Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth debunk Judy Wood!

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:21 pm

PostSun May 15, 2011 2:56 am » by Daemonfoe


rydher reminds me of a drextin that use to frequent here. it seems like he's been floating around using different personalities. it's funny though, his tactics are exactly the same. he'll bait you into arguing with him by entering the conversation with some troll remark, then for a few pages of posts his argument will be something retarded like, "you're all stupid", then 5 pages later he will come out with some canned post to try to act like, "heh, I was just acting stupid, but now i have this super smart reply that someone wrote fo.... <cough> i mean i wrote it for myself....". then when you own him he'll direct you to old posts that he made, then say, it's up to you to find them if you want to do the research, bla bla, (cuz he can't remember his own posts, and debated it all for nothing back then?). I mean it's the same shit every time. The whole time he's so transparent and pathetic, but walks around thinking he's some kind of conspiracy bashing pimp.

BOO! :top: :top: :top:
The two choices we have are something starting from nothing, or something existing infinitely. These are both paradoxes. The existence of everything is therefore a paradox. -daemonfoe

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:21 pm

PostSun May 15, 2011 3:01 am » by Daemonfoe


Oh and don't forget the ever famous, "oh you couldn't find the posts i was talking about that I can't remember the name of, that I probably never posted?", "Hey everyone, look at this guy, he can't figure out how to use the search function!"

lol. get outta here bum.
The two choices we have are something starting from nothing, or something existing infinitely. These are both paradoxes. The existence of everything is therefore a paradox. -daemonfoe

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:03 pm

PostSun May 15, 2011 3:05 am » by Rydher


@ Daemonfoe. I won't pretend to to know. I only read different opinions and facts on this subject. Then come to my own conclusion. From what I've been able to find about the sphere's, it's still an unknown. Correct? I don't mind be corrected with some hard evidence. I just dislike when some facts are put together to make giant leaps of logic to come to a ;factual' hypothesis of what happened.

One paper I have been going over is here, http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf. Done by Ryan Mackey a NASA scientists. This isn't my only source but one that touches on a lot of stuff and includes tons of footnotes to check other sources. The numbers in the brackets is the footnote number in the paper, if you're curious.


Iron Spherules: Another curious phenomenon thought to be linked to the structural steel
is creation of tiny spheres of steel or iron, found in the dust after collapse. Several
researchers report this, including Lowers and Meeker [242] who documented a few
examples of particles found to be nearly pure iron and quite spherical, approximately 7
microns in diameter; and the RJ Lee Group [243], who identified small, round iron
particles as evidence of high temperatures. The significance of these spheres is still
debated, along the following lines:

As discussed previously, there is no evidence at all for large amounts of melted
steel. If the spheres are formed by melting steel, it must be surface melting or
some other highly localized process.

It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group
report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain
that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some,
if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

There appear to be several plausible candidate sources of the iron spherules in
office materials or other building contents. Perhaps the most obvious is the fly
ash itself used in structural concrete, a residue of combusted coal, which contains
iron spheres in a variety of sizes that would have been liberated as the concrete
was destroyed. Another example is magnetic printer toner, used to print financial
instruments, that could have been present in printer cartridges or found in a large
volume of paper documents. This candidate has the advantage of matching the
size, shape, uniformity, and elemental composition of the observed spherules
from one report [242]. We also cannot discount their origin in building contents,
rather than building structure, without much more careful study.

The quantity of these spherules is unknown, but thought to be very small – the
iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3% [244], most of
which was not in the form of spherules. A large quantity would suggest melting
of steel on large scales, but a small quantity suggests otherwise.

Small quantities of structural steel or other iron-rich objects could be partially
melted through sheer friction, originating in the aircraft impact or the collapses.

Much like the sulfidized samples, it is impossible to tell whether these spherules
were created prior to collapse, after collapse, or both. After collapse, it is
plausible for the debris to have reached much higher temperatures.

As mentioned above, there is potential site contamination from salvage
operations, in which numerous steel pieces were cut, involving nontrivial amounts
of melted steel. It is also possible for the spherules to have been left over from
the buildings’ original construction.

Iron that appears to have melted may have merely oxidized [245], and surface
chemistry effects of merely heated iron may give rise to tiny amounts of melting
even at moderate temperatures.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:03 pm

PostSun May 15, 2011 3:10 am » by Rydher


I don't know why the sudden change of tactic with you Daemonfoe? You showed you are capable of having a rational discussion without acting like a dumbass. I never chided anyone for not being able to use the search button. I simply said that I have already went over this and if you care to really know, then you can search my posts. Why is it on me to repeat myself? The above reply, is a repeat of a post I made to YOU in an earlier thread. So you know I have answered your question about the spheres. Don't pretend to 'own' me while you know I replied this same response on this exact subject to you earlier. You're the one acting stupid now. Don't lower yourself like that.

