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: 48
28
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   
neutronflux Only person with dishonest intentions is you. That noise heard 1 or 2 seconds in is a massive bang can be heard blocks away on the audio mic. It just another thing NIST lied about.

NIST study is nothing but a cover-up of the truth.




posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
neutronflux Do yourself a favour listen to Dr Hulsey interview.

You have enough time to waffle endlessly on this thread, so there no excuse not to. He explains what he thinks must have happened and he compared it to what NIST claims. After you listen to Dr Hulsey you will have a better understanding of the disagreements. You don't have to accept his conclusions but least you know what the two camps position is!


soundcloud.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux Only person with dishonest intentions is you. That noise heard 1 or 2 seconds in is a massive bang can be heard blocks away on the audio mic. It just another thing NIST lied about.

NIST study is nothing but a cover-up of the truth.


Is it a bang or an detonation?

Again,



Demolitions of a building do not always repeat the same noise. Often it can be one sharp bang and then failure.


So, are you saying once collapse is initiated the witnessed rates at the WTC can be solely achieved by gravity?

Or do you still maintain that demolitions had to take out the resistance of every column floor by floor? If so.....

There is no sounds from a detonation with the energy to cut steel. Why do you think Architects and Engineers started pushing mythical fizzle no flash explosives.

And you still have not provided any evidence the exterior columns of WTC 7 being cut during its collapse.

With no explanation how slow and inconsistent burning fizzle no flash explosives could pull of a sophisticated and split timed fantasy implosion.

With out an explanation how a sophisticated and split timed fantasy implosion system that had to remove the resistance of columns floor to floor would survive WTC 7 being damaged from the twin towers collapse and wide spread fires.

With no explanation how the fantasy CD system would be installed from column to colum, floor by 47 floors.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere



neutronflux Do yourself a favour listen to Dr Hulsey interview.
.

Why would I bother with unethically peer reviewed and unsubstantiated propaganda?

Is it false the active thermite paper was published in a pay to play journal.

Is it false the paper was unethically peer reviewed bypassing the paper’s referee and using peer reviewers that help create the paper.

Is it false the writers of the paper never completed the discovery process by submitting their dust samples to independent labs to determine authenticity and confirm the presence of thermite.

Is it true forensic testing could have concluded thermite or no thermite. The paper is a scam.

Is it false that Harrit has never produced results from an analysis that would prove his paint chips could sustain a thermite reaction.

What is the formula for super thermite that ignites at 430C? Harrit does not give the formula, so how can he confirm it was “super thermite”.

Independent analysis determined the aluminum compounds in the WTC dust could not support a thermite reaction.

The chips are chemically related to industrial epoxies, pigments, and clays found in industrial coatings.
The compounds in the WTC chips do not support a thermite reaction.


edit on 8-9-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 8-9-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 8-9-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere




There is no background detail to verify where these images were taken. They could be ground level photographs. Could they be images taken after the twin towers collapsed?


This is you trying to convince yourself NO items got all the way over to banker trust building when flight 11 hit.

This is a photo of the bankers Trust roof. In the lower left you can see another life vest next to a coat hanger. In the bottom center you can see yellow polyurethane foam from another seat cushion.(right click open
in new tab to enlarge)

Notice the rock roof. Notice the walkway. Notice the curb separating two.






In the above photo, Notice the rock roof. Notice the walkway. Notice the curb separating two.
I can put in some circles and arrows if you need help finding them.

Those photos were taken several days after 9/11.

If you want photos taken before collapse, these were taken before UA175 hit.

This one was taken on the east side of Bankers trust.



And this photo was taken on the south side of Bankers Trust on Albany street. You know, the street where Richard Wozniak found the passport.



And here is Richard Wozniak at Washington and Rector 9/11/2001



Full photo. (open in new tab)



And a Photo taken by Chris Sorenson on Albany st. just before UA175 hit.(open in new tab)



Can you spot any thing interesting in that photo.






edit on 8-9-2018 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Save your facts because facts have no place in a conspiracy theory.

Now if you have conjecture bring it on. This is the place



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

It is fun watching them try to dance their way out of facing facts.

It's all part of the Truther Christmas Season Festivities.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

Yes exactly 15:07 is when these booms start, there are 3 of them within approx. 2s.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: Jesushere

Yes exactly 15:07 is when these booms start, there are 3 of them within approx. 2s.


With no proof of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: Jesushere

Yes exactly 15:07 is when these booms start, there are 3 of them within approx. 2s.


Actually, using Jesushere’s logic, it’s probably just an electric drill or two

Brought to you by Jesushere,


That noise heard in the WTC7 is louder than 130db. 130DB is just the noise of a drill being heard.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jesushere




There is no background detail to verify where these images were taken. They could be ground level photographs. Could they be images taken after the twin towers collapsed?


This is you trying to convince yourself NO items got all the way over to banker trust building when flight 11 hit.

This is a photo of the bankers Trust roof. In the lower left you can see another life vest next to a coat hanger. In the bottom center you can see yellow polyurethane foam from another seat cushion.(right click open
in new tab to enlarge)

Notice the rock roof. Notice the walkway. Notice the curb separating two.






In the above photo, Notice the rock roof. Notice the walkway. Notice the curb separating two.
I can put in some circles and arrows if you need help finding them.

Those photos were taken several days after 9/11.

If you want photos taken before collapse, these were taken before UA175 hit.

This one was taken on the east side of Bankers trust.



And this photo was taken on the south side of Bankers Trust on Albany street. You know, the street where Richard Wozniak found the passport.



And here is Richard Wozniak at Washington and Rector 9/11/2001



Full photo. (open in new tab)



And a Photo taken by Chris Sorenson on Albany st. just before UA175 hit.(open in new tab)



Can you spot any thing interesting in that photo.



There no evidence that AA life vest was found at the roof of banker trust. There no identifying markers to know for certain. The debris around the life vest is broken concrete and rock and some paper.

The second image I agree with you is a photograph of the roof of bankers trust. The debris could have got there from two towers falling on 9/11.

The third image I agree with you does look a seat cushion or some type of cloth on the roof of Bankers trust, still where your evidence this came off an American Airlines plane? I don't see any identifying marker?

Two planes crashed you going to find lifevests from the two planes scattered around New York.

Richard Wozniak yes ould be telling the truth but there also a possibility his lying. Was not reported the man who ran away was wearing a business suit?

I see booklets and paper. Are you claiming that's the hijacker passport?
edit on 8-9-2018 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere



neutronflux Do yourself a favour listen to Dr Hulsey interview.
.

Why would I bother with unethically peer reviewed and unsubstantiated propaganda?

Is it false the active thermite paper was published in a pay to play journal.

Is it false the paper was unethically peer reviewed bypassing the paper’s referee and using peer reviewers that help create the paper.

Is it false the writers of the paper never completed the discovery process by submitting their dust samples to independent labs to determine authenticity and confirm the presence of thermite.

Is it true forensic testing could have concluded thermite or no thermite. The paper is a scam.

Is it false that Harrit has never produced results from an analysis that would prove his paint chips could sustain a thermite reaction.

What is the formula for super thermite that ignites at 430C? Harrit does not give the formula, so how can he confirm it was “super thermite”.

Independent analysis determined the aluminum compounds in the WTC dust could not support a thermite reaction.

The chips are chemically related to industrial epoxies, pigments, and clays found in industrial coatings.
The compounds in the WTC chips do not support a thermite reaction.



Professor Harrit paper was peer-reviewed by the Physics Dept at BYU and accepted as scientifically sound. Pay to pay journal just made it easier for Professor Harrit to publish a controversial scientific paper online at very low cost. Obviously, this does allow unscientific papers to sneak through the process, but those papers often get removed after peer review.

One of the editors of the Bentham site complained this paper got published on there. Harrit work is controversial this editor likely did not like the content contained in the paper and complained?

Many independent scientists have worked on this. You make a false claim no independent scientists have researched this. Universities with government connections are not going to touch this out of fear of losing funding. Government labs no way!

He does give a formula I posted this in the thread ages ago.

Yes, he has tested WTC tower paint chips and they don't react like the red/grey chips

Dr Milettte is not an independent scientist he was a member of a US government team who studied the WTC dust. To this date, the Skeptics have not produced a single independent scientist debunking Professor Harrit findings.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux Only person with dishonest intentions is you. That noise heard 1 or 2 seconds in is a massive bang can be heard blocks away on the audio mic. It just another thing NIST lied about.

NIST study is nothing but a cover-up of the truth.


Is it a bang or an detonation?

Again,



Demolitions of a building do not always repeat the same noise. Often it can be one sharp bang and then failure.


So, are you saying once collapse is initiated the witnessed rates at the WTC can be solely achieved by gravity?

Or do you still maintain that demolitions had to take out the resistance of every column floor by floor? If so.....

There are no sounds from a detonation with the energy to cut steel. Why do you think Architects and Engineers started pushing mythical fizzle no flash explosives.

And you still have not provided any evidence the exterior columns of WTC 7 being cut during its collapse.

With no explanation how slow and inconsistent burning fizzle no flash explosives could pull of a sophisticated and split timed fantasy implosion.

With out an explanation how a sophisticated and split timed fantasy implosion system that had to remove the resistance of columns floor to floor would survive WTC 7 being damaged from the twin towers collapse and wide spread fires.

With no explanation how the fantasy CD system would be installed from column to colum, floor by 47 floors.


You have made a selective choice to ignore a loud band was heard and picked up on audio a second before the Penthouse came down. Resulting noise when structural resistance got removed, ignored by you.

It makes more sense the central core resistance got removed and the building then fell into freefall speed coming down. NIST theory one girder falling to the ground caused a ripple effect makes no sense. That process would take an age to complete and you see deformations occurring everywhere. Guess what NIST computer simulated that but when your compare that image to the actual collapse video they don't look alike they are a world apart.

No plane hit WTC7 . Nanothermite loves fires and its explosive. You have this idea your head nanothermite has to be wired up in this overly complex manner. Were explosives used with nano-thermite I don't know? Or was this newly sophisticated chemistry incendiary a wonder explosive and was able to shatter steel beams and girders and columns? There was no need for anything else to be placed in the building 7 to take it down?



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere




One of the editors of the Bentham site complained this paper got published on there.

Bentham is a joke in the science community.



Bentham was busted in 2009 accepting a paper for the Open Information Science Journal consisting of random sentences computer-generated with SCIgen, whose imaginary authors both worked at the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP)




In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept,

Notice the words "no legitimate peer-review journal would accept"
There's no way you would get hired if Bentham is on your resume.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere

Two planes crashed you going to find lifevests from the two planes scattered around New York.


So are you admitting things can survive a fire ball.

That's a big step forward.




Was not reported the man who ran away was wearing a business suit?




Business attire.
edit on 8-9-2018 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere


It makes more sense the central core resistance got removed and the building then fell into freefall speed coming down.




Freefall is not a speed. There is no such thing. Only Truthers use the term "freefall speed. If the speed was constant then WTC7 would be falling at terminal Velocity, which would probably be somewhere around mach 1. The proper fraise is free fall acceleration, a constant increase in velocity at a constant rate. On earth it's 32' per second per second.

If you want us to stop laughing at you, then you should probably stop using the phrase "freefall speed"

Did you know WTC7 fell at a rate faster than free fall acceleration for most of that 2.25 seconds.




Every thing above the black line is slower than FFA. Every thing below is faster than FFA. It got up to around 39' per second per second.

Can you explain to us how Nano Thermite made it accelerate faster than FFA.







edit on 9-9-2018 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

You


Professor Harrit paper was peer-reviewed by the Physics Dept at BYU and accepted as scientifically sound.


First thought? Why would a physics department peer review a chemistry paper?

Bullet point from Steven E. Jones BYU home page below. No mention of BYU. The link to the paper does not work?



www.physics.byu.edu...
Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.


Then this is what is written about Jones’s “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on Wikipedia.



en.m.wikipedia.org...

Jones placed a research paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on his page in the Physics department Web site, noting that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.[21]

Jones subsequently presented the WTC research in lectures at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave.[29] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and that perhaps Jones' research had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.


This is what Wikipedia has on Jones’s involvement with the active thermite paper


en.m.wikipedia.org...
In April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[47] The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,[48][49] resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.[50][51] According to Pileni, the article was published without her authorization. Subsequently, numerous concerns arose regarding the reliability of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishing. This included the publishing an allegedly peer reviewed article generated by SCIgen [52] (although this program has also successfully submitted papers to IEEE and Springer [53]), the resignation of multiple people at the administrative level,[54][55] and soliciting article submissions from researchers in unrelated fields through spam.[56] With regard to the peer review process of the research conducted by Jones in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, David Griscom identified himself as one of the reviewers.[57] The paper which Jones co-authored referenced Griscom, and multiple scientists studying 9/11, in the acknowledgements for "elucidating discussions and encouragements".[19] Almost four years prior to identifying himself as a reviewer and the welcome he received from Jones for speaking out boldly,[58] Griscom published a letter in defense of evidence-based 9/11 studies;[59] of which Jones was an editor.[60]


edit on 9-9-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

You


Professor Harrit paper was peer-reviewed by the Physics Dept at BYU and accepted as scientifically sound.


can you back this up by a cited source. Was the lead peer reviewer David L. Griscom, PhD, who is part of a truth movement group called scholars for 9/11 truth and justice. That does not seem like a independent peer review? Seems like a biased peer review.



