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.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, I can't let this slide any longer. The definition of "eutectic mixture" is a mixture of substances that has a lower melting point than any of its individual substances (as per Wikipedia). Jones doesn't even mention anything about anything eutectic in his report. How is this even remotely relevent to what was found in the dust?
So in other words, Jones DID attempt to simulate the destruction of a vertical steel beam using thermite?
All right, now you're just making stuff up. Jones did NOT establish that they created an eutectic reaction. He established it was a "highly energetic reaction" which he coined the term "thermitic reaction" as a description, when he placed it beneath a flame. He didn't investigate the melting points of anythign at all.
Unless you have very extreme conditions, it only "burns" in powder form and even then the reaction is extremely rapid, like gunpowder.
Extreme condition as in an impact from a passenger jet?
Are you honestly suggesting that the aluminum/iron oxide chips found in the dust were actually the remains of different metals molten together from the heat and separated/stuck together when the metals cooled? That throws the whole claim of thermite and sabotage into the garbage right there becuase it means it wasn't originally thermite. It means it WAS originally from the structure.
FYI I just looked this up- aluminum needs to be bonded with STAINLESS steel for it to be eutectic. The steel in the WTC wasn't stainless steel. You're making THAT up, too.
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. It is not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time.
Thermites can be a diverse class of compositions. The fuels are often aluminium, magnesium, calcium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron. The oxidizers can be boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,III,IV) oxide.[1]
The most common thermite is aluminium-iron(III) oxide.
Yeah, whatever. Call it whatever you like. How about answering the question. DID Jones ever try to show proof of concept of thermite being able to destroy verical columns? If not, he might as well just have found a lot of cat hairs in the samples.
WTF??? No it wasn't. It was in response to the claim that FEMA/NIST wasn't able to collect enough samples due to it being recycled so rapidly. I said that at least two times already. And you STILL didn't answer the question.
First you use technical terms that don't have anything to do with anything, THEN you attribute claims to Jones that he never made, and NOW you're falsely putting words in my mouth...and your whole defense is- I'm drunk(?) Admit it, bsbray. You're simply repeating some sexy sounding fluff you found on some damned fool conspiracy web site and you haven't the foggiest of what any of it actually means, do you?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Because thermite is a type of eutectic reaction. Look that up. Jones is saying it's "thermitic," I'm saying eutectic. I would say either one is accurate but you were just criticizing the word "thermitic" earlier.
No, he tried to start a thermite reaction using molten aluminum and rust, and failed.
I already said thermite is a eutectic reaction. If you want to just call it exothermic, then fine, call it exothermic, but it's the exact same stuff.
1) I didn't make the claim that this stuff was from the structural itself, YOU did.
No, I think what you are describing is called "projection."
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, actually, I think *you* need to look that up. Eutectic reactions deal with the MELTING of materials, the CRYSTALIZATION of materials upon cooling, and the TEMPERATURE the crystalization occurs at. I have never seen anyone, on either side of the debate, nor in any entries on thermite, ever consider this to be what thermite does. You're coming up with that all on your own.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1000 C (1800 F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.
The addition of 2 percent sulfur to Thermite improves the steel-cutting properties by creating a eutectic that will melt steel at much lower temperatures.
No, he tried to start a thermite reaction using molten aluminum and rust, and failed.
So we can safely discard any notion of thermite being able to cut vertical steel supports, as the proof of concept has failed. So what the heck are you arguing about thermite for when thermite couldn't have been the reason for the collapse?
If you believe the substance found in the dust was an eutectic mixture, unless you're inventing your own terms as you're going along like Jones does, you're necessarily saying the aluminum and iron oxide melted together and the resulting crystalization was the aluminum/iron oxide chips that Jones analyzed. The only documented and confirmed source of the large amounts of aluminum and iron oxide in the area necessary to produce the distribution Jones describes is from the structure itself. All other possible sources are speculative and heresay.
This is inviolate and cannot be debated, so if you're attempting to say anything other than this, then what you're actually saying is NOT what you think you're saying.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
It IS a EUTECTIC reaction. Notice the exact same ingredients minus aluminum, which combines with oxygen to become a gas anyway. Also notice it DOES lower the melting point of the iron/steel, which is EXACTLY what a eutectic reaction does:
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Bait and switch games don't work on me, bsbray.
