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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
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 ?



Pretty sure that "Pixie theory" explains it all...

That's a good and fair question, I appreciate it. This thread has become a total mockery of anything resembling logic or science, so if I find some irrefutable scientific sources I'll U2U you.


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




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ventian
 



A great note,


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.


..and valid point.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Aw come now, you have to admit it was a little funny!


i do apologize for making it appear to mock you or anything as it was not my intention. Just alittle fun


What i was going for is to show how easy it is to make even the most rediculous sounding idea to sound plausible. That is what I see happen numerous times with the TM. I'll bet you if I took what I wrote and added in some special effects, some twisted/edited eyewitness accounts, and some video blurried beyond recognition with some ominous music, innuendo, and a lot of padding with pictures edited to represent pixies flying around, hell I could make my "Tinkerbell Pixie Dust" theory pretty damn convincing. I know you guys on ATS are smarter than that to bite and take it seriously, but I'm willing to bet that if I took this on the road online, then I'm sure I'll sucker in quite a few suckers that will believe it.

what Jones did is almost the same thing. he suckered in many people with psuedo-science, innuendo, and twists, and he managed to convince quite a few on the TM that his report is the real deal, no matter how BAD his actual report is. And the fact that people such as myself, pteridine, Joey, Goodoldave, and others have managed to see right through and point out the obvious flaws in Jones' report should at least give you a red flag to Jones' lies and mistakes. I mean you dont need to be a PhD in chemistry to see the flagrent errors in Jones' methods. And pteridine has done a remarkable job in doing so. Just because there is no "report" written by a "professional" debunking Jones paper, does not mean that pteridine's observations are "only his opinon" and therefore "mistaken" and an excuse to stick the heads deeper in the sand.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
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...


I can't help but notice that you didn't cite your source that said "Half (or 1/3rd) the temperature to melt steel DOES NOT soften steel - it just simply doesn't work that way."

While you're at the library check out my source (or sources). Or you can read it online on google books with the source that i cited.. Page 150.


If I came across as rude I apologize. I don't appreciate being told 1+1=3 without a source being cited.

The science is that steel gets weak at higher temperatures. So I would love to find your source that told you that "Half (or 1/3rd) the temperature to melt steel DOES NOT soften steel - it just simply doesn't work that way." I'm going to write him a lengthy e-mail calling his theory into question and ask him to explain, in detail, midevil blacksmithing and steel/ironworking. I'm going to find out if he thinks it was magic or pixie dust.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein


Pretty sure that "Pixie theory" explains it all...



Well if the molten metal was aluminum then it was explained by the fires that were caused by the plane crashes.

If the molten metal was steel then it was explained by the use of a lot of thermite/thermate/nano thermite/nano thermate




This thread has become a total mockery of anything resembling logic or science, so if I find some irrefutable scientific sources I'll U2U you.



How did it become a mockery of anything resembling logic or science when irrefutable scientific logical sources were presented?


Oh you must be talking about when someone made the statement:

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

And then didn't present any scientific sources or expert testimony to back it up?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Oh you must be talking about when someone made the statement:

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

And then didn't present any scientific sources or expert testimony to back it up?


You're right again - I made the misguided assumption that people on ATS presenting knowledge about Chemistry would have had at least a high school education in the field - not to mention stoichiometry or enthalpy.
my bad, yo.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Actually, underground fires are not uncommon. See Centralia, PA.

The rubble covering the fires is porous and the subway tunnels would supply air. The only way for the metal to remain hot over a long period of time is fire and there is no alternative that can explain this. The insulating properties of the rubble would aid in keeping the metal from losing heat.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Reputing professionals and PhDs while pretending to have any idea what happened down there is just ignorant...

I see chemical analyses with high levels of Sulfur and an explanation (and common sense in my opinion) that sulfur means explosives. I used to make gun powder as a kid back when things like that didn't freak everyone out - sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate - simple chemistry.

How do we know what happened under there, unless professionals with scanners and diagnoses tell us. The only ones who HAVE told us are so ripped apart by trolls that the conversation is moot.

I'll keep looking but I'm really not gonna be convinced by people name-calling and teasing on a thread about serious issues, making speculations they know what happens in this type of situation.

Eye-witness accounts are notoriously bad for recognizing certain things (Study: was it a man or woman who ran through and stole a purse?) but certain things are very obvious. If workers and demolition industry experts all claim to have seen molten metal dripping, and EVERYONE saw molten metal coming from the twin towers while they were still standing, we can just keep that fact.

Then you ask PhDs and industry professionals who might know what color iron, aluminum, and steel are when they melt, and the associated temperatures, to tell us what happened. This IS SCIENCE - not some speculation game about the editor of a journal missed something once so everything else needs to be thrown out. It's SCIENCE... did anyone notice the picture on the front page of the OP?

