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.

 

Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 11
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Actually I don't think we can say for sure that molten steel was found. All we have is a few eye witness accounts that sound more like embellishment than factual evidence.

WCIP you say that the thermal images were taken after considerable cooling. Well that is directly contradicted by one of the eye witnesses.

www.reopen911.org...


The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3.)



So who here is wrong? Is it that the eye witness accounts are wrong since we can clearly see that on the 16th there is no molten steel, or is the thermal image somehow lying to protect it's job.

I'm sorry if you guys have posted it before, but any pictures of this so-called molten steel would be very helpful.


And yes while thermite reactions can be varied, it still has to go over 2500 F to melt through steel beams. No heat maps have shown these kind of temperatures in the buildings.




posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Actually I don't think we can say for sure that molten steel was found. All we have is a few eye witness accounts that sound more like embellishment than factual evidence.


www.reopen911.org...


The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3.)



Am I being dumb...but isn't this a pretty big contradiction in the same post? You say it (peoples observations) is embellishment, then use the exact same quote to proove that the temp. was higher than the temp. charts? Please explain.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind



The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3.)



So who here is wrong? Is it that the eye witness accounts are wrong since we can clearly see that on the 16th there is no molten steel, or is the thermal image somehow lying to protect it's job.

I'm sorry if you guys have posted it before, but any pictures of this so-called molten steel would be very helpful.


I'll try and attempt to answer your questions. I would have to say the structural engineer would be the one to trust. I would assume that he would know what molten steel looked like and behaved.

One possible senerio could be that the thermal images were taken before they started to uncover molten steel......the thermal images where not taken on the 21st day. Just something to think about.

As far as pictures.....well, you again run into a problem with the government's obstruction of justice. When noone was allowed to take pictures of the site (under threat of inprisonment), I don't think many people were thinking.."hey, lets take pictures of the molten steel even though we might go to jail and have our lives ruined." See my point on why there are no pictures of the molten steel? I conclude with my thoughts from above........if people can believe the engineers from FEMA, NIST and everywhere else....why should this structural engineer (the engineer responsible for designing the building) be ignored? Because it doesn't go along with what you believe?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Actually I don't think we can say for sure that molten steel was found. All we have is a few eye witness accounts that sound more like embellishment than factual evidence.

WCIP you say that the thermal images were taken after considerable cooling. Well that is directly contradicted by one of the eye witnesses.

www.reopen911.org...


The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3.)



So who here is wrong? Is it that the eye witness accounts are wrong since we can clearly see that on the 16th there is no molten steel, or is the thermal image somehow lying to protect it's job.

I'm sorry if you guys have posted it before, but any pictures of this so-called molten steel would be very helpful.


And yes while thermite reactions can be varied, it still has to go over 2500 F to melt through steel beams. No heat maps have shown these kind of temperatures in the buildings.



i'm sorry if this kind of full quoting is aganist the guidelines, but i will not omit ANY of this, it's -- NUTS


look, you've just made it, welcome to the light side!

you argue that temps created by jet fuel were not high enough to melt steel, and you're even kind enough to show evidence, then you go ahead, quoting one of the very engineers who built the wtc, who said there was red-hot metal weeks after the attacks, now connect the dots:

there was no molten steel before the collapse, k? it's clear that an ordinary collapse does not generate vast amounts of heat, certainly not enough to melt lots of metal, so,

you're in fact acknowledging that the entire story is rigged top to bottom, can you see that now?


btw, your desired steel pic: www.tms.org... if you don't trust the engineer's testimony, i'd say it'll be easy to dismiss a single photo, though. of course, i'm positive that you'll get used to not denying the obvious from now on.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
LeftBehind, I'm really having trouble deciphering your last post. No offense, but it's like you're just brain-farting. You used about 5 different debunking techniques in what seems like a flurry of "Oh my God quick say something!" I don't think I've seen so many tactics all rolled into one short post. Credibility attacks, circular logic, alluding to a "conspiracy to invent a conspiracy", artful use of lawyer-speak like "the alleged so-called molten metal". Dude, you really pulled out all the stops for this one.


