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.
I'm interested in what exactly you want things to look like. For example, are these microspheres the right microspheres?
Originally posted by maxella1
Wow, I can't stop laughing...
"Seventy-five million years ago the emperor of the Galactic Federation, a despot named Xenu, solved overpopulation on his planet by freezing its inhabitants, shipping them to Earth in spacecraft resembling DC-8s, and dropped them into volcanoes in Hawaii and other places. He then detonated the volcanoes with atomic bombs and captured the suddenly-disembodied Thetans with an electronic device."
Is this really what they believe?
Originally posted by kidtwist
Hahaha! All these cointelpro idiots come out with some ridiculous story and make out like us 'truthers' are writing stuff that is equally as carzy! They are a bunch of tards who think their silly games fool everyone! Many of them spout this utter crap! It's funny reading it though, I know 5 year olds that have a better imagination than these cointelpro 'debunkers'!!!!
Originally posted by maxella1
Wow, I can't stop laughing...
"Seventy-five million years ago the emperor of the Galactic Federation, a despot named Xenu, solved overpopulation on his planet by freezing its inhabitants, shipping them to Earth in spacecraft resembling DC-8s, and dropped them into volcanoes in Hawaii and other places. He then detonated the volcanoes with atomic bombs and captured the suddenly-disembodied Thetans with an electronic device."
Is this really what they believe?
Originally posted by Darkwing01
The picture of fly ash spheres are not attached to any chips of paint.
(the one image here is post reaction of a sample and the other is from the dust)
...
No doubt Harritt may have misidentified some fly ash spheres, it is very possible, but that doesn't account for the attached spheres which formed the basis of identification. These are not fly ash.
How do you know? Is your only criteria located with paint because I have to say, an iron sphere that's found in fly ash being found in the painted steel's paint, does not really seem that revolutionary to me.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
They are not located with, they are attached to. There are also separately and severally dissociated spherical particle which may or may not be fly ash, but I expressly differentiated these by saying that they indeed be fly ash.
How did these metal spheres get attached (to all appearances bonded) to the "paint" do you suppose? Glue?
If you are going to accuse someone of not answering your question at least read the post which you are accusing of doing so. If this is the level of reading comprehension you brought to bear on reading the Harrit paper (Harrit is the main author by the way, not Jones), then it is no wonder you have failed to grasp the key details.edit on 7-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)edit on 7-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by exponent
Let's assume however for a minute that I, Dr Millette et al are wrong and that this is in fact a nanothermite.
Can you propose a way it could have been used to attack the towers which would not be better carried out with regular thermite, explosives, or a gas axe? It seems to me that this sort of compound can only exist in small quantities in the towers due to the visibility of a huge shower of molten metal. We also know it can't exist on fire floors due to its low ignition temperature.
From that we're left with small quantities in the rest of the building. To do what?!
Of course, there are many possibilities, and as far as I know there's no actual differentiation between 'contained within' and 'attached to' in any test results or documentation
Let's assume however for a minute that I, Dr Millette et al are wrong and that this is in fact a nanothermite.
Can you propose a way it could have been used to attack the towers which would not be better carried out with regular thermite, explosives, or a gas axe? It seems to me that this sort of compound can only exist in small quantities in the towers due to the visibility of a huge shower of molten metal. We also know it can't exist on fire floors due to its low ignition temperature.
From that we're left with small quantities in the rest of the building. To do what?!
Originally posted by Darkwing01
It's there, in the pictures I linked....
Unless you have some other plausible mechanism for how the fly ash re-melted and attached itself to the metal...
Because the reaction speed of thermite goes up as the particle size goes down?
Because high-explosives make a loud noise that is hard to conceal?
Because regular explosives leave readily identifiable chemical traces?
My guess is an oxy-acetylene torch would be WA-A-A-A-Y too slow and would need to jerry-rigged to high hell.
Charges can be hardened against impact or fire much the same way that sensitive recording equipment can in a black-box, but even if that were not the case that molten metal may simply be evidence of a broken charge. In that scenario you only see a little because only a single, or a couple, of charges may have been dislodged.
