PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by pteridine

 

there is no reason for them to extinguish.....unless they are just paint.

This paint theory has been completely debunked. The paint doesn't have the same signature. You're spreading disinformation.

Put up or shut up.

The red chips do not have the same signature as the known nanothermite sample. They are quite different. The evidence is shown in Jones paper; see figure 29 on page 25.

If you support the Jones theory, you should be able to explain why the highly engineered thermitic material does not completely combust even when heated to 700*C. Of course, Jones has a tough time with this problem also, among others. He promised a new paper over a year ago correcting the many errors he made in this one. I note that he has decided to shut up rather than put up. Why is that?

It is now your turn to "Put up or shut up."

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by pteridine

 

there is no reason for them to extinguish.....unless they are just paint.

This paint theory has been completely debunked. The paint doesn't have the same signature. You're spreading disinformation.

Put up or shut up.

The red chips do not have the same signature as the known nanothermite sample. They are quite different. The evidence is shown in Jones paper; see figure 29 on page 25.

If you support the Jones theory, you should be able to explain why the highly engineered thermitic material does not completely combust even when heated to 700*C. Of course, Jones has a tough time with this problem also, among others. He promised a new paper over a year ago correcting the many errors he made in this one. I note that he has decided to shut up rather than put up. Why is that?

It is now your turn to "Put up or shut up."

Can you post your link to the paper?

reply to post by iamcpc

This link will get you to the abstract. Download the paper from here.

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Hi guys, I drop in here from time to time and try to read all the posts but 108 pages is a bit much for me so if I may inquire; and it has been discussed, just point me in the right direction.

Has the molten (lava,steel,thermite,ect) found at the bottom of all the wreckage and debris been discussed?

I know for a fact molten "whatever" was still there weeks after the clean up at the bottom of the pile for more that 1 building. I just don't know if anybody has cleared up "what" it actually was.

forgive me if this has already been discussed.

Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
Hi guys, I drop in here from time to time and try to read all the posts but 108 pages is a bit much for me so if I may inquire; and it has been discussed, just point me in the right direction.

Has the molten (lava,steel,thermite,ect) found at the bottom of all the wreckage and debris been discussed?

I know for a fact molten "whatever" was still there weeks after the clean up at the bottom of the pile for more that 1 building. I just don't know if anybody has cleared up "what" it actually was.

forgive me if this has already been discussed.

Yes it has been discussed. There two theories as to what type of metal it was. Steel and an aluminum alloy from the airplanes that melted in the fire.


Steven jones wrote an article about it.

www.journalof911studies.com...

People have published papers saying things to the effect that it would not have been molten steel it would have fried the hydrolics of the equipment touching it because molten steel is way too hot to be handled by that type of equipment that was shown in photographs to be handling it.

"Hydraulic fluid temperatures above 82°C (180ºF) damage most seal compounds and accelerate oil degradation. A single overtemperature event of sufficient magnitude can permanently damage all the seals in an entire hydraulic system, resulting in numerous leaks. The by-products of thermal degradation of the oil (soft particles) can cause reliability problems such as valve-spool stiction and filter clogging. "

SOURCE: www.machinerylubrication.com...


"Temperature range recommended for typical rubber hose spans about –40 to 212°F [212° F = 100° C]. Fluid or ambient temperatures outside these bounds impact service life. Plasticizers leach out of elastomers faster at high temperatures, though the rate depends on the actual temperature and duration. Heat-related failure is evident when the cover shows signs of hardening and cracking, and the hose shape takes on a permanent set. Temperatures below recommended will also shorten service life. This problem is evident when the inner tube shows signs of stiffness and cracks. Specials are available for either extreme: Low-temperature hoses for service to –67°F and high-temperature versions for applications exceeding 300°F."

SOURCE: machinedesign.com...


Nasa had thermal images taken 5 days after the WTC collapse. Some people claim these were taken at about the same time that reports of molten metal were being made.

pubs.usgs.gov...

Debunkers say look the temperature is too cool for molten steel so it must be molten aluminum.

Truthers say look the temperature is far too hot for being days after the attack it must be thermite.



So if the metal is a molten aluminum alloy (not pure aluminium but an aluminim alloy) from the airplanes then it is evidence that suggests that thermite was not used in the WTC towers.

If the metal is a molten steel then it is evidence that suggests that thermite may have been used in the WTC towers.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by iamcpc


Thank you for that very informative post.