Once again, the thermal signatures reflect the heat near the top of the pile. The 72 feet height of debris piled in the basement reduces the thermal radiation reaching the spectrometer, and the data was not calibrated to varying depths. Thus the temperatures underneath the pile are in fact much higher than those recored by the thermal imaging.

It's simple really. Thermal imaging clearly shows enormous hot spots registering extreme temperatures, even filtered through the rubble. The presence of molten metal is testified to by several credible, expert, and unconnected witnesses. And photographic evidence of the pile shows white smoke pouring out of the pile for weeks after the collapses. I'm sorry, but the sky is blue, not green.

I don't often use this particular smiley face because it annoys me, but your last post truly deserves a great big...

external image




[edit on 2005-12-2 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

It only took five days for his school to tell him to stop giving interviews. Now Brigham Young University is issuing statements discrediting Professor Steven E. Jones for his recent paper declaring that the World Trade Towers may have been brought down, not by the planes crashing into them and burning them down, but by some internally placed explosives.

Internet news sleuth Greg Szymanski reports that Jones's findings have been defamed by his BYU colleagues and administration, in a deceptively polite sounding and patronizing release: "Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas," it began. "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

Jones is no longer talking openly with the media, at the request of the BYU administration. - ST

www.freemarketnews.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Come on Howard, you know they'll say the big boogey man threatened them and they had to say that...

It could never, ever, EVER be because someone went a bit wacko with their ideas and started spouting some drivel that everyone else tried to distance themselves from, could it?



[edit on 2-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

See my comments there.

I'm too tired of all this to reply again.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Why am I not surprised, Howard?

These are the same genius institutions that teach Kennedy was shot by Oswald alone, that we got the whole truth from the feds about Waco and Oklahoma City, and who-knows-what about Iran Contra. Or even the Reichstag Fire. I wouldn't be surprised if they still teach that commies burned that building and the Nazis had nothing to do with it.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Seems LaBTop is not the only one who has reported on the helicopters seen on 911





USS George Washington anchored off Long Island on 9/11


The Rense article,German Intel Agent Von Bulow Solves 9/11, documents the presence of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington anchored off Long Island on 9/11. That ship is believed to be the base of operations for the white jet seen in all 9/11 locations and the South Tower helicopter which remote controlled a Boeing 737, not a 767 claimed by government conspiracy theorists, into the South Tower. For more evidence of the US Navy connection to 9/11 read the Rense article, PM Missed NASA 911-type Airliner Crash 20 Years Ago:

The Navy's bloody hands are all over the Plan for 9/11, Operation Northwoods:


Apparently the Navy was impressed with the performance of the Boeing 737 on 9/11 and has ordered $2 billion worth of CFM56 engines. By the way, the engine that landed in a NYC street was a CFM56, the only engine that has powered the 737 since the 737-300 series:


Source: The 911 North Tower Air Show





posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
The CFM56 is one of the most popular engines out there. There are almost six THOUSAND 737s flying now, with more on the way. There were something like 3-500 ordered just this year alone. The Navy has been ordering them since well before 9/11 to replace the older C-9 airframes.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I have the Naudet brother's video, and in DVD quality there is no 'white jet' and no 'sonic boom' - unless they thought the sound of the plane exploding was.

I'm completely confused why people keep bringing up the idea of aircraft following them to 'make sure' or to remote control them from. If they did remote control the aircraft then they could do it from the other side of the world, so why would they want to have obvious evidence flying around with them? If anything and these mystery aircraft exist, they might have been tailing the hijacked aircraft after being tipped off. Obviously people would get funny if they knew that to be the case because they would have whimpered that they should have done something.

But why would they have to fly with them to remote control them if that was what was done? Can anyone actually give a real, good, reason why?
It has to be one of the most absurd things I have heard with regards to 9/11 theories - it serves nothing other than to prove the point that some people will gullibly swallow anything that comes their way as long as it doesn't fit in with the official picture.

And a white jet too, jeez next minute they'll be trying to feed us that it was covered in twinkling fairy lights. You would have thought it would have been coloured a little less obviously than bright white wouldn't you?

I also noticed that the 'article' (if you can call it that) theorised that this jet was positioned above the Boeing so that it could not be seen from the ground.. So there arn't many people in New York I take it, to be able to view it from many angles and distances.


