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: 22
122
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

edit on 13-9-2016 by Informer1958 because: First post never showed up.




posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

What does that have to do with believing demolitions used at the WTC and used by the government?



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: neutronflux

Um...when you say no evidence...you mean like these?





Same old pictures debunked. Can you give a date the pictures were taken and prove the cuts were not from crews removing debris. Again, conspiracists taking pictures out of context to suit their false narratives. Not helping your cause.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Man I have a good idea for a thread.

I'll moderate it but I need one or two guys from either side. LIke a couple of guys with good questions about 9/11 and couple of self described 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers.

The difference is that we'll start hashing out the details in private until we can drill down to some really core issues before we even start the thread.

The thread starters will have already agreed through private messages the topics and we'll get all the stupid stuff out of the way before we even start the op. I mean like we have to be open minded. ONe question might be explosives, so both guys with questions and debunkers will agree on the questions and some of the conclusions before we even starrt the thread.

Can it be done?
edit on 13-9-2016 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Debunked? Lol its a photo...you mean somehow it was proved they weren't cut with those clear cut marks? That's just one ground photo too, they could have easily cut bars that are no longer standing. Calling it 'no evidence' and hearing your startled response was enough for me. Thinking it's not true is a long #ing way from no evidence.
edit on 13-9-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Good points!
Regarding the remains I had to think of this again:


The report said that the Sept. 11 remains in question “could not be tested or identified,” apparently because they were too small or charred to allow for DNA analysis. The remains were cremated and then mixed with biomedical waste at the Dover mortuary, where they were given to a contractor who incinerated them and dumped the residue in a landfill.

The report cites Army and Air Force memos from July and August 2002 directing that an unspecified number of “remains from the Attack on the Pentagon” be incinerated.

Portions of 9/11 victims’ remains taken to landfill, report says

Too small for tests, there's another hint for us.


 

a reply to: firerescue

Nice story, pics or it didn't happen!


NIST sidesteps the well-documented presence of molten metal throughout the debris field and asserts that the orange molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 for the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from the aircraft combined with organic materials (see Fig. 6) [6]. Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum, even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery appearance—thus suggesting that the orange molten metal was instead emanating from a thermite reaction being used to weaken the structure [12]. Meanwhile, unreacted nano-thermitic material has since been discovered in multiple independent WTC dust samples [13]
As for eyewitness accounts, some 156 witnesses, including 135 first responders, have been documented as saying that they saw, heard, and/or felt explosions prior to and/or during the collapses [14]. That the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives appears to have been the initial prevailing view among most first responders. “I thought it was exploding, actually,” said John Coyle, a fire marshal. “Everyone I think at that point still thought these things were blown up” [15].

www.europhysicsnews.org...

Everyone except our firerescue, whatever.
Molten steel, unreacted material and yet here are you guys, searching for wires...


“We know explosives were used,” says Dr. Harrit, to bring down the towers. However, “We do not know where the nano-thermite fits into this picture. We do not know the exact role played by the reactive remains we found.” Further investigation is required to answer the questions that arise from this discovery. But the bottom line, notes Dr. Harrit, is that “Nano-thermite shouldn’t have been there.”

Interview with Dr. Niels Harrit on Discovery of Nano-Thermite in WTC Dust

The first comment on this article is funny though, straight ad hom attack. Rich tapestry, innit?
edit on 13-9-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Here is a little overview, the pics you've posted are probably from the clean-up.

I'd say with unreacted nano-thermite in the dust this case is closed either way.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


“Science is based on observation and experience,” says Dr. Harrit in the interview. Pointing out that it had never occurred before 9/11, he says, “A steel framed high rise simply does not collapse due to fire.”

Among the other evidence is the observation that WTC 7 fell at the acceleration of gravity, or free-fall acceleration. Fire, says Dr. Harrit, cannot do that to a building. “All of these columns had to be cut at the same time for this phenomenon to happen,” he says.

While conventional thermite is an incendiary, made from a mixture of powdered aluminum and iron oxide, Dr. Harrit explains that nano-thermite is manufactured from the atomic scale up. The ingredients are much more intimately mixed, he says, so they react with each other much faster. Unlike thermite, “Nano-thermite can be used as an explosive,” notes Dr. Harrit. “You can use thermite for cutting the steel beams, and it’s soundless,” he adds.


www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Great find.


And the fact is, ridicule is the only thing left for debunking Dr Harrit observation and experience by the one's that support the official narratives.

They claim there was no explosions, or thermite yet, they cannot produce any real science or evidence to support their allegations.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: neutronflux

Debunked? Lol its a photo...you mean somehow it was proved they weren't cut with those clear cut marks? That's just one ground photo too, they could have easily cut bars that are no longer standing. Calling it 'no evidence' and hearing your startled response was enough for me. Thinking it's not true is a long #ing way from no evidence.


Asked a very simple question. Were the pictures take when they started, or after they started, cutting up steel to allow better access to the pile? And it has been prove the cuts were made by workers removing steel. This is why people lost faith in the spirit of your movement. You employ deception too.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: PublicOpinion


“Science is based on observation and experience,” says Dr. Harrit in the interview. Pointing out that it had never occurred before 9/11, he says, “A steel framed high rise simply does not collapse due to fire.”

Among the other evidence is the observation that WTC 7 fell at the acceleration of gravity, or free-fall acceleration. Fire, says Dr. Harrit, cannot do that to a building. “All of these columns had to be cut at the same time for this phenomenon to happen,” he says.

While conventional thermite is an incendiary, made from a mixture of powdered aluminum and iron oxide, Dr. Harrit explains that nano-thermite is manufactured from the atomic scale up. The ingredients are much more intimately mixed, he says, so they react with each other much faster. Unlike thermite, “Nano-thermite can be used as an explosive,” notes Dr. Harrit. “You can use thermite for cutting the steel beams, and it’s soundless,” he adds.


www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Great find.


And the fact is, ridicule is the only thing left for debunking Dr Harrit observation and experience by the one's that support the official narratives.

They claim there was no explosions, or thermite yet, they cannot produce any real science or evidence to support their allegations.


Then why does structural steel need insulated from fire and is only rated in hours?



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Nano thermite ...?? Hardly

Iron workers with Thermal lance - tube filled with iron or aluminum rods, pure O2 is fed in, lit by acetylene torch

Burns at 4000 F and cuts through anything, steel, concrete

Used during cleanup operations to cut up large pieces of steel (columns)

Here is short video showing in action at WTC

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VskSiHS1r0



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Here is a report by two critics of the NIST report, and nothing about controlled demolitions leading to the towers collapse. They contribute it to not enough fire proofing.



From: ireport.cnn.com...
"The comments were published in the April 30th issue of the Journal of Fire Sciences. The letter was co-authored Forman Williams, a professor at the University of California at San Diego, who is one of the world’s leading experts on heat transfer. It was co-authored by James Quintiere, a professor emeritus at the University of Maryland."

"Improper fireproofing was the main cause of the World Trade Center collapse during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, according to newly-published comments in a leading science journal.'



I never said NIST reports were gospel. I even included professional groups with legitimate criticism of the NIST in some of my posts. They still concluded collapse initiated / propagated by fire. Why? There's actual proof of collapse due to fire. There is no proof controlled demolition.

And what percentage of scientists, engineers, and architects believe in controlled demolition again?

What is this obsession if you question the official narrative you must believe in controlled demolition?
edit on 13-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-9-2016 by neutronflux because: Added about criticizing groups.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

You folks need to pipe up, seriously.


Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.


Read the whole conclusion if you like.

That's the study our article from the OP refers to, conventional thermite with carbon for high gas pressures upon ignition? You must be kidding, that'd be everything but save.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




They claim there was no explosions, or thermite yet, they cannot produce any real science or evidence to support their allegations.

Are you serious ?
I claim that there are no unicorns in my back yard.
I cannot produce any science or evidence to support my claim either.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

No it isn't obvious. What is obvious is that a system of explosives would be set up so that if fires on several floors were to compromise the charges on those floors, it wouldn't compromise the floors yet untouched by fires or other damage. IF you really believe the official version then all I can say is you will need a lot of good luck to survive the future. So, good luck.


Sorry if I missed it. But I didn't see an answer on how the imagined free fall speed of the WTC towers was achieved if whole floors were not blown and caused resistance? That's the argument to controlled demolition right? Each floor of the WTC had to be blown, or the WTC would have fallen slower? The only possible way the WTC towers fell as fast as they did was the detonation of charges on each floor?



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
It's easy. Any unicorn crap? The grass ever been eaten? Any unicorn tracks? Anything in the yard to attract them. Look out the back door. Ever hear one fly by. Any unicorn hair? Any signs they scrapped or stomped. Nested for the night. Any bushes eaten on or rubbed against.

It's not about proving a negative. If there was no evidence of anything in the back yard, what would lead you to think it was unicorns.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: firerescue

You folks need to pipe up, seriously.


Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.


Read the whole conclusion if you like.

That's the study our article from the OP refers to, conventional thermite with carbon for high gas pressures upon ignition? You must be kidding, that'd be everything but save.


Did you know that Jones claimed that ten TONS of unreacted chips were in the debris? It is such a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material but ten tons of it were in the burning rubble and didn't ignite. If you look at some of the memorials, you can see red primer paint on the steel....not to be confused with a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material that looks like it.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



There's actual proof of collapse due to fire. There is no proof controlled demolition.


All I see is comments and no evidence, you know the difference?

That Harris paper is not the only study in the whole lot, but it explains various things: heat hydrolyzed concrete, 20% iron spheres and more suspicious things like high temp Si/Al particles in the dust.

911research.wtc7.net...

There's simply enough evidence around to provide a coherent picture.
Sure... at this point any halfway decent Vogon poet would suggest obsessions or simply demand opinion-polls, waving red flags of authority. I reckon that's the last bastion left when there's nothing factual to add.

Funny story though!







posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Informer1958




They claim there was no explosions, or thermite yet, they cannot produce any real science or evidence to support their allegations.

Are you serious ?
I claim that there are no unicorns in my back yard.
I cannot produce any science or evidence to support my claim either.


So your neighbors can't confirm it and your phone doesn't have a camera? A three year old could prove easily that no unicorns are in his back yard. But you aren't three.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Iron spheres are debunked. Your false narratives are based on old assumptions that are on life support and trying to stay relevant.

I think dustification is a crock, but truther Dr Woods went to great lengths to discredit controlled demolition. Dr Wood, like any good snake doctor, went after those not believing in the official narrative and knew there was no evidence to support controlled demolition. Sorry. Dr Wood, and those like her, are the momentum and future of conspiracists.

Coincidence these few "studies" on controlled demolition are coming out 15 years later as the conspiracists market is shifting to Dr Wood. There is more conspiracy in the movement that the NIST.



new topics




 
122
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join