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.

 

The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

page: 21
29
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux red/grey chips experienced an exothermic reaction at very low temperatures 430c it one of the unusual properties Harrit noted in his study and why he felt this substance was manufactured in a lab. The nanosize of the particles also unusual, you can only see them using an electron microscope. He discussed in his paper this could have gel on or sprayed onto the steel and other metals.


And what don’t you get, many things are exothermic? The thing that makes thermite thermite, is if it is self sustaining in an inert atmosphere. Why has Harrit not published results of trying to ignite his WTC dust in an inert atmosphere. Because there is no thermite dust in the WTC dust. Harrit is a charlatan....




posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

Are you done spinning falsehoods, changing peoples quotes, and changing the subject?

You need to explain what caused the inward bowing of WTC 2’s outer columns in a narrow band, resulting in buckling, and leading to WTC 2’s collapse as seen in the video in the link to thread below?



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...


Why do conspiracists want to talk about everything under the sun, but the moment WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed? They want to talk about passports and fraudulent thermite papers? But not the actual moment of collapse, in its variety of camera angles? Or the report WTC 2 was buckling and leaning before collapse?
edit on 15-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added lots fixed some



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux Nasa exposed this event for what it really is anyway. When images were taken hot spots showed up in excess of 1300c on Sep 16th and could have been hotter on Sep 11th. This exposed the conspiracy. The dust samples just further exposed the conspiracy. People are just dumb to notice these things and ask serious questions how that possible. Then you got the cleanup crews doing interviews saying they saw molten steel, melted steel and molten Iron. Ignored statements that are true and never investigated honestly by NIST.


1300c? Another totally false fact by you?



Initial Estimates from AVIRIS of the Temperature and Fractional Areas of Fires at the World Trade Center Disaster
Robert O. Green,1 Roger N. Clark,2 Joseph Boardman,3 Betina Pavri,1 Chuck Sarture1 1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California 91109
2U.S. Geological Survey
3Applied Imaging and Geophysics LLC
aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...




aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...

RESULTS
The algorithm was applied to the highest intensity spectrum from each of the eight hot-fire areas identified. Figure 9 shows a portion of an AVIRIS image of the World Trade Center disaster site acquired on the 16th of September. The eight hot-fire areas identified are labeled A to H. Table 1 shows the corresponding locations of the hot-fire areas and the derived temperature and fractional area for the analyzed spectra. Temperatures range from 700 to 984 K, and fractional areas range from 1.5 to 18 % for the 16th of September data sets. These results were reported to the teams on the ground at the disaster site.


The hottest temperature by AVIRIS was 984 kelvin which is 1312 degrees Fahrenheit which is 711 degrees Celsius?

Please cite where you got 1300c from?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux red/grey chips experienced an exothermic reaction at very low temperatures 430c it one of the unusual properties Harrit noted in his study and why he felt this substance was manufactured in a lab. The nanosize of the particles also unusual, you can only see them using an electron microscope. He discussed in his paper this could have gel on or sprayed onto the steel and other metals.


And what don’t you get, many things are exothermic? The thing that makes thermite thermite, is if it is self sustaining in an inert atmosphere. Why has Harrit not published results of trying to ignite his WTC dust in an inert atmosphere. Because there is no thermite dust in the WTC dust. Harrit is a charlatan....


What your obsession with the word exothermic? In what way do you think the word exothermic is problematic? Why do you mean by trying to ignite WTC dust? Do you mean ignite the red/grey chips?

Thermite does not need a water or oxygen supply to keep burning so you have to explain what you meant by an inert atmosphere.

Harrit is not a charlatan he has published peer review academic papers in his field of work. So you think people on the JREF Forum have better credentials?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Are you done spinning falsehoods, changing peoples quotes, and changing the subject?

You need to explain what caused the inward bowing of WTC 2’s outer columns in a narrow band, resulting in buckling, and leading to WTC 2’s collapse as seen in the video in the link to thread below?



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...


Why do conspiracists want to talk about everything under the sun, but the moment WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed? They want to talk about passports and fraudulent thermite papers? But not the actual moment of collapse, in its variety of camera angles? Or the report WTC 2 was buckling and leaning before collapse?


I have not changed quotes I just deciphered what was said. You have to provide an alternative explanation for what the red/grey chips could be if you disagree with Harrit findings.