Since I obviously don't know that journal is bogus, maybe someone can tell me why it's bogus. And I don't mean that he lost his job over something political - I mean the science of it.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
The History Channel and Popular Mechanics? Seriously, you'll get more truth from a TV cartoon than those two sell outs. Didn't some Chertoff guy write a trash piece for Popular Mechanics? I guess writing Government sanctioned fiction is one way to stay "Popular".



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
"I haven't seen any proof of molten steel being discovered days, weeks, after 9/11."

I guess the firemen talking about the molten metal were being dishonest.

"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 ?"

Yeah, nothing like a couple of oxygen starved fires 800 feet above ground level to keep metal heated at extremely high temperatures at ground level for weeks after the collapse. Kind of obvious that the History Channel is catering to the lowest common denominator. Most people with a functioning brain wouldn't waste a second watching that rubbish.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
High-tech explosive mixtures were found in the dust of the Twin Towers, from numerous locations around the area, and by various sources.
Citation, a peer-reviewed journal: The Open Chemical Physics Journal
The Open Chemical Physics Journal


Ooooh, naughty naughty! You not only trying to sneak in that rubbish paper Steven Jones wrote again, you're trying to claim it was peer reviewed when it never was. Jones never gave his material to anyone else to look at, he never gave proper chain of custody to even show it actually came from the WTC area, and he PAID to get this paper published. Heck, Jones doesn't even have any explosives experience so why anyone would believe that such a person could recognize Thermite from chewing gum is an exercise in gullibility in the extreme.

Jeez, Dr. Judy Wood isn't exactly a fountain of credibility with her "lasers from outer space" caims and even she says the whole thermite bit is rubbish. Move along, there's nothing to see here.


But yet Popular mechanics is known for Yellow Journalism. Hell, I believe they invented it!



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by iamcpc
Oh you must be talking about when someone made the statement:

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

And then didn't present any scientific sources or expert testimony to back it up?


You're right again - I made the misguided assumption that people on ATS presenting knowledge about Chemistry would have had at least a high school education in the field - not to mention stoichiometry or enthalpy.
my bad, yo.


Hey man when you look into this you're looking into crystal clear water that someone has been throwing mud in for 9 years. If someone can't cite their source (or any source for that matter) then it's safe to assume they have no idea what they are talking about.

(both truthers and debunkers throwing mud or one person throws mud and it gets accepted as truth)

It's either that of if they won't cite their source then they are taking their source way out of context.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
But yet Popular mechanics is known for Yellow Journalism. Hell, I believe they invented it!


According to Wikipedia-

"Yellow journalism or the yellow press is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension "Yellow Journalism" is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.

I haven't read PM in quite a while, but in all my life I can't recall them ever running articles on scandal mongoring or sensationalism, nor have they treated any subject in a non-professional manner. Rather, the only people involved in yellow journalism here that I'm seeing are the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites, specifically POS punks like Dylan Avery. By definition, wallowing in 9/11 conspiracies IS scandal-mongoring and sensationalism, and is most certainly unethical.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
By definition, wallowing in 9/11 conspiracies IS scandal-mongoring and sensationalism, and is most certainly unethical.


Do you actually believe this? Maybe re-read it and think what it really means...

It means you have already decided you're right, and believe that anyone who is against your opinion is doing something unethical! Your "definition" is obscene.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
To me, ego has nothing to do with being right, it has to do with finding truth. If together we get closer to what actually happened then we should all, as a team, by happy!

So... I have to agree that this (below) seems fishy.



Previous studies discussing observations
of the WTC dust include reports by the RJ Lee Company
[14], the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [15], McGee
et al. [13] and Lioy et al. [16] Some of these studies confirmed
the finding of iron-rich microspheres, which are also
peculiar [5, 8, 11, 13-15] but the red/gray chips analyzed in
this study have apparently not been discussed in previously
published reports
. It is worth emphasizing that one sample
was collected about ten minutes after the collapse of the second
Tower, so it cannot possibly have been contaminated by
clean-up operations [17].

Emphasis added by me.


It's from the beginning of the Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe Journal article.

[By the way, new words are created all the time, just because you can't find "thermitic" in some dictionary does not mean it's not a word, it just means it's a new word. It makes sense based on the meaning so please give that ignorant idea a rest]

I'm actually pretty curious about this whole idea of thermite now! For several years I assumed thermite being there was just another fact being covered up, but I gotta say my interest is piqued!

I'm about to read through the journal article and see how the science measures up and how well they describe their methods and conclusions.
Why don't ya join me! Let's fight some ignorance the old fashioned way, through investigation.