So that is were the sleeping dog lies...so to speak.
you took the time to post it.
Now I shall take the time to read it..dling pdf as we speak.

Once again, thanks

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Software_Pyrate]

Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Thank you for that very informative post.

So that is were the sleeping dog lies...so to speak.

Once again, thanks

Neeless to say no one knows for certian if it was molten steel or a molten aluminum alloy.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by iamcpc


Wasn't there any samples taken from them...? guess not if ppl are debating it.


going through the pdf as we speak


K so Iknow i'm new to this thread but what has been the ruling on this caption.?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d92fb50cbd3.png[/atsimg]

This does not settle the debate over alum. vs. steel ?

By Dr. Steven E. Jones
gives 13 resaons for controlled demo.....has this been proven inaccurate or wrong?


And this is kinda strange...

And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

Very interesting indeed. I must say Iam on the fence with this one.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Software_Pyrate]

Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Wasn't there any samples taken from them...? guess not if ppl are debating it.


going through the pdf as we speak

If there were I was unable to find the published reports on a website that was no 911theories.com or debunking911.com

Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
reply to post by iamcpc

 

This does not settle the debate over alum. vs. steel ?

It does not becuase people say if that was molten steel then the hydrolics would have been shot on that equipment and it would have stopped working. That didn't happen so it's not molten steel.

People say if that was molten steel then the thermal images from nasa would have been much hotter.

There are other sites who have refuted some of the claims and pictures that were used in the report by steven jones.


Claiming that the cut beam was not cut by thermite and demonstrating a cut with similar looking results.

SOURCE: 11-settembre.blogspot.com...

Claiming the picture presented was not from the WTC

SOURCE: www.debunking911.com...

reply to post by iamcpc


I don't think basing when a hydrolic cable "melts" is a very good basis for determining temperature...Thats like measuring the toast to see how hot the toaster is?

Being a construction worker, I see right away those are 'cut' columns as both of those websites eluded to, no argument there..

I have been around those same machines many times. I can't remember if the hydrolics are in cased by the claw as that is the machine's primary use --- demo.

I know similar ones--usually yellow, are not encased and the line is about 6' from the claw. But the red one like in the picture I"m not so sure about ...looking it up right now.

Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
reply to post by iamcpc

 

I don't think basing when a hydrolic cable "melts" is a very good basis for determining temperature...Thats like measuring the toast to see how hot the toaster is?

Well when we know what temerature things like alumimum and water melt at then we see they are liquid we can get a general idea about the temperature they are at. Example liquid water must be cooler than boiling and warmer than freezing. I can see that how the logic could be applied to other things.

I'm not an expert so I am unable to refute steven jones temperature estimates. I believe that the best way to determine the temperature of something is either with thermal imaging or a thermometer. Not a flash camera. A bright glowing sphere might be glowing as bright as the sun but if it's not vaporizing everything around it then i would assume it's not as hot as the sun. On that note a bright glowing chunk of metal might be glowing as bright as molten steel. If it's not doing whatever molten steel does to everything around it then i would assume it's not as hot as molten steel.

But those are just my 100% un-expert opinions.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
reply to post by iamcpc

 

I don't think basing when a hydrolic cable "melts" is a very good basis for determining temperature...Thats like measuring the toast to see how hot the toaster is?

Well when we know what temerature things like alumimum and water melt at then we see they are liquid we can get a general idea about the temperature they are at. Example liquid water must be cooler than boiling and warmer than freezing. I can see that how the logic could be applied to other things.

I'm not an expert so I am unable to refute steven jones temperature estimates. I believe that the best way to determine the temperature of something is either with thermal imaging or a thermometer. Not a flash camera. A bright glowing sphere might be glowing as bright as the sun but if it's not vaporizing everything around it then i would assume it's not as hot as the sun. On that note a bright glowing chunk of metal might be glowing as bright as molten steel. If it's not doing whatever molten steel does to everything around it then i would assume it's not as hot as molten steel.

But those are just my 100% un-expert opinions.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by iamcpc]

I totally agree, and am unqualified to rebut any thing as well. Just making observations is all. I do know that hydraulic hoses are layerd hard rubber with steel in em. like a radial.

so it would take quite a bit to "melt" em.

I know there are so many details to look over in something like this, which is why i start small, and try to deal with each individual issue on its own level....either prove or disprove and move on.