Next minute we'll have 'smoking guns' like this floating around:



[edit on 3-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Not to mention the fact that if the carrier WAS the base for the mysterious "white jet' she certainly wasn't anchored anywhere. You have to have a substantial wind across the deck, and you can only get that when the ship is moving at 20+ knots.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Sorry if there was confusion about my last post, I'll try to explain a little better.


Originally posted by Macmerdin:Am I being dumb...but isn't this a pretty big contradiction in the same post? You say it (peoples observations) is embellishment, then use the exact same quote to proove that the temp. was higher than the temp. charts? Please explain.


What I was pointing out is that the term "molten steel" was used to make her story more dramatic. It makes no sense to use one quote as proof of something as incredible as molten steel dripping through the wreckage.

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."

Basically I was saying that this quote is proof of nothing. She makes it sound like molten steel is dripping everywhere, out in the open. The thermal map proves this is obviously wrong.

I was debunking the quote.


or is the thermal image somehow lying to protect it's job.


The above quote was a joke. Does it make more sense now?


Originally posted by Macmerdin:As far as pictures.....well, you again run into a problem with the government's obstruction of justice. When noone was allowed to take pictures of the site (under threat of inprisonment), I don't think many people were thinking.."hey, lets take pictures of the molten steel even though we might go to jail and have our lives ruined." See my point on why there are no pictures of the molten steel? I conclude with my thoughts from above........if people can believe the engineers from FEMA, NIST and everywhere else....why should this structural engineer (the engineer responsible for designing the building) be ignored? Because it doesn't go along with what you believe?


No pictures allowed at ground zero? Are you kidding?
Ground Zero Pictures

The reason the quote about molten steel still dripping should be ignored is not because I disagree with it, but because the facts disagree with it. There is no evidence that she literally meant molten steel, and there is no evidence of molten steel on the surface which is implied in her quote.

Long Lance, the short answer? No. A gravity driven collapse model does not require the fires to melt through the beams, it has been posted about numerous times.

Please explain how this:



Is proof of this:




WCIP, sorry about the confusion that was not what I meant to convey.



Originally posted by WCIPOnce again, the thermal signatures reflect the heat near the top of the pile. The 72 feet height of debris piled in the basement reduces the thermal radiation reaching the spectrometer, and the data was not calibrated to varying depths. Thus the temperatures underneath the pile are in fact much higher than those recored by the thermal imaging.


I agree, however large underground fires can account for that more realistically than rivers of molten steel. And is definitive evidence for neither one.

However it clearly shows that molten steel was not out in the open in pools for weeks, which is implied by the three eye-witness reports.


Originally posted by WCIPThe presence of molten metal is testified to by several credible, expert, and unconnected witnesses. And photographic evidence of the pile shows white smoke pouring out of the pile for weeks after the collapses.


As far as I can tell only three reports of molten steel were reported. All of them are in the same vein as the one I quoted. It seems that they were embellishments and not proof. Out of the hundreds of people on site don't you think that more than three would notice huge pools of molten steel?

And white smoke? That's proof of molten steel? To borrow your phrase,




posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Come on Howard, you know they'll say the big boogey man threatened them and they had to say that...

It could never, ever, EVER be because someone went a bit wacko with their ideas and started spouting some drivel that everyone else tried to distance themselves from, could it?



if he is whacko, he doesn't need to be told to shut up.
if the man is wrong, his ideas, facts and figures should be examined in full public view.
he is being asked to SHUT UP. OF COURSE 'they' threatened him.
they have killed other people(hunter thomspon, 41 microbiologists, wellstone, william cooper, JFK, etc.), so he should consider himself 'lucky' for now.

a fox news affiliate ran parts of 'in plane site' and did a fairly long piece on it, interviewing the KIDS that made it.

a. fox is trying to incite civil war, and this station is doing a test run, ala war of the worlds.
b. this station is rebelling against the corporate yoke, and true patriots are beginning to fight the dark overlords of big brother.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Kids made it? ROFL... That wouldn't surprise me.. The 'reasoning' and 'emphasis' they had to add to images/videos were a rather poor show, designed to tickle the fancy of vulnerable, susceptable people. Hopefully it didn't get swallowed by too many folks but you never know these days.

