guys, im all for a more through investigation into this material and its chain of custody. the usgs has some dust as well as the rj lee group. i also think that one person jones got his sample from only gave him a portion of it. there is bound to be more dust out there. and of coarse they can go digging where they dumped all the cleanup debris. and of coase id like to see more researchers study this material too. that is what publishing in a journal is all about. the scientific community can debuk jones through a peer reviewed scientific journal article if they can.
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
I stand by what I said and I am not sure how you can even argue against this; I am genuinely confused. As is the nature of a building like the WTC one would expect to find a myriad of materials and when given the situation that the buildings were under, i.e. high stress and heat, you would expect to have various materials formed under those conditions.
I fail to understand how my stating of what I see as patently obvious can be construed as "bold blatant lies."
Furthermore a thermitic reaction is simply ferric oxide + elemental aluminum + heat. These are not any sort of scarce, or otherwise rare, materials and I am sure the WTC had a boatload of iron oxide and aluminum as part of the composition of the building structure.
Again, fundamentally there is a problem with the initial integrity of the sample, i.e. the lack of a clear chain of custody, but for arguments sake let's say those samples are indeed material from the WTC so lets look at the journal article.
I did finally read the entire journal article and I found it much worse than I initially imagined. Basically what they did is what we would call a characterization study; did various qualifying analyses to determine some data to describe the material. There was no true quantification done - which while may be somewhat irrelevant, it would put things into perspective.
A few points that I would like to make about the article:
It was repeatedly mentioned that there was some discussion about if there was elemental iron and/or aluminium or if was in an oxide form. They should have used ICP-MS for elemental determination. Any laboratory doing environmental testing would have and ICP-MS and could have handily determined how much, if any, elemental metals were present. This was not done for whatever reason.
They should have used FT-IR to provide more characterization information. In fact this is a pretty basic characterization technique to used and the fact that they didn't use such a fundamental technique does raise a few eyebrows.
Performing an XRD (X-Ray Diffraction) analysis to look at the crystalline structure would have been appropriate.
Furthermore their infatuation with soaking the samples in MEK (methyl-ethyl ketone) is a bit confusing. Soaking inorganic material (i.e. metallic) in an organic solvent like MEK is pointless - an organic solvent will not dissolve metals or their oxides (well not these oxides). This is crazy basic freshman chemistry here. However what they should have done is if they did want to soak the sample in MEK was to follow it up by GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry) analysis - by the way GC and GC/MS analysis is my area of expertise. Anyhow GC/MS would have given them more insight about the organic composition - if any - of the product. Furthermore it would have provided some clues to determine any potential unknown organic material. There were so obsessed with looking at the inorganic side of things they never bothered to look at organic stuff. . . this makes no sense.
Page 17 Figure 14 notes that their sample may be contaminated due to unexplained errant results however they never bother to investigate would could be causing this??!! That is a bit mind-boggling.
The dimensions of the grains they are working with is more coincidental than intentional in regards to "nano" thermite that they mentioned near the article. Crashing a plane into an amazingly large structure is bound to create various powdered metals. There is where a little bit of quantification would be handy; how many µg or ng of this material is present relative the thousands (if not more) tons of material that were the WTC? You would be looking at a potential amount of material that could cause a thermitic reaction to be so insignificant it would round to zero.
I do want to be honest and upfront in that I am not a materials or structural engineer so there are many, many things I do not know. I do not have a doctorate but I have done analytical chemistry for pushing ten years now with my area of expertise in volatile and semi-volatile organic analyses by GC & GC/MS. I have also done UV-VIS and XRD analyses. I have been a project manager on many studies and have reviewed data generated by HPLC, LC/MS/MS, TGA, DSC, KFT, FTIR . .. and a bunch of other acronyms. My point being just because I am not a technical expert on performing a particular analysis (e.g. SEM or DSC) does not mean I am unable to review and comprehend the resulting data from those analyses.
im glad u read the whole article. i can tell your thinking about things now. i might be able to answer a few of your questions. he found elemental aluminum when conducting the mek experiment. that is a big deal considering an Aluminothermic reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminothermic_reaction).
concerning the MEK experiment:
this is a prof jones post from 911blogger forum:
2. In the section of MEK results in the paper, we state:
" Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon,
located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very
little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the
matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migra-
tion and separation of the components. This is a significant
result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not
bound chemically."
