Study concludes explosives used on 911

originally posted by: face23785
Or is this some super secret government weapon that can alter the pull of gravity in select locations and is letting that chunk fall faster than freefall?

I hadn't considered that one. Maybe that's how They® got the thing to go straight down. Gravity beams!

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Thank you for the offer to discuss the Jones paper. To be honest, I'm pretty sure I have not read that paper, and have no interest in doing so.

I am an independent thinker. I read information from as many sources as I can, try to analyze the Big Picture, and reach my own conclusions.

I am neutral on Jones, but there is no question that the official story regarding 911 is false because all available evidence contradicts it. Just as the 911 Commission members noted, they were "set up to fail".

This is really not to be a pain. It's just obvious. Jones's papers have been discussed here at ATS, Redit, and Metabunk.

The discussions of many years layout many facts and arguments that shows the papers are lacking in chain of custody, evidence, and science.

You have to dig. One experiment is listed on Metabunk. The harder experiment to find was by a French chemist sympathetic to Jones on WTC dust. Neither results supported Jones's findings.

Then Jones has never gone on to do his experiments in an inert atmosphere to prove the presence of thermite.

a reply to: DimensionalChange03

www.europhysicsnews.org...

Good thread, I see your OP has not been debunk yet.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: DimensionalChange03

www.europhysicsnews.org...

Good thread, I see your OP has not been debunk yet.

The Editor debunks it from the get go!

www.europhysicsnews.org...

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat di erent from our usual purely scienti c articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is su ciently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

The article is not in a scientific journal, not peer reviewed, not based on physical evidence, not based on scientific facts, and is speculation. Like me speculating you drive a 1973 green GMC.

a reply to: Informer1958

This is the conclusion of the paper

Conclusion
It bears repeating that res have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? e NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to per- suade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching impli- cations, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scienti c and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.

The paper does not even support its own conclusion. Quote were the article proves "the NIST unlikely conclusion" was proven to be unlikely.

a reply to: neutronflux

This is the worst paragraph...

NIST sidesteps the well-documented presence of molten metal throughout the debris eld and asserts that the orange molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 for the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from the aircra combined with organic materials (see Fig. 6) [6].Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum, even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery ap- pearance—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].

One. The article never cares to define what the metal is. There are 84 known metals on the periodic table, and the lowest melting point is 38 degrees Celsius.


Two. Who and what documented experiments.

Three, documented experiments that did not back Jones's thermite claims. This has been pointed out to you on ATS.

Four, Jones never has conducted his experiments in an inert atmosphere to show the existence of self sustaining thermite in WTC dust.

Five, paper never proves or explained why thermite would cause metal to pour out. Thermite should be cutting and chemically reacting to steel. Not melting it like a kettle.

Six, thermite takes a long time to burn. Thermite creating horizontal cuts in vertical columns would have the cut edges pushed together under load, cold welding the columns together.

a reply to: neutronflux

The article is not in a scientific journal, not peer reviewed, not based on physical evidence, not based on scientific facts, and is speculation. Like me speculating you drive a 1973 green GMC.

Neither is the official story narratives.

Fact is, there is no scientific journal, no peer reviewed and no scientific facts and it is speculation at best.

Pot calling Kettle.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

The article is not in a scientific journal, not peer reviewed, not based on physical evidence, not based on scientific facts, and is speculation. Like me speculating you drive a 1973 green GMC.

Neither is the official story narratives.

Fact is, there is no scientific journal, no peer reviewed and no scientific facts and it is speculation at best.

Pot calling Kettle.

The NIST explanation will stand until new evidence is presented.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

The article is not in a scientific journal, not peer reviewed, not based on physical evidence, not based on scientific facts, and is speculation. Like me speculating you drive a 1973 green GMC.

Neither is the official story narratives.

Fact is, there is no scientific journal, no peer reviewed and no scientific facts and it is speculation at best.

Pot calling Kettle.

We have covered this before. The NIST reports were created by area specific experts and teams in sections. Sections specific to building structure or the characteristics of the WTC fire as examples. Those sections are composed on NIST work and research that was peer reviewed and publishing in scientific journals section by section.

Is this wrong?

This too was covered on ATS and you were part of those threads. Get access to a college library and start doing some real research, and stop trolling YouTube.

a reply to: neutronflux

We have covered this before. The NIST reports were created by area specific experts and teams in sections. Sections specific to building structure or the characteristics of the WTC fire as examples. Those sections are composed on NIST work and research that was peer reviewed and publishing in scientific journals section by section.

Is this wrong?

This too was covered on ATS and you were part of those threads. Get access to a college library and start doing some real research, and stop trolling YouTube.

Fact: NIST ignored credibal evidence and out right lied to the public.

Fact: NIST 911 science can not stand up to scrutiny to real science.

Fact: The official story of 911 was given to the American people by proven fake, properganda, mainstream media.

Fact: You have nothing to substantiate your side ( the OS of 911 ) as credibal facts but the above.

Fact: pot calling kettle.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

We have covered this before. The NIST reports were created by area specific experts and teams in sections. Sections specific to building structure or the characteristics of the WTC fire as examples. Those sections are composed on NIST work and research that was peer reviewed and publishing in scientific journals section by section.

Is this wrong?

This too was covered on ATS and you were part of those threads. Get access to a college library and start doing some real research, and stop trolling YouTube.

Fact: NIST ignored credibal evidence and out right lied to the public.

Fact: NIST 911 science can not stand up to scrutiny to real science.

Fact: The official story of 911 was given to the American people by proven fake, properganda, mainstream media.

Fact: You have nothing to substantiate your side ( the OS of 911 ) as credibal facts but the above.

Fact: pot calling kettle.

No, your using innuendo with no debatable facts.

One, you are still completely ignoring NIST WTC research was peer reviewed. One must question your lack of belief and transparency.

Two, your starting list:



One. The article never cares to define what the metal is. There are 84 known metals on the periodic table, and the lowest melting point is 38 degrees Celsius.


Two. Who and what documented experiments.

Three, documented experiments that did not back Jones's thermite claims. This has been pointed out to you on ATS.

Four, Jones never has conducted his experiments in an inert atmosphere to show the existence of self sustaining thermite in WTC dust.

Five, paper never proves or explained why thermite would cause metal to pour out. Thermite should be cutting and chemically reacting to steel. Not melting it like a kettle.

Six, thermite takes a long time to burn. Thermite creating horizontal cuts in vertical columns would have the cut edges pushed together under load, cold welding the columns together.

Seven, is it wrong the NIST reports are comprised section by section of technical edited data, peer reviewed research, and scientifically published works.

a reply to: Informer1958

Jones asked to leave his post and claimed Jesus visited the USA pie in the sky like your beliefs

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Thank you for the offer to discuss the Jones paper. To be honest, I'm pretty sure I have not read that paper, and have no interest in doing so.

I am an independent thinker. I read information from as many sources as I can, try to analyze the Big Picture, and reach my own conclusions.

I am neutral on Jones, but there is no question that the official story regarding 911 is false because all available evidence contradicts it. Just as the 911 Commission members noted, they were "set up to fail".

This is really not to be a pain. It's just obvious. Jones's papers have been discussed here at ATS, Redit, and Metabunk.

The discussions of many years layout many facts and arguments that shows the papers are lacking in chain of custody, evidence, and science.

You have to dig. One experiment is listed on Metabunk. The harder experiment to find was by a French chemist sympathetic to Jones on WTC dust. Neither results supported Jones's findings.

Then Jones has never gone on to do his experiments in an inert atmosphere to prove the presence of thermite.

That may be.

But I don't need Jones or anybody else to explain to me how false the NIST report and the entire official story is. No sir, I'm old enough and well trained enough to understand that office fires on 10 floors could not have caused the destruction seen at WTC.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Perhaps concerns about the potential collateral damage to the surrounding real estate in the event of an uncontrolled collapse, following the 1995 attack, lead to the surreptitious installation of a "self-destruct system"?

Your satire isn't lost on me.

a reply to: Salander

Then state some facts of truth for debate.

a reply to: neutronflux

Aside from the special and staged events at WTC, there has never been an example of a modern steel and concrete high rise building collapse from office fires.

And for the suspicious amongst us, on that day it happened to 3 buildings all in the same city block. There are a handful of examples from all around the world in which such fires burned for many long hours and the building was eventually put back into service.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Aside from the special and staged events at WTC, there has never been an example of a modern steel and concrete high rise building collapse from office fires.

And for the suspicious amongst us, on that day it happened to 3 buildings all in the same city block. There are a handful of examples from all around the world in which such fires burned for many long hours and the building was eventually put back into service.

Actually, the first collapse was an example of the next two. We have discussed that steel under load becomes plastic and weakens as the temperature rises. I provided an example of such showing a beam of a Pittsburgh bridge that was deformed after a relatively small fire. Another 20 minutes of fire and the bridge would have collapsed, according to the engineers.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Aside from the special and staged events at WTC, there has never been an example of a modern steel and concrete high rise building collapse from office fires.

S0 long after the event and YOU still don't know how the buildings were constructed.

Tube in Tube steel frame NOT concrete, that's the problem with the truther side of this they show pictures of buildings that survive fire that are steel & CONCRETE, YOU can't tell the difference because you don't bother to check

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Aside from the special and staged events at WTC, there has never been an example of a modern steel and concrete high rise building collapse from office fires.

And for the suspicious amongst us, on that day it happened to 3 buildings all in the same city block. There are a handful of examples from all around the world in which such fires burned for many long hours and the building was eventually put back into service.

That's because there's never been an example of a modern steel and concrete high rise of that design being struck by an airliner and having a significant number of load bearing columns destroyed followed by fire. You can pretend all you want that it was only a fire but that's not reality. Come live in reality.

a reply to: face23785

Show where the towers used concrete extensively in load bearing columns and / or supports above ground level.

Your statement only proves you do not understand the design of the towers.

Nor did you disprove the number of con persons that use the truth movement for personal gain. And the number of conspiracists that fall for them.

There being no prominent conspiracy theory after 15 years is a testament in they have no validity.