It is a fallacy to assume that an inordinate amount of thermite (or whatever) was required, because the alternative theory is that none was required. Something is more than nothing, whatever the precise details are.edit on 10-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Darkwing01
as their is no plausible natural mechanism for their creation (no, I do not consider air pressure "plausible").
Originally posted by Darkwing01
I don't know what you want me to say, the pictures clearly shows metal spheres that could not be fly ash.
The mechanism I envision is of devices similar to Cole's charges attached to some key locations. Again, you don't need that many if you place them at the right spots. The ejections are only problematic because of their location below the main wave of collapse as their is no plausible natural mechanism for their creation (no, I do not consider air pressure "plausible"). They do not necessarily need to be explosions to be an issue.edit on 15-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
It seems you've convinced yourself that this is the case, but I see no evidence that this is true.
You're right the ejections are problematic in this theory! How many are we talking here? Are we failing a full floor? What columns are being destroyed?
I also want to know how this theory explains those ejections and how it explains the inward bowing seen on both towers.
Too bad, as that is what caused them,and nothing you claim will change that fact!
Originally posted by Darkwing01
I love how you are trying to make it look like it's me denying what's right in front of his nose.
You claimed it was fly ash, you showed me pictures of fly ash, I said that it is quite likely that some of the sphere's were indeed fly ash. Then I show you pictures that in no way shape or form could be construed as fly ash as per the picture you presented as "proof", and your response?
"Nuh-uh, I'm not looking".
And I am the one with a pre-set conclusion?
Well you can go count them. I am talking about the localized ejections a floor or more below the main line of full floor collapse.
The problem with air-pressure ejections is that it is physically impossible for them to occur so far below the collapse front in a open office space with miles of glass windows.
There is no plausible theory how there could be "advance" collapses in structurally sound lower portions of the building ahead of the collapse front. Bazant certainly does not address the issue.
The ejections in my theory would be caused by the same as the whatever causes the ejections in a natural collapse theory, except with the addition of a mechanism to explain how it got to be happening so far down the building.
I believe you are the one with a pre-set conclusion, because that's not what I said at all. You posted pictures of microspheres embedded within a red chip. I said that I see no problem with these being fly ash microspheres that could be been embedded by mechanical force or by contamination during curing.
There is no thermite based mechanism that could cause this. That's the biggest problem. You say it would be the same cause, but the cause is undoubtedly air pressure. The building is collapsing and reducing in volume. It's essentially analogous to a piston in a cylinder. As this happens the pressure of the rest of the building must increase as a matter of course.
Another argument which doesn't favour thermite or explosives is the rate of ejection. It increases over about a half second period. No explosives are that slow, and the whole point of nano-thermite apparently is to increase its reaction rate. The only plausible mechanism for a slow acceleration in velocity is air pressure.
Obviously I'm speaking as if this were fact, and I do believe it to be so, but from your perspective it is opinion. You must admit however that you are missing out questions in my posts and that you have a very limited explanation for even the most basic theories.
The exterior column bowing should be fairly diagnostic. There are few possible causes for this and thermite or explosives don't match up with any. What say you on this? I find it hard to get details from people.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
So it should be a simple matter to find examples of similar chips created by similar processes shouldn't it?
Debunkers love asking for proof, but where is yours? It has already been demonstrated that nano-thermite can produce chips of this appearance, what hasn't been demonstrated is that fly-ash can.
So...
Gravity alone can do it, but suddenly, assist it with thermite and it becomes completely impossible.
A thermite assisted demo would just be a special case of a Verinage procedure, I see no technical reason why it couldn't blow out floors ahead of the collapse. We know that it can knock out columns pretty fast, and that is all that Verinage is.
There is no piston, there is no cylinder. The floors were flat slabs open to the air apart from glass panes on more than 75% of their surface area. There was no pancaking either, and I am not talking about the ejection at the main edge of collapse.
Just to be clear, the mechanism I am proposing is partly air-pressure, not explosive expulsion. Not just air pressure to be sure, mostly mechanical and elastic forces acting on floor and column elements that suddenly break due to floors giving way.
The question is, what causes those floors to give way?
Think about it, the mechanism for breaking the floors is that the mass of falling material accumulates into a lump and forces its way through (roughly). how does some of this stuff end up twenty of thirty floors lower down to break stuff?