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 18235
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:20 am
Location: underneath the circumstances

PostSun May 15, 2011 3:45 am » by The57ironman


rydher wrote:Image
.

....remember.............the bible was one of the first.......
"media"........Image


.

Initiate
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:35 pm

PostSun May 15, 2011 11:39 am » by Cee420


rydher wrote:
cee420 wrote:So …can you actually show me who has debunked these people?!

Peace.


Yes, please search my posts on 9/11 subjects and you can see for yourself.



Well ..i’m not gonna search you old posts ..don’t have the time

..as you admit in you later post (to someone), that you have opinions based on some things you read …but your actual replies show that you really don’t even seem to know what the “9/11-thermite people” have actually found in the dust, and what kind of materials thermites are, and so on..

..and this just shows me that you really don’t know what you’re talking about ..you just repeat “conclusions by others” about this ..and cause I have looked into some of these conclusions about 9/11 & thermite, i happen to know that these people are basing their conclusions on “assumptions” and “calculations based on these assumptions” about these matters and not on hands-on physical experiments and tests

..But people like Jon Cole (the Great Thermate Debate-video posted earlier) have proven these people wrong

..Controlled Demolition experts have proven these people wrong (Tom Sullivan-video posted earlier)

..and even US patent office and US government funded Laboratories (LLNL) talk about stuff that the “thermite debunkers” claim is “impossible” for thermite-composites


so if you have something to add to this conversation, at least be so polite and bring the material forward
..and don’t tell me to go look for it from your earlier 800+posts to this forum

Peace.
:flop:

Initiate
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:35 pm

PostSun May 15, 2011 11:44 am » by Cee420


rydher wrote:From what I've been able to find about the sphere's, it's still an unknown. Correct?


Those tiny spheres of iron, which are a by-product of ’thermite reaction’ were reported by RJ Lee Group, US Geological Survey ( and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)).

Such spheres were also present after the ignition tests on the ‘nano-thermite chips’ Steven Jones et al found in the WTC dust samples.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-secti ... rials.html

The comments about the iron-rich micro spheres came on a pdf. which used to be at this location, but now it has been taken off.
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/SubGr ... 110305.pdf

USGS table listing iron spheres
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html
Link to a iron-rich sphere photos by USGS
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graph ... -IMAGE.jpg
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graph ... -IMAGE.jpg
Here’s one of the USGS photos
Image

Here’s a 2003 report mentioning the spheres by RJ Lee Group who studied the WTC dust for Deutsche Bank
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Li ... .Final.pdf

rydher wrote:As discussed previously, there is no evidence at all for large amounts of melted
steel. If the spheres are formed by melting steel, it must be surface melting or
some other highly localized process.

Yea ..this is what NIST claims ..that they have not heard of witnesses for the molten metal in the WTC complex remains
But there are actually many clean-up workers (fire figters etc.) who talk about seeing orange-glowing molten metal in pools and running in the basement levels of the WTC complex.
On this video clip you will see multiple witness statements about molten metal seen in the WTC rubble, and also you will see John Gross, one of the Head investigators for NIST, claiming that he’s not aware of any of such reports.

Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11


Upload to Disclose.tv



..as an example ..New York firefighters in a n interview telling about the molten metal they saw in the basement of WTC building(s):
“..And you'd get down below and you'd see molten steel ..molten steel running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry. Like lava from a volcano."


Here are some of the witness reports about the WTC molten metal:

Molten metal was still found in February 2002:
John O’Toole, a firefighter from Bronx is quoted in a Knight Ridder Newspapers article
Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/e ... orker.html
“Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.”


Ken Holden, New York Department of Design and Construction, during a public hearing of NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/h ... -04-01.htm
“Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.”


Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health
http://www.neha.org/pdf/messages_in_the_dust.pdf
“Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster.”

