. Do you have anything to link that phenomena to Ground Zero, or are you just arguing that the phenomena exists so there is theoretically some possibility of it? Because I think the independently-confirmed paper showing active thermitic material in the dust has more going for it than the two links you posted.


I am not too familiar with Val's posts or credentials, however I will try to look into asking her too.

Well as for the ore ships link, I am going more along the lines of parallel research. Finding other things that can be expected to happen or are known to happen in other fields. You see, it is a known fact that the rusting iron will produce heat. Now we know that the WTC had quite a bit of it. I am just linking this via observation and going deeper into what exactly oxidation is, and what are some known effects of iron rusting. I discovered that in fact, when large piles of iron or steel is allowed to rust, it can create heat. If unchecked, very high heat as well. It also known that heat also quickens the oxidation process. A sort of a "feedback loop" if you will. So armed with these observations, I went back to the WTC and what happened to the steel beams, including the maximum temperatures discovered on them. and it was worth more then a second look and it peaked my curiosity.

The conditions inside an iron ore carrier are similar to the pile at WTC. Now obviously there are some HUGE differences, I know. However, just by making a side by side comparison, we have very similar results including the way the steel was corroded and how it appeared to have been "burned away". And after reading about how the iron can literally burn away without flame, and what happens when you pour water on it, it began to make sense. Now I do realize this sounds like a far-fetched idea to many, including you (not to demonize you or anything, just pointing out a fact!
) but after digging around and doing some research, I found the similarities too compelling to ignore. Now of course we can also add the effects of sulfur from drywall and the burning materials, and we also know it was well ventilated.

Now I'll bet you are asking, why didnt anyone write a paper about this? To be honest I dont know, but I do have an idea why. Who is going to be interested in something that is pretty complicated, but also understood in the chemistry and engineering and firefighting worlds? No one really. I do recall either reading or hearing a worker or someone who helped with the clean up of the steel, mentioning that what happened to the steel beams and the fires, is nothing new, or misunderstood. Its common and it is expected to happen. And who is going to care what happened to the steel months later?

Technically they did not find anything like thermite. They did find iron oxide and aluminum, but then again, that is like going into a coal mine and saying you discovered carbon. Also, Jones's paper is poorly done, so many glaring errors, and the fact that he went into this "experiment" with a pre-set conclusion, it is mindboggling that anyone would take it seriously. And after doing more review, it appears he discovered a sort of paint primer or something more closely related to paint. I checked the spectras, the little graphs, although its a pain trying to even find a decent slide of Jones' work to review. I dont want to watch a video of a presentation, I want the actual slides. Others have done a great job taking apart Jones' work. I honestly though Jones had something worthwhile until I realized that his very first BIG error was running the chips under air, instead of no-oxygen. If he wanted to prove thermite, it should have been tested under no oxygen. Then I would have been more convinced it was a sort of thermite. But he didnt. And he never does. He explains away lamely, that because he used some other known thermite 's reaction analysis which was run under air, he had to do the same.

Allow me to tell you what a crock that is. Now I have studied geology in college. We would have a series of simple tests to determine the composition or name of a mineral and/rock. One of the tests used was putting a drop of diluted hydrochloric acid to determine if it is a carbonaceous rock, because of the fizzing which results from the reaction of the acid. When we were given one sample each of four very similar looking minerals, we would use all the tests we have checking hardness, luster, color, cleavage, and streak. If we stil couldnt figure which one is which, we would use the acid test, and then we could tell which is calcite and which is not. What Jones essentially did was, he did all the tests, which came out all very similar, but never got around to doing the acid test. He just picked one up arbitrarily, and claimed he has discovered the calcite, when in fact he picked up halite (salt). If he only did the acid test we would have known for sure. But he didnt. Back to this with thermite, if he only did the test in no oxygen (since thermite reacts irregardless of oxygen) and had the thermite reaction, he would have made a much stronger case and proven it is indeed a thermitic material. Sorry for that little tangent.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


But first, go read those, for they explain it for me. Then come back and ask intelligent questions, and I will reply in kind.

If you can't, then I have been proven correct.


Thank you for admitting exactly what I said. You are not intelligent enough to understand or explain it, you just read it and can repeat some of it. You tell me to go and get some intelligent questions? You cannot even answer the simple question I already asked you. If it is not an intelligent question, please explain why.

See, you are completely missing the point. I can go read that stuff until I memorize it. I could have been the author or even the author's teacher and still, I would be asking if YOU can explain the physics behind it.

