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.

 

Conclusive Evidence of Explosives, Petition to Re-Open 9/11 Investigation

page: 2
72
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I knew they were taken down with explosives when it happened.
No fire could ever do what happened that day.
If this goes to the Southern District of NY then it may die a quick death.
There is no more protectionist court than that.
Still, it's hopeful and if nothing else may awaken others to the crimes of 9/11.




posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Cite actual evidence of explanations with the power to cut steel columns from the video of the WTC.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: 727Sky

Please provide a link to the “ Independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples “.

Can you actually cite which study this is referring to, by who, and the published results?


Since the petition is being presented to the DOJ you could look for yourself.

Here is the petition it has the many pages attached Exhibits on it with the evidence.

lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org...



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Cite actual evidence of explanations with the power to cut steel columns from the video of the WTC.

lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org...

Note the thematic signatures page 7


There are a lot of exhibits will take a day or more to read the links at the bottom of the petition pages.
lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org...
edit on 26-4-2018 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Exhibits like this, as cited on page 16?

Harrit, N.H., Farrer, J. Jones, S., "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", The Open Physics Journal (2009)


That kind of evidence? Not very new. And not very credible.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Exhibits like this, as cited on page 16?

Harrit, N.H., Farrer, J. Jones, S., "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", The Open Physics Journal (2009)


That kind of evidence? Not very new. And not very credible.


I really don't know since there is a lot there to read as I said, but I certainly won't judge without knowing and regardless filing a petition is not something we need to debunk now is it?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Seriously if anyone thinks that Arab Terrorists hijacked 4 planes and NONE were intercepted and shot down and that they found a paper passport on the sidewalk in NY .. then im giving Santa my xmas list after I catch the Easter Bunny

edit on 26 4 2018 by colang because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The 9/11 Commission was neither independent nor impartial, and its investigation was neither thorough nor transparent.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: colang
Seriously if anyone thinks that Arab Terrorists hijacked 4 planes and NONE were intercepted and shot down and that they found a paper passport on the sidewalk in NY .. then im giving Santa my xmas list after I catch the Easter Bunny


How did they explain the premature BBC announcement? I never heard the explanations.




posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy
Yes.
There is no doubt a petition was filed.

Apparently.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Is that the study improperly peer reviewed by bypassing the papers’s Referee? In a proven hack pay to play journal? With the results that cannot be reproduced by other people. By the group that will not release the results of burning the dust in an inert atmosphere to prove positive the presence of thermite.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: colang
Seriously if anyone thinks that Arab Terrorists hijacked 4 planes and NONE were intercepted and shot down and that they found a paper passport on the sidewalk in NY .. then im giving Santa my xmas list after I catch the Easter Bunny


How did they explain the premature BBC announcement? I never heard the explanations.



Even better the lack of any real wreckage in the one that went down in was it Pennsylvania (forgive my memory plus I'm in Australia) now that was a ripper excuse .... the plane " buried itself" now that's magic unicorn stuff right there



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: colang
Seriously if anyone thinks that Arab Terrorists hijacked 4 planes and NONE were intercepted and shot down and that they found a paper passport on the sidewalk in NY .. then im giving Santa my xmas list after I catch the Easter Bunny



So? Guess you cannot cite a credible study proving thermite? Or any evidence of explosives from the WTC video? A supposed floor to floor CD system?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Cite actual evidence of explanations with the power to cut steel columns from the video of the WTC.


I dunno, maybe seeing 10 ton steel beams flying sideways might count.

Or the core columns cut at 45 degree angles in the base of the wreckage.
Like this one:

Or the lack of debris at ground level after the collapse:



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Exhibits like this, as cited on page 16?

Harrit, N.H., Farrer, J. Jones, S., "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", The Open Physics Journal (2009)


That kind of evidence? Not very new. And not very credible.


Why is this study not credible?
Samples? testing methodologies?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




By the group that will not release the results of burning the dust in an inert atmosphere to prove positive the presence of thermite


This has been explained a thousand times. They didn't use an inert atmosphere because LLNL didn't use an inert atmosphere, and they wanted to reproduce the results.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: neutronflux




By the group that will not release the results of burning the dust in an inert atmosphere to prove positive the presence of thermite


This has been explained a thousand times. They didn't use an inert atmosphere because LLNL didn't use an inert atmosphere, and they wanted to reproduce the results.


Results that are explained by paint chips? The inert test would be a quick absolute go / no go test for thermite. Is that a false statement?
Results that the group will not publish?

From a study improperly peer reviewed. Bypassing the referee. In a journal caught conducting pay for play.

And didn’t the paper get “peer” reviewed by somebody that help write the paper.

And cite who could replicate the results of the tests from the paper?

That is not even getting into the chain of custody for the dust? And was the samples acquired by mail contaminated from sitting around people’s homes? Dust not properly preserved?

You referring to a different study?
edit on 26-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 26-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Added more

edit on 26-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

You relized you posted a picture of a column proven to be cut by thermal lance during clean up.

And how does AE 9/11 Truth fizzle no flash explosives explained the ejection. Especially when collisions and a simple Newton’s cradle and the physics behind it explains the occurrence?

Newton's Cradle - Incredible Science
m.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

One, there was no lack of rubble at the WTC. As documented by the loads of rubble taken to the lay down yards. Or the rubble pulled out of WTC basements.

Two, why would explosives make to little material. As in noticeable. That is more along the lines of Wood’s Dustification.

Three, where are all the loud booms from explosives indicative of explosions powerful enough to cut columns and throw beams?

Four, any demolitions shrapnel recovered from the WTC? The injured? Or with the human remains?


edit on 26-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
After the 93 WTC attack, I'm thinking they put in "Scuttling Charges", like in a Navy Ship. This would guarantee that the towers came straight down into the WTC's footprint. The 93 attack was trying to tip over one into the other, and send both towers down, laying across Manhattan, like dominoes.
As usually is the case, they were fighting the last war. When the flames began to threaten the South Tower's rooftop charges, someone said 'Pull it", to make sure it came down inside the WTC's footprint. The North Tower collapsed on it's own, from the fires lower down. Building 7 was probably the same thing. In a ship, it's going to sink it, in a hurry. In a skyscraper it's going to drop it right now. But with the building's roof on fire, it's either going to burn through the det cables, or set one side off prematurely, which will topple it off to the side, into other Manhattan buildings.

U.S. Navy ships don't have any problem with this. Their scuttled boats and ships simply sink beneath the waves, never to be seen again. There's no collateral damages, out at sea. So now, I gotta wonder about the new Freedom Tower, which replaced the Twin Towers, in the WTC? Those same studies, will also apply this newbie marvel building's need to go down into it's own footprint, instead of destroying half of Manhattan Island, on the way down.
edit on 26-4-2018 by carpooler because: roof on fire




top topics



 
72
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join