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.

 

Trying to resolve 9/11

page: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev



4/ WHAT ABOUT THOSE EXPLOSIVE SQUIBS TWENTY STORIES BELOW THE COLLAPSE POINT, AND THOSE HEAVY METAL OBJECTS FLYING HUNDREDS OF FEET THROUGH THE AIR


You referring to the squids that created no demolitions shrapnel indicative of a cutting charge from a building not set up with shrapnel traps?

With no indication of sounds of explosions with the force to cut steel columns?

I thought you said thermite was used. Make up your ever living mind.



Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

www.canberratimes.com.au...

Seconds after the explosion on that Sunday afternoon, Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.


Over 18,000 pieces of human remains recovered from the WTC. 6,000 that could fit in a test tube. No demolitions shrapnel, no blasting cap fragments recovered from the injured and remains.

You referring to the dust being pushed by the air escaping by the collapsing floor systems?



9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

During the collapse, one half million cubic feet of air per floor was pushed outwards at the rate of twelve floors per second, creating a “hurricane wind” in the building as reported by survivors, and blowing out windows, and with them the smoke from the fires and other objects.5



As for the steel that toppled out into other buildings. One. I thought you claimed thermite. Thermite burns, it doesn’t cause explosions with a shockwave. Two. Post audio of explosions with the force to throw steel columns.




posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev



5/ WHAT ABOUT THOSE BILLIONS OF IRON MICROSPHERES THAT R.J. LEE FOUND IN A DUST ANALYSIS THAT PROVES THE THEORY THAT THE IRON IN THE BUILDINGS WAS MELTED BY THERMITE?


On a site contaminated from welding and grinding of building a steel building?

You mean the iron spheres R J Lee said could be from hydrocarbon fires too?



www.internationalskeptics.com...

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust
Well, let’s start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron‐based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.
Rich Lee



edit on 22-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev



6/ WHAT ABOUT THE SULFIDIZED STEEL THAT MELTED AND THAT FEMA FOUND BUT WHICH NIST IGNORED IN THEIR REPORT?


You mean from a hot pile of toxic steaming soup that who knows what aqueous solutions and acids attacked the metal. Like compounds from wet drywall, burning plastics, burning wire insulation, burning office furniture with fire retardant, burning PVC pipe, burning computers and electrics, burning ceiling tiles, burning linoleum floor tiles, burning carpet, burning industrial coatings, burning office supplies and printer inks, burning AC units burning vending machines? And you don’t think the wet and hot rubble could leach sulfur into the water being sprayed on the pile to form acidic sulfur compounds that attack metal? That results in new iron compounds with lower melting points.

Which is it, explosives or thermite? Man, you are all over the place contradicting yourself.
edit on 22-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 22-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev



8/ WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE BIG FIRES IN TALL BUILDINGS THAT DON’T CAUSE COLLAPSE, AND THE LITTLE FIRES IN BUILDING 7?


One. It was known the WTC had deficient insulation before 9/11.

Two, the impacts and falling floor slabs knocked off insulation.

Three. The WTC minimized concrete usage beyond common practice.

Like to provide an example of a building before 9/11 that had documented fire insulation deficiencies, had insulation knocked off by a jet impact, that had hanging floor slabs as soon as the fire started, and minimized concrete usage beyond common practice that caught fire?

And that is no evidence of cut columns.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev



7/ WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE UNIGNITED NANOTHERMITES THEY FOUND IN THE DUST SAMPLES IN THAT EXPERIMENT?


One, the study never completed the discovery process by releasing samples for independent analysis. people that helped write the paper were on the peer review team, the paper was published by skipping the paper’s peer review coach, the paper was published in a pay to play publication.

Two, please state where they tried to burn the dust in an inert atmosphere to prove it could support a thermite reaction.

Three, the study assumed the presence of AL2 of thermite.

Thermite equation
2 Al(s) + Fe2O3(s) --> 2Fe(s) + Al2O3(s) + 850 kJ/mol
chemdemos.uoregon.edu...



Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

benthamopen.com...

Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac- count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result.


The authors assumed there was aluminum unbounded to oxygen (AL2) to support a thermite reaction. The authors never completed an analysis to verify there was actually Al2 present to support a thermite reaction.