I said you cannot because you do not actually understand it yourself. You have wasted all these posts just finding ways to avoid the question and finally you admit...you do not understand it, you just know how to read and repeat. How about you go back and read some more and then come back when you have some intelligent answers.

Hint:Not intelligent to spend ten pages expressing how little this thread means, the people matter, and the opinions expressed are worthless. That is a stupid thing to do. Another stupid thing to do would be to come in and wave around what you think is proof of the lame story you have been duped into believing without even understanding any of what you are waving around. This means you did not give it any critical thought as to whether or not it makes sense or is correct. You read and believed it and want to try to pass it on. Take these hints seriously because so far, you have just done all the stupid things.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
You see, it is a known fact that the rusting iron will produce heat. Now we know that the WTC had quite a bit of it. I am just linking this via observation and going deeper into what exactly oxidation is, and what are some known effects of iron rusting.


The heat was immediately present after the collapses and only diminished gradually into the winter, so that doesn't sound like something that gradually built up from steel rusting over time.


However, just by making a side by side comparison, we have very similar results including the way the steel was corroded and how it appeared to have been "burned away".


Do you have any kind of chemical info to compare to what's in appendix C of FEMA? Ie is rusting steel going to produce a eutectic reaction? Any information that would indicate that?


Now of course we can also add the effects of sulfur from drywall and the burning materials, and we also know it was well ventilated.


It was never established that the sulfur was from the drywall. That's one of the things I keep asking for you guys to prove. Even if it's by throwing all this stuff together and reproducing the eutectic reaction, which not only included sulfur but made critical use of it to lower the steel's melting temperature. We are talking about very, very tiny particles of sulfur from FEMA's images. You haven't established that crushed-up drywall would create such fine particles of sulfur on the samples, either, or that we see any other elements in the right proportions as in drywall, for it to have been drywall dust.


Now I'll bet you are asking, why didnt anyone write a paper about this? To be honest I dont know, but I do have an idea why. Who is going to be interested in something that is pretty complicated, but also understood in the chemistry and engineering and firefighting worlds?


At least you are aware that there is apparently no scientific literature supporting your theory. I don't really need to read a theory as to why this is the case; I'm not going there, and I know you wouldn't give such a theory the time of day if it were coming from one of us.


Technically they did not find anything like thermite.


Are you still using conventional thermite as a straw-man? You seriously have never heard of any other forms of military-grade thermite? Or you are intentionally ignoring them?


And after doing more review, it appears he discovered a sort of paint primer or something more closely related to paint.


...that releases a sudden burst of energy greater than what conventional thermite can produce?


I honestly though Jones had something worthwhile until I realized that his very first BIG error was running the chips under air, instead of no-oxygen. If he wanted to prove thermite, it should have been tested under no oxygen.


Ok, here is YOUR error: whether or not it is conventional thermite, NO ONE CARES.

Whether it is a substance that can compromise the integrity of the steel, melt it, corrode it severely, cause it to fail, THAT is what we are looking for. This isn't just some kind of game where the objective is to find conventional thermite. This is research showing that there is an energetic substance in the WTC dust. Again, why do you keep using conventional thermite as a straw-man when there are other and much more obvious alternatives, such as MILITARY-grade thermite?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

If it is not an intelligent question, please explain why.



Ding ding ding....

You said something about how NIST's report violates physics, or something similar.

That you even say this is proof that this isn't an original idea, but rather something that you're just repeating off some troofer site.

You see, the papers in those links use maths, physics, and accepted structural engineering details that trump your statement.

Now, if you spot something that violates troofer "physics", or your understanding of them, then point it out, and ask an intelligent question, if you can.....



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You see, the papers in those links use maths, physics, and accepted structural engineering details that trump your statement.


Do you even understand any of it?

It would be nice to discuss such evidence itself, rather than just linking back and forth and insulting each other.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You see, the papers in those links use maths, physics, and accepted structural engineering details that trump your statement.


Do you even understand any of it?

It would be nice to discuss such evidence itself, rather than just linking back and forth and insulting each other.


