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.

 

Gosh, History Channel... you forgot to mention the nano-thermite!!

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by 767Doctor
Didn't a Bentham Editor resign over that crappy paper? Even though Bentham is a for profit, open-access vanity journal, apparently at least one of the editors protested by quitting.


It's not only *a* editor, but *the* editor: editor in chief Professor Marie-Paule Pileni. The article was published without her consent or knowledge, and once she found out the journal published this drivel she resigned in disgust becuase she didn't want her name associated with that crackpot. She saw right away that it had nothing to do with actual science and everythign to do with advancing an ulterior political agenda:

"I can not accept that the issue is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political point of view behind the publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal." -Editor in chief Professor Marie-Paule Pileni

Editor in Chief resigns over Steven Jones' report

I think the editor in chief of a journal of science would know whos full of crap and who is not. Jones has no credibility whatsoever, and these conspiracy theorists have to WANT to believe in these conspiracy stories, to take his paranoid nonsense serously. Incredible.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by GoodOlDave]



Ah, so the editor in chief didn't review it at all. Even journals with lax peer-review standards, such as hand-picking your own peer reviewers, still ultimately require a review from an editor at that magazine(or editor in chief in the case of Bentham). They may not actually be reviewing the paper itself, but the comments and feedback by the peer reviewers...and then ultimately give the ok/ixnay on the publishing. It's pretty telling that the only editor there never heard of the paper before it was published.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by 767doctor]




posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
The special wasn't for you, as you have delved into the realm of possibility and done much more research. So let me tell you something that will surely interest you.

My manager at work watched it as well. He is 68 and has always accepted the OS for what it is, and has never given much thought to it. After he watched it he came to work and was discussing all the possibilities with me on how and why the government did it. I was surprised that they showed the special and because of it, I now know one more "truther". It really amazed me to see him flip flop like that. Maybe that was the intent of the special? Just to get people thinking about it.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Who is Judy Woods and why did you bring her into the thread??



Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and has served on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.

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

SOURCE: www.drjudywood.com...

She is being talked about because she believes that thermite was NOT used or involved in the collapse of the WTC towers.


SOURCE: www.drjudywood.com...

"At 600°C Al has a minimal glow as all metals do. An electric stove burner, for example, barely glows at that temperature and you may have to turn off the lights to see it."

"Professor Jones reports that he has analyzed a piece of solidified metal slag from WTC. He provides no documentation of the source or evidence regarding the chain of custody... there is no independent corroboration. Can outsiders test the slag? Jones has proved nothing"


So she is being mentioned as an expert source who refutes the findings of steven jones.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The reason I asked about Judy Wood is that I, the OP writer, never mentioned her - she was added and bashed by the same person who does not believe the thermite side... she should have never entered the thread; just poor tactics.

I wasn't aware of all the issues with the company that is connected to the Open Physics and Chemistry journal. "I was wrong"

Now can move on and actually look at some of the details concerning what this thread is actually about!??

Maybe the molten pool of metal under the towers? Please, trolls, dig into your previously defined reiterated answers and tell me how to not focus on my original question concerning THE MOLTEN METAL.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
The reason I asked about Judy Wood is that I, the OP writer, never mentioned her - she was added and bashed by the same person who does not believe the thermite side... she should have never entered the thread; just poor tactics.


On the contrary, I bring her up to prove a point, namely, that Jones' report should not be treated as gospel, particularly when Jones' fellow conspiracy theorists are nixing it, and specifically when they have better credentials than Jones does.



Now can move on and actually look at some of the details concerning what this thread is actually about!??

Maybe the molten pool of metal under the towers? Please, trolls, dig into your previously defined reiterated answers and tell me how to not focus on my original question concerning THE MOLTEN METAL.


a) there were underground fires burning for months, closed off from the top, and the heat was allowed to build up and magnify which generated incredible heat.

b) all the photos I've seen weren't of molten metal, but of red/white hot metal. All the evidence of actual molten metal seems to be anecdotal.

c) all this metal in question was pulled up from where the underground fires were

I don't see how it's some great and mysterious thing that metal would look like it just came out of a blast furnace when it had been buried inside an underground blast furnace for months. I don't know what kinds of temperatures we're talking here to be able to do that, but all I know is that these claims of explosives and thermite wouldn't properly explain this phenomena.

...unless you're one of those peopel who believes it was due to nukes?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
What do you exspect when from day one the media has been covering up 9/11.