The Jones paper is junk science.



Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

aneta.org...

Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano- thermite.





9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

Niels Harritt, Steven Jones and other 9/11 controlled demolition theorists claim to have found nanothermite particles in dust samples from the World Trade Center. They made sure the dust samples were untainted, and used advanced instruments to measure what happened when these tiny red-grey chips were heated up.

Thermites reach temperatures of around 4500° and have their own oxygen supply when they burn, so they can burn underwater. Harritt, Jones, et. al. therefore should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were burning. They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product burning in oxygen. They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nanothermite!

Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal. Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released. A chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn’t find thermitic material.





So did they find thermite or not?

Post 8
www.internationalskeptics.com...
The most basic debunking points are as followed:
They ignited 4 similar looking "chips" and measured the energy release per weight unit. The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes "high-tech nano-stuff" an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe. This data alone disproves unequivocally that the material cannot possibly be the kind of thermite they claim to have found (aluminium + Fe2O3)
They claim to have found elemental Aluminium, one key ingredient to thermite, in a fifth chip. However, this fifth chip is of a different material than the four others, as is proven by their own data presented in figures 6 and 14. They did NOT dind free aluminium in any of the material that they igited and claimed to be or contain thermite
They compared the exothermic behaviour of their 4 ignition samples with that of real (nano-?) thermite found in literature, and claimed that the graphs are very similar. They are not: Compare figure 19 with figure 29 and note how the position of the peak differs significantly both on the X-axis (by more than 100°C) and the Y-axis (by a factor of 2 to 4.5). This result proves that their samples are not the kind of thermite known to science. (Note too how in figure 29 they only repeat the lowest of the 4 peaks from fig. 19 to make it not quite so apparent that their samples released waaay too much energy/power.)
Sunstealer has identified in insightful posts back in april 2009 that the crystaline structures we see in figures 8-10 resemble kaolinite (aluminiumsilicate) and hematite (iron oxide, Fe2O3). Their elemental composition as per the Harrit paper too points to kaolinite (Al, So Edit: Si, O) and hematite (Fe, O). Since Harrit found all of this embedded in an organic matrix, and since both kaolinite and hematite have been used throughout the ages and still used today as key ingredients to red paint, there can be no dount that the 4 red-grey chips from the ignition experiments is simply a red paint.
Sunstealer just the other day found that in a newer presentation, co-author Steven Jones showed XEDS spectra of primer paint they had scratched from original WTC structural steel. This spectrum resembles the spectrum in figure 14 nearly to a t! Hence, the fifth chip (which they soaked in MEK to find elemental Al) is thus proven to be primer paint from WTC steel



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev



10/ WHAT CAUSED BUILDING 7 TO COLLAPSE?


Like the twin towers, WTC had wide spread fires that would have taken out any floor to floor controlled demolition system.

Reports throughout the day documented WTC 7 was undergoing structural failure.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev



11/ WHAT ABOUT THOSE ACCOUNTS OF EXPLOSIONS IN THE TWIN TOWERS?


Make up your mind. What narrative are you going with. Fizzle no flash bombs (thermite) or a classic controlled demolition?

Lots of things sound like explosions. Like a garbage truck slamming into and picking up a metal dumpster.

The falling floor slabs would sound like an explosion

There are many things that explode during a fire.

Gasses from hot material.

Batteries in a battery room.

Arc flashing from damaged electrical gear.

Industrial AC and refrigeration units.

Vending machines.

Hot water heaters.

Fire extinguishers

Water pipes

Electrical transformers.

———-Now provide evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns. Audio indicative of a explosion with the force to cut steel columns. 140 dB in loudness. Seismic evidence. Splinter steel burnt by explosives? Demolitions Shrapnel flying and hitting people? Visible shockwaves on the WTC videos.
edit on 22-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed quote



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev



12/ WHAT ABOUT THE FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF BUILDING 7
.

False argument by you. Please quote a source the building as a whole collapsed at free fall....

The interior of WTC started to collapse first. Then the WTC facade collapsed. The facade itself had three stages of collapse rates. The 2nd stage of the facade collapse rate is the only part that is confirmed as falling at free fall because of negligible resistance, which is different than no resistance. The facade actually collapsed faster than free fall for a bit. The theory is steel members were in a bind, and acted like springs.



www.nist.gov...

