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.

 

Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 

Edit...thought this was hooper...I see red when I see that name. Sorry, my bad...nothing personal.

Lol, please explain using physics how a 35 degree swept back lightweight aluminum wing tip can strike on the right side corner of steel columns, yet cause damage on the left side.





Edit...I no longer believe the gashes were caused by thermate or shaped charges. I believe missiles can better explain the damage...here's a thread I started to that effect on another forum.

letsrollforums.com...


edit on 26-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
Proof?

You've already been shown tons of data from analysis to indicate it isn't paint. Someone even posted a nice video for you going down the list. You just chose to ignore all that.


Use your scientific skills to explain the thermodynamics of the red chips and why they produce more thermal energy than thermite and any mixture of thermite and high explosives.


I shouldn't have to explain anything to you when you're the one still claiming they were red paint chips as if it's a fact.

I take this as an admission that you were just expressing your opinion and still realize you have no evidence. Stating an opinion followed by asking me rhetorical questions (that make no sense in the first place) when I ask you for proof, is a cry for help. A very loud cry for help, because it obviously isn't the proof I asked for, and you obviously can't provide this proof despite your delusions.


Again, you've literally had lists of data posted for you going down and detailing every fact about this material that is a known inconsistency with any form of commercial paint. You chose to ignore all of that information. You didn't even respond to it. Do you know how transparent you are here to everyone you talk to?
edit on 26-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 



Jones found a substance that produces MORE heat energy than any flavor of thermite can. Conclusion: Not thermite.


Besides cheerleading pteridine un-proven opinions can you produce your science that proves that this “substance” that produces more heat is NOT na-nothermite?

I can say the sky is blue…



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine
 


Interesting story.

Can you describe how an aluminum wing can make the scarring in the wall shown on the images?

This is not a rail gun, not an MIT machete wing, not a special bullet, not a kung-fu video, not a kinetic energy question and not a water cutting steel question either.

This is me watching you squirm.



OK, so now you agree that aluminum can penetrate steel and that it is a matter of energy. You still don't believe that a multi-ton wing moving at 400+ mph has enough energy and I am supposed to find evidence to prove it to you. You don't want a model but evidence. The best evidence is the picture you keep showing saying that missiles were fired into the building with such accuracy as to make an outline of an aircraft.
I am not squirming; I am laughing.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Fascinating.

How does it feel to be put in a position of describing how the aluminum jet wing can cause the below damage.





Are you avoiding answering the question because you know it's not possible that a 35 degree swept back wing tip would cause damage to the left side of the columns when it would be striking them from the right?

When looking at the NIST report, in your own words, why do you think they ignored the significant damage to the East side? Do you think it was because it can't be explained by a jet?

How does it feel to be put in a position to prove a lie?






posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
Proof?

You've already been shown tons of data from analysis to indicate it isn't paint. Someone even posted a nice video for you going down the list. You just chose to ignore all that.


Use your scientific skills to explain the thermodynamics of the red chips and why they produce more thermal energy than thermite and any mixture of thermite and high explosives.


I shouldn't have to explain anything to you when you're the one still claiming they were red paint chips as if it's a fact.

I take this as an admission that you were just expressing your opinion and still realize you have no evidence. Stating an opinion followed by asking me rhetorical questions (that make no sense in the first place) when I ask you for proof, is a cry for help. A very loud cry for help, because it obviously isn't the proof I asked for, and you obviously can't provide this proof despite your delusions.


Again, you've literally had lists of data posted for you going down and detailing every fact about this material that is a known inconsistency with any form of commercial paint. You chose to ignore all of that information. You didn't even respond to it. Do you know how transparent you are here to everyone you talk to?


You are still avoiding postulating any theories or explaining anything. Why is that? Those "lists of data" are what I used to show the weaknesses in the paper, so saying that I avoided them is just another of your errors. Here is an explanation that you may be able to understand. This is from a previous post of mine talking about the faulty DSC experiment.