In kaolin and other substances which incorporate Al and Si, the Al and Si are bound chemically -- that is, they will NOT separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. That is why these MEK tests are so significant! WE thought of the possibility of an alumino-silicate early on of course, but then we did the MEK tests and were observed a separation of Al from other elements with this solvent - and this test RULES OUT strictly the notion that the aluminum which migrated is bound in an aluminosilicate.
3. From the paper: " Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac-
count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
an important result."
This result also rules out the possibility that the aluminum is present as kaolin. Again, this is why we did the experiment -- to determine whether elemental (not chemically bound) aluminum was present, and it was.
4. Most debunkers overlook the high energy/gram yield of the material -- the DSC results -- along with the formation of iron-aluminum rich spheres. See Figures 20, 23 and 25 and associated text. These results mean that a high-energy-yield and high-temperature reaction occurs upon ignition of this red material. THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT ORDINARY PAINT CAN GIVE SUCH HIGH ENERGY/GRAM ACCOMPANIED BY THE FORMATION OF FE-AL RICH SPHERES, nor can they do it!
concerning your thermite question with the airplane involved. frank greening has actually thought of that too!! TLC linked me a pdf file awhile back. greenings thinking is along the same line as yours. the plane melts and reacts with the rust. but what jones et el have discovered is unreacted nanothermite. sounds fancy but its just the size of the iron oxide that qualifies it as "nanothermite". now if u want to create a theory explaining how this unreacted material was created from many different materials from the wtc then go ahead. i havent seen this idea put out by anyone! get a journal to publish it and you will have a counter arguement to jones et el.
i agree with u concerning the organic part of this material. from the jones et el article(page 26), "The organic component contributes to the rapid gas evolution and explosive nature of these energetic superthermites when dry [24]." he is not talking specifically about his samples but of known nanothermites.
and this from page 27 concerning the "organics" of known nanothermites:
"It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more
energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the
blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite
is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. 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. Again,
conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas
super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for
rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive
[6, 24]"
thanks for actually reading the paper and asking good questions! ill look through your questions again and see if i can answer anything else. i understand that XRD analysis would also be a good way to check for elemental aluminum if u dont believe the MEK experiment.
babbles-
whether or not u believe this is nanothermite, when u stated "I have done analytical chemistry for pushing ten years now with my area of expertise in volatile and semi-volatile organic analyses by GC & GC/MS. I have also done UV-VIS and XRD analyses. " that is one area that jones wants to explore.
from the paper:
"We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present
until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains."
if your curious about this organic part of the material, i bet they would love to hear your opinion.
prof jones is actually posting and answering some questions here:
http://911blogger.com/node/19761
im sure he has an email address if u would like to get in touch and if u cant find one, i bet i could find someone that could get in touch with him.
whether or not u believe this is nanothermite, when u stated "I have done analytical chemistry for pushing ten years now with my area of expertise in volatile and semi-volatile organic analyses by GC & GC/MS. I have also done UV-VIS and XRD analyses. " that is one area that jones wants to explore.
from the paper:
"We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present
until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains."
if your curious about this organic part of the material, i bet they would love to hear your opinion.
prof jones is actually posting and answering some questions here:
http://911blogger.com/node/19761
im sure he has an email address if u would like to get in touch and if u cant find one, i bet i could find someone that could get in touch with him.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Go back through the thread. I did read the article. It was garbage. They started with a conclusion & worked to fit the data to the conclusion. When the data suggested they should go off in a different direction, they ignored it. As far as "peer-reviewed" - bullshit. That's not a "peer" reviewed journal. At least, not by peers in the scientific community. While Babbles has been working more recently with some of that equipment, it's been nearly 2 decades since I did extensive work with such analysis. (in '87, I was working to create the first (in the world) computer controlled x-ray diffraction spectroscopy equipment - it was my senior thesis in undergrad ceramic engineering.)
this concerns the peer review process that the authors had to go through.
this is a jones post on 911blogger-
"Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading and commentary by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is the case with this paper.
