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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Study concludes explosives used on 911

page: 11
131
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Another conspiracists lack of understanding. The debris at the WTC were inspected and organized to be sent to specific lay down yards. At the lay down yards, the items were further inspected. Law enforcement spent hundreds of man hours at conveyor belts gathering human remains and evidence.

People will believe conspiracists when they stop spreading false narratives.

The WTC steel, ruble, and debris were thoroughly inspected, evidence gathered, and picked over by hand.




posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   


Conclusion
It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total
collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11.


Sadly, he has cherry picked and forgets that it was fires following two impacts from airliners weighing 197 tons travelling at 400+mph. He also does not consider any forms of fatigues, corrosion, micro fractures, sub standard welds/possible skipped maintenance and the general condition of the 28 year old buildings.

But hey, it was only a fire, right?



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Other scientists have done the same thing with WTC dust samples with a valid and certified chain of custody, and have not been able to reproduce Jones experiments. Let's start with Jones WTC samples were not stored for years free of contaminates, have no proof of not being tampered with, have no chain of evidence,and the samples were sent to him by random persons via mail. Jones experiments are not credible samples. In fact, show that Jones samples were sent to him from the WTC zip code.


Other scientists with a 'valid chain of custody" but you claim Jones never had that privilege? How are you so sure? Where did the other scientists manage to collect the samples Jones had years later? When were those test duplicated and with what samples? Are you able to verify it's veracity?




In fact, show that Jones samples were sent to him from the WTC zip code.


This is a silly request, why would the sample be needed to have been sent from ground zero?



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
This is a silly request, why would the sample be needed to have been sent from ground zero?


So a sample from Las Vegas would have been ok by Jones....



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: pteridine

I'm probably going to regret this. Jones put some of that "red primer paint" in a calorimeter and they "blow up". Highly energetic paint primer don't you think?



It was a gravity collapse


Then why did the top explode laterally?


Why would you regret education? Lets review. If thermite was used to initiate collapse, it could only do that....initiate. "One and done" because it takes too long for thermite to act to use it in a series of demolitions. Thermite relies on heat and heat transfer takes much longer than an explosive jet to act on a target. After initiation, the collapse was gravity driven because it was far too fast for thermite. It was gravity. If you understand this concept, then you will know why the concept of thermite as a demolition material is off the mark.
Jones is a fraud or an incompetent. His measurement of the energy in a DSC was done in a stream of AIR, i.e., he was burning the paint. The binder in the paint has more thermal energy than thermite, per unit weight. If he wanted to investigate the possibility of thermite in the paint, he would have run the DSC in the absence of air; thermite does not need air to react. He was called out on this and made some promises that he would do the experiment, but never provided results. Care to guess why?
If the paint was really thermite [Jones' own data actually disproved this claim] and it could be initiated in a thin layer on a steel beam, it wouldn't have done much more than gently warmed the beam. This is an easy concept even for the non-technical folks. Think about the mass of the beam and its heat capacity and then estimate the mass of the thermite in a thin layer. The energy from thermitic paint is inconsequential in the destruction of the towers and is overwhelmed by burning office contents.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Well I'm not a chemist so I had to look it up

Inert atmospheres consisting of gases such as argon, nitrogen, or helium are commonly used in chemical reaction chambers and in storage containers for oxygen-sensitive or water-sensitive substances, to prevent unwanted reactions of these substances with oxygen or water.


Explain to me why this method is needed. Jones simply wanted to know if the red chips were incendiary.




It did not.


Yes it did.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
This is a silly request, why would the sample be needed to have been sent from ground zero?


So a sample from Las Vegas would have been ok by Jones....


NY has 5 zip codes. You just committed a straw man



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
Explain to me why this method is needed. Jones simply wanted to know if the red chips were incendiary.


Well, if it had been tested in a inert atmosphere and did not react that would show in was NOT thermite.... but Jones refused to do that, even though he promised to.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Other scientists have done the same thing with WTC dust samples with a valid and certified chain of custody, and have not been able to reproduce Jones experiments. Let's start with Jones WTC samples were not stored for years free of contaminates, have no proof of not being tampered with, have no chain of evidence,and the samples were sent to him by random persons via mail. Jones experiments are not credible samples. In fact, show that Jones samples were sent to him from the WTC zip code.


Other scientists with a 'valid chain of custody" but you claim Jones never had that privilege? How are you so sure? Where did the other scientists manage to collect the samples Jones had years later? When were those test duplicated and with what samples? Are you able to verify it's veracity?




In fact, show that Jones samples were sent to him from the WTC zip code.


This is a silly request, why would the sample be needed to have been sent from ground zero?


There is an archive of properly preserved WTC dust.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Source please



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Disprove there is not archived WTC samples with chain of custody.

Prove me wrong.

The research will do you good.

So it stands, there are properly archived samples of WTC dust.


edit on 7-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




Disprove there is not arrived WTC samples with chain of custody


What are you asking? Your grammar is a little off. Disprove what?
You mentioned there is a "dust archive" If you would kindly point me to your sources I will investigate.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall




Explain to me why this method is needed. Jones simply wanted to know if the red chips were incendiary.

Paint and primer will burn if they have heat and oxygen.
But they will burn at a slower rate because they have to scavenge oxygen from the air.

Thermite can burn very quickly and thus create tremendous BTUs of concentrated heat because it contains its own oxygen.

WiKi:


Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat.


So Jones was able to ignite primer in air.
But that doesn't mean it was thermitic.
To prove that you have to take away the oxygen and replace it with some non reactive gas.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Ah. And I already knew thermite can be used underwater so this makes sense. However, he claims the combustion rate is higher than known thermite. What is your response?



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Not going to do the research you should be doing to make an informed opinion. Man, it's like this has been debunked over, and over, and over......

Here's a bone: www.internationalskeptics.com...

Here is a tip, don't limit yourself to YouTube.

Here is a fact, conspiracists produce as many sites based on pseudoscience as possible to bury the few sites based on science that debunk the conspiracists. The truth buried in a web of lies by those that make a profit off 911. More money in sensationalized narratives than facts.
edit on 7-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall




However, he claims the combustion rate is higher than known thermite. What is your response?

It ain't thermite if it requires external oxygen.
He said he would do a test without oxygen.
He hasn't. Ask yourself why?

So called experts are claiming a lot of things pertaining to 911.
All of them have lost their jobs. Professors/Engineers
If there were any merit to their claims some company would hire them.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
As the over and over goes, here is a ATS thread from 2012?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
One interesting line of inquiry re: were explosives used? involves, not simply the actual observation of the destruction of the buildings within the context of the laws of motion, where it becomes rather self evident that indeed the buildings were brought down with explosives and did not "collapse" according to gravity and without resistance.. (absurd) to within a few seconds +/- of free fall time in nothing but air (which is just over 10 seconds from that height) - is the first hand accounts, from the scene, when it was happening, accounts and observations which were pretty much scrubbed from all subsequent reporting as the alternative narrative of non-explosive "collapse" took hold.

I think that one of the "sceptics" (strange term for someone who begins and ends with one and only one predetermined conclusion) said earlier that no one heard, felt or reported any sort of explosive events taking place in and around the twin towers as proof that there were no explosives present. That's BS and obviously not true at all, as you shall see for yourself, if you take the time to review this information.

No doubt every report from the scene the day it happened will now be characterized as a false witness report that mistook other bangs and crashing things as explosions, but the first hand eye witness account must be viewed in totality, while accepting that some, I repeat some of the accounts might have and likely did mischaracterize what constituted an actual explosion verses something that went bang or boom or crash etc.

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

Even some of the initial reporting, before people like Jerome Hauer and L. Paul Bremer immediately took to the airwaves, to start spreading the official story (as to the causal mechanism of "collapse"), with Bremer showing no remorse whatsoever for the loss of all his colleagues (need to find that vid) - did not presume for a moment that the buildings were destroyed as a direct and sole result of the plane impacts.

Here's Peter Jennings talking about the destruction of the buildings


Yes, that's all very painful stuff to watch as we near the 15th anniversary of September 11th, 2001, a day that will certainly live on in infamy and in more ways than one when that future 10th grader take a bunch of youtube videos, a spotwatch, a textbook and PROVES to his class and his teacher that recent contemporary modern history as we know it, got it all wrong on this one and falsely recorded and believed in, what amounts to a collectively held LIE about what happened on 9/11.

Someday the so-called "truthers" will be remembered as the first real patriots of the 21st century looking back on it in hindsight. Future historians will thank us for preserving the record as it was in that first video above.

Sad but true.

The enemy within, he's got to go. Enough with this nonsense already, at any scale. It's become transparent and self-evident imho. And that doesn't make me a "conspiracist", I refuse to accept that label, where "conspiracy theory" is a weaponized term.

In their memory

Never forget.

God bless, and may God help us all. We need it.

"Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted." ~ Jesus

edit on 7-9-2016 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

If you look at that guys YT channel it's all about chemtrails/911/Kennedy/Israeli/Sany Hook.
It's all about subscribers on YT. The more you have the more money.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
removed




edit on 7-9-2016 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
131
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join