Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

reply to post by EvilAxis


Your external source content ["You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A."] is not an engineering rule of thumb or the result of engineering theory. It is the opinion of the author of the referenced work who is a marine engineer expert in ship collisions. It is also incorrect.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


This type of distribution is found in pigments, such as those found in paint.

nicely said evilaxis...just gave out my first star...to you for your last post.

The believers of the official word make me laugh...."truthers just arent scientific enough" they say, yet their "bible", authored by NIST, is light years ahead of the OP topic when it comes to high school, amateurish standards of experiments...as you mentioned, no steel, nor dust was ever analysed.....suspicious in itself, given the magnitude of the (govt inflicted)disaster....

People still deabiting this?

We'll never know.

Get over it.

Originally posted by Gazzza
We'll never know.

Get over it.

Many, probably most here, already do know.

If you're open-minded enough to follow the evidence where it points, it's as easy to recognize the official story is a lie as it is to realize the moon is not made of cheese.

It would therefore be inappropriate, immoral, stupid, even - to "get over it" and passively await the next false flag atrocity.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by EvilAxis

 

Your external source content ["You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A."] is not an engineering rule of thumb or the result of engineering theory. It is the opinion of the author of the referenced work who is a marine engineer expert in ship collisions. It is also incorrect.

Correct - it's not an engineering rule, nor was it derived from any specific engineering theory - it is derived from the laws of physics. Many other rules of thumb can be derived in a similar fashion - "steel framed high rises don't levitate", for example.

You say it is incorrect, but I note you fail to justify this with a single counter example. Please do so. - I would be fascinated to hear it.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by EvilAxis

The author is thinking about ship collisions and assumes that the top of the towers fell neatly on the bottom after dropping ten feet. He does not allow for additional structural damage due to fires, the rotation downward of the top section that would twist the structure or the failure of the relatively weak floor joists causing the strong external columns to detach and leave them and the core mutually unsupported.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by EvilAxis

 

The author is thinking about ship collisions and assumes that the top of the towers fell neatly on the bottom after dropping ten feet. He does not allow for additional structural damage due to fires, the rotation downward of the top section that would twist the structure or the failure of the relatively weak floor joists causing the strong external columns to detach and leave them and the core mutually unsupported.

I notice that instead of offering a counter example you just repeat your nonsensical interpretation of what happened to (presumably all three) towers.

Again - steel framed high rises are rugged, self-supporting structures with massive structural redundancy. They are designed to withstand massive external wind forces and fires. They do not ever, have not ever, and will not ever become self-destructing powder kegs (unless they are loaded with explosives or cutting charges).

Consider a tree - a tall, self-supporting structure evolved to stand upright against similar (albeit smaller) forces. Various things cause trees to topple, aided by gravity. Very high winds, rot within the trunk, fire, an axe or chainsaw through the base.

Now ask yourself why the tree always topples but never disintegrates from top to bottom into a pile of sawdust and sticks.



[edit on 9-4-2009 by EvilAxis]

It is understood that you believe WTC 1, 2 and 7 had unique structural features that caused them to be the only steel frame high-rises in history to implode but, as that isn't the topic of this thread, it could be considered a deliberate effort to derail.

Bad logic. The entire justification for this "active thermite material" thread comes directly from the fact that the truthers refuse to accept that the towers fell due to an achilles heel in the design that noone knew was there, so you all try to scramble to find out "the truth behind the conspiracy". If it's proven that the collapse actually was caused by a domino effect of events instigated by the jet liner strikes, then this whole thermite hypothesis becomes moot to the process, and therefore doesn't even get out of the gate.

Thus, proving the collapse was due to the unique construction of the buildings, and disproving the existence of thermite, is really the same thing.

reply to post by EvilAxis

Though it may sound vaguely plausible at first, there are a couple of problems with that theory. Firstly, if you watch the videos, you will not see a "descending juggernaut". The upper part of the building can be seen to explode outwards early in the descent, dissipating its mass away from the structure below.

Whatever "dissipation of mass away from the structure below" as you claim would only be a fraction of a fraction of the mass that went straight down. Gravity necessarily applies to secret conspiracies just as it does to the rest of us.

Secondly, even if the upper part had continued to fall as a solid mass, its "force of weight" as you call it would be the same that the building had always supported, plus some momentum. Simply put - dropping a small steel box onto a larger heavier steel box will not cause the larger heavier steel box either to implode or be crushed to the ground.

The laws of physics state that the "plus some momentum" would give a moving object the force of double its weight upon a stationary object, but that's neither here nor there. Each floor was essentially a concrete ring supported in open space between an internal core of structural beams and the external shell of the building, with a horizontal suspension lattice supporting the floors. All the walls comprising the tenant areas were actually easily removable and replaceable drywall, and were not load bearing. The floors therefore never supported any of the weight of the floors above them, thus, each falling floor would have smashed through each subsequent floor like it wasn't even there, which is exactly what we saw happen during the collapse.