Yesterday they gave all the time in the world to a ambasador from Iserail to have his say and offered pre-planned questions from an american on the news when they should had let a muslim offical put his point forward.

You want news then you need to look abroad becuse what we get is much worse than any Russians ever got during the cold war.

Several labs check the few samples sneaked out from ground zero and they all agreed on the chemical composition so if your looking for a conspriacy theory then may i sugest the offical story.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Maybe the molten pool of metal under the towers? Please, trolls, dig into your previously defined reiterated answers and tell me how to not focus on my original question concerning THE MOLTEN METAL.


There two theories as to what type of metal it was. Steel and an aluminum alloy from the airplanes that melted in the fires.


Steven jones wrote an article about it.

www.journalof911studies.com...

People have published papers saying things to the effect that it would not have been molten steel it would have fried the hydrolics of the equipment touching it because molten steel is way too hot to be handled by that type of equipment that was shown in photographs to be handling it.

"Hydraulic fluid temperatures above 82°C (180ºF) damage most seal compounds and accelerate oil degradation. A single overtemperature event of sufficient magnitude can permanently damage all the seals in an entire hydraulic system, resulting in numerous leaks. The by-products of thermal degradation of the oil (soft particles) can cause reliability problems such as valve-spool stiction and filter clogging. "

www.machinerylubrication.com...

"Temperature range recommended for typical rubber hose spans about –40 to 212°F [212° F = 100° C]. Fluid or ambient temperatures outside these bounds impact service life. Plasticizers leach out of elastomers faster at high temperatures, though the rate depends on the actual temperature and duration. Heat-related failure is evident when the cover shows signs of hardening and cracking, and the hose shape takes on a permanent set. Temperatures below recommended will also shorten service life. This problem is evident when the inner tube shows signs of stiffness and cracks. Specials are available for either extreme: Low-temperature hoses for service to –67°F and high-temperature versions for applications exceeding 300°F."

machinedesign.com...


Nasa had thermal images taken 5 days after the WTC collapse. Some people claim these were taken at about the same time that reports of molten metal were being made.

pubs.usgs.gov...

Debunkers say look the temperature is too cool for molten steel so it must be molten aluminum.

Truthers say look the temperature is far too hot for being days after the attack it must be thermite (i have not found an expert truther source that says that the temperatures ARE hot enough to support molten steel).

So if the metal is a molten aluminum alloy (from the airplanes then it is evidence that suggests that thermite was not used in the WTC towers.

If the metal is a molten steel then it is evidence that suggests that thermite may have been used in the WTC towers.

then dr judy wood who said there was no evidence of thermite and refuted many of the claims by dr jones.

So expert 1 says molten steel expert 2 says molten aluminum.

Expert says thermal images not hot enough for molten steel and expert says thermal images too hot for office fire.

Expert says "if that was molten steel then the equipment would have stopped working" and no experts refute that.

to believe the molten metal was molten steel:

-you believe dr steven jones over dr judy wood

-you believe that the thermal images support molten steel over that that they show temperatures not hot enough to support molten steel

-you ignore the experts saying that if it was molten steel the hydrolics would have fried.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster

Several labs check the few samples sneaked out from ground zero and they all agreed on the chemical composition so if your looking for a conspriacy theory then may i sugest the offical story.



Which labs are these? Or are you just making this up as you go along?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by LieBuster

Several labs check the few samples sneaked out from ground zero and they all agreed on the chemical composition so if your looking for a conspriacy theory then may i sugest the offical story.



Which labs are these? Or are you just making this up as you go along?


Liebuster likes to say a lot of things and then not cite a source.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
There's some big misunderstandings of Chemistry going on here...

If you crack an egg and leave it on a 50 degree F pan it's NOT going to cook. It doesn't cook half way. It doesn't cook if you leave it long enough. Half (or 1/3rd) the temperature to melt steel DOES NOT soften steel - it just simply doesn't work that way.

Also... how do you stop a fire? You bury it. Fire without an oxygen source depletes rapidly UNLESS it has it's own source of oxygen such as certain types of explosives. The idea the fires that burned underground somehow made it into a blast furnace is not realistic - fires need oxygen, remember the giant billows they use to keep a forge going?

The fires under the twin towers and Bldg 7 site had two things which CAN NOT occur if you just bury a fire. The fire kept going even without a major oxygen source, and it should NEVER have been hot enough to cause pools of molten metal if it had been just a standard fire. (The source* of molten metal is in the OP from an industry leader in demolition.)

