Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

I didn’t know you had anything worth replying to?

Just adding data (knowledge) to the system of WTC1 and WTC2, that's all.

Why would you turn the page to WTC5 so quickly?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

I didn’t know you had anything worth replying to?

Just adding data (knowledge) to the system of WTC1 and WTC2, that's all.

Why would you turn the page to WTC5 so quickly?

Quote where you ever cited evidence of columns cut by detonations or thermite?

a reply to: neutronflux

With ease:

originally posted by: turbonium1

Perhaps you don't realize that this claim flies in the face of our known, proven, physical laws.

Wich physical law. Be specific.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

With ease:

The same old out of context with no attempt at quantification argument.

Nobody disagrees there was explosions from closed pressurized systems like refrigeration units and air conditioning units cutting loose in the fires. And nobody disagrees there wasn’t a pop when floor connections failed as in WTC 5 being an example.


A detonation that makes a transient pressure wave in the atmosphere where the pressure wave has the force to cut steel columns is entirely different.

And your easily debunked again.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You didn’t hit a nerve with me. You created your own “evidence”.

Now again...

I counted them on the video did i not?

Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound? Where, if the “explosions” actually had the force to cut steel columns, the detonations would be clear, obvious, and would have echoed about manhattan.

Let’s say you claim eight loud bangs that are expected from any large building fire, or from a structure failing by overloading.

Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?

Next, there is no way CD systems would survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse on the floors impacted by the jets as attested to by the video evidence.

Next you claim:

Nature of material used to cut core colums (Nano-thermite anyone)?

If you are saying nano-thermite cut the columns by shockwave, it still would have to create a pressure wave to cut the columns. The energy created by that shockwave is still going to produce audible energy of at least 130 dB.

If you are saying thermite cut the core columns, then why is the no visible white hot sparking from the WTC video evidence. Why would there be “explosive” sounds. Thermite burns relatively slow. Why is there no glowing metal from the collapse video?



Next. You.

Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!

But you are not claiming shape cutting charges are you?

You claim eight explosions from the video you “tweaked”?

I did some tinkering with the original video/audio and ended up with this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh. Sorry. You tinkered. Nice that you “tinkered” to create your “evidence” that should be obvious.

Anyway.

You again.

Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!

Let’s say you claimed eight loud bands you
Tinkered into “evidence”.

You claim eight cutting charges? Well, flight 175 probably took out about 7 core columns, and the tower did not fall.

Some estimates are more than 7 core columns taken out by Flight 175, with no serious consideration the tower would have collapsed from the jet impact.

That indicates your eight supposed “explosions” could not be cutting charges on individual core columns to take out enough of the 44 core columns to initiate collapse. For you fantasy to work, the supposed explosives would had to be wide area in nature. Not eight shape charges only taking out eight columns. Explosions that would need to take out multiple core columns with each detonation. Explosions that would look like the one event that is known to have taken out 7 core columns, and produced a seismic event of .7 magnitude.




Again. CD systems would not have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse of the twin towers as attested to by video evidence.

You are falsely confusing expect sounds of “explosions” from a building fire, and expected from a building failing from being overloaded.

You have produced no evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Explosions that would be obvious, awe inspiring, and echoed about manhattan.
Very similar to the explosive sounds starting around 4:14 mark of the FDR drive video

18 Views of "Plane Impact" in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center [HD DOWNLOAD]
m.youtube.com...

How far is FDR drive fromWTC 2?

But you only have audio you “tinkered” with from expected normal building fires, or sounds from a building being overloaded.

You cannot produce physical evidence of columns cut by pyrotechnics. Especially when the truth movement claims the resistance of each floor had to be removed by removing the structural steel of each floor.

a reply to: democracydemo

And you have still the problem in that no controlled demolitions systems would survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of the twin towers on the floors of the jet impacts as captured in the video evidence.

So, three strikes for you.

One, you cannot quantify the intensity of you “explosions” to show they are from a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns.
Two, there is no ejection of shrapnel from the areas of collapse initiation before building movement.
Three, no flashing or evidence of pressure transients with the force to cut steel columns.
Four, no way a CD system would survive the fire and impacts.
Five, there is zero evidence the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance. In fact, the vertical columns fell slower and after the floor connections/systems fails.

Hey, that’s five strikes against you.... your out!

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: turbonium1

Perhaps you don't realize that this claim flies in the face of our known, proven, physical laws.