No. He does not. He cannot explain it because he has no idea what any of it means. It is complicated and uses "maths" and such. It is overwhelming and confusing for him so he just decided to believe it and then proceed to preach it to others whilst repeatedly reminding them that he does not care and they do not matter. I kind of hope to get another 10 pages of "you twoofers don't matter and I could care less blah blah blabbity blah blah blah" - paraphrasing there. He has been asked more than once to just simply explain it. Either he cares enough to be here and post so much and would want to use his knowledge and understanding of the report to show the rest of us the light and the truth...or...he is just a right wing shill that came here looking for a good place to photograph bigfoot and got his panties in a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy talk. His government does not lie to him. They do not cover things up. They protect him and care about him and his family. They would never come up with ideas on how to kill Americans just to give us an excuse to go to war. Aside from Korea, WWII, Vietnam, etc. they would not do those things, at least ever again. His government is awesome and perfect and imaginary.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The breakdown of gypsum releases sulfur. However, this sulfur can mix with water and form sulfuric acid and also mixes with air to form sulfur oxides which both can cause corrosion to the steel. And yes they will leave sulfur particles. Also SO2 was plentiful in the pile. This is what causes the sulfidation and corrosion.
www.corrosionsource.com...
Plus here it doesa great job of explaining the sulfur:
www.911myths.com...

Now here is something you might find interesting:
www.me.wpi.edu...
www.me.wpi.edu...
www.wpi.edu...
That eutectic reaction you so much like to pull out is a result of the sulfidation and oxidation of the steel. Notice what they mention in the abstract: Hot Corrosion. Now thermite is out based solely on the fact that temperature on the steel beams never even approached the melting point of steel OR thermite. The temperatures observed in the eutectic mixtures was between 700C and 1,000C. Nowhere near the high temps of therm*te.

Just saying its unconventional thermite is incorrect. Thermite burns extremely hot, well over the temp required to melt steel. This extremely high temp was never discovered in any sample, nor was there every any evidence of a temperature hot enough to regularly melt steel or of a thermite reaction. "military grade" thermite is called THERMATE. The additives to THERMATE is sulfur and barium nitrate. Sulfur makes it burn even HOTTER than regular thermite. And "military grade" themite is a misnomer. Its just a garbage techno-jargon phrase that tries to pass off as something more "super-duper" then regular stuff. Plus Jones never discovered barium nitrate either in any sample.

And yes it is important to see if those magic chips CAN burn under inert air. There are only a handful of materials that can burn in no oxygen environments. Therm*te is one. Had he run the experiment under no oxygen, it would have been a dead ringer for a therm*te material.

The energetic response was the burning of the matrix it was in, but Jones experiment showed that it didnt peak first but increased over time. Thats not a therm*te response. Anything will burn if you add oxygen to it And again, those chips were really really thin. How is that going to melt a thick piece of steel?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Once again, the scientist seem to fall in line with the official version (if there is such a thing) of events.

I watched the video that was produced by Purdue University. They modeled the buildings, the planes, and the fuel. Their model backs up what the NIST report on the collapse.

I don't think that the truthers will be happy with this.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Can you make it fit the real world and not any of NIST's new laws of physics?


This part.

You refer to NIST. That obviously means the NIST report.

And you say that it doesn't adhere to physics.

So that makes you the liar.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You see, the papers in those links use maths, physics, and accepted structural engineering details that trump your statement.


Do you even understand any of it?

It would be nice to discuss such evidence itself, rather than just linking back and forth and insulting each other.


Yes I do. I spent several months reading textbooks to understand what it all means, and reading the source info that was given... then reading some more about the source's info... and so on.

But you better check yourself some before you proceed.

A search about Bazant turns up this thread : www.abovetopsecret.com...

and a post from some dude named Griff, where he says :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"I'm not evading anything. I've already stated that Bazant's math is correct. [/size=5]"

I just don't agree with NIST's initiation.

A search about who Griff is reveals that he's a structural engineer, his opinions are respected by other troofers, including you, or so it would appear from some of your old posts..... AND he's a troofer to boot..........

So.... we're on record having a troofer structural engineer that says that Bazant is correct. Bazant agrees with AND proves that NIST's maths, physics, and structural engineering details are correct.

You're an EE student, right? What in your c.v. indicates that you have an opinion worth discussing?

What can you say to Griff, or Bazant, or the CTBUH that would challenge their collective wisdom?

You have nothing.........








[edit on 28-8-2009 by Joey Canoli]

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Can you make it fit the real world and not any of NIST's new laws of physics?


This part.

You refer to NIST. That obviously means the NIST report.

And you say that it doesn't adhere to physics.

So that makes you the liar.


Actually, if you read what is written it simply says that NIST came up with some new laws of physics. It does not say that NIST defied the laws of physics, it simply says they made up new ones. Before you go responding to me with links you cannot understand, please see "thermal expansion." I will say it, the NIST report defies the laws of physics and that is why they made up new ones. Like I said, "thermal expansion." You are too busy walking up and down this thread trying to be a bully that you have not made one single cogent point thus far. At least the general and the orange guy have some information to add. What did you bring aside from some links to things you do not understand but believe for no good reason? I will call you a liar as well but that is only because I can read.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yes I do. I spent several months reading textbooks to understand what it all means, and reading the source info that was given... then reading some more about the source's info... and so on.