"The thermite reaction is more complex than most imagine. For the purposes of this discussion we will allow that it is simply the reduction of a metal oxide, in this case iron oxide, with elemental aluminum. We will also use Jones statement of the theoretical maximum of 3.9 kJ/g [page 27]. This theoretical maximum applies to all thermite reactions, regardless of particle size. Not all thermite reactions may give this value; thermites with larger particles are claimed to produce a few percent less energy, but the thermite reaction has 3.9 kJ/g as its upper limit regardless of particle size. What does change with particle size is the rate of reaction. The smaller the particles are, the faster they react and the faster the energy comes out. This has to do with relative surface areas and diffusion.
Now for the energetics shown in Fig 30 on page 27. We will be concerned with the blue bars; energy per unit mass in kilojoules per gram [kJ/g]. In this figure, the energies of various nitrogenous explosives HMX, TNT, and TATB are compared with thermite and the four chips analyzed by the DSC.
Based on this figure, we see the following theoretical and measured energies:

Not measured in this experiment:
HMX = 5.5 kJ/g
TNT = 4.5 kJ/g
TATB = 4.1kJ/g
Thermite = 3.9 kJ/g
Measured in this experiment:
Chip #1 = 1.5 kJ/g
Chip #2 = 2.5 kJ/g
Chip #3 = 7.5 kJ/g
Chip #4 = 5.9 kJ/g

The first thing we notice is the wide disparity of values for the “highly engineered” material. This should raise doubts as to sample collection and preparation and even if the materials are the same thing. By other analyses, they appear similar.
Now we note that two of the chips, #3 and #4 have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite. They also have more energy than any of the high explosives or any combination of thermite and any high explosive. Arithmetically, if we have a 50:50 mix of thermite and HMX we should have an energy of about 4.7 kJ/g. How can this be?
To explain this, we must understand what is being measured and how. The explosives and thermite have, internal to them, their own oxidants. We include their oxygen in the weight we measured. If we measure heat from a burning hydrocarbon, for example, we DON’T include the weight of the oxygen in the air we use to burn it. Candle wax burning in air has about 10 times the energy of thermite using this convention. What does this mean? It means that some, if not all, of the energy from the red chips is due to burning of the carbonaceous paint matrix in air.
Jones is vague about this problem and says on p27. “We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.” What might that energetic material be? Jones has no clue. His team lacks the chemical knowledge to postulate a reasonable composition. It has no nitrogen, so it is not one of the explosives shown. It is energetic when burning in air. Volatilized, it will produce gas but it does not seem to be otherwise energetic.
How can this problem be resolved? What experiment must be done to show the possibility of thermite or some composite?
As I have stated previously, thermite and explosives have their own oxidants built in. burning hydrocarbons do not. How can Jones discriminate between explosives, thermite and plain old burning paint?
He can re-run the DSC under an argon atmosphere. What a simple and elegant solution. Under argon, all the energy coming out will be from the thermite and its energetic additives. If there is no energy coming out, there is no thermite and all those contortions and obfuscations are for naught. Why wouldn’t Jones do this? Is it because he is on tour and basking in the adulation of his admirers? Is it because his team is incompetent when it comes to analytical chemistry? Is it because he so desperately wants a conspiracy that he disregards all of his scientific training and forces a conclusion?"

This is a good place for you to start showing that Jones is correct and that I am wrong. You don't need to answer the rhetorical questions, just explain the thermodynamics. After this, we can look at the EDAX data and some questionable conclusions that you can clarify for me.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Are you agreeing that aluminum can shear the steel columns if it has enough energy and now want to know why the swept wings didn't show a different result?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I haven't changed my tune, Professor.

When you're done squirming, you can answer a question or two.

To remind you, I bring up the swept wing because that was where the MIT team threw in the towel for its propaganda paper's model. It was because they realized that even making their model wing into an impossibly thick knife wing, they couldn't cut the steel.

We can dance around the point all year Professor. The point doesn't change. Only in your sick fantasy land does an aluminum wing slice laterally reinforced steel...it is up to the person making the claim (you) to prove it. Your MIT paper only proved how dishonest you are, and MIT for that matter. Why don't you admit your error and move on? Its understandable you believed an aluminum wing can cut steel, it was on the TeeVee after all.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
To remind you, I bring up the swept wing because that was where the MIT team threw in the towel for its propaganda paper's model. It was because they realized that even making their model wing into an impossibly thick knife wing, they couldn't cut the steel.