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.
Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "
BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).
We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO... "
this is a jones post on 911blogger-
"Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading and commentary by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is the case with this paper.
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.
Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "
BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).
We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO... "
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Wait a sec. So let me get this straight. Jones's position is that you can't possibly have a valid disagreement unless you post an objection in a peer-reviewed journal?
/deep breath
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
i made a mistake a few posts up concerning frank greening. i was thinking that he looked into how a thermite reaction might have occured in the wtc naturally. i found the paper i was thinking of and he was talking about aluminum reacting with the wall board not rust.
as for tlc's post concerning the jones et al's peer review, im guessing he's calling out the debunkers and telling them to step up.....u know...get something published...or shut up!! haha
as for tlc's post concerning the jones et al's peer review, im guessing he's calling out the debunkers and telling them to step up.....u know...get something published...or shut up!! haha
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
No. What I'm saying is that no self-respecting scientist would waste their time to post a peer reviewed refutation of Jones. It would be like writing a peer reviewed paper refuting little green men on Mars, refuting that the moon is made of green cheese, or refuting that Jesus visited America. Real scientists wouldn't waste their time on that kind of claptrap.
Besides that, many peer reviewed papers have been refuted without peer reviewed opposition. In fact, this guy does a splendid job of refuting Jones's paper. If Jones had any desire to retain his academic credentials, or what remains of them, he'd withdraw the paper after reading this:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html
He points out a plethora of flaws in the paper. Some were even already addressed by Babbles, and others, in here previously.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
can u find some paint that produces iron - aluminum rich spheres when heated to 430C.
prof jones posted this:
"4. Most debunkers overlook the high energy/gram yield of the material -- the DSC results -- along with the formation of iron-aluminum rich spheres. See Figures 20, 23 and 25 and associated text. These results mean that a high-energy-yield and high-temperature reaction occurs upon ignition of this red material. THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT ORDINARY PAINT CAN GIVE SUCH HIGH ENERGY/GRAM ACCOMPANIED BY THE FORMATION OF FE-AL RICH SPHERES, nor can they do it!"
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The link I provided already addresses that issue:
iow, Jones needs to prove that those spheroids couldn't have come from another source. The onus is on him to produce that information as it's a standard part of investigation in any decent scientific paper. Instead he jumps immediately to the conclusion he wanted before he even began writing this paper, and boldly pronounces that his leap to a conclusion must be correct unless someone else can prove him wrong. He further compounds his idiocy by proclaiming that nobody can pronounce him wrong unless they do so in a peer reveiewed paper.
If Jones is so sure of his findings, why does he feel the need to erect so many hurdles to prevent people from proving him wrong?
Good to see there are materials engineers actually talking about materials characterization. I should go work for you guys =)
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
I'm still waiting to hear why he hasn't recreated the material since he claims that it exist and knows how it works.
Should be a simple, create the material , burn it on some steel, produce the exact same chips with the spheroids.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I'd like to see him, or any other truther, cut a massive vertical steel column or I-beam (not some skinny little steel rod) similar to the ones used in the TWC buildings using thermite, nano or otherwise. Wouldn' be that hard for someone of Jones's alleged credentials to set up such a test. So I wonder why he hasn't thought of demonstrating an initial proof of principle of his theory since claiming that thermite can cut vertically through a massive column is nothing but pure theory? About the only cutting thermite is used for in the real world is for cutting through horizontal railraid tracks. Thin steel rods and horizontal railroad tracks aren't anything like massive vertical columns. The way thermite functions, size matters and so does orientation.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
He has the special thermite. The kind that defies gravity and burns at a 90 degree angle parallel to gravity.
I would love for him and the head of that demolition company to get together so he could put them in their place. A man that has blown up buildings for over 30 years said it wasn't done with explosives. But some scientist somewhere with no proof claims something and the conspiracy nuts jump all over it as fact.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
A correction. Above I meant to say cutting horizontally through a massive vertical column.