Your "small box falling on a large box" example is a poor analogy, as any box weighing 4,000 tons is still going to crush the box beneath it regardless of how much the box beneath it weighs.

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Now ask yourself why the tree always topples but never disintegrates from top to bottom into a pile of sawdust and sticks.

Now, I live out in the woods, and I have on many an occasion cut down outlying trees with my chainsaw. I cannot say how many I have cut down in my lifetime, but I have never, not even once, encountered a tree that was hollow like a skyscraper would be. They were always entirely filled with wood, and therefore, uncompressable.

The reason why you subscribe to implausible scenarios of conspriacy is becoming self evident, if you are using inapplicable analogies such as this to support them.

reply to post by EvilAxis


What does a tree have to do with this?

Originally posted by pteridine
What does a tree have to do with this?

The tree analogy demonstrates the general point that fire and localized damage cannot convert a self supporting structure into a self destroying one.

Just as economics constrain the design of a tower, evolutionary pressure dictates that a tree resist gravity and other forces with maximally efficient use of material.

You cannot within a few seconds reduce a tree to a pile of sawdust and sticks any more than you can reduce a steel framed tower to a pile of rubble, without the use of demolition charges.

GoodOlDave objects that wood is "incompressible", forgetting that wood consists of long, hollow cells and is therefore much more compressible than concrete or steel. His other objection - that trees are never hollow is both wrong and irrelevant. Many old trees undergo complete hollowing of their heartwood. However, the twin towers were very definitely not hollow. At their core were massive cross braced steel box-columns continuous for their entire height, from bedrock anchors in the sub-basements to near the towers' tops, where they transitioned to H-beams.

Certainly a tree is a more apt analogy than the collapsing house of cards you seem to be working from - which somehow tears up the cards as they fall.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your "small box falling on a large box" example is a poor analogy, as any box weighing 4,000 tons is still going to crush the box beneath it regardless of how much the box beneath it weighs.

OK - let's take a steel box weighing 4,000 tons and let's exaggerate things by letting it free fall the full height of a floor of the WTC. It then strikes a much larger steel box which was built, with massive structural redundancy, to support it's own weight plus the 4,000 ton box above.

What happens? Metal is deformed or crushed (as you put it) before the smaller steel box's downward motion is arrested or deflected by the box below. Just like colliding steel ships, there is localized structural damage. The ships do not continue to travel through each other until they are entirely demolished. Nor does the smaller steel box descend through the larger box until everything is destroyed.

I asked for a counter example, but instead you simply repeated your assertion that this is what happens. If this is what happens, you should be able to demonstrate it empirically by providing one instance in the history of the world when it has.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by EvilAxis]

Originally posted by EvilAxis

However, the twin towers were very definitely not hollow. At their core were massive cross braced steel box-columns continuous for their entire height, from bedrock anchors in the sub-basements to near the towers' tops, where they transitioned to H-beams.

You are falsely changing your definition of "hollow" in mid-analogy. I am using the dictionary's definition of "hollow" as "having an unfilled space in something". Each tower had somewhere upwards of 20,000 occupants EACH, so they were most definitely hollow, or at least, definitely more hollow than a tree would ever be. On the other hand, any tree which was truly hollow like the world trade center was certainly would collapse into twigs under its own weight becuase bark isn't load bearing.

We can go around in circles bickering symantecs all day, if you wish, but in the end, your analogy is still wrong.

I asked for a counter example, but instead you simply repeated your assertion that this is what happens. If this is what happens, you should be able to demonstrate it empirically by providing an example.

Your analogy is flawed becuase you continue to presume the construction of the floors of the towers were box-like when they were not. They were gigantic flat rings of concrete held up by a horizontal suspension frame running from the internal core to the external shell of the structure, so the suspension for each floor was only load bearing for the floor itself. This is in the public record and cannot be refuted.

BUT, if you want an analogy, fair enough- imagine a structure with twenty floors. Each floor weighs 2,000 tons, but becuase the floors are suspended entirely at their circumference they do not support the weight of any of the floors above. They only support their own 2000 tons.

Now imagine the top floor dropping onto the floor below it. It weights 2,000 tons, BUT, since the laws of momentum state that a moving object will hit a stationary object with twice the moving object's weight, it means the floor below will be hit with 4,000 tons, way beyond its 2,000 ton support capacity, so the floor below will fail and begin falling too.

Now all this hits the next floor down. You incorrectly presumed it's supporting the 4,000 tons of floor above but it isn't- it's only supporting it's own 2,000 tons. THAT floor will be hit by the momentum of twice the weight of the upper two floors, which will now be 8,000 tons, way, WAY beyond it's 2,000 tons capacity. It too will fail and falls onto the next floor down. And so on and so forth, so the more it collapses, the more force is going to hit each subsequent floor becuase it's being hit with the mass of all the floors above it.