But you guys all know far more than me on this subject, so I'll sit back now. But thanks for all the info.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

The most hilarious point about this paper: 1-There was a reaction right at 460C 2- The chips were soaked in MEK 3- Jones claims this is part of the thermitic reaction 4- MEK auto-ignites at 460C.

Exactly wrong. That was a seperate experiment in which Jones used the solvent MEK to show that the paint from the WTC would dissolve while the alleged nano thermate did not dissolve.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Doctor Smith]

reply to post by pteridine

The red chips do not have the same signature as the known nanothermite sample. They are quite different. The evidence is shown in Jones paper; see figure 29 on page 25. If you support the Jones theory, you should be able to explain why the highly engineered thermitic material does not completely combust even when heated to 700*C. Of course, Jones has a tough time with this problem also, among others. He promised a new paper over a year ago correcting the many errors he made in this one. I note that he has decided to shut up rather than put up. Why is that?

I went to figure 29 on page 25. Both Show completion of reaction below 560 degrees C. Read the little paragraph at the bottom of the page under the graph.

And not only that! Jones material released an incredible 10 watts per gram! Compared to the known energetic nanocomposite which only released about 4.5 watts per gram.

I don't see any discrepancies in the Jones Papers at all.

www.bentham-open.org...



[edit on 29-5-2010 by Doctor Smith]

Originally posted by iamcpc
Neeless to say no one knows for certian if it was molten steel or a molten aluminum alloy.

Where did all this 'aluminum' come from because a 100 ton plane would only contain 20 tons of aluminum and the rest of the weight would be fule, laugwage and such like.

aluminum like water can only get so hot so what made it keep it's heat for so long after the towers fell over.

i didn't see many flames on the outside of the building so it could not be aluminum clading or windows frames.

molton aluminum glows silver so what was that orange stuff dripping down the building if not molton steel.

could it just be they used thermite on the massive inner core of the building which would explain the speed at which the building fell down.

reply to post by LieBuster



It looks like steel or iron to me as aluminum would be runny at that glowing yellow- red temperature. Building 7 also had the same type of glowing metal and it had no aluminum plane strike it.

Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing "molten steel running down the channel rails… like you're in a foundry – like lava from a volcano." Joe O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter, saw a crane lifting a steel beam vertically from deep within a pile. He said "it was dripping from the molten steel." Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save "relics from the rubble," stated about the multi-ton "meteorite" that it was a "fused element of molten steel and concrete." The knowledge that this evidence even exists was denied by one of your top engineers, John Gross, in his appearance at the University of Texas in April of this year. Steel melts at about 2,850 degrees Fahrenheit, about twice the temperature of the World Trade Center Tower 1 and 2 fires as estimated by NIST. So what melted the steel? Appendix C of FEMA's BPAT Report (attached to this email) documents steel samples showing rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting. A liquid eutectic mixture, including sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." NIST left all of this crucial forensic evidence out of its report. Why? Because it didn't fit in with the official conspiracy theory. Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron, aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine – the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There's no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate's key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.

www.ae911truth.org...

reply to post by pteridine


I don't see your point in citing figure 29 on page 25 of the Bentham paper.

reply to post by pteridine


Why haven't you focused on this?

"Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust."
Page 16.

These are the conclusions drawn from the Jones/Harrit paper. Address your issues for everyone to see.

Thanks so much.

"1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and
carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive
elements are sometimes present, such as potassium,
sulfur, lead, barium and copper.

2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically
all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds
of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows
intimate mixing.

3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some
segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum
became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly
identified in the pre-ignition material.

4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm
across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike
structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles
qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite
or super-thermite.

5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a
ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all
four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron
oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas
elemental iron was not.

6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron
oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains
the ingredients of thermite.

7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts
vigorously at a temperature of approximately
430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching
fairly closely an independent observation on a known
super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition
and the presence of iron oxide grains less than
120 nm show that the material is not conventional
thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C)
but very likely a form of super-thermite.

8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to
700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and
spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very hightemperature
reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich
product clearly must have been molten to form these
shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified
since the iron content significantly exceeded the
oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature
reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the
heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the
flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C)
which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to
the original red material. This chemical signature
strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids
produced by igniting commercial thermite, and
also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres
found in the WTC dust [5].

10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that
an organic substance is present. This would be expected
for super-thermite formulations in order to
produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus
make them explosive. The nature of the organic material
in these chips merits further exploration. We note
that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the
total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests
exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic
thermite reaction."