Ah...I must appologize. I responded to you far too soon. A self taught man. How admirable. Joey, may I call you Joey? I feel like we are friends already. Joey, let me ask you a serious question. Two rollercoasters.

One was built by a team whos understanding of physics comes from their years of education in the ares.

The other was built by a team whos understanding of physics comes solely from how they themselves interpreted some books they got their hands on.

Which one will you ride?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by the angel of light 67
 


Thermal Expansion is made up?
Are you serious?

boy oh boy I can think of quite a few engineers that would strongly disagree with you. And thermal expansion is nothing new. Why do you think steel beams are coated in fire proofing?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
The breakdown of gypsum releases sulfur.


That does not indicate how the sulfur comes out chemically or what size particles it takes, whether it comes with other particles, etc.


That eutectic reaction you so much like to pull out is a result of the sulfidation and oxidation of the steel. Notice what they mention in the abstract: Hot Corrosion. Now thermite is out based solely on the fact that temperature on the steel beams never even approached the melting point of steel OR thermite. The temperatures observed in the eutectic mixtures was between 700C and 1,000C. Nowhere near the high temps of therm*te.


You're talking about the temperature of the steel itself reached if you are talking about the FEMA report. And can you specify what kind of thermite you are talking about? Because they don't all do the same things at the same temperatures. And even if they did, the temperatures they "burn" at won't be the temperature the steel itself reaches, everyone agrees on that.


"military grade" thermite is called THERMATE. The additives to THERMATE is sulfur and barium nitrate. Sulfur makes it burn even HOTTER than regular thermite. And "military grade" themite is a misnomer. Its just a garbage techno-jargon phrase that tries to pass off as something more "super-duper" then regular stuff.


Do you really think the kind of "thermate" you are talking about is the same formula being researched as a rocket fuel? If you really understand chemistry, do you not realize that altering the formulas to fit different scenarios is exactly what a Los Alamos researcher's job is? The DoD even has magazines talking about their nano-energetic research at Los Alamos, and they are not talking about one specific brand of thermite. In fact, they hardly mention thermite at all itself, if ever. So it's completely asinine to isolate your attacks to one kind of thermite, ok now only two kinds of thermite, etc. If it's a eutectic reaction that involves iron/steel and melts it, and it does that job, then it should be considered as a suspect substance. End of story. It does not matter what name you give it. If it melts steel, it is suspect.


And yes it is important to see if those magic chips CAN burn under inert air.


Can you tell me what part of the towers would have inert air so that this substance would necessarily have to be able to perform in such an environment?


Anything will burn if you add oxygen to it And again, those chips were really really thin. How is that going to melt a thick piece of steel?


No, not everything will burn if you add oxygen to it, and especially with not more energy than known substances that are already used commercially. Plus this stuff is already several years old and is only what someone found in the dust. There is a lot of important, vital information that we still do not know.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
A search about Bazant turns up this thread : www.abovetopsecret.com...

and a post from some dude named Griff, where he says :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"I'm not evading anything. I've already stated that Bazant's math is correct. [/size=5]"


Exactly. The actual math is correct, but the ideas behind the math being used are flawed. You do realize that the people writing these papers are using their creativity to come up with their own mathematical models to try to fit the data, right? And that they are not using any sort of physical evidence at all, no tests or analyses, only looking at video clips, and gathering data from government sources. Bazant wants to say that 50% of the mass of both towers was still in their footprints when they were done collapsing. There is no evidence of it at all. But when he pretends that was the case, then he does his math (correctly) and "demonstrates" that the towers could have collapsed totally with only the amount of PE they started with. But he can't do this when he incorporates more accurate information into his model and he knows this. He admits that it increases the collapse time requirements significantly and so on that premise alone he discounts obvious photographic evidence that the amount of left-over mass he assumes is completely inaccurate.


So.... we're on record having a troofer structural engineer that says that Bazant is correct. Bazant agrees with AND proves that NIST's maths, physics, and structural engineering details are correct.


Actually I know Griff well and he didn't agree with Bazant's conclusions. The math being right is one thing. The theory or model being right is something else. No one is trying to argue the basic tenets of engineering, Joey, I am asking specifically what solid pieces of data/calculation/etc. do you have that state anything valuable about your opinions?

[edit on 28-8-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join