I know full well what it is you're referring to. That was a chemical reaction of the surface of the steel from the fires. That had absolutely NOTHING to do with aluminum, and it still has NOTHING to do with anything Jones discussed in his report.
"The exact same ingredients MINUS aluminum"?!? Then it's not a thermite reaction. You're STILL wrong.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by mike dangerously
Ok,GoodOlDave are the first responders lying about hearing explosions?also,is Chief Tursi a lair as well?
No, Chief Tursi is not a liar. Anyone who insists that the explosions he heard were actual bombs is a liar, becuase HE never says they were actual bombs. That's coming entirely from the conspiracy mongers like Ventura.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
We know with absolute certainty that the WTC like every skyscraper on the face of the earth was chock full of things that go BOOM in a fire...fuel tanks for emergency backup generators, electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, fire extinguishers, etc, and we know with absolute certainty that there were multiple fires burning in WTC, some burning very close to the mechanical floors which we know with absolue certainty contained lots of those things that go BOOM in a fire.
The question therefore becomes, how could these explosions NOT be the flammable objects that exploded from the heat of the fires? If even one of the explosions we heard was an electrical transformer that blew up from the heat, your claims of explosives are shown to be rubbish right away.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
There are a couple other 'stand down' situations mainly the hit on the Pentagon where Cheney himself stated briskly to a soldier that his orders have not changed. This is in reference to intercepting the flight that was incoming.
That conversation was reported by Mineta, who in the very next sentence says that he found out later that it was a shoot down order, and in fact originally believed that flight 93 was shot down becuase of that shoot down order. These damned fool conspiracy web sites always always always snip that part out, which to me, is a de facto admission that they know they're lying.
Originally posted by Orion7911
hold on there disinfodave, if i didn't know better, i'd say you're mixing and twisting the facts again... but you're welcome to correct me... you seem to be mixing the two testimonies together... so are you talking about minetas testimony about FLIGHT 77, or 93? Can't wait to hear this one.
Originally posted by iSunTzu
Like his wrestling days, Jesse the Body presents fiction on 911 for a dumbed downed audience that fails to be skeptical of the crazy ideas. It would be hard to present more delusions in one hour than Jesse did in his 40 minutes of fantasy, hearsay, and false information on 911.
Jesse’s show is made up of fictional conspiracy theories based on hearsay, lies and false information. I listed all the evidence to support Jesse's implication of whatever, it was short; zero evidence.
Originally posted by Lillydale
Did you have anything to add aside from your personal opinion of JV? You post offers nothing to refute anything. You offer no information to make us thing more about anything else. You only offered up that you think very little of the man. This is what we get after the mods run around telling people to stick to facts and not attack people? What does your post say aside from that you do not like JV? Nothing.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Personally, though I have nothing to back the claim up with, I think all these other conspriacy segments are just window dressing for getting his main 9/11 conspriacy segment on the air.
Originally posted by iSunTzu
I do not attack Jesse, if I was not an engineer, a pilot with over 4,000 hours in heavy jets, and did not understand physics and have experience in investigating aircraft accidents for the USAF, I might be lazy and dumb enough to fall for the idiotic claims made on the show.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Then here's somethign to consider- Jesse Ventura is well known for subscribing to these 9/11 conspriacies long BEFORE his television show ever came out.
He is NOT the fair and balanced journalist he would have you think he is.
Here is Ventura's interview on Howard Stern where he vents on his 9/11 conspriacies. I'm not certain when this was taped but it was some time between 2003 and 2008...
Personally, though I have nothing to back the claim up with, I think all these other conspriacy segments are just window dressing for getting his main 9/11 conspriacy segment on the air.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by iSunTzu
I do not attack Jesse, if I was not an engineer, a pilot with over 4,000 hours in heavy jets, and did not understand physics and have experience in investigating aircraft accidents for the USAF, I might be lazy and dumb enough to fall for the idiotic claims made on the show.
You realize there is an entire organization full of people with similar and even more flight time than you, as well as an organization full of people with science and engineering backgrounds, both of which disagree very strongly with you?
Do you have any specific issues or are you just going to keep claiming that he's just wrong and you're smarter than he is?
Originally posted by bsbray11
You realize there is an entire organization full of people with similar and even more flight time than you, as well as an organization full of people with science and engineering backgrounds, both of which disagree very strongly with you?
Do you have any specific issues or are you just going to keep claiming that he's just wrong and you're smarter than he is?