Wich physical law. Be specific.

Conservation of Momentum, and Conservation of Energy, are two laws which prove the initial failures could never lead to such collapses.

But really, if you cannot even demonstrate such a thing in any way, that alone proves it is impossible.


All the side issues are not necessary, the proof is already conclusive

a reply to: turbonium1

Are you saying failures cannot lead to collapse?
What is the difference if jet impacts, redistribution of loads, thermal stress, expansion, and contraction leading to structural failures initiating collapse? Vs structural failures induced by detonations leading to structural failure initiating collapse?

WTC 5 shows floor connection failures and floor system failures were very possible at the WTC.



Added more pictures.

For WTC 7. If enough floor connection failures occurred along a single interior column, that column would lose lateral support and buckle. Thus starting the internal progressive collapse as shown by the drop of the penthouse. How the structure moves and ripples before the facade begins to move down.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

I didn’t know you had anything worth replying to?

Just adding data (knowledge) to the system of WTC1 and WTC2, that's all.

Why would you turn the page to WTC5 so quickly?

He deny evidence so don't waste your time.
He nevertheless doesn't get it mainstream thermal images taken a day or two after 9/11 show only 500c heat at WTC7 site.
The debunker defend the steel corroded in the rubble pile for weeks and was exposed to1000c heat.
Evidence actually contradicts this claim.
This is what you dealing with and you can't have an honest conversation when people will not admit they are mistaken!

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

You yourself posted proof that the columns were cut, the debate is whether it was done before the collapse or whether it was done during the clean up

And what are you doing now? Molten steel was present, and now that's been established, you have now moved on to claim that no evidence of thermite was found by using a random thread?

The video I shared shows a scientist discussing his paper on what they found in the 9/11 debris, and he's just one of a few that have shared similar findings. These people have no reason to lie.


If you want to keep shuffling your feet between whatever point it is you're trying to make, then you'll be there for years trying explain all the things wrong with the events of 9/11, not just the anomalies surrounding the collapses

They're no doubt cutting torches were employed to cut steel in the clean up. AE911 truth is probably wrong about that slag on the column.
What Metabunk neglects to take into account though is the red/gray chips were found in the dust blocks away after the towers came down. 
Red/gray chips have nothing to do with the cleanup process.
Debunkers, by the way, claim it's a Laclede paint pigment that is primarily Aluminate silicate and Iron oxide. So there would be no chemical reaction to generate Iron Molten Microspheres ( a big problem)
Debunkers have selected to ignore all the experiments in the paper that determined that silicon and AI were not bonded. They did three investigations to confirm Aluminum was present. A DSC test, a XED test and MEK test all three confirmed elemental AI and Iron oxide.
This inert atmosphere is just nonsense because all it will show there was something else burning up with the nano thermite.,

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

The debunker defend the steel corroded in the rubble pile for weeks and was exposed to1000c heat.

Your saying steel melted? What temperature does steel melt put? Quote what is actually said about the 1000c heat?

And frozen pools of melted steel where never recovered at the WTC?

And let’s not forget this argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Your claiming melted steel.

Look at the pictures you posted.



A corrosion attack thinned the metal. That is not melting. Look at how thin the chemical attack made the steel in areas. Despite the thinning, that thin steel is maintaining the geometry that piece was formed into when it was manufactured. If the piece reached its melting point, the remaining thin metal would not have held its shape. The steel is wasted from chemical attack. The piece is not deformed be cause the steel reached its melting point. Huge difference

You

Evidence actually contradicts this claim.

There is zero evidence the WTC pile was hot enough to support liquid steel.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

When you going to ever answer this simple true or false?

You use XED by comparing the peaks from known samples. The Harrit peaks are close or dead on for industrial coatings, not aluminum iron oxide thermite. Is that false?

And....

An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

By pteridine

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Based on this figure, we may approximate 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 as a composite. Arithmetically, if we have a 50:50 mix of thermite and HMX we should have an energy of about 4.7 kJ/g -- below that of chips #3 and #4. 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/gram 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. So is candle wax. 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 above, 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 obvious experiment? Maybe he did and didn’t like the results.

By Oystein

The most basic debunking points are as followed:
They ignited 4 similar looking "chips" and measured the energy release per weight unit. The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes "high-tech nano-stuff" an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe. This data alone disproves unequivocally that the material cannot possibly be the kind of thermite they claim to have found (aluminium + Fe2O3)
They claim to have found elemental Aluminium, one key ingredient to thermite, in a fifth chip. However, this fifth chip is of a different material than the four others, as is proven by their own data presented in figures 6 and 14. They did NOT dind free aluminium in any of the material that they igited and claimed to be or contain thermite
They compared the exothermic behaviour of their 4 ignition samples with that of real (nano-?) thermite found in literature, and claimed that the graphs are very similar. They are not: Compare figure 19 with figure 29 and note how the position of the peak differs significantly both on the X-axis (by more than 100°C) and the Y-axis (by a factor of 2 to 4.5). This result proves that their samples are not the kind of thermite known to science. (Note too how in figure 29 they only repeat the lowest of the 4 peaks from fig. 19 to make it not quite so apparent that their samples released waaay too much energy/power.)
Sunstealer has identified in insightful posts back in april 2009 that the crystaline structures we see in figures 8-10 resemble kaolinite (aluminiumsilicate) and hematite (iron oxide, Fe2O3). Their elemental composition as per the Harrit paper too points to kaolinite (Al, So Edit: Si, O) and hematite (Fe, O). Since Harrit found all of this embedded in an organic matrix, and since both kaolinite and hematite have been used throughout the ages and still used today as key ingredients to red paint, there can be no dount that the 4 red-grey chips from the ignition experiments is simply a red paint.
Sunstealer just the other day found that in a newer presentation, co-author Steven Jones showed XEDS spectra of primer paint they had scratched from original WTC structural steel. This spectrum resembles the spectrum in figure 14 nearly to a t! Hence, the fifth chip (which they soaked in MEK to find elemental Al) is thus proven to be primer paint from WTC steel

These are the main points where Harrit. Jones e.al. debunk themselves.

Much earned criticism also goes to the choice of Bentham as publishing house (zero impact in the scientific community, bad reputation for accepting even total junk as long as the pay-to-publish 800$ check clears. It has been establiched that not the journal and its editor-in-chief controlled the peer-review process, but instead the authors themselves were in control of their own "peer-review".

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Dr. James Millette
MVA Scientific Consultants
www.MVAinc.com

February 20-25 2012
American Academy of Forensic Science
www.AAFS.org
2012 Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
www.mvainc.com...

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

 With it being a Nano AI+ Nano Si Iron Oxide with Carbon mixture-

That is exactly what we have been telling you. It's a paint chip.

If it has all the ingredients of a paint chip, then it is a paint chip.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What’s the other list? Your list of falsehoods and contradictions?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You managed not notice this steel piece connections failed and was exposed to high temp.

Then specifically post that picture separately to see if your argument has merit?


But it’s been cited repeatedly you do post proven falsehoods and blatant falsehoods. A person with credibility would have either apologize or walked away out of shame by now.

You

You lost this debate days ago. Your opinion of me is irrelevant. 
You only make an excuse the connection failed due to buckling so there no point. You still in denial about the Harrit study. 

How? Your claiming thermite? Thermite burns over 2000 degrees Celsius. Is that false?

You explicitly just stated

Iron Microspheres not going to develop in a a fire that 600c or 800c. And there no substantial documentation fires were hot as 1500c at ground zero.

So there was no thermite fires at the WTC?

Posting pictures of steel cut by cutting torch as steel cut by thermite.

You said this.

I have genuine doubts any welder would slice steel like that like that.

What does that even mean?


Let’s not forget this gem
You

Stop repeating things I have previously answered.
Harrit chips were analyzed in inert atmosphere.

Still waiting on you to cite where Harrit analyzed the WTC chips in an inert atmosphere?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I just cited an F’n source

you

I have gathered over the years it often takess 1600c to 1700 to melt Wrought Iron?

Melting point [°F (°C)][54] 2,800 (1,540)

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Maybe you should actually look items up instead of making crap up

When you going to have a sincere debate?
I gave the quotes from the FEMA steel study!
They describe their explanation the steel was exposed to 1000c  high heat and a Sulfur attack.
You still have not figured out yet that 1000c heat has to be there in the rubble pile to cause this corrison!
UGPS thermal images show 500c heat spikes in the debris at WTC7, not 1000c.
So it clear this event took place inside the building before collapse so that rules out type of odd corrosion after collapse..
FEMA claimed corrosion because they were not sure if it developed outside or inside the building.
As you can observe here with this definite FEMA statement.


There another issues will 1000c high heat+ sulphar truly start melting this hard thick A36 steel? Where do we determine the free sulfur came from? Would there be an abundance of elementary sulfur in the building to cause a melting effect? 
FEMA allege is this free sulfur reduced the melting point of steel by 500c that big drop.
If you can't acknowledge facts there no point debating you further.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

MEK test

Please post the procedure that is used to show free elemental aluminum in a”MEK test”

In fact, please post the procedure for the “ DSC test“ to find elemental aluminum?

I don’t know about elemental aluminum, but

By Oystein

The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes "high-tech nano-stuff" an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What is the melting point of steel?

You keep talking about melted steel. You have not posted evidence that the pile reached temperatures to melt steel.

You keep posting evidence of corrosions that occurred at temperatures less these the melting point of steel.

What temperature does you source cited state the corrosion occurred. What is the melting point of steel?

And your ignoring.....

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

The debunker defend the steel corroded in the rubble pile for weeks and was exposed to1000c heat.

Your saying steel melted? What temperature does steel melt put? Quote what is actually said about the 1000c heat?

And frozen pools of melted steel where never recovered at the WTC?

And let’s not forget this argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Your claiming melted steel.

Look at the pictures you posted.



A corrosion attack thinned the metal. That is not melting. Look at how thin the chemical attack made the steel in areas. Despite the thinning, that thin steel is maintaining the geometry that piece was formed into when it was manufactured. If the piece reached its melting point, the remaining thin metal would not have held its shape. The steel is wasted from chemical attack. The piece is not deformed be cause the steel reached its melting point. Huge difference

You

Evidence actually contradicts this claim.

There is zero evidence the WTC pile was hot enough to support liquid steel.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

They did three investigations to confirm Aluminum was present. A DSC test, a XED test and MEK test all three confirmed elemental AI and Iron oxide.

You

MEK test

Please post the procedure that is used to show free elemental aluminum in a”MEK test”

In fact, please post the procedure for the “ DSC test“ to find elemental aluminum?

I don’t know about elemental aluminum, but

By Oystein

The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes "high-tech nano-stuff" an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Was two more of your blatant falsehoods document and added to you list.

When you going to ever answer these simple true or false questions?

You use XED by comparing the peaks from known samples. Is that false? The Harrit peaks are close or dead on for industrial coatings, not aluminum iron oxide thermite. Is that false?

You misleading because the additives of Laclede paint can't create Iron Microspheres.. 
This is debunker claim it paint.
Both the calorimeter tests established a thermite reaction at 430c.
This what they discovered after the looked at the burned chip, balls of Iron on the Red/gray burned chip.
They're no match at all.
You claim there no elemental AI, but the results show otherwise. And inert atmosphere test will not show there paint chips, because Leclede paint can't create Iron Microspheres. It's a dead end try again.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Trying to change the subject?

Again...

What is the melting point of steel?

You keep talking about melted steel. You have not posted evidence that the pile reached temperatures to melt steel.

You keep posting evidence of corrosions that occurred at temperatures less these the melting point of steel.

What temperature does you source cited state the corrosion occurred. What is the melting point of steel?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

They did three investigations to confirm Aluminum was present. A DSC test, a XED test and MEK test all three confirmed elemental AI and Iron oxide.

You

MEK test

Please post the procedure that is used to show free elemental aluminum in a”MEK test”

In fact, please post the procedure for the “ DSC test“ to find elemental aluminum?

I don’t know about elemental aluminum, but

By Oystein

The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes "high-tech nano-stuff" an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Was two more of your blatant falsehoods document and added to you list.

When you going to ever answer these simple true or false questions?

You use XED by comparing the peaks from known samples. Is that false? The Harrit peaks are close or dead on for industrial coatings, not aluminum iron oxide thermite. Is that false?

You denying what shown in the paper.
The heated  the red/gray chips to 430c and molten Iron formed on the burned chip.
Laclede paint can do that unless you believe the AI separated from the silicate?
Nobody would paint floor trusses with a thermite reaction paint.
These images refute every challenge you prepared stating it's not nanothermite and just an industrial paint coating.
The Milette chips and Harrit chips are obviously not the same material. I think might be too much for you to get, since you indoctrinated by the debunkers nonsense.