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.

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 10
160
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO



And yet all the lies they spread are approximately 450 times more accurate and plausible than the story you get paid to spread!!!


That is not true at all. From my own experience as a pilot and airframe tecnnician, I have had to correct truthers on the way we do things in the real world of aviation because they became victims of disinformation that was being spread by those whose intent was to discredit the Truth Movement and it worked. Let's take just a few examples of many.

1. Truthers said that United 93 landed at Cleveland Airport.

Fact: Truthers confused Detla 1989, a B-767, as United 93, a B-757. At no time die radar track United 93 to Cleveland Airport nor did ACARS indicate that United 93 landed at Cleveland

2. Truthers said that tampering with the transponder will render an aircraft invisible to radar

Fact: Tampering with the transponder will not render an aircraft invisible to radar, it will just make it difficult to track.

3. Thermite was used to demolish the WTC Towers

Fact: Thermite is not capable of bringing down the WTC Towers. Steven Jones and Richard Gage were both caught lying as well.

4. Truthers said that no aircraft struck WTC 1 and WTC 2

Fact: Videos and aircraft wreckage at ground zero is proof enough

5. Truthers said that a pod can be seen beneath the fuselage of United 175

Fact: I noticed that truthers confused the MLG doors and aerodynamic fairings, which are standard on all B-767's, as a pod that was somehow added to carry about 2000 pounds of explosives, which doesn't make any sense considering the aircraft could carry over 20,000 pounds of explosives in the cargo holds without modifying anything.

6. Truthers said that the 9/11 airliners were switched.

Fact: It would have been impossible to switch aircraft and not attract a lot of attention from ground controllers and the sounding of alarms in ATC.

7. Truthers said that ACARS depicted the 9/11 aircraft airborne after their crash times.

Fact: ACARS depicted no such thing, a fact that radar continued to track the 9/11 aircraft to their crash sites.

8. Truthers said that molten steel was seen flowing from the corner of WTC 2 before it collapsed.

Fact: I recognized the molten metal as aluminum, not steel, which is evident by the silvery droplets as they cooled.

9. Truthers said that explosives were used to demolish the WTC buildings.

Fact: There is no video, audio nor hardware evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings

10. Truthers said that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed

Fact: The WTC buildings did not fall at free fall speed, which is evident by the fact that dust plumes and debris outpaced the collapse of the WTC buildings.




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: ParasuvO



A lot of the things you point out are grouping different things. To assert that ALL "truthers" (as you put it) believe things like no planes, or a pod on the aircraft, or planes were switched is disingenuous. So I would like to address your comments point by point.

1) Only a select few said that United 93 landed in Cleveland. This does not represent the entire "truther" movement.

2) Tampering with a transponder will certainly not make it invisible. There is always still a primary track. Any so called "truthers" who said such things obviously don't represent me.. and I don't believe the official narrative.

3) Thermite cutting charges are most certainly capable of bringing down steel structures. However, it is certainly not practical for a complete demolition. That is not to say that it couldn't have been used at select structural points in the towers. Yes.. there are no known buildings (that I am aware of) on record that use thermite for demo. But that is not to say that it couldn't be... especially in this case.

4) Anyone who asserts that no planes hit 1 or 2... I have no interest or energy to deal with such ridiculous comments. Personally I believe those people have been put out to detract from and real discussion. The same goes for alien death rays, mini-nukes, etc.

5) In respect to the "pod". There was no pod. There was no missile underneath the wing, etc. This is ridiculous arm chair analysts assuming they see something from a distorted black and white photo taken at a strange angle. I don't believe it.. never have never will. Yet I still don't believe the governments account of 9/11.

6) SOME have speculated that the airliners could have been switched due to the flight paths converged over Stuart AFB. It is a speculation and I've never heard anyone assert it as fact. Simply just a strange occurrence. In fact several aircraft crossed paths and seemed to have gone out of their way to interact with AA11 and UA175. This is just fact and you can view the radar data for yourself.

7) Some have said the ACARS show the flights continuing. It is interesting to note that during the events of 9/11, someone (who I don't believe has ever been identified) asserted that Washington Control said AA11 was continuing on to Washington DC, thus pulling the fighter interceptors away from where they should have been (was either QUIT1 and QUIT2 or PANTA45, 46.. not sure).

8) What you saw was most certainly not molten aluminum. Molten aluminum flows at a mostly chrome color. It does not look bright orange. I did not notice from any video, silvery droplets. And you are also discounting the molten steel found in the debris for almost 2 months AFTER the collapse. That most certainly was not aluminum.

9) Your assertion of "FACT" is blatantly false. There are plenty of videos and audio recordings depicting explosive sounds. To say they "weren't explosives" is simply saying your thoughts are truth. You are discounting plenty of factual evidence to assert your opinion.

10) WTC 7 did fall at free fall speeds. This has been backed up by NIST. I will not say buildings 1 and 2 fell at freefall, but were very near... and certainly faster than any expected structural collapse. People seem to forget a simple thing called Newtons 3rd Law. The structure above the impact zone simply did not have enough energy to destroy 70+ floors of the towers. This is simple physics. I won't even get into the fact that not only did the towers collapse.. but they forcefully EJECTED material at high speeds. Explain to me how human remains ended up on top of the Deutsche Bank roof? A building collapse would have trapped human remains in between the floors. Yet human remains were found thrown all over the place. And we're not talking arms and legs here. We're talking extremely small bits. A collapse will not shred a human body into tiny pieces and eject in far from the buildings they were in.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: DerekJR321
People seem to forget a simple thing called Newtons 3rd Law. The structure above the impact zone simply did not have enough energy to destroy 70+ floors of the towers. This is simple physics.


So simple truthers have trouble understanding physics! The structure above the impact zone had more than enough energy to destroy one floor, then had more energy to destroy another floor, then had enough energy to destroy another floor etc.
youngausskeptics.com...


Explain to me how human remains ended up on top of the Deutsche Bank roof?


They could have been ejected when the plane hit the building, we know undercarriage, a engine, documents etc were ejected then...
911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


1. Truthers said that United 93 landed at Cleveland Airport.

Fact: Truthers confused Detla 1989, a B-767, as United 93, a B-757. At no time die radar track United 93 to Cleveland Airport nor did ACARS indicate that United 93 landed at Cleveland


So your "opinions" are facts now? Where did you get your information?


3. Thermite was used to demolish the WTC Towers

Fact: Thermite is not capable of bringing down the WTC Towers. Steven Jones and Richard Gage were both caught lying as well.


Another one of your "opinions" I see.
Steven Jones did not have to make up lies to do a peer Review paper. In the end of his paper Jones said we are talking "military" science. Stop making up lies against scientist who were able to prove the OS was a lie.


6. Truthers said that the 9/11 airliners were switched.

Fact: It would have been impossible to switch aircraft and not attract a lot of attention from ground controllers and the sounding of alarms in ATC.


The fact is the government claims they were having war exercises on the morning of 911 convenient for them and FAA controllers admitted they did not know what aircraft's were really real or if this was an exercise or what was really going on.


7. Truthers said that ACARS depicted the 9/11 aircraft airborne after their crash times.

Fact: ACARS depicted no such thing, a fact that radar continued to track the 9/11 aircraft to their crash sites.


That is untrue. Under the FOIA information proved that said aircraft was 7 miles past crash site. Stop twisting the facts


8. Truthers said that molten steel was seen flowing from the corner of WTC 2 before it collapsed.

Fact: I recognized the molten metal as aluminum, not steel, which is evident by the silvery droplets as they cooled.


That is debunkers theories and no evidence proves otherwise.


9. Truthers said that explosives were used to demolish the WTC buildings.

Fact: There is no video, audio nor hardware evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings


That is untrue there is plenty of scientific facts that proves including audio and not the garbage from pseudo debunking websites who love to distort the real videos to fit the OS narrative. There is plenty of evidence that does prove explosions by credible eye witness who went on record.


10. Truthers said that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed

Fact: The WTC buildings did not fall at free fall speed, which is evident by the fact that dust plumes and debris outpaced the collapse of the WTC buildings.


Untrue. Science already proves they fell at free fall, however WTC 7 fell 2 seconds faster than free fall and NIST was "force" to make that correction in their final paper from Architectures & Engineers for 911 Truth.

I do not believe you have research the science that has been uncovered in the past 14 years. Going to pseudo debunking websites really has not help you in your arguments or your "opinions".

Most Truthers "research" when they see a conspiracy to get to the bottom of the truth. Especially when the government tells the American people a fairy tail that defies physic. What I see here is to many, not all debunkers but some on here who have drank to much mainstream propaganda media Kool-aid and depend on pseudo debunking websites and twisted YouTube videos to support their beliefs.




edit on 28-7-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Steven Jones did not have to make up lies to do a peer Review paper. In the end of his paper Jones said we are talking "military" science. Stop making up lies


How about you stop making up lies? The Jones paper was NOT peer reviewed, it was published in a "pay to publish" Journal, and the editor of that journal resigned as they did not know about it!


however WTC 7 fell 2 seconds faster than free fall


So now you claim WTC 7 was rocket propelled when it fell, as something had to push it down if it fell faster than free fall speed like you claim!

You really do not stop and think about what you are writing, do you!
edit on 28-7-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


How about you stop making up lies? The Jones paper was NOT peer reviewed, it was published in a "pay to publish" Journal, and the editor of that journal resigned as they did not know about it!


It was a Peer Reviewed paper and has been excepted by Mainstream Scholars, scientist and Architectures and Engineers world wide It doesn't matter where it was published.
Your the one calling names here. which is a violation of ATS TC.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958

Untrue. Science already proves they fell at free fall, however WTC fell 2 seconds faster than free fall and NIST was "force" to make that correction in their final paper from Architectures & Engineers for 911 Truth.





That is some awesome gibberish. I like it.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne


That is some awesome gibberish. I like it.


Yeah, you like that.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



It was a Peer Reviewed paper and has been excepted by Mainstream Scholars, scientist and Architectures and Engineers world wide It doesn't matter where it was published.


Let's take another look at Steven Jones.



Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with Jone's paper.

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

--------------------------
Letter to the Editor
April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

www.debunking911.com...


Now, we can take a look at Richard Gage.



ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

The boardroom at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Institute of Architects is an impressive place: Beautiful concentric wooden desks, with microphones in front of every seat, encircle a small central dais, offering the impression that important discussions are had here. “It feels like the United Nations,” a guest recently commented.

This room recently served as a peculiar venue for the 23rd stop on the 30-city “world premiere tour” of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition. Since 2006, Gage has been traveling all over the world under the banner of his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth—an organization that has no affiliation with the AIA, express or otherwise—to preach the theory that the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were actually brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001, and not the impact of two hijacked jetliners and the resulting fires and debris.

“I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into believing that our government and the Israeli government, the Israeli Mossad, could be responsible for the Twin Towers demolition,” one member of the DC chapter of 911truth.org declared from the AIA-emblazoned podium.

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of athermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

edit on 29-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
originally posted by: Informer1958



Untrue. Science already proves they fell at free fall, however WTC fell 2 seconds faster than free fall and NIST was "force" to make that correction in their final paper from Architectures & Engineers for 911 Truth.


That is false and here is the proof. You will notice that dust plumens and debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are outpacing the collapse of the WTC building.

Debris and Dust Plumes Outpacing WTC collapse

Review this video and tell how many seconds it took for WTC 1 and WTC 2 to collapse.

Video Proof WTC Buildings Not Collapsing at Free Fall Speed
edit on 29-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your rant has already been DEBUNKED.


Steven Jones Tells 9/11 "Debunkers" to Put up or Shut up!

”What you need to know about "Peer-review"


"Useful information for "non-scientists" about the process of peer-reviewed publishing, such as has been the case with Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials ." - 911truth.org


Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. [color=gold]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 choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.


Anything else?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

911debunkers.blogspot.com...


It’s time to lay the hard facts on the table! If anyone believes Steven Jones Journal is not peer reviewed as we still see a very few do on ATS, then why would 1,398 “Valid” signers put their name on a list in support of Steven Jones scientific Journal and support it 100%? These are scientists, Architects, Engineers, and professionals.

Why would all these professionals risk their careers, their reputations, and their lives to speak out against the government story of 911?

The fact is none of these professionals would take such an insane risk, if there were no supporting science to Steven Jones Journal. Do the debunkers want educated Americans to think all these professionals are stupid, and that Architects, Engineers do not understand science?


Enough said.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Steven Jones Tells 9/11 "Debunkers" to Put up or Shut up!


Let's take a look who Steven Jones was caught lying in his attempt at deception.



Steven Jones and his Art at Deception

Another of the many examples of deceptive photos produced by the "scholars" and cataloged on this site is the photo of firemen hovering over what they suggest is molten steel glowing from the use of thermite.

Steven Jones Deception Photo

The Video



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

That was disinformation created years ago by propaganda debunkers trying their best to discredit Jones.

Anything else?
edit on 29-7-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!


I suggest you actually READ that thread. and you would have seen
www.abovetopsecret.com...


To repeat what I wrote about this very topic a few months back. IF you send a paper and pay them $800 U.S.D. they will accept it without review... The former chief editor of Bentham Science Publishing quit because that thermite paper was accepted without review, and one of her area of research are nano-particles. Bentham Publishing Exposed For The Fraud's They Are Submitted by Just dropping by on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 17:48 in * Daily Paul Liberty Forum Here's an excerpt Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing." So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham. Read the rest here. www.newscientist.com... So as the debunkers were saying months ago, this Bentham journal is pay-for-publish vanity journal and the fact that Stephen Jones got his little thermite paper published in it hold no fact because they were willing to publish a paper that made no sense whatsoever, as long as the $800 publication fee cleared.. www.dailypaul.com... As the Newscientist article explains Bentham Science Publishers have accepted utter nonsense in the past, and they dont even confirm the identity of the people publishing papers through Bentham Science Publishers... This publishing company even sends unsolicited emails inviting people to be editors of journals in subject on WHICH THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER... This journal accepts papers, without verifying either the authors, or whether the content of such papers is real, JUST TO MAKE MORE MONEY... Let's read some more about the activities of Bentham Science Publishers shall we?... After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Benthams activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research... To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,"... By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained..., "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham." For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day. I too had by now begun receiving copies of Bentham's invitations — not because I was on its mailing list, but because frustrated researchers were forwarding them to me, and asking me to find out what the dickens was going on. So I emailed various Bentham directors (including Richard Scott and Matthew Honan), all of whom — with the exception of publications director Mahmood Alam — completely ignored my messages. Moreover, while Alam replied, he proved decidedly unwilling to answer my questions, despite repeated promises that he would. He was equally unwilling to put me in contact with anyone else at the company. www.earlham.edu... But hey, you seem to be using the same practices of this SCAM Publishing Company... I already demonstrated to your first thread about this research that this company ACCEPTS NONSENSE ARTICLES JUST FOR MONEY... So that nonsense article about "thermite" found at the WTC is nothing more than crap... The editor in chief of Bentham, Marie-Paule Pileni, resigned because she says that the "nano-thermite" paper was not reviewed, and that instead it is obvious the paper has political motives. 911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit By John R Moffett, Posted by John R Moffett ..... Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal. The advocates for the nanotech thermite theory of the WTC collapse will never accept the fact that the Bentham Group journals are not actual peer reviewed scientific publications, but scientists all around the world are now convinced of the fact. ... www.opednews.com... BTW, do you want to know what Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni credentials, and topics of research are?... Marie-Paule Pileni Adjunct Professor Professor Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni Director of the Mesoscopic & Nanometric Materials Laboratory Chair of Institut Universitaire de France University P & M Curie, Paris VI Postal Address: Université Pierre et Marie Curie Case 52, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05 Phone: 33 1 44 27 25 16 Fax: 33 1 44 27 25 15 Website: www.sri.jussieu.fr... E-mail Marie-Paule Pileni ... Research Interests Organization of nanomaterials in mesoscopic scale : collective properties Nanomaterials : synthesis, characterisation and physical properties Chemical modification of enzymes Physical chemistry in condensed matter Colloids sciences Solar energy Photophysic and photobiology Photochemistry in gas phase www.chemistry.gatech.edu... Don't you think she would know a thing or two about "nano-thermite"?...



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Holmgren ad Hominems

Another important aspect of how disinformation in the 9/11 Truth Movement functions is through the use of attack and vitriol. While all types of people -- professionals, academics and average people -- can resort to nasty or inappropriate personal attacks when defending or promoting theories which conflict, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been packed with such attacks. Not surprisingly, however, most of the individuals who are most vitriolic are attempting to advance the more bizarre ideas such as hologram or no-plane theories. One of the advocates that commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers is Gerard Holmgren. Holmgren recently launched a campaign of attacks against Steven Jones, including a series of articles, real and promised, posted to several Indymedias, LibertyForum, and personal websites. Holmgren's spamming campaign includes public postings of personal email communications between himself and Jones, and an array of Holmgrenesque insults bordering on obscenity. Holmgren has a history of similar personal and vitriolic attacks on researchers who disagree with his positions, so the inclusion of Jones on his list is not surprising. Notably, the news of this posting was spread by "the Webfairy," a similarly hostile Internet persona known for promoting the 'theory' that impact of jetliners into the Twin Towers were simulated using holograms.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

So many debunkers desperate that they have to create lies to squash credible science. None of this surprises me I have already seen it on this thread.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Yes I read that, and I do not find it reverent. Just another attempt to discrete, yet the person who posted that didn't bother to refute the Peer Review Journal, just making up debunking excuses to why they ( the debunkers ) do not have to except science.

But I can see you didn't bother reading the above post refuting your rant.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
yet the person who posted that didn't bother to refute the Peer Review Journal,


Actually, as he showed the Journal was NOT a peer reviewed Journal, but a pay to publish journal... which you ignore as it totally destroys your silly conspiracy theory!



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



That was disinformation created years ago by propaganda debunkers trying their best to discredit Jones.


Steven Jones was responsible for his own demise. Even his colleagues at BYU dismissed him outright. We can take a further look at Steven Jones who has been instrumental in making the Truth Movement a laughing stock.



More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite” Red Herring

Another AE911Truth member has come out with what he claims is video evidence of the presence of “nanothermite” in the demolition process of the World Trade Centers. It is surprising that AE911Truth (an organization made up primarily of engineers and scientists) would be promoting this video by David Chandler because it is an embarrassing collection of unsupported conclusions and really bad science. It so obvious, anyone can pick it apart. Unfortunately, I think that might be it’s purpose.

This “nanothermite” track that the Truth Movement has been on since the publication of the Harrit/Jones/Roberts paper has been increasingly dishonest since the very beginning and this is just another example of how “nanothermite” is blowing up our movement.Which is, of course, the only thing this “super secret” pyrotechnic COULD blow up…What they proposed in their paper was that they had found “active thermetic material” that utilized “nano technology” in the dust from the WTC demolitions. In later discussions, they (Jones and Harrit at least) have estimated the presence of at least 10 tons of this unexploded material exists in the dust that was scattered around New York on Sept. 11th, 2001.

There has been a great deal of reasoned evaluation of the paper itself and the results of those evaluations have not been positive.For the most part there is a a great deal of proof out there that the “red/grey chips” that Jones et al based their paper on, are in fact a rust inhibiting primer paint with a Kaolinite base.


Steven Jones didn't bother to do any homework to understand that the ingredients he attributed to nanothermite are ingredents found in structural primers.

No wonder his colleagues and others have turned their backs on him.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

You can't win this argument because the physics
aren't there to support you. It's like your eyes
are welded shut. Less than one hour of burn
time with only a flash of the temperature that
would only approach what is needed to even think
about weakening those massive vertical core columns.
It's just not plausible, no matter how much annealing
you actually done but, they did fall didn't they?



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join