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

You need address and answer what was asked of you first:

For an explosive to cut steel, it must create a pressure wave that generates enough energy and force to sever the steel. The resultant pressure wave results in a audible signature that is 130 to 140 DB. The pressure wave will result in an over pressure event that will blown out windows, set off car alarms, and ejected shrapnel with a burnt and washed appearance. The explosions create flashes of light.

Below is a link to a controlled implosion with traps to capture shrapnel, and the building windows removed.



Explosive Building Implosion | Demolition Show
m.youtube.com...



The explosions are clearly heard when removing the resistance of multiple floors. The truth movement claims the resistance of all 110 floors of each tower had to be removed. The explosions in the video create echo after echo bouncing around the city. The explosions still create visible flashes of light despite having traps to capture shrapnel. The video camera distinctly shakes with the force of the larger explosions.

If explosives were used to cut steel columns at the WTC, it would be obvious and distinct. The first rounds of explosions to set the collapse in motion would be frighteningly imposing in their resulting sound. Not, there might be a detention at this time spot.

Nobody said there was no explosions at the WTC. Items like fire extinguishers, air conditioning compressors in building AC units, compressors in vending machine/refrigerators, electrical transformers, large batteries for battery rooms, and water trapped in pipes will cause explosions when sufficiently heated.

And there is no doubt when floor connections failed, it resulted in some form of audible pressure wave.

The stored potential energy of the towers was something to the equivalent of 250 tons of TNT. When that kind of stored energy is converted to kinetic energy in a matter of seconds, it’s going to make some sound.

So, are you saying once collapse is initiated the witnessed rates at the WTC can be solely achieved by gravity?

Or do you still maintain that demolitions had to take out the resistance of every column floor by floor? If so.....

There is no sounds from a detonation with the energy to cut steel. Why do you think Architects and Engineers started pushing mythical fizzle no flash explosives.

And you still have not provided any evidence the exterior columns of WTC 7 being cut during its collapse.

With no explanation how slow and inconsistent burning fizzle no flash explosives could pull of a sophisticated and split timed fantasy implosion.

With out an explanation how a sophisticated and split timed fantasy implosion system that had to remove the resistance of columns floor to floor would survive WTC 7 being damaged from the twin towers collapse and wide spread fires.

With no explanation how the fantasy CD system would be installed from column to colum, floor by 47 floors.



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jesushere




One of the editors of the Bentham site complained this paper got published on there.

Bentham is a joke in the science community.



Bentham was busted in 2009 accepting a paper for the Open Information Science Journal consisting of random sentences computer-generated with SCIgen, whose imaginary authors both worked at the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP)




In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept,

Notice the words "no legitimate peer-review journal would accept"
There's no way you would get hired if Bentham is on your resume.


Your selected bits that support your opinion.

Hundreds of legitimate scientific papers have got published on Bentham and have got peer-reviewed by credentialed scientists.

Open access journals are not perfect but it's a good business model.

You left out this information about the 2009 incident

Quote
In a statement, Mahmood Alam, director of publications at Bentham Science Publishing, told Nature in an e-mail that "submission of fake manuscripts is a totally unethical activity and must be condemned."

He defended Bentham's peer review process, saying, "a rigorous peer review process takes place for all articles that are submitted to us for publication. Our standard policy is that at least two positive comments are required from the referees before an article is accepted for publication." In this particular case, "the paper was reviewed by more than one person".

Alam claims that those behind the fake paper "had also tried to do this earlier [sic] in a different journal, but failed in their attempt due to our peer review system. Our suspicions were aroused this time and in an effort to unmask their identities the normal publication process was carried out on the second fake article. When they received repeated requests from us for more information and their credit card and other payment details they withdrew this paper."


For a site that publishes 100s of science papers only a couple of complaints have been made against it. Skeptics completely ignore this though. If it was a fake site there be rampant complaints made all the time.

Jeffrey Beall of The Charleston Advisor clearly had an agenda.

Quote "Unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science."

He could be a skeptic on JREF forum if all we know. That language clearly from someone who does not like papers that don't agree with official story about 9/11

edit on 9-9-2018 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
28
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join