I wonder if Mythbusters would try it with a huge steel column? They already used 1000 lbs. of thermite on a car, trying to cut it in half. You can see what happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ
If that much thermite can barely cut through a large surface of 16 or possibly 18 gauge steel, and fails in some areas (particularly non-horizontal areas), how the heck is it supposed to cut finely through steel beams, in symphony, to cause them to shear and collapse? You can see that one of the big problems with thermite is controlling the energy output. It's non-directional. It's energy scatters whereever it wants to go and is truly not efficient in "cutting" much.
btw, Mythbusters happened to mention that thermite was used in demoliton work. Yeah, it is...underwater where they basically have to slice up steel. They use a different method though that involves rods. It's pretty much a large diameter thermite sparkler that divers use as an underwater torch.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
The only thing I have ever seen that can cut steel is the linear shaped charges. I can't imagine people being able to install those without anyone knowing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZRAbUcUkIc
Did a google search and the conspiracy nuts even think those were used. Even though the people that explode buildings every day that use them say they were not used.
Statement by controlled demolitions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZRAbUcUkIc
Did a google search and the conspiracy nuts even think those were used. Even though the people that explode buildings every day that use them say they were not used.
Statement by controlled demolitions
Actually, you're mixing ideas and methodologies here...understandable considering that you're pulling, I imagine, from a multitude of sources. Hopefully, I can clear some of this up for you and your future correspondence.
You are correct in that typically, part of the preparation process for a building implosion involves the complete strip-out of a structure, including removal of all non-essential, non-load bearing elements (drywall, ductwork, piping, furniture, carpet, etc.), leaving only clean support elements in the structure. Dependant on client's timetable, and whether or not the resultant debris is intended for recycling (in which case, they WOULD completely strip the building so as to not have to separate the different materials on the ground, i.e. wood, paper, carpet, from the steel and concrete to be recycled), they may only COMPLETELY strip out those floors where we intend to use explosives, leaving the other floors fairly untouched.
In a reinforced concrete building, we would, indeed, drill holes in selected supporting columns for subsequent placement of dynamite or equivalent type of cartridge explosive. A detonator (or "blasting cap" as they're frequently called) of predetermined delay (timing) is inserted into that cartridge of explosives. In a structural steel building (such as the WTC towers), we would use linear shaped charges affixed to the exterior of the selected steel elements to be severed. Again, a detonator of predetermined delay is affixed to each individual linear shaped charge. These charges literally cut through the appropriate size thickness (they come in varying sizes) like a knife through butter. In both cases, however, we would NOT blast every single column on every single floor.
For example, let's take a typical 15-story Holiday Inn...we'd probably work on 4 or 5 floors...Basement (if there is one), Ground (always), 1st (if there is no basement), then maybe 4th, 7th and 10th. In truth, the building could probably be brought down working on only the bottom two (2) floors; however, working on those upper floors not only provides us with MUCH more control over the rate and direction of failure and fragment the resultant debris into much more manageable pieces for our client.
You're correct that in both cases, each individual charge must be wired into an initiation system (we use 18 grain detonating cord...miles of it, in some cases) that runs shot floor to shot floor and column to column throughout the structure. An initiation harness is then run out of the building where we will attach two (2) electric caps (redundancy), which are hooked into an insulated copper set of lead lines, which are then run out to the location of the blasting machine.
We DO NOT "pre-weaken" all load-bearing elements prior to implosion...that's what the explosives are for! This would create an EXTREMELY unsafe working environment and, further, be totally against OSHA regulations. We may, however, selectively remove and/or modify portions of certain load-bearing walls and remove selected stairwell portions near the base to assist the structure in becoming more flexible during its decent, further allowing us to precisely control the rate and direction of fall.