Quote
You need to explain what caused the inward bowing of WTC 2’s outer columns in a narrow band, resulting in buckling, and leading to WTC 2’s collapse as seen in the video in the link to thread below?

The GIF video on the front page is not showing enough to tell. What I can see is the corners of the buildings are pushing inwards at this stage too so we are probably looking at WTC2 collapse. So it hardly surprising to see inward bowing, the steel cores and floors above have likely had already given way and the pressure would from above can cause a deformation.

edit on 17-8-2018 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux Nasa exposed this event for what it really is anyway. When images were taken hot spots showed up in excess of 1300c on Sep 16th and could have been hotter on Sep 11th. This exposed the conspiracy. The dust samples just further exposed the conspiracy. People are just dumb to notice these things and ask serious questions how that possible. Then you got the cleanup crews doing interviews saying they saw molten steel, melted steel and molten Iron. Ignored statements that are true and never investigated honestly by NIST.


1300c? Another totally false fact by you?



Initial Estimates from AVIRIS of the Temperature and Fractional Areas of Fires at the World Trade Center Disaster
Robert O. Green,1 Roger N. Clark,2 Joseph Boardman,3 Betina Pavri,1 Chuck Sarture1 1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California 91109
2U.S. Geological Survey
3Applied Imaging and Geophysics LLC
aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...




aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...

RESULTS
The algorithm was applied to the highest intensity spectrum from each of the eight hot-fire areas identified. Figure 9 shows a portion of an AVIRIS image of the World Trade Center disaster site acquired on the 16th of September. The eight hot-fire areas identified are labeled A to H. Table 1 shows the corresponding locations of the hot-fire areas and the derived temperature and fractional area for the analyzed spectra. Temperatures range from 700 to 984 K, and fractional areas range from 1.5 to 18 % for the 16th of September data sets. These results were reported to the teams on the ground at the disaster site.


The hottest temperature by AVIRIS was 984 kelvin which is 1312 degrees Fahrenheit which is 711 degrees Celsius?

Please cite where you got 1300c from?


If thermal images were recorded at 2,800f that well over 1300c
The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400oF to more than 2,800oF. Jeffrey W. Vincoli CSP, CHCM et al

Yes, the Nasa thermal images do only show temperatures spikes of 727c at Hotspot A. Those images are 5 days after the event. Could Nasa have earlier images of higher spikes and have not released it? Either way, NIST denied high temperatures in the rubble and 700c is no joke.

NIST claims the temperature in WTC7 was about 200c to 400c at different stages during the day. So you have to wonder why the temperatures would be still above 700c 5 days after the buildings came down?
edit on 17-8-2018 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Hotspot A looking at the map is WTC7 and was the highest heat spike NASA recorded.

This is obviously a smoking gun WTC7 building did not come down naturally. NIST even admits in their own study by 5 pm the heat was about 200c on Floor 13 and 14 where they claim the columns and floor buckled and collapsed.

Why people are still debating was this an inside job, when it obvious it was.
edit on 17-8-2018 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2018 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 02:52 AM
link   
We also know JFK was an inside job, yet we did nothing about that, either.


It isn't about knowing what happened, because we know.

The problem is nobody believes it can ever change, yet that is exactly why it is never going to change



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere



If thermal images were recorded at 2,800f that well over 1300c


The pile was never that hot. Please cite a source. The hottest temperature by AVIRIS was 984 kelvin which is 1312 degrees Fahrenheit which is 711 degrees Celsius?

Please cite where you got 1300c from?

Below are quotes from the NASA survey you keep blatantly butchering. You have really killed your credibility.




Initial Estimates from AVIRIS of the Temperature and Fractional Areas of Fires at the World Trade Center Disaster
Robert O. Green,1 Roger N. Clark,2 Joseph Boardman,3 Betina Pavri,1 Chuck Sarture1 1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California 91109
2U.S. Geological Survey
3Applied Imaging and Geophysics LLC

aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...





RESULTS
The algorithm was applied to the highest intensity spectrum from each of the eight hot-fire areas identified. Figure 9 shows a portion of an AVIRIS image of the World Trade Center disaster site acquired on the 16th of September. The eight hot-fire areas identified are labeled A to H. Table 1 shows the corresponding locations of the hot-fire areas and the derived temperature and fractional area for the analyzed spectra. Temperatures range from 700 to 984 K, and fractional areas range from 1.5 to 18 % for the 16th of September data sets. These results were reported to the teams on the ground at the disaster site.

aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...





edit on 18-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed quotes



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere




Quote
You need to explain what caused the inward bowing of WTC 2’s outer columns in a narrow band, resulting in buckling, and leading to WTC 2’s collapse as seen in the video in the link to thread below?