How many gusts of wind have you seen breaking out a window? You are talking almost hurricane force here, at least, and that is if the ejections consist of mostly glass and paper. It is not like a gush of air is gonna do that. It needs to be pressurized, and you don't pressurize air without a pressure vessel. Again, you can go do physical experiments with this and try it yourself.
If you think falling building material will created such focussed, localized air pressure pulses capable of moving heavy objects I challenge you to find evidence for the claim.
Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”
Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”
Stone Phillips: “A rumbling sound, this gust of wind? And then what happened?”
Sal D’Agostino: “When I hit the fourth floor landing, I remember the plaque on the door. And that’s when the building started shaking. And you heard the rumble. And I said, ‘Oh, here we go. This is it for me.’”
Originally posted by Darkwing01
Who's the conspiracy theorist now?
Did you consider that I don't do this as a full time job and sometimes don't feel like answering EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MAKE in some offhand corner of your post? Or run out of time? Or get bored? Or just miss things?
Also... Why do you think that every tiny question you ask have to be answered. Some things in life just are mysteries, that's the fun part, I suggest you embrace it.
Of what?
The only physical tests to that effect failed to find support for the official sanction mechanism, and the only F.E.A. I have seen indicates that the cause of the bowing is the exact opposite of what you would no doubt like it to be.
It may not be readily apparent to you, but I am very likely to be swayed by actual evidence. It just turns out debunkers are really bad at actually providing any for their claims. So I ask you: can you provide actual evidence (not just empty insinuation, actual hard evidence), of your claims?
There are a couple of claims here now, you don't have to do all at once
Embracing ignorance is exactly the opposite purpose of this site. You've come to the wrong place.
There were no physical tests of that effect. This alone indicates you don't have more than a truther's understanding of the situation. You really believe a couple of unbacked youtube videos to be an authoritive FEA?
www.sciencedirect.com...
Originally posted by Darkwing01
Thinking every aspect of an event can be known and "proven" is embracing ignorance. It is also really naive.
There were no physical tests of that effect. This alone indicates you don't have more than a truther's understanding of the situation. You really believe a couple of unbacked youtube videos to be an authoritive FEA?
fire.nist.gov...
...also...
en.wikipedia.org...
You can't link things behind paywall and expect me to buy it if the abstract in no way suggests that the test illustrates your point. I'm not even sure what your point is.
It doesn't matter if it published in a million journals and peer reviewed by the pope, if there is no source code (as with the NIST f.e.a) it is GIGO. I don't think the youtube video is proof of anything, but at least it is more reproducible. Reproducibility and falsifiability are the standards in science, publication in peer reviewed journals often, but not always, is merely a good indicator that these are present. Why do you think journals periodically retract articles?
But I notice you are dodging the real question here. You made some positive claims here, I expect those claims to be backed up by actual evidence before you start accusing people of stuff.
edit on 23-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
No, wanting to know everything about an event is the very opposite of 'embracing ignorance'.
I should add more detail here, they don't test the actual physical mechanisms of the day, just the interaction with fire.
Then perhaps you should read more carefully. You linked a random youtubers FEA and claimed it was some sort of evidence, this is a peer reviewed FEA by a respected institution showing exactly the opposite of what was claimed in the youtube video.
Much research has been and is currently being done to try and accurately recreate the effects of fire on structures including the effects of redistribution within the structure and the associated changes in load carrying mechanisms. This work has mostly focussed upon the most common and simplest structural forms currently used. As such most of the research to date tends to involve Universal Beam and Universal Column sections in a grid formation with spans of 6–9 m. This paper reports on an investigation of the effects of heating on a long span truss floor system. The ABAQUS finite element package is used to model the structure including fully non-linear behaviour and thermal expansion effects. Different boundary conditions and heating regimes are investigated to understand the response of the truss members to fire. The effects of heating on the lateral restraint available from the slender floor systems to a column have also been studied. The results and analysis indicate that composite truss flooring systems may not fail suddenly. Individual member buckling seems to be a much more gradual occurrence linked to material failure and expansion based geometry change rather than sudden “failure”.
What claims would you like me to back up that I haven't already?
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how columns can bow in.