* I'm sure that Dave or someone already knows that this particular industry leader once cheated on an exam in high school or stole a candy bar once... don't buy into ridiculous notions of how they discredit people; he's a demolition expert and he saw it first hand. end of story.

There are 10 other links cited on the OP link that mention the workers stories of molten metal such as:


... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.




[edit on 2-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
The Beijing Mandarin Hotel fire

I'm sure this has been covered on ATS somewhere but what do think of why all other steel framed buildings in the world DIDN'T FALL when overcome by massive fires?

Their steel didn't melt or soften - why not?




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I haven't seen any proof of molten steel being discovered days, weeks, after 9/11.

But, supposing there was, how would this support use of therm*te ? Is there a property of therm*te that can keep steel molten for long periods ?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
There's some big misunderstandings of Chemistry going on here...

Half (or 1/3rd) the temperature to melt steel DOES NOT soften steel - it just simply doesn't work that way.



Do you have a source for this gem of information or is it 100% your un-expert opinion?

How did we make steel armor in the middle ages? I'll give you three options:

A. Magic

B. Thermite

C. Blacksmiths used fire to weaken steel and anvils and hammers to mold the steel that was weakened by fire.


SOURCE:
www.metalwebnews.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Steel and iron can be forged between 1100-1300 degrees. WAY less than half of the melting point

SOURCE:
books.google.com...=onepage&q=minimum%20maxim um%20forging%20temperature&f=false
Handbook of workability and process design
page 150

So according to all of the sources that I could find other than you temperatures between 1100 and 1300 degrees do soften steel.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Hey you forgot to add pixie dust to the list.

I think little fairies and pixies brought down the WTCs. They used magic pixie dust that magically heated and softened the steel and destroyed the buildings. Its known that the pixie dust used by Tinkerbell has magical properties, which would explain the "bizarre" occurrences in and around the WTCs during and after the collapses. What Jones may have discovered is the actual pixie dust composition. And it makes sense since we didn't see any pixies flying around the WTC because they are invisible or can be inivisble, except to IR cameras. Thats why we saw so many "flashes" and "sparks" in and around the WTCs before they collapsed. It was the pixies flying around inside spreading their pixie dust on the steel beams. And that would also explain why there was so much heat afterward in the pile for weeks and months. It was the unreacted pixie dust decomposing and heating the pile to hundreds and hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit. It all makes sense!

We know that pixies exist because for hundreds of years people all around the world have talked about little fairy like people with wings flying around, and they have magical properties. So ergo I believe that with this knowledge and watching Peter Pan like 10 times, its most plausible that pixies brought down the WTCs with magic pixie dust.

So any takers want to disprove my theory?






[edit on 6/2/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
all other steel framed buildings in the world DIDN'T FALL when overcome by massive fires?


If that statment is true then:
(keep in mind that none of these buildings were hit by 110-150 mile per hour airplanes)

What about the kader toy factory fire. A steel framed building which collapsed only from fire. Building One collapsed completely at approximately 5:14 p.m. Fanned by strong winds blowing toward the north, the blaze spread quickly into Buildings Two and Three before the fire brigade couldeffectively defend them. Building Two reportedly
collapsed at 5:30 p.m. and Building Three at 6:05

What about the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

What about the Wolftrap Farm Theater and Pavilion fire in Fairfax County Virginia in 1988 suffered a total loss in the stage, props, dressing rooms and storage area. The pre-construction recommendation for a fire sprinkler system had not been heeded. When the facility was rebuilt, it was totally sprinkled.

What about the McCormick Place exhibition hall fire in Chicago, Illinois in 1967 was a public assembly occupancy built with fire protected steel construction and no sprinkler system. “Fortunately the fire started in the early morning hours; the possibility of life loss would have been staggering had the fire occurred during the day”.1 This fast burning, high rate of heat production fire caused complete collapse of the building.

What about in Kyriakos Papaioannoa, 1986 fires began at 3 a.m. on Dec. 19, 1980, with arson being suspected as the cause. The Katrantzos Sport Department Store was an 8-story reinforced concrete building. Its fire started at the 7th floor and rapidly spread throughout the building, due to lack of vertical or horizontal compartmentation and the absence of sprinklers. Collected evidence indicated that the fire temperatures reached 1000°C over the 2- to 3-hour fire duration, and the firefighters concentrated on containing the fire spread to the adjacent buildings. Upon termination of these fires, it was discovered that a major part of the 5th to 8th floors had collapsed. Various other floor and column failures throughout the Katrantzos Building were also observed. The cause of these failures was considered to be restraint of the differential thermal expansion of the structure that overloaded its specific elements or connections.