I have explained in this thread, and numerous other threads.

Now you explain it.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere




What your obsession with the word exothermic



Because Harrit made the leap of faith there is thermite at the WTC by a result with a property of both theremite and non thermite materials. It is like stating something that is soaked in liquid was liquid oxygen because it was wet.

What do you not understand Harrit has never published his results of trying to ignite his dust in an inert atmosphere to conclusively prove a thermite reaction?

What do not understand there is no thermite in the WTC dust.



www.internationalskeptics.com...

Here is Jim Millette's latest reply to the new 9/11 Truth chant that "he didn't do DSC so his testing is invalid":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim


What do you not get about



The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite.


And don’t get about


as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

edit on 18-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere


It is a false debate--it is not a debate at all.

Years have gone by and much has been learned. It is not a debate any more, it is the mere repetition of government talking points, mere sophistry presented 24/7/365, pure propaganda repeated in the style Goebbels described. Tell a big lie often enough and those people that can be fooled all of the time will believe the lie.

You have those who keep the official story alive, and those who are able to see through the deception.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere



If thermal images were recorded at 2,800f that well over 1300c


The pile was never that hot. Please cite a source. The hottest temperature by AVIRIS was 984 kelvin which is 1312 degrees Fahrenheit which is 711 degrees Celsius?

Please cite where you got 1300c from?

Below are quotes from the NASA survey you keep blatantly butchering. You have really killed your credibility.




Initial Estimates from AVIRIS of the Temperature and Fractional Areas of Fires at the World Trade Center Disaster
Robert O. Green,1 Roger N. Clark,2 Joseph Boardman,3 Betina Pavri,1 Chuck Sarture1 1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California 91109
2U.S. Geological Survey
3Applied Imaging and Geophysics LLC

aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...





RESULTS
The algorithm was applied to the highest intensity spectrum from each of the eight hot-fire areas identified. Figure 9 shows a portion of an AVIRIS image of the World Trade Center disaster site acquired on the 16th of September. The eight hot-fire areas identified are labeled A to H. Table 1 shows the corresponding locations of the hot-fire areas and the derived temperature and fractional area for the analyzed spectra. Temperatures range from 700 to 984 K, and fractional areas range from 1.5 to 18 % for the 16th of September data sets. These results were reported to the teams on the ground at the disaster site.

aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...






So your claiming Nasa was lying when they recorded surfaces temperatures of 727c 5 days after 9/11. And you think 727c is not hot? Do you not realise NIST claims the office fire in WTC7 was 200 Celsius a half hour before the collapse?

I already I provided the quote, but if you looking for the source here 911research.wtc7.net...

Jeffrey W. Vincoli, CSP, CHCM, is ES&H manager for corporate assessments and audits with Bechtel Construction Operations Inc., Frederick, MD. He is a professional member of ASSE’s Cape Canaveral Chapter and chairs the Society’s PDC Planning Committee. He will discuss his Ground Zero experience on June 11, during a general session at ASSE’s 2002 PDC in Nashville, TN.

His quote
•The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere




Quote
You need to explain what caused the inward bowing of WTC 2’s outer columns in a narrow band, resulting in buckling, and leading to WTC 2’s collapse as seen in the video in the link to thread below?



I have explained in this thread, and numerous other threads.

Now you explain it.


I already gave you my explanation the visual evidence backs me up.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere




What your obsession with the word exothermic



Because Harrit made the leap of faith there is thermite at the WTC by a result with a property of both theremite and non thermite materials. It is like stating something that is soaked in liquid was liquid oxygen because it was wet.

What do you not understand Harrit has never published his results of trying to ignite his dust in an inert atmosphere to conclusively prove a thermite reaction?

What do not understand there is no thermite in the WTC dust.



www.internationalskeptics.com...

Here is Jim Millette's latest reply to the new 9/11 Truth chant that "he didn't do DSC so his testing is invalid":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim


What do you not get about



The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite.


And don’t get about


as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.


He did not make a leap of fate. He tested the red/grey chips and discovered they were 100 nanometers exact size for nano-thermite. He also ruled out standard thermite because it takes higher temperatures to ignite. The red/grey chips reacted at 430 Celsius. The problem with Chris Mohr debunking of this he does not account for the relatively new composition Harrit saw. Mohr then claims Harrit should have done additional testing but then doesn't tell his audience what he meant by that? Harrit tests were extensive he used high tech equipment to verify his claims. Nano-thermites ignite at lower heat which Mohr completely overlooks this in his analysis. The fact the chips ignited at lower heat backs up Harrit work. Mohr also lied about studies contacted by other people chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier and R.J. Lee Group. He claimed the RJ group tested for thermatic material and found nothing this a a deliberate lie the group never tested for thermite and neither did NIST.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jesushere


It is a false debate--it is not a debate at all.

Years have gone by and much has been learned. It is not a debate any more, it is the mere repetition of government talking points, mere sophistry presented 24/7/365, pure propaganda repeated in the style Goebbels described. Tell a big lie often enough and those people that can be fooled all of the time will believe the lie.

You have those who keep the official story alive, and those who are able to see through the deception.


There plenty of things not fully explained by the corporate media and politicians. These people don't follow the evidence so they think there nothing there. Nasa thermal images alone prove the heat on the surface of WTC7 rubble was 727 celsius . The smoking gun is staring right at us but people are not noticing it or just refusing to wrap their heads around it.

200c cooling fire on sep11 is not going to start up again and gain strength to 727c 5 days later.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

I don’t know what to tell you dude, the calibrated AVIRIS NASA and USGS survey does not support that 2,800 F claim. A survey that tried to account for various material in the pile. With more accurate and sophisticated equipment than a 2000’s hand held unit.

Also, how do you get the emmistivity for a jumbled and mixed pile of material right to give an accurate temperature by flying over?



en.m.wikipedia.org...

The emissivity of the surface of a material is its effectiveness in emitting energy as thermal radiation. Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation and it may include both visible radiation (light) and infrared radiation, which is not visible to human eyes. The thermal radiation from very hot objects (see photograph) is easily visible to the eye. Quantitatively, emissivity is the ratio of the thermal radiation from a surface to the radiation from an ideal black surface at the same temperature as given by the Stefan–Boltzmann law. The ratio varies from 0 to 1. The surface of a perfect black body (with an emissivity of 1) emits thermal radiation at the rate of approximately 448 watts per square metre at room temperature (25 °C, 298.15 K); all real objects have emissivities less than 1.0, and emit radiation at correspondingly lower rates.[1]

Emissivities are important in several contexts:

Break

temperature measurements. – Pyrometers and infrared cameras are instruments used to measure the temperature of an object by using its thermal radiation; no actual contact with the object is needed. The calibration of these instruments involves the emissivity of the surface that's being measured.[6]



Now you need to show if thermal imaging for a mixture for a wide verity of material can be even possible because of emmistivity with a hand held thermal imager by flying over at height.

Can you cite a specific location of the WTC pile being 2800 F by hand held thermal imaging set to the right emissivity for the material being measured by a accurate ground survey? Similar to how the NASA/USGS called out hot spots with no proof of a hot spot being over 1000k or 1341f? Listing their hot spots by corridanates?

Or you only have the very questionable fly over survey with no reguards for setting emissivity to accurately gather the temperature of a specific spot.
edit on 18-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 18-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

So you have an inaccurace survey that does not list the specific location of any hot spot being over 1341F. While being misleading by your false claims that nasa had found a 1300c hotspot. You have no proof of cut columns. Thermite claims are fraudulent. And you cannot explain what caused the inward bowing causing by buckling that initiated collapse of WTC 2 as seen in the video of the linked to thread below?




the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...



You are damaging your cause more than helping.........
edit on 18-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 18-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added

edit on 18-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Forgot link



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

Original quote by you




www.abovetopsecret.com...

neutronflux Nasa exposed this event for what it really is anyway. When images were taken hot spots showed up in excess of 1300c on Sep 16th and could have been hotter on Sep 11th.



Why would you post the falsehood that NASA claimed 1300c?

Can you please provide more of your NASA evidence?
edit on 18-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   
neutronflux If i had to correct every mistake you made in this thread and called you on your whataboutery in this thread, I will be here all day. I posted a reputable source where temperatures were shown between 400f up to 2800f. Continue on though believing temperatures never got above 1300c




top topics



 
29
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join