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: kwakakev



10:15ish mark...multiple examples of the media reporting that White House Press Secretary Jim Brady was dead, the day that him and President Reagan were shot. Only the media had it wrong, Brady, was still very much alive.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596


The media, somewhere, screws up multiple times on every "breaking" news story. And you think that on 9/11 they were perfect. Sad.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

The only thing you have done is repeat the lies, falsehoods, cons, and out of context disjointed arguments of the Truth Movement.

The biggest lie being the twin towers fell through the path of greatest resistance.

Then the whole looks like a classic CD was debunked. A classic CD doesn’t leave vertical columns to topple over. So AE 9/11 Truth had to create the whole fizzle no flash bombs BS to stay in the game.

Once it was understood the truth movement had no proof the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance, and there is no way in hell the twin towers fantasy CD systems would have survived the jet impacts and wide spread fires, they turned to creating mythology around WTC 7 in another attempt to stay relevant.

The truth movement is a bunch of fraudulent charlatans that only care about creating a marketable mythology to a small target group that cannot discern fact and science from fantasy and pseudoscience.

So they found a “rock” of iron that was chemically attacked, and the iron compounds had lower melting points. That is not evidence of cut columns. That is pure innuendo.

A reporter got confused over WTC 7 was cleared of firefighters because it was going to collapse. That’s not evidence of planted charges, or columns cut by pyrotechnics. That in pure innuendo.

It’s expected there will be explosions during a fire. To suggest otherwise is to take something expected and make it falsely unexpected.

I can link to video of WTC columns bowing inward and buckling to initiate collapse. Can you post video of columns being cut.



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

www.metabunk.org...




WTC - WTC2 Initiation Close Up
m.youtube.com...

edit on 22-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



Then it should be easy for you to cite evidence of audio of detonations with the force to cut steel columns from the WTC audio. But you cannot.






The only thing you have done is repeat the lies, falsehoods, cons, and out of context disjointed arguments of the Truth Movement. The biggest lie being the twin towers fell through the path of greatest resistance.


Yes there are lies, there are many of them. It is one of the things that makes it so tough to work out, all purposely designed that way. To even consider an inside job means we will lose trust in much we know. How can we work anything out with nothing to trust? So we just ignore it and carry on.

Buildings, planes and other inanimate do not lie. They do provide something reliable that we can trust. They have no agenda, just a story of where they have been if you want to look.

So what does the twin towers fell through the path of greatest resistance actually mean?

What we can agree on. A plane went into a building, caught fire and some supports and trusses broke.

The problem. What caused all the concrete in the building to turn to dust? Have you ever tried smashing up concrete and get a good feel for how much force it takes just to break, let alone turn into power? Just where did the energy come from to do that? Some broken supports, no. Then we have the heat, the explosions, the fore knowledge, the planning and most importantly in a case of state sponsored terrorism, the motive. War.

In times of war it is very important one is aware of the situation, The risks to ones self and others when working of poor quality information are real.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

Posting a video with no context is not an argument.....

Would you make up your freaking mind on which fantasy you want to go with? Is it the fantasy of explosives or thermite.

The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 started at the areas of jet impacts. Is that false.

There is no way controlled demolitions systems would survive the jets impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

What do you not get, there is no Audio form the WTC indicative of an explosion with the force to cut steel columns.

Is the below false when using conventional explosives to cut steel columns.



Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

www.nist.gov...

According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, another more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.


Please post audio of explosions from the WTC that should be at least 130 dB in loudness.

One. I am glad those firefighters interviewed made it home that day. I pray so.

Two. The columns at ground level of the twin towers were more massive than any WTC 7 column. Is that false. So any WTC 1 and 2 explosions at ground level would be greater than 130 dB if cutting steel columns.

Three. I take it the two fire fights were in the lobby when a tower collapsed? Your video provided no context. I am sure it sounded like explosions when the 500,000 ton building started to fail from the inside.

Four. You are claiming the firefighters were in the lobby when supposedly charges set off to cut structural steel columns? Explosions that should have been 130 dB in loudness? Since the firefighters did not have ruptured ear drums from a shockwave, they could still hear, and were not hit by demolitions shrapnel, they were not near any explosions splintering structural steel columns. Explosions that would register on the seismic record.