What about on May 21, 1987, Sao Paulo had one of the biggest fires in Brazil, which precipitated a substantial partial collapse of the central core of the tall CESP Building 2.5 This was a 21-story office building, headquarters of the Sao Paulo Power Company (CESP), after whom the building was named. Buildings 1 and 2 of this office complex were both of reinforced concrete framing, with ribbed slab floors. Approximately two hours after the beginning of the fire in CESP 2, its structural core area the full building height collapsed.

What about A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000 This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor. Fire extinguishers were nonfunctional, and the fire spread quickly before the firefighters could arrive. An electrical short-circuit accelerated the fire spread. At about 6 p.m., nine hours after the start of the fire, when the blaze seemingly was under control and subsiding, the building suddenly collapsed, killing 27 people.




Their steel didn't melt or soften - why not?


I don't know the specifics behind all of the burning skyscraper pictures that you posted. I'm going to just go ahead and throw out one theory (out of 298 theories) that explains why that steel didn't soften or melt.

The steel had fire insulation. The fire insulation (and steel) was not hit by 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Hey you forgot to add pixie dust to the list.



According to the sources I just cited pixie dust is more slightly more plausible than saying fire can't weaken steel.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So any takers want to disprove my theory?


Oh come on! Haven't you heard of the "no pixies theory"? Everyone knows those were CGI pixies! That's why you can't see them! It all makes sense now...

And we all know that no pixie ever touched WTC7!

Also, at the Pentagon, the pixies simply flew over the building and pulled a magic trick on the 120+ eyewitnesses.

Don't forget at Shanksville, no pixie could have caused that itty bitty tiny hole in the ground!

Your theory is nothing but your opinion! Consider it debunked.




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
ok you all win... middle school mentality, pixies, this "gem of information", bringing in disreputable people only to discount them and claim my sources should be in the same boat! unbelievable... and sad.

Condescending and rude is just something I'm not used to when trying to ascertain whether something scientific happened.

On the other hand in some incredulous crazy ways you've managed to shred the main things I ~thought~ were accepted facts about thermite/thermate. I'll do a little more research and choose how I feel about this in a normal, scientific, and adult manner.

Time to leave the playground and head for the library...



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Time to leave the playground and head for the library...



K'... bye bye.

Oh, and while you're at the library maybe you can find something to help you with your statement :


Originally posted by Thermo Klein
There's some big misunderstandings of Chemistry going on here...

Half (or 1/3rd) the temperature to melt steel DOES NOT soften steel - it just simply doesn't work that way.


Seems like you have the "big misunderstanding of chemistry", some quiet time might help you figure out your mistake there.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
The Beijing Mandarin Hotel fire

Their steel didn't melt or soften - why not?



1- it had an open atrium design, hence no long span floors to thermally expand, nor sag.

www.eikongraphia.com...

2- it was under construction, hence no furniture, carpeting, etc to burn, which results in less heat release

3 - it was of a different typeconstruction - reinforced concrete frame plus core.

4- it was built after 9/11, with lessons learned from NIST'S reports

"The shocking events of 9/11 challenged both
industry and consumer perceptions of how safe
tall buildings are. Since then, building owners,
occupiers and developers have increasingly
called for building designs that are not only
taller than ever before, but more robust as well.
The following three case studies demonstrate
Arup’s response to the new demands of this
changing market."

"Arup’s response to the World Trade Center
disaster was swift, establishing an Extreme Events
Mitigation Task Force charged with evaluating the
risks of disasters similar to those that have taken
place in recent years, analysing the technical
challenges they represent and developing design
solutions to address them. With typical zeal, and
chaired by the late Tony Fitzpatrick, then chairman
of Arup’s Americas region, the task force mobilised
the might of the firm’s in-house research and
development capabilities and specialist teams on
tall buildings, fire, materials, structural analysis and
other disciplines to see what lessons could be
learnt from the World Trade Centre disaster. "

"Despite the catastrophic events and subsequent
uncertainty surrounding the future of tall buildings
in relation to safety, the industry has continued to
grow to be as mighty as the buildings themselves.
In fact, there are more tall buildings on drawing
boards now than ever before, making this one battle
in which technology has triumphed over terrorism. "

www.arup.com...


5- the fires were fought.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join