Chicken wire would most CERTAINLY be a lot cheaper; however, it's not what we use
When wrapping a reinforced concrete column with protective covering materials, we use a combination of heavy duty chain link fence (usually 11 gauge) and a non-woven geotextile fabric (we use a brand called Nicolon, made by a company called Mirafi...it's heavy duty, high tensile strength, VERY puncture-resistant, "felt-like" material used underneath road base to help prevent erosion...usually 10 oz.). We refer to this as "at-source, soft cover/protection. Essentially, these materials work together much like a "catcher's mitt." Dependant on the explosives load in those columns and the proximity of adjacent properties/utilities and other improvements to remain, we may use a double wrap of fence only, double wrap of fabric only, a combination of the two, or whatever the situation calls for. In a structural steel building, plywood boxes are custom constructed for EACH AND EVERY charge placement location. The boxes are carefully placed over the linear shaped charges. Often, we also add panels of used conveyor belting inside the box to further help "knock down" the flying copper sheathing that comes off the charge when it detonates (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). In addition, we may also opt to wrap these boxes with the fence and fabric mentioned above.
Another common practice in protective covering operations is what we call "curtains." If you look at some pictures of structures about to be imploded, you'll note that certain floors have, literally, a "curtain" of black fabric around them. That's the geotextile fabric I mentioned above. Often, there is also a curtain of chain link fence hung inside the fabric curtain as well. This goes even further to prevent flying debris from leaving the structure's periphery.
Yes, the explosives we use can be extremely loud...particularly the linear shaped charges as they're "exposed" (simply wired to the outside of the steel flange of the H-column and covered with the box, fence, fabric...) as compared to the dynamite which is "embedded" in the drilled boreholes inside the columns. We make every attempt to keep the dBL and air overpressure generated by the detonation of the explosives to a minimum by using delays throughout the structure. The PRIMARY delays are used to control which explosive detonates when, thereby giving us the control we need to move the structure in the desired direction at the desired rate. These delays are typically somewhere between 350 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds in length. The SECONDARY delays are used SOLELY to "break up" this noise and air overpressure. The shortest delay made of this nature is 9 milliseconds...the minimum delay required to achieve this "break-up"...now we're getting into some major math with regards of seismic info, hertz, dbA versus dBL, etc. Trust me; we've got it down to a science
Lastly, you should strongly urge these people to watch just ONE documentary that's been produced over the years on one of our projects. Perhaps then they could grasp the days, weeks, and sometimes MONTHS that goes into the planning, preparation and execution of even the simplest of jobs, not to mention the labor-intensive explosives-handling work that's put in by crews of up to 20 people dependant on the job!!
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
To quote Shakespeare, "Aye, there's the rub."Originally posted by: Modelworks
The only thing I have ever seen that can cut steel is the linear shaped charges. I can't imagine people being able to install those without anyone knowing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZRAbUcUkIc
Did a google search and the conspiracy nuts even think those were used. Even though the people that explode buildings every day that use them say they were not used.
Statement by controlled demolitions
"To take down any building via a controlled demolition, first they must gut the building entirely, then they must weaken every single support beam within the building. After that, they then place what are called shape chargers into those drillings. Then after that, they must wire each shape charger to another and do so in sequence of how the building will be brought down. Also they use other explosive devices and surround them in chicken wire to hold them firmly to the support beams. After doing that, then they must group the wires together and pull them to a single place and attach it to the timing device which brings the building down. Often the noise coming from these demolitions is deafening. You would have thought someone would notice this work going on. Also all of those buildings were not gutted and the support beams weakened."
Actually, you're mixing ideas and methodologies here...understandable considering that you're pulling, I imagine, from a multitude of sources. Hopefully, I can clear some of this up for you and your future correspondence.
You are correct in that typically, part of the preparation process for a building implosion involves the complete strip-out of a structure, including removal of all non-essential, non-load bearing elements (drywall, ductwork, piping, furniture, carpet, etc.), leaving only clean support elements in the structure. Dependant on client's timetable, and whether or not the resultant debris is intended for recycling (in which case, they WOULD completely strip the building so as to not have to separate the different materials on the ground, i.e. wood, paper, carpet, from the steel and concrete to be recycled), they may only COMPLETELY strip out those floors where we intend to use explosives, leaving the other floors fairly untouched.
In a reinforced concrete building, we would, indeed, drill holes in selected supporting columns for subsequent placement of dynamite or equivalent type of cartridge explosive. A detonator (or "blasting cap" as they're frequently called) of predetermined delay (timing) is inserted into that cartridge of explosives. In a structural steel building (such as the WTC towers), we would use linear shaped charges affixed to the exterior of the selected steel elements to be severed. Again, a detonator of predetermined delay is affixed to each individual linear shaped charge. These charges literally cut through the appropriate size thickness (they come in varying sizes) like a knife through butter. In both cases, however, we would NOT blast every single column on every single floor.
For example, let's take a typical 15-story Holiday Inn...we'd probably work on 4 or 5 floors...Basement (if there is one), Ground (always), 1st (if there is no basement), then maybe 4th, 7th and 10th. In truth, the building could probably be brought down working on only the bottom two (2) floors; however, working on those upper floors not only provides us with MUCH more control over the rate and direction of failure and fragment the resultant debris into much more manageable pieces for our client.
You're correct that in both cases, each individual charge must be wired into an initiation system (we use 18 grain detonating cord...miles of it, in some cases) that runs shot floor to shot floor and column to column throughout the structure. An initiation harness is then run out of the building where we will attach two (2) electric caps (redundancy), which are hooked into an insulated copper set of lead lines, which are then run out to the location of the blasting machine.
We DO NOT "pre-weaken" all load-bearing elements prior to implosion...that's what the explosives are for! This would create an EXTREMELY unsafe working environment and, further, be totally against OSHA regulations. We may, however, selectively remove and/or modify portions of certain load-bearing walls and remove selected stairwell portions near the base to assist the structure in becoming more flexible during its decent, further allowing us to precisely control the rate and direction of fall.
Chicken wire would most CERTAINLY be a lot cheaper; however, it's not what we use
When wrapping a reinforced concrete column with protective covering materials, we use a combination of heavy duty chain link fence (usually 11 gauge) and a non-woven geotextile fabric (we use a brand called Nicolon, made by a company called Mirafi...it's heavy duty, high tensile strength, VERY puncture-resistant, "felt-like" material used underneath road base to help prevent erosion...usually 10 oz.). We refer to this as "at-source, soft cover/protection. Essentially, these materials work together much like a "catcher's mitt." Dependant on the explosives load in those columns and the proximity of adjacent properties/utilities and other improvements to remain, we may use a double wrap of fence only, double wrap of fabric only, a combination of the two, or whatever the situation calls for. In a structural steel building, plywood boxes are custom constructed for EACH AND EVERY charge placement location. The boxes are carefully placed over the linear shaped charges. Often, we also add panels of used conveyor belting inside the box to further help "knock down" the flying copper sheathing that comes off the charge when it detonates (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). In addition, we may also opt to wrap these boxes with the fence and fabric mentioned above.
Another common practice in protective covering operations is what we call "curtains." If you look at some pictures of structures about to be imploded, you'll note that certain floors have, literally, a "curtain" of black fabric around them. That's the geotextile fabric I mentioned above. Often, there is also a curtain of chain link fence hung inside the fabric curtain as well. This goes even further to prevent flying debris from leaving the structure's periphery.
Yes, the explosives we use can be extremely loud...particularly the linear shaped charges as they're "exposed" (simply wired to the outside of the steel flange of the H-column and covered with the box, fence, fabric...) as compared to the dynamite which is "embedded" in the drilled boreholes inside the columns. We make every attempt to keep the dBL and air overpressure generated by the detonation of the explosives to a minimum by using delays throughout the structure. The PRIMARY delays are used to control which explosive detonates when, thereby giving us the control we need to move the structure in the desired direction at the desired rate. These delays are typically somewhere between 350 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds in length. The SECONDARY delays are used SOLELY to "break up" this noise and air overpressure. The shortest delay made of this nature is 9 milliseconds...the minimum delay required to achieve this "break-up"...now we're getting into some major math with regards of seismic info, hertz, dbA versus dBL, etc. Trust me; we've got it down to a science
Lastly, you should strongly urge these people to watch just ONE documentary that's been produced over the years on one of our projects. Perhaps then they could grasp the days, weeks, and sometimes MONTHS that goes into the planning, preparation and execution of even the simplest of jobs, not to mention the labor-intensive explosives-handling work that's put in by crews of up to 20 people dependant on the job!!