(I feel like a dope rallying the troops n all
but the name-calling and baseless accusations in this thread are an absurd and unproductive way to pretend to get to the truth.)

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Um... this is not looking so good for the people saying that article is a sham.

We have unrelated individuals in the vicinity of the downed towers, providing signed statements with their name and address, or video statement of how they got the dust. And... pictures of the dust containing very small chips of the red/grey alleged thermitic material.





(In case you can't resist blurting out that 'thermitic' is not a word - please stop yourself! the -ic means it has the properties of or something like that, so thermitic would be something with the properties of thermite, get used to it.)

X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses
of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared
from the four dust samples were performed and representative
spectra are shown in Figs. (6, 7).


Explosives, even like the simple gunpowder I mentioned before need three parts: heat, oxygen, and fuel. Oxygen is obviously the oxygen, the fuel is the carbon, and the Iron gives the heat. Having them in two seperate layers mean the don't react until they are purposefully ignited.
(This is VERY basic chemistry, I've known this since I was 10 because I was a weird kid and into science. I don't have a citation because it's BASIC - if you're gonna challenge it at least take 2-3 minutes to search online first.)


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
To me, ego has nothing to do with being right, it has to do with finding truth. If together we get closer to what actually happened then we should all, as a team, by happy!

So... I have to agree that this (below) seems fishy.



Previous studies discussing observations
of the WTC dust include reports by the RJ Lee Company
[14], the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [15], McGee
et al. [13] and Lioy et al. [16] Some of these studies confirmed
the finding of iron-rich microspheres, which are also
peculiar [5, 8, 11, 13-15] but the red/gray chips analyzed in
this study have apparently not been discussed in previously
published reports
. It is worth emphasizing that one sample
was collected about ten minutes after the collapse of the second
Tower, so it cannot possibly have been contaminated by
clean-up operations [17].

Emphasis added by me.


It's from the beginning of the Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe Journal article.

I'm actually pretty curious about this whole idea of thermite now! For several years I assumed thermite being there was just another fact being covered up, but I gotta say my interest is piqued!


I read the paper published by RJ lee here:

www.nyenvirolaw.org... ertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

"Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from
exposure to high temperature (Figure 2 E and Figure 2 F)"

"The source of the WTC Markers can be directly linked to the WTC Event
the composition and morphology of the particles; the asbestos, mineral wool and gypsum were used in the WTC Towers’ construction material, and the heat affected particles result from the fires that ensued following the WTC Event."

See now your source is confusing me. Who said the iron spheres were "peculiar"?

Dr. Richard J. Lee who has spent 30 years developing techniques for
characterizing respirable particles" wrote the article that I cited as a source didn't seem to think they were peculiar.

I'll quote this directly from his publishings.


"The source of the WTC Markers (iron spheres) can be directly linked to the WTC Event by the composition and morphology of the particles; the asbestos, mineral wool and gypsum were used in the WTC Towers’ construction material, and the heat affected particles result from the fires that ensued following the WTC Event."

The source of the iron spheres can be linked to the composition and morphiology of the stuff used to make the WTC towers and the heat from the fires following the WTC event.

Now this report does not even mention thermite.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Your link above isn't working...

From the journal in question:


The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest in this study; none were observed in these particular chips prior to DSC-heating [Differential Scanning Calorimeter]. Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above the 700 °C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high temperatures indicate that a chemical reaction occurred.




What we see is pure samples of the thermitic substance contained NO IRON SPHERES. Then after combustion they find iron spheres throughout; similar, incidentally, to the other samples of dust in various other published works. "Some of these studies confirmed the finding of iron-rich microspheres, which are also peculiar [5, 8, 11, 13-15]"

[5] Jones SE, Farrer J, Jenkins GS, et al. Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction. J 9/11 Studies 2008; 19: 1-11. [Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: www.journalof911studies.com...


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   


We agree with the RJ Lee report that the abundance of “spherical particles of iron and silicates” is proof of high temperatures, and that these particles are not common in normal office dust, but we do not agree that this abundance is necessarily due to the “fire that accompanied the WTC Event”. Before drawing such a conclusion, one must scrutinize the temperatures and other conditions needed to form these molten spheres (iron melts at 1,538 °C (2,800 °F) while iron (III) oxide melts at 1,565 °C (2,849 °F) [6] and aluminosilicates melt around 1,450 C [7]) and then compare with conditions reached in the WTC fires. We will turn to this task, after considering other data which also point to anomalously high temperatures during the WTC destruction.

WTC High Temp2

This all deserves it's own thread - I'm working on it now.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Your link above isn't working...



just right click on the link and copy the shortcut or website or whatever. paste it into your browser then put this on the end:

ertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%
20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

If you copy the link from my source and past it then copy and paste the extra then it will work.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join