Links to other statements about the WTC molten metal:
Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... steel.html

History Commons: Context of 'September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero'
http://www.historycommons.org/context.j ... oltenmetal


.So I think there is quite abit of evidence of molten metal in the basement of the WTC complex ..and what would keep the metal in a molten state for months? ..thermite-reaction and the 2500 to 3500+ Celsius degrees that various mixtures of thermite can produce. And air tight pockets do not cool down that fast when the pockets and the insulative materials around them have been heated to these temperatures


rydher wrote:It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group
report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain
that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some,
if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

Steven Jones et al have written statements from the people who sent them the WTC dust samples that some of the samples were gathered right after the WTC destruction, so before any clean up taking place.
Here’s a two-part video of Steven Jones talking about the samples, chain of custody and what was found from the samples
9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Steven Jones Physicist 1 of 2


Upload to Disclose.tv



9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Steven Jones Physicist 2 of 2


Upload to Disclose.tv


This dust , with the nano-thermite and micro-spheres in it, was also recovered from peoples apartments and to suggest it got there because of “clean up crew torch cutting beams and columns” ..is “stretching” it quite abit ..this is not a realistic suggestion.

Also, apparently USGS is unwilling to answer whether their samples contain the nano-thermite chips Jones et al found in the WTC dust.

NIST and other “official investigators” have challenged Steven Jones et al by saying that they can’t prove the chain of custody regarding their WTC dust samples, yet, when Jones et al. have replied to them by asking them to do the tests with their own samples, they for some reason aren’t very willing to do those tests.

I)f there nano-thermite chips/bits are present in the WTC dust ..then the discussion is over! ..but US Government and it’s institutions like NIST DO NOT WANT TO do test for thermites and explosive materials on the WTC dust
..and as NIST admits them selves ..they NEVER DID THOSE TESTS ..never
Here’s NIST in their own words
NIST wrote:http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
“12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.””


You would assume that US Government would “debunk” Steven Jones et al, especially when this would be so, so easy to do by testing the WTC materials for thermites and explosive materials ..but they just don’t want to
..so they are hiding something, otherwise they would have already done it long time ago.

Peace.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:03 pm

PostSun May 15, 2011 2:32 pm » by Rydher


I'll take the time later today to reply to your last post point by point. I appreciate the time you took to write and format that out, I know it's a pain in the ass. I will quickly comment on this...

but your actual replies show that you really don’t even seem to know what the “9/11-thermite people” have actually found in the dust, and what kind of materials thermites are, and so on..


If you actually would of even take a couple of minutes (which would of taken less time than posting your post) and clicked my profile, then clicked see posts by user. You would of easily found the 2 or 3 other threads I posted in that explained my views in much more detail. The 'Thermiters' :headscratch:, continually leave out one extremely important part of their case. The byproduct of a thermite reaction, which you would of seen me post in this thread if you weren't in such a hurry to try and blast me, aluminum oxide and barium nitrate, that would have to be present, were NOT found in any amounts at the WTC.

Initiate
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:35 pm

PostSun May 15, 2011 3:56 pm » by Cee420


rydher wrote: The 'Thermiters' , continually leave out one extremely important part of their case. The byproduct of a thermite reaction, which you would of seen me post in this thread if you weren't in such a hurry to try and blast me, aluminum oxide and barium nitrate, that would have to be present, were NOT found in any amounts at the WTC.


Not one tiny trace of these materials were found, you claim?? ..this is a false claim, mate

..and I already replied to this claim by linking the actual study by Steven Jones et al.
..and in the study they report finding aluminum and barium.

From their paper:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocp ... 7TOCPJ.pdf

or

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocp ... 7TOCPJ.SGM

Steven Jones et al. wrote: “Aluminum particles are covered with a
layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable
to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum,
given the very high surface area to volume ratio of
these very fine particles.”


and..

Steven Jones et al. wrote: “We have observed that some chips have additional elements
such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these
significant, and why do such elements appear in some red
chips and not others?”


..and why these additives were present in some nano-thermite chips and not on every one?
..additives change the characteristics of the reacting thermite, and so the additives allow the thermite to behave differently ..slower, faster, in bursts and so on
..sulphur lowers the melting point of steel, as an example

Maybe they used different mixtures of thermite for this reason; some parts of the building needed slower reaction from the thermite, and some parts needed faster thermites. ..just a thought



USGS study on the WTC dust lists metals and metal oxides in one section.