Demolition requires long term planning and, most importantly, weakening of the structure that requires a lot of work in order to produce an efficient demolition. That's one subject the truthers don't disuccuss. Since there's no proof of the WTC structure being weakened in advance, they'd have to be an overkill of explosives instead to achieve the same goal. Then there's the fact that RDX or other such explosives would have been so loud upon detonatiom that there would have been no doubt whatsoever that charges were going off. It would have been earsplitting. Explosive charges would have registered on a number of seismometers too and leave no doubt whatsoever, which didn't happen.
Speaking of that, did you ever notice that the truthers used to make claims about the seismometers, but suddenly dropped that like a hot rock after further proof became apparent? That sort of behavior is typical of them. Make a claim. Get proven wrong. Pretend they never made any such claim and reform to defend what little they still have left.
Hopefuly event8horizon figures it out one of these days for himself that he's pursuing a dead-end street with no real credibility. I don't have much hope for him though. Apparently facts matter less than the Hollywood cloak and dagger fantasy he has built for himself to exist in.
i read the website u linked. alot of speculation, no science. they know what primer paint that was used and it looks over the counter. why dont they just buy some and test the damn paint!! that would clear things up dont ya think!
even ole greening dosent think it is the primer.
-a post from greening
"It's quite difficult to get much information on the WTC primer paint but it is mentioned in Appendix D of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 433 - 438. Here you find a Table D-1 which gives the chemical composition of the primer. The main inorganic constituents are iron oxide, "zinc yellow", "Tnemec pigment of proprietary composition" and diatomaceous silica.
Now the Tnemec pigment caught my eye, but the fact that it's described as having a "proprietary composition" suggests that this material's chemical ingredients are "top secret". However, in the modern world of "right-to-know" legislation, you can determine the composition of just about any proprietary material by looking up its associated MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet).
I have done this for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer and this is what I have found reported as the ingredients:
Iron-oxide fume
Zinc compounds with traces of cobalt
Quartz and amorphous silica (SiO2)
Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2)
Calcium Silicates and Aluminates
Now here lies the rub: Jone's red chips do not contain zinc, although some WTC iron-rich particles do indeed contain significant amounts of zinc. Nevertheless, zinc is essentially absent from Jones' red chips, thus it looks like these mystery particles are definitely not paint chips."
http://the911forum.freeforums....-wtc-dust-t150-15.html
-a post from greening
"It's quite difficult to get much information on the WTC primer paint but it is mentioned in Appendix D of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 433 - 438. Here you find a Table D-1 which gives the chemical composition of the primer. The main inorganic constituents are iron oxide, "zinc yellow", "Tnemec pigment of proprietary composition" and diatomaceous silica.
Now the Tnemec pigment caught my eye, but the fact that it's described as having a "proprietary composition" suggests that this material's chemical ingredients are "top secret". However, in the modern world of "right-to-know" legislation, you can determine the composition of just about any proprietary material by looking up its associated MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet).
I have done this for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer and this is what I have found reported as the ingredients:
Iron-oxide fume
Zinc compounds with traces of cobalt
Quartz and amorphous silica (SiO2)
Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2)
Calcium Silicates and Aluminates
Now here lies the rub: Jone's red chips do not contain zinc, although some WTC iron-rich particles do indeed contain significant amounts of zinc. Nevertheless, zinc is essentially absent from Jones' red chips, thus it looks like these mystery particles are definitely not paint chips."
http://the911forum.freeforums....-wtc-dust-t150-15.html
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
That and the fact that they never attempt to explain why those responsible would BOTH blow up the buildings and fly planes into them when they could just as easily and without much suspicion left the planes out of it.
spacejamz
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 10,949
- 1,624
- 126
can't we just let this thread die already???
either the OP really knows that it wasn't a conspiracy and is yanking everyone's chain that keeps replying to him or he is a complete moron who continually sidesteps legitimate questions posed to him or responds back with worthless youtube clips. I know which option I would put my money on....
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
It is rather pointless to let a 9/11 conspiracy wackjob thread die as given a few weeks another one will pop up. It has been almost EIGHT YEARS and we are still doing this, so I doubt anything is going to change soon.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 250
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter