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.

 

Can't prove "thermite", but molten steel is undeniable.

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
2 of the authors that deal with this, Biederman and Sisson, are material science guys.

Not structural engineers.


Then why did they not suggest gypsum as a source of sulfur?

It's been known for quite some time that gypsum contains sulfur.




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So not quite thermite in the commonly used sense. A thermitic type reaction, sure.


Semantics.




I'm curious though, are you of the opinion that this contributed to the collapse, or to the molten metals in the piles?


Molten metals in the pile as molten metal before collapse (other than what is seen dripping from WTC 2) is not a known. As for that metal. UPS batteries would be the logical theory.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It still seems to be a stretch to assume finely ground aluminum though. I could see the drywall being finely ground though.


Ask Purdue. They seem to believe the plane got pretty shredded in the impact.

www.youtube.com...

Also. What about the collapse? Where was the aluminum facade in the rubble? Did it get pulverized?

What about all the office equipment that had a powdered aluminum finish? The office furniture was pulverized to dust, so therefore, one can assume the powderized aluminum was set free.


Powder coating is the fastest-growing finishing technology in North America.


www.aluminumpowdercoating.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by jprophet420
I will have to look at the study when I am at home or on a pc able to view .pdf. All I could see was the wiki page, which does not include sulfer quadraoxide as an oxidizer.


Sulfate is not an oxidizer by itself. CASO4 breaks down to CAO + SO2. It's the CAO that is the oxidizer while the SO2 breaks down further to add sulfur to the mix.


Also, looking at the equations without propper subscripts and exponents is maddening. Point being however one of the sources you cited does not support the theory.


Could you point out which source?


for example that---> CASO4 breaks down to CAO + SO2.

I'm home now and can dl the pdf and read it. thanks for the source.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
for example that---> CASO4 breaks down to CAO + SO2.

I'm home now and can dl the pdf and read it. thanks for the source.



I'm not a chemist so the stoicheometry of the chemicals off the top of my head was just a guess. Thanks for pointing out that one needs to look at the sources.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Now, does your interpretation of that mean molten=liquid, melted metal? Or just red hot?

I was not interpreting that, I was interpreting the video in which he directly states that it is molten steel.

Elaboration is often nice but not always necessary.
On the gypsum video...


This is actually no thermite reaction, since a thermite reaction allways takes place between an Oxide and a metal that is less noble than the metal oxide (mostly aluminium). This type of reaction is rather a standard fuel/oxidizer reaction. The sulfate ion is a high temperature oxidizer.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
On the gypsum video...


This is actually no thermite reaction, since a thermite reaction allways takes place between an Oxide and a metal that is less noble than the metal oxide (mostly aluminium). This type of reaction is rather a standard fuel/oxidizer reaction. The sulfate ion is a high temperature oxidizer.



If you actually read my first post about said reaction, I called it an aluminothermic/thermitic reaction. Which aluminothermic reaction is the correct terminology.



Aluminothermic reactions are exothermic chemical reactions using aluminium as the reducing agent at high temperature.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Ask Purdue. They seem to believe the plane got pretty shredded in the impact.

Also. What about the collapse? Where was the aluminum facade in the rubble? Did it get pulverized?



Well, if you feel that strongly, then run with it.

It's just that to me, it makes 10x more sense to advocate melting aluminum, since before melting, it's not all mixed up with other materials nearly as much.

If you're advocating the likelyhood of finely ground up aluminum after the collapses, then to me, it runs into the same problem that the thermxte advocates run into: it'll be all mixed up and too dispersed to have any effect.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Then why did they not suggest gypsum as a source of sulfur?

It's been known for quite some time that gypsum contains sulfur.


They considered IIRC.

But I thought they said that there's no way to determine where the S came from, so they refrained from making that suggestion.

Interestingly, I read a post from Dr Greening somewhere, where he stated that theoretically, you COULD through some kind of isotope study. But he also said that in order to do that, you'd need uncontaminated samples of every possible source in the towers first to compare it to. So not very practical.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
it runs into the same problem that the thermxte advocates run into: it'll be all mixed up and too dispersed to have any effect.


What effect are you talking about?

If you are talking molten steel in isolated pockets. Yes.

If you are talking collapse mechanism. No.

See. This is the problem with you "deunkers". Even when a scientifically sound theory which doesn't involve conspiracy is put forth, just because it's from a "truther" it gets argued. Even when it's mostly derived from a "debunker's" theory.

If you are telling me that the alumnum didn't get pulverized with the rest of the building cotents, then you have to show proof of all the aluminum from the building being recovered. Can you do that?

Don't forget all the POWDERIZED aluminum coatings while you're at it.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
it runs into the same problem that the thermxte advocates run into: it'll be all mixed up and too dispersed to have any effect.


What effect are you talking about?




It wouldn't be able to react cuz it'd be all mixed up with concrete powder.


IMHO, Dr Greening recognizes this, and is why he's advocating the possibility of intact aluminum chunks first melting, and then reacting as he describes in his aluminum paper. (not the one you linked to)



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Interestingly, I read a post from Dr Greening somewhere, where he stated that theoretically, you COULD through some kind of isotope study. But he also said that in order to do that, you'd need uncontaminated samples of every possible source in the towers first to compare it to. So not very practical.


Actually, NIST states in one of their questions and answers pdf that they coldn't test for thermate because of the presence of gypsum. So if that were true, then the other way around would also be true.


Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.


wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

If you actually read my first post...



This is from an article that promotes thermite, however I do not wish to debate thermite/mate in this thread.


But at least you presented an alternative theory that does not involve foul play.

Should be at the top of the list on the new investigation.





[edit on 22-6-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

If you are telling me that the alumnum didn't get pulverized with the rest of the building cotents, then you have to show proof of all the aluminum from the building being recovered. Can you do that?



No.

You are the lone wolf with this theory, since Greening in no way advocates what you do. This makes it an extraordinary claim.

Therefore, it is up to you to do some experimenting to show that it is indeed a scientifically sound argument.

Otherwise, if you dare to come out and put forth your theory to the public without it, you'll end getting violated like Bjorkman did.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Actually, NIST states in one of their questions and answers pdf that they coldn't test for thermate because of the presence of gypsum. So if that were true, then the other way around would also be true.




In case you didn't know, even though Greening may be considered to be a debunker to truthers, he's actually quite critical of NIST.

There are issues that he is of the opinion that NIST dropped the ball.

He's also quite the prickly fellow. He was taking some criticism on some of his statements on JREF, from someone who's name was public, and so he called the guys employer to try and get him fired for making derogatory comments about his work.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

If you actually read my first post...



This is from an article that promotes thermite, however I do not wish to debate thermite/mate in this thread.


But at least you presented an alternative theory that does not involve foul play.

Should be at the top of the list on the new investigation.



The melted steel issue is a non-starter until some truther confronts their fears and finds that none of the meteorites contain formerly liquid steel..

Therefore, the only thing TO discuss is any possible origin.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

Unmelted rebar sticking out of a core of once molten steel is 100% proof of molten steel.


The unmelted steel is clearly rusted.

The melted part isn't.

Why?

Are you of the opinion that it can't be something else?

Like say..... aluminum?


Bump.

I'd like an answer to this.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You are the lone wolf with this theory, since Greening in no way advocates what you do. This makes it an extraordinary claim.


Extraordinary claim that the aluminum of the towers got pulverized wth the rest of the rubble? If not, where'd most of it go? How many thousands of tons of aluminum have you seen?


Therefore, it is up to you to do some experimenting to show that it is indeed a scientifically sound argument.


There is no experimenting needed. FEMA found the presence of a eutectic reaction involving sulfur. Gypsum has plenty of sulfur. It is rather elementry my dear Watson.

And further more. If I was Ryan Mackey saying this. You'd be eating it up like a lap dog. I have seen you around and know this is your MO. This is why I said I regret getting involved in this conversation. Because I knew that no matter what I said that has scientific background, it would be ignored by one or both of the sides.


Otherwise, if you dare to come out and put forth your theory to the public without it, you'll end getting violated like Bjorkman did.


Go ahead and "violate" away.


Unlike you, I'm not here for some sort of pissing contest or to get your adrenaline fix by "pwning" someone on the internet.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The melted steel issue is a non-starter until some truther confronts their fears and finds that none of the meteorites contain formerly liquid steel..

Therefore, the only thing TO discuss is any possible origin.



Isn't it funny how you totally ignored FEMA and what they said? I wonder why?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Extraordinary claim that the aluminum of the towers got pulverized wth the rest of the rubble?


That's not the extraordinary claim. The extraordinary claim is - as you correctly pointed out - that it would get mixed in with all the other rubble and still remain reactive.

It mirrors a point bsbray likes to make when he challenges the sulfur source for a naturally occuring thermite powder being the sheetrock. He correctly points out that you just don't throw flour water and eggs into the air and when it lands, you have a cake.



There is no experimenting needed.


To determine if the ingredients, when thrown into the air, would produce a thermxte powder? Yes there is.


FEMA found the presence of a eutectic reaction involving sulfur.


And not a thermitic reaction.


And further more. If I was Ryan Mackey saying this. You'd be eating it up like a lap dog.


He's not that illogical.


Because I knew that no matter what I said that has scientific background, it would be ignored by one or both of the sides.


Greening's stuff has a scientific background to it. Did you not notice the papers he's produced? He backs up his opinions with science. You haven't so far.


Go ahead and "violate" away.


Considering it......



new topics




 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join