USGS wrote: Metal and Metal-Oxide Phases
The primary metal and metal-oxide phases in WTC dust are Fe-rich and Zn-rich particles (Meeker and others, 2005b). Many other metal and metal oxide phases have been identified including phases rich in Al, Ti, Pb, Bi, Mo, Zr, Sn, Cu, and others. It is often difficult to distinguish between metals and metal oxides with qualitative EDS because of adsorbed surface oxygen or thin coatings of oxide phases such as rust. It is impossible to distinguish metals and metal-oxides with qualitative EDS analysis using a Be window x-ray detector.
In order to distinguish Mo-, Pb-, and Bi- rich phases it is necessary to look for additional M, L, and K series peaks. This may require higher accelerating voltages to excite these x-ray energies. If additional M, L, or K series peaks are not observed, these elements are probably not present and the peak occurring near ~2.3 keV can be attributed primarily to S.


they continue in the end:

USGS wrote: “This particle atlas has been compiled to serve as a guide to identify common phases in WTC dust. It is not a complete guide to all phases that may be found in WTC dust.”
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF ... #heading08




Here’s what Kevin Ryan et al. wrote about EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) study on the WTC dust ..that they did not study metal oxides, but their elemental forms only

Kevin Ryan et al. wrote:Environmental anomalies at the World Trade
Center: evidence for energetic materials

Kevin R. Ryan , James R. Gourley and Steven E. Jones
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/do ... malies.pdf

“Because EPA and Cahill used elemental analyses only, the fraction of aluminum present as aluminum oxide was not identified.”



..so I really think people have found aluminium oxides in the WTC dust ..or can you show me that they have not?


Barium:
I also wrote earlier that Barium nitrate is ONLY an additive in the thermite/thermate mixture ..it is not needed for the reaction to take place, but can be added to the mixture
Like the study by Steven Jones et al mentions, not all the nano-thermate chips gave a barium-reading.

From Wikipedia:
Wikipedia on thermate wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
“The main chemical reaction in thermate is the same as in thermite: an aluminothermic reaction between powdered aluminium and a metal oxide. In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate.”


But..

Here’s USGS reporting Barium in the WTC dust:

USGS wrote: Chemical compositions of the WTC dusts and girder coating materia
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-042 ... index.html
In most dust samples, zinc is the predominant trace metal, with concentrations as high as 3000 parts per million. With the exception of one sample that is high in barium (WTC01-16)


USGS wrote:http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-042 ... l#Contents

“At least some heavy metals and metalloids (such as aluminum, chromium, antimony, molybdenum, and barium) are readily leached from the dusts into rain or wash water. Indoor dust samples showed greater proportions of leachable metals than outdoor dust samples. These metals may also be potentially bioavailable if the dusts are accidentally inhaled or ingested. Chemical leach tests of the material coating steel girders in the WTC debris indicate that the coatings can contain soluble chromium.”



Here’s a USGS list of (some of the ) elements present in the WTC dust ..note that they do not reports metal oxides, only basic metals, althou it would be easy to assume at least iron oxide (rust) was present
so maybe they reported the metal oxides only as ‘metals’ ..dunno.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-042 ... table.html


..But the Aluminum and Barium are there in the dust and in the nano-thermite chips. Why oxides aren’t listed in many studies apparently is because only the elemental forms have been listed

..but like I have said Barium is not needed for thermites ..it is only an additive.

Peace.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:21 pm

PostMon May 16, 2011 1:52 am » by Daemonfoe


rydher wrote:I don't know why the sudden change of tactic with you Daemonfoe? You showed you are capable of having a rational discussion without acting like a dumbass. I never chided anyone for not being able to use the search button. I simply said that I have already went over this and if you care to really know, then you can search my posts. Why is it on me to repeat myself? The above reply, is a repeat of a post I made to YOU in an earlier thread. So you know I have answered your question about the spheres. Don't pretend to 'own' me while you know I replied this same response on this exact subject to you earlier. You're the one acting stupid now. Don't lower yourself like that.


I'm just keeping you in check. As I stated, I noticed a pattern emerging from your posts that is all too similar to previous DTV users who seemed to always take the "anti-conspiracy-theorist" stance. Telling someone to search your posts is all too common of a thing around here, but for some reason it only comes from one side of the fence. Being involved in said posts, I know what "evidence" you had shown, and I know that reading through those posts would be a waste of time because everything else and more has already been discussed here. I don't know why you would direct someone to go read those old posts. We both know the debate is right here.

You didn't answer anything that explained why the spheres were present in the last post. You simply stated that it doesn't mean "thermate" because byproducts were missing. You in no way attempted to explain where the spheres came from. Not only that, but before you directed the debate to an old thread, it was pointed out to you that barium and aluminum aren't required for thermate/thermite, but you didn't refute it at all. You tried to distract the debate to some other thread that held no new information for this thread.

And no, you haven't chided anyone for "not being able to figure out how to use the search function". That is the step after "Go search my old posts".
The two choices we have are something starting from nothing, or something existing infinitely. These are both paradoxes. The existence of everything is therefore a paradox. -daemonfoe


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook