Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

The metal is not melted because the piece of structure held its shape through the corrosive attack.
The piece shows no signs of being physical deformed by heat. Only being altered by a chemical attack.

There a crack hole in the steel, are you blind?
Where did the steel that melted go?
FEMA declares a liquid formed during the attack and was essentially a liquid of Iron and Sulphar. So melted steel mix is likely what people saw in the rubble.  Liquid Iron melted is yellow/red in color. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Huge difference in “approaching 1000 C” vs being over “1130 C”

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron.[15]

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You do know corrosion is not melting? Right? If the samples were “melted” why are they still holding the geometry of their manufactured shape. They show no signs of being deformed by heat.

Unless you mean “melting” the way water “melts” sugar candy?

Now
And your ignoring:

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

There is zero evidence of melted steel. Steel attacked by sulfur resulting in a compound with a lower melting point than steel, yes.

Can you read?

Then cite the report where it said the steel was melted.

You don’t know how to quote?

C.3 SummaryforSample1
1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

www.fema.gov...

You never did cite the melting point of structural steel?

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

The metal is not melted because the piece of structure held its shape through the corrosive attack.
The piece shows no signs of being physical deformed by heat. Only being altered by a chemical attack.

There a crack hole in the steel, are you blind?
Where did the steel that melted go?
FEMA declares a liquid formed during the attack and was essentially a liquid of Iron and Sulphar. So melted steel mix is likely what people saw in the rubble.  Liquid Iron melted is yellow/red in color. 

The corrosion products had a lower melting point that the steel? So?

You keep claIming melted steel? Your citing a source that a chemical attack liquified the steel.

Quote the study where the steel melted. Sulfuric acid can “liquify” steel. Liquify by chemical attack is not the same as reaching the melting point of a material. Sorry.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

The metal is not melted because the piece of structure held its shape through the corrosive attack.
The piece shows no signs of being physical deformed by heat. Only being altered by a chemical attack.

There a crack hole in the steel, are you blind?
Where did the steel that melted go?
FEMA declares a liquid formed during the attack and was essentially a liquid of Iron and Sulphar. So melted steel mix is likely what people saw in the rubble.  Liquid Iron melted is yellow/red in color. 

The corrosion products had a lower melting point that the steel? So?

You keep claIming melted steel? Your citing a source that a chemical attack liquified the steel.

Quote the study where the steel melted. Sulfuric acid can “liquify” steel. Liquify by chemical attack is not the same as reaching the melting point of a material. Sorry.

What you even talking about.
FEMA set forth openly their position high heat and sulfur likely caused the intergranular melting. 
That never been established sulfur with 1000c heat would melt these beams and girders!
You forgetting the problem thermal images were taken a day or two after 9/11 and the intensity was only 500c, 
500c less than the recommended temp FEMA outlined had to be present.
So like it or not all the evidence places the attack inside the building and was executed in hours, minutes or seconds. Not weeks or months like the debunkers defend. It's impossible for corrosion to materialize within hours. 

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.

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.

Read it and use your brain.


That liquid of Iron is 100 percent proof of melting.
Liquid Iron would be dripping.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quote the report where the steel melted.

The liquifying of the steel Is like being liquified by sulfuric acid attack, which is not the same as reaching a melting point.

The pictures you posted.



The steel piece, no matter how thin the metal was, held to its original manufactured geometry. The steel piece never reached the melting point of structural steel to cause its manufactured geometry to deform. The thin steel shows no signs of dropping or deforming from the steel reaching it’s melting point. You debunked yourself.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

en.m.wiktionary.org...

eutectic mixture (plural eutectic mixtures)

A mixture of substances having a melting point lower than that of any of its components; the composition at the eutectic point

Like

Iron(II) sulfate
Melting point 680c

en.m.wikipedia.org...(II)_sulfate

Like I said. With all the plastic, solder, copper, lead, PVC plastics, all the batteries, there would have been no pure liquid anything in the WTC.

a reply to: neutronflux

If the controlling politicians could supposedly pull off 9/11? If 9/11 gave more power to the NWO? And if the NWO controls the printing and flow of money? Why would the NWO need money from 9/11? Now I am all confused. Would you care to clarify your mythology?

The NWO is an ideology. There is a shared belief amongst the suspects involved in this case. To consider an idea can bring down the towers is confusing. Idea's like the NWO do lead into motive and the culture of the perpetrators but have no physical implications in our reality without action by individuals.

Dick Cheney also profited quite well with his privatization of the military and his Haliburton company. What do you think congress and the federal reserve would of said to Dick Cheney and his war chest if the events of 9/11 did not take place? To say it is all the NWO is an oversimplification of all the true suspects and their motives.

When it comes to the presence of a thermite / nanothermite based compound used in the controlled demolition of the WTC towers I firmly and clearly vote guilty.

When it comes to the presence of another type of explosive to aid in this demolition I am open to it. I have not seen enough evidence yet to clearly identify exactly what kind it was, but until all the facts do come out it is well worth considering.

The use of a Barometric bomb does have some attributes that fit. A description about this type of device is made by Ted Gunderson in the following presentation around the 2:30:00 mark in relation to the Oklahoma City Bombing.

FBI Chief Ted Gunderson exposes Satanism Pedophilia Elite Murder NWO full length


Further information about this device.

Barometric Bombs: From Iran-contra To 9/11


There is also a good video shot of part of the building that neuronflux claims is an internal core, I am leaning more towards an outer edge. Whatever part of the building it is, it is strange to just see it evaporate after a few moments. I don't know just how hot it must get to do that, many thousands of degrees. Lot more than the 1 or 2 thousand getting talked about here.

To get back to why a Barometric bomb type device, part of the signature is in a two phase explosion. The first explosion produces a white cloud with the second and stronger explosion producing a black cloud.


There are many dead ends and wrong tracks in working through the 9/11 maze. This theory about the Barometric bomb maybe wrong, but it does look interesting.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

When it comes to the presence of a thermite / nanothermite based compound used in the controlled demolition of the WTC towers I firmly and clearly vote guilty.

Cripes. Have you been reading this thread?

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: neutronflux

Cripes. Have you been reading this thread?

I started this thread. Read most of it, but does my head in bad stuck in these ashes. We have already talked about this heaps. I looked at all the arguments you had against Richard Gage and addressed them. All you had at the end was a personal attack that he was a charlatan. I wish you had something to give me that refuted the facts he presents but you don't.

I know this topic hurts bad and I respect your commitment to these issues.

a reply to: kwakakev

When it comes to Harrit:

One. People have tried to confirm his results. Individuals have failed at replicating his results.

Two. Harrit has never completed the discovery process by releasing his samples to an independent lab for confirmation on his findings

Three. The composition of the chips are closer or dead on for industrial coatings. Not thermite.

Four. Just in case you missed it.

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

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Five. Harrit never released any results from an analysis that shows his dust could support a thermite reaction like trying to ignite the chips in an inert atmosphere.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

When it comes to the presence of another type of explosive to aid in this demolition I am open to it. I have not seen enough evidence yet to clearly identify exactly what kind it was, but until all the facts do come out it is well worth considering.

The use of a Barometric bomb does have some attributes that fit. A description about this type of device is made by Ted Gunderson in the following presentation around the 2:30:00 mark in relation to the Oklahoma City Bombing.

What do you not get from the video, audio, seismic, physical evidence there is zero evidence of an over pressure event that had the force to cut steel columns. The steel columns that were still standing after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

a reply to: kwakakev

I think the question is what did Bush do with his 9/11 money?

Is there any proof Bush received trillions?

a reply to: neutronflux

If you watch the video by Ted Gunderson there where planes flying out of the US with $1 billion on board each day. this was back in 1997. Some of this goes back to Poppy Bush, drug trade, illegal weapons and human trafficking are all wrapped up in it. The energy sector is also a big part of this, Quid Pro Joe and his Billion dollar Ukraine deal continues this trend. There has been some words of a similar Trillion dollar deal with China.

The world of high finance is murky. The person who released the Panama Papers died in a car bomb blast about on month after. Ronald Bernard is another to check out on how the world of international trade works, he has since passed on too. Some of these unacknowledged trillionaires have trucks full of cash, gold and other things just sitting in a basement while their community is sleeping on the streets.

How the humans nature of greed blends with the psychopathic nature of megalomania does produce an unjust world. There is just too much going on in the world for any one person to think they can control it all. Those that try and get close just make a mess in their ignorance of all the facts.

I don't know the financial details of the Bush family, just that they are doing better than most.

For anyone to try and account for the deep state is a dangerous job. Many have died and it is purposefully made complex to confuse the reality. Where the Pentagon got hit was the spot trying to account for the missing $2.3 Trillion that Donald Rumsfeld mentioned the day before.

Kathrine Austine Fitts is a good one in trying to make sense of some of the accounting irregularities.

I'be probably covered every aspect of all the things that are wrong with 9/11 here on ATS at one point or another, and without doubt, there is so much that points to this being a deliberate act, and with either direct involvement, or at the very least willing complicity, by those in the upper levels of the Bush administration. I still can't believe how many people have been hoodwinked by it.

9/11, first time in history that not just 3 steel structures collapsed through fire, but also the first time in history that plane wreckage becomes invisible at alleged crash sites

As time goes on and you look back, it just becomes even more evident, and the reason why I'm saying this now, I inadvertently caught some of the old news feeds from the time (again) and it just made me absolutely cringe

a reply to: kwakakev

I hope if there was crimes committed, people get nailed for it.

But there is zero evidence the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics. The truth movement is ran by cons making money pushing mythology.

The truth movement (Richard Gage / Harrit / Jones / Wood for example) killed its credibility long ago.

I think the question was what did Bush do with his 9/11 money? Follow the money?