Five. Again. 19,000 pieces of human remains recovered from the WTC. 6000 that could fit in a test tube. Not one fragment of a blast cap recovered. Not a single piece of demolition shrapnel recovered from the injured. Not a single piece of demolitions shrapnel recovered from human remains.

You do understand during a normal implosion, windows have to be removed, water barrels/ traps are placed around the explosives to trap shrapnel.



Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

www.canberratimes.com.au...

Seconds after the explosion on that Sunday afternoon, Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.




edit on 23-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed sentence

edit on 23-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 23-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

You


The problem. What caused all the concrete in the building to turn to dust?


You do understand the WTC buildings were steel structures that minimize costs by minimizing concrete usage beyond normal practice.

Most of the concrete was a covering for the floor bedpans. It is referred to a light weight concrete.

Concrete can be easy broken by placing it under tension.

So yes. It is very easy for a 500,000 ton collapsing building to generate drywall and concrete dust.

I found two references to studies that have drywall dust and concrete dust lumped together to state 32 percent of all WTC dust was the drywall concrete mixture.

www.911myths.com...
projects.nfstc.org...



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



Posting a video with no context is not an argument.....


The context is in local events that day. These pictures have been beamed all across the world live, I did see all of these events and more take place.



Would you make up your freaking mind on which fantasy you want to go with? Is it the fantasy of explosives or thermite.


The case for thermite is strong and does explain many of the abnormalities found. May very well of been other explosive compounds used as well. During the looting stage I would expect more explosive type charges. Security did have a lot of keys to the building and can go pretty much where they want. For some of the more juicy looting there where some added layers of security they did not have the key for. So they just blew the door or wall off. How is anyone suppose to find evidence of this when they knew the whole building was about to come down?



The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 started at the areas of jet impacts. Is that false.


No. Thats true. There are quite a few floors involved, it is where it all started. It had to be this way so a misdirection can be done on the public in blaming the plane on the collapse rather than the controlled demolition.



There is no way controlled demolitions systems would survive the jets impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.


You have mentioned this a few times, you are really missing something here. Any charges where the plane hit where no longer required, the plane done the demolition work there. As for all the rest of the charges throughout the building, how could the plane affect them?



Please post audio of explosions from the WTC that should be at least 130 dB in loudness.


You seam a bit lost here too with measuring dB. Put your ear next to an explosive charge when it goes off, yep would sure be at least 130dB. Please do not do this, it will kill you. Stand back a mile away for the same charge. It will still be loud and noticeable but not at the 130 dB you are asking for. You can hear the roar of the collapse in some videos taken from a long way. What took place was a very loud event.

1/ Many firemen and other emergency first responders did not make it home that day. In combat situations this is called a double strike. Hit a place, wait for support to arrive then hit it again.

2/ I am not sure what you mean?

3/ The firefighters where just part of events that day. The WTC is a massive complex, there where lots of things going on. The main context was chaos and anarchy. Very typical battlefield conditions.

4/ I do not know all the specific details of those individual firefighter reports, I do know there are many reports from the public and emergency personnel describing similar circumstances. It is there if you look, The picture it does describe is a looting operation prior to demolition.

5/ Yeah... Just what kind of forces does it take to do that. I don't see some broken supports doing that.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: mrthumpy



Not the sharpest knife in the block are you


Nope. Why should I put together a nice tidy presentation? Maybe go on the circuit with Richard Gauge and the original Camelot crew? Sounds fun.

But then why go burn myself when I know state policy is otherwise? How did it turn out for JFK when he tried to take on this monster?



Or Julian Assange, Bradley Manning or John Kiriakou?



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Um, no. On September 10th, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech about the needs to update/streamline the way that the DoD operated, including its two dozen or so different accounting systems to hopefully eliminate antiquated systems and practices that lead auditors to say "you made accounting corrections to balance the books that do not have enough receipts to back them up....2.3 trillion worth of corrections"



That "speech" was actually on the steps outside Congress, in a statement to the media assembled there, AFTER he had been deposed by Cynthia McKinney. Yes, I watched it.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

Good lord. Which fantasy are you going with. Explosives or thermite. Make up you mind......