Now get ready for the kicker- if you can imagine what the massive total force of momentum is that would be falling on the bottom floor, twenty floors down, THAT would be what happened at the point where the WTC began its collapse (the ninety-somethingth floor, with twenty floors above it). This is why your analogy fails- it wouldn't be a small box hitting a large box. It would be a large box hitting a small box, and the large box would keep getting larger the more it falls.

Now, I couldn't tell you how much each floor weighed, their load bearing rating, how much tenent material they were actually supporting, calculating out the exact exponential increase of the collapse, or any of that...but then again, I don't have to. You are the one insisting on refuting the publicly accepted explanation, not me, so it's your responsibility to research all that and explain why it cannot be true.

Can you?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Hate to derail your derailment of this thread GD(nj btw) its all very interesting but getting back to the chips in question. Please feel free to help me with my question though(or anyone else for that matter).

So first off are there any other studies of the dust that are independent of this group of guys ie Jones? That mention these chips specifically would be nice but any will do.

Also, Do you or anyone here have a alternate idea as to what exactly the chips are? Please don't offer up the paint chip answer either I find it very hard to believe that between all the authors of the study that they could not figure out they were looking at paint chips. For sake of argument though lets say they are paint chips that respond to magnets and apparently are extremely flammable. If so do they actually make paint like this what is it used for typically? Do we know if it was used in the towers?

Finally, could this be what FEMA was looking for when they said that there was some kind of "high corrosive attack" on the steel that famous paragraph? If the chips are able to be lit with a torch and then they flame up extremely hot leaving liquid metal spheres would it not be to far of a stretch to think they were most likely ignited after the jet impacts and that these chips of whatever it once was could be what heated up the steel so hot?

Some links would be nice especially if your going to try and tell me they are nothing but "paint chips".

1.Are there any other studies of the dust independent of the Jones group?

2.Are there any studies that mention these chips?

3.Does anyone here have a alternate idea as to what exactly the chips are?

4.Do they actually make paint like this what is it used for typically?

5.Do we know if it was used in the towers?

6. A/Could this be what FEMA was looking for when they said that there was some kind of "high corrosive attack" on the steel in that famous paragraph?

B/If the chips are able to be lit with a torch and then they flame up extremely hot leaving liquid metal spheres would it not be to far of a stretch to think they were most likely ignited after the jet impacts and that these chips of whatever it once was could be what heated up the steel so hot?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You are falsely changing your definition of "hollow" in mid-analogy. I am using the dictionary's definition of "hollow" as "having an unfilled space in something". Each tower had somewhere upwards of 20,000 occupants EACH, so they were most definitely hollow, or at least, definitely more hollow than a tree would ever be. On the other hand, any tree which was truly hollow like the world trade center was certainly would collapse into twigs under its own weight becuase bark isn't load bearing.

I'm using the definition - hollow as in "having an unfilled space in something".

Like this hollow redwood and oak. Neither are about to implode nor even collapse under their own weight.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your analogy is flawed becuase you continue to presume the construction of the floors of the towers were box-like when they were not.

The construction of the floors is irrelevant - they don't support the building. The core columns on the inside, and the perimeter columns on the outside which support the floors are the significant components and they are indeed box-like.

There are some good photographs of the steelwork here:
WTC Demolition Analysis - Photographic Evidence Repository

We really are going around in circles if you use your interpretation of what happened to the WTC as an analogy for what happened at the WTC. Your pancaking building isn't an analogy - its a fantasy. An analogy is something you can point to in the real world that actually happens. Something that resembles to some degree the implosion of the twin towers, but does not involve demolition charges. I can think of no such thing, nor apparently can anyone else.



[edit on 10-4-2009 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by EvilAxis


Axis,
Your claim of demolition with absolutely no evidence is the fantasy. You have only speculation and extrapolation of your limited experience which has your feelings saying "demolition."
Where is the evidence?

Pteridine you are quite right. Absolutely no evidence, fantasy, only speculation, limited experience...

Thank you for your valuable contribution. ATS needs more like you.

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Pteridine you are quite right. Absolutely no evidence, fantasy, only speculation, limited experience...

Thank you for your valuable contribution. ATS needs more like you.

Axis,
I know you appreciate my contributions of logic and reason as they nicely balance your contributions of unhindered imagination and speculation. ATS needs you too, so that we technical folks have people to educate.
When you are more experienced in technical matters, you will realize that the "911truth" sites are are anything but.

Originally posted by pteridine
Axis,
Your claim of demolition with absolutely no evidence is the fantasy. You have only speculation and extrapolation of your limited experience which has your feelings saying "demolition."
Where is the evidence?

pteridine,

We are still waiting on the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for this paint you claim. Remember that those who claim something need to be the ones who present the evidence for such a claim.

Jones has presented his evidence for thermitic chips. Now, it's time for you to counter with your claim of paint. Where's the evidence that paint with these physical properties even exists?