We can dance around the point all year Professor. The point doesn't change. Only in your sick fantasy land does an aluminum wing slice laterally reinforced steel...it is up to the person making the claim (you) to prove it. Your MIT paper only proved how dishonest you are, and MIT for that matter. Why don't you admit your error and move on? Its understandable you believed an aluminum wing can cut steel, it was on the TeeVee after all.



When are you going to present your discussion to the journal? When will you be contacting the authors?

Do you need help finding the name of the journal this was published in?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

When are you going to present your discussion to the journal? When will you be contacting the authors?

Do you need help finding the name of the journal this was published in?



What does this mean?

Are you defending their model? Please explain how creating a 34 mm machete wing is an accurate model.

Plus, please tell the class what you witnessed with all those thousands of other eyewitnesses who saw planes on 911...you were there right? You said you even saw Jules. You remember right?

You even saw plane parts and you were going to show us all on a map of the WTC where you saw them. Don't be shy.


edit on 27-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine
 


I haven't changed my tune, Professor.

When you're done squirming, you can answer a question or two.

To remind you, I bring up the swept wing because that was where the MIT team threw in the towel for its propaganda paper's model. It was because they realized that even making their model wing into an impossibly thick knife wing, they couldn't cut the steel.

We can dance around the point all year Professor. The point doesn't change. Only in your sick fantasy land does an aluminum wing slice laterally reinforced steel...it is up to the person making the claim (you) to prove it. Your MIT paper only proved how dishonest you are, and MIT for that matter. Why don't you admit your error and move on? Its understandable you believed an aluminum wing can cut steel, it was on the TeeVee after all.


I told you it wasn't squirming, it was laughter.

The "impossibly thick" wing just takes all the aluminum in the wing and makes it into a single element. You can't imagine soft aluminum punching through steel, or a bit of soft copper going through many inches of steel, so you can't understand how a multi-ton airplane wing can bend columns and break connections.

You are the one dancing because you can't explain how missiles were fired that cut the outline of a plane in the perimeter columns, how all that jet fuel got to the impact point, and if there were planes or holograms. Why don't you admit that your theory is ridiculous and move on?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

I told you it wasn't squirming, it was laughter.



Very convincing.



The "impossibly thick" wing just takes all the aluminum in the wing and makes it into a single element. You can't imagine soft aluminum punching through steel, or a bit of soft copper going through many inches of steel, so you can't understand how a multi-ton airplane wing can bend columns and break connections.


Is it because you can't explain how the wing managed to cause the damage that you divert the attention to copper?

You provided an MIT paper as an explanation as to how the lightweight wing tip of a multi-ton airplane could "possibly" cut steel. Their paper is a joke, and so far that is all you've brought to the table.

Why do you not reconsider your position, or at least offer a defense of your proof, or lacking that...some more proof? If I were you, I'd reconsider my position.




You are the one dancing because you can't explain how missiles were fired that cut the outline of a plane in the perimeter columns,


Why do I need to answer that? I offered that as a better explanation for the damage, which it is. So far you haven't even offered to explain how the damage fits your theory. I submit this is because you know you cannot, so you resort to distractions and self debasement.




how all that jet fuel got to the impact point,


What jet fuel? What impact point?




and if there were planes or holograms.


I notice that the only people mentioning holograms are the desperate OSers who have just had their buttocks handed to them.




Why don't you admit that your theory is ridiculous and move on?


Because I'm not wrong. What's your excuse?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


No holograms must mean planes. What missiles? No missiles were seen. Where did the missiles come from? How did the fireball form?

You can't explain how the missiles made the plane shaped hole.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Yankee451
 


No holograms must mean planes. What missiles? No missiles were seen. Where did the missiles come from? How did the fireball form?

You can't explain how the missiles made the plane shaped hole.


Dear, dear...you're breaking up.

What are you talking about now?

I didn't bring up holograms, you did. You do that sort of thing when you've been put on the spot.

Since you don't know when you're beaten, let me remind you again...I brought up the fact that wings can't explain the damage to the towers and besides, it's impossible for the aluminum wings to cut steel columns. You provided an MIT paper as proof they could. I exposed your paper as a bad propaganda hit piece that wouldn't fool a barnyard animal.

You now have no reason to believe a plane wing can cut steel columns. All you have is the TeeVee evidence, but that has been proven fraudulent repeatedly.

Since you can't explain the damage, and refuse to try, and don't have the strength of character to admit you're wrong, I offered a better explanation for the damage.

I have a thread on another forum you're welcome to peruse if you'd like the details.
letsrollforums.com...

So, without further ado...please explain to us all why you believe a plane wing can cut a steel column like we were told happened on 911.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I read your post on letsroll and find it confusing. The unknown missiles which came from opposite directions and arrived to explode miraculously to produce a central hole have to have two sources to launch them. One would have to be above the central hole and one below.
What caused them to explode to make the central hole?
How big are those missile wings and what are they made of to cut the structure like that?
Why wouldn't the missiles explode or be deflected as they struck the building to cut the grooves?
Why was there no smoke trail from the source to the building?
What was the source of the fuel explosion?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Please pose your questions on that forum. Thanks.

Were you going to attempt to explain how a jet can create the damage now? You were going to tell me why you don't think it's strange that the NIST report left out so much damage, weren't you?

You were going to explain why you think a jet was involved...you've made a lot of wild claims, have you considered explaining your reasoning yet?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine
 


Please pose your questions on that forum. Thanks.

Were you going to attempt to explain how a jet can create the damage now? You were going to tell me why you don't think it's strange that the NIST report left out so much damage, weren't you?

You were going to explain why you think a jet was involved...you've made a lot of wild claims, have you considered explaining your reasoning yet?


So you can see that your theory doesn't hold water and don't want to reply on this thread because you can't answer the questions I posed. I can understand your reluctance to expose the frivolity of your missile theory.

Note the jet shaped and sized holes in the building and lack of any evidence of missiles. Note the fireball caused by volumes of fuel larger than any missile can deliver. Missiles are ruled out. Eyewitnesses saw the jet penetrate the building and no missiles. Models confirm that the jet had enough energy to shear the outer columns and would only be stopped if the steel used to make the columns was greater than 20mm thick; it was 6.5mm thick.
edit on 3/28/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Please pose your questions regarding missiles on this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I take it you've conceded that aluminum wings cannot cut steel columns; thermate can.

I look forward to more of your dizzying intellect on the other threads.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



You are still avoiding postulating any theories or explaining anything.


The Truth movement is not interested in “postulating theories” against Jones science and you should know that.

We want to see real science that disproves Jones Journal and you and all the debunkers in the world haven’t presented anything, but you’re “OPINIONS”, which means absolutely nothing to critical thinkers seeking verifiable evidence.


"The thermite reaction is more complex than most imagine.


We don’t need to “imagine,” science dictates that to us.


Based on this figure, we see the following theoretical and measured energies:

Not measured in this experiment:
HMX = 5.5 kJ/g
TNT = 4.5 kJ/g
TATB = 4.1kJ/g
Thermite = 3.9 kJ/g
Measured in this experiment:
Chip #1 = 1.5 kJ/g
Chip #2 = 2.5 kJ/g
Chip #3 = 7.5 kJ/g
Chip #4 = 5.9 kJ/g

The first thing we notice is the wide disparity of values for the “highly engineered” material. This should raise doubts as to sample collection and preparation and even if the materials are the same thing. By other analyses, they appear similar.


“Disparity of values for the “highly engineered” material,” Says who? You? If the values are inconsistence what is your scientific evidence to prove your “opinion”?



How can Jones discriminate between explosives, thermite and plain old burning paint?


Discriminate? I hardly think so. There is a different in test results that conclusively prove what burning paint is, and what is exploding thermite. And if you say there is not then you will be lying.
edit on 28-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join