The context is in local events that day. These pictures have been beamed all across the world live, I did see all of these events and more take place.


So you still cannot provided video, audio, seismic evidence, physical evidence of cut columns.



The case for thermite is not strong.


It’s fraudulent junk science that was manufactured to keep relevant when the truth movement could not prove the WTC was brought down by conventional explosives.


Again....

One, the study you are referring to never completed the discovery process by releasing samples for independent analysis. people that helped write the paper were on the peer review team, the paper was published by skipping the paper’s peer review coach, the paper was published in a pay to play publication.

Two, please state where they tried to burn the dust in an inert atmosphere to prove it could support a thermite reaction.

Three, the study assumed the presence of AL2 of thermite.

Thermite equation
2 Al(s) + Fe2O3(s) --> 2Fe(s) + Al2O3(s) + 850 kJ/mol
chemdemos.uoregon.edu...



Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

benthamopen.com...

Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac- count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result.


The authors assumed there was aluminum unbounded to oxygen (AL2) to support a thermite reaction. The authors never completed an analysis to verify there was actually Al2 present to support a thermite reaction.

The Jones paper is junk science.



Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

aneta.org...

Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano- thermite.





9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

Niels Harritt, Steven Jones and other 9/11 controlled demolition theorists claim to have found nanothermite particles in dust samples from the World Trade Center. They made sure the dust samples were untainted, and used advanced instruments to measure what happened when these tiny red-grey chips were heated up.

Thermites reach temperatures of around 4500° and have their own oxygen supply when they burn, so they can burn underwater. Harritt, Jones, et. al. therefore should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were burning. They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product burning in oxygen. They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nanothermite!

Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal. Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released. A chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn’t find thermitic material.





So did they find thermite or not?

Post 8
www.internationalskeptics.com...
The most basic debunking points are as followed:
They ignited 4 similar looking "chips" and measured the energy release per weight unit. The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes "high-tech nano-stuff" an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe. This data alone disproves unequivocally that the material cannot possibly be the kind of thermite they claim to have found (aluminium + Fe2O3)
They claim to have found elemental Aluminium, one key ingredient to thermite, in a fifth chip. However, this fifth chip is of a different material than the four others, as is proven by their own data presented in figures 6 and 14. They did NOT dind free aluminium in any of the material that they igited and claimed to be or contain thermite
They compared the exothermic behaviour of their 4 ignition samples with that of real (nano-?) thermite found in literature, and claimed that the graphs are very similar. They are not: Compare figure 19 with figure 29 and note how the position of the peak differs significantly both on the X-axis (by more than 100°C) and the Y-axis (by a factor of 2 to 4.5). This result proves that their samples are not the kind of thermite known to science. (Note too how in figure 29 they only repeat the lowest of the 4 peaks from fig. 19 to make it not quite so apparent that their samples released waaay too much energy/power.)
Sunstealer has identified in insightful posts back in april 2009 that the crystaline structures we see in figures 8-10 resemble kaolinite (aluminiumsilicate) and hematite (iron oxide, Fe2O3). Their elemental composition as per the Harrit paper too points to kaolinite (Al, So Edit: Si, O) and hematite (Fe, O). Since Harrit found all of this embedded in an organic matrix, and since both kaolinite and hematite have been used throughout the ages and still used today as key ingredients to red paint, there can be no dount that the 4 red-grey chips from the ignition experiments is simply a red paint.
Sunstealer just the other day found that in a newer presentation, co-author Steven Jones showed XEDS spectra of primer paint they had scratched from original WTC structural steel. This spectrum resembles the spectrum in figure 14 nearly to a t! Hence, the fifth chip (which they soaked in MEK to find elemental Al) is thus proven to be primer paint from WTC steel



edit on 23-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 23-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

And neither can you provide any facts or evidence validating the official conspiracy theory.

Even as you completely ignore facts and evidence that work against that official theory.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

And neither can you provide any facts or evidence validating the official conspiracy theory.

Even as you completely ignore facts and evidence that work against that official theory.


I have post after post directly referencing the actual video of the the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Is that false.



Like the towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance. There vertical columns toppled in the wake of the collapsing floor system.

Seems like you are the one ignoring facts, being intellectually dishonest, and full of crap.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join