These witnesses to the alleged molten metal, if they did see anything how did they identify the type of metal? How did they know it wasn't .. say... molten aluminium?

And if you are a professional institution, or any organisation for that matter, and one of your employees or members starts spouting off drivel you do tell them to shut up rather than let them continue, because they are not just making themselves look like an idiot but everyone and everything they are affiliated with. Surely anyone with common sense can work that out without going to business school or something?


[edit on 3-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

www.physics.byu.edu...
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”


These people are credible, credentialed, educated, independent and separate witnesses who were there on the scene, guys. I'll believe them over you lot and your agendas any day. Why don't y'all email them and ask them? Your claims that they made it up, or didn't know what they were seeing are simply chuckle-worthy. As are the claims that oxygen-starved, soot-choked, ordinary fires are going to create the temperatures that are indicated by those thermal readings, and cause fires to burn for three months. For these two claims I think I'm gonna have to do a Roark. Are you ready?...

Prove it!!


www.cbsnews.com...
NEW YORK, Dec. 19, 2001 - WTC Fires All But Defeated
"You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."



Originally posted by LeftBehind
The reason the quote about molten steel still dripping should be ignored is not because I disagree with it,


Oh, man... LeftBehind...dude, who do you think you're fooling with that? Maybe a couple of lurkers at most, assuming you're lucky and they haven't read any of your other posts. We all know each other quite well by now, do we not?

The desperation to debunk the molten metal and the thermal readings is truly bringing the agendists out of the woodwork, eh? I can almost sense the beads of sweat on foreheads from here. Has the controlled demolition of WTCs 1, 2 & 7 been conclusively proven? No! Have enough anomalies, evidences and unanswered questions arisen that an independent investigation is warranted? Yes!! But you guys will never ever concede that, because your agendas won't allow you to. And before you say it, of course I have an agenda! An agenda to get an independent investigation opened, like I just said. Newsflash for you, guys: You are increasingly in the minority. Soon you will be the only ones attempting to stand in the way of a proper re-examination of the events of that day, all three of you still here on ATS pulling out every obfuscation trick in the book. And if one day, an independent investigation is started, I'm sure you will be here carrying out a mudslinging campaign against the investigators and screaming that the investigation should be stopped.

I like you guys, you're very intelligent, and debating with you is fun, but there comes a time when you just have to sit back and say, "You know what, it wouldn't hurt." Thousands of people died that day, and thousands more have died as a result of the wars it was used to justify. Are you so sure of yourselves in being right about every single tiny aspect of those events that you believe 110% that reopening a real 9-11 investigation would be a great wrong?



[edit on 2005-12-3 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
did you actually look at those pictures of Ground Zero you provided with that Google link, yourself?

These are about 90,000 photo's, and I looked over 10 pages from them, and they are 98% pictures from people visiting, or wideangle panoramic pictures, or totally different places, like an atomic explosion (no pun intended), and actually a handfull are pictures from some unrecognizable debris, with no indication from where in the building it came from, and where in the debris pile it was photographed.
In short, nothing a constructural engineer, of a forensic investigator, could do anything with.

I strongly advice you to find in this, or the other thread with the same name in Politics, that MP3 file wecomeinpace recently posted, an interview with a former FEMA officer, mr Tartaglia, who worked at G-0 untill after Christmas, is dying now from cancer and god only knows what more illnesses he collected at G-0, and he will tell you the truth, from his own mouth, about hundreds of Secret Service agents swarming that site, tackling physically anyone taking photos, who were not "officially" aquitted to take photos from places specificly indicated by those agents and FEMA agents, and NOT anything else, or they were immediately disposed off the site.
These agents would keep everyone busy after working hours, for hours more, by interrogating all rescue workers, and asking them what they had seen, and to swear them into secrecy if they had seen too much, or threaten them if they were not verbally cooperative.
He has lots more to tell, f.ex. that it was strictly forbidden to enter certain areas, especially where you could get access to the deeper basements.
ONLY the special FEMA photographers were allowed to take pictures, from ONLY very specific spots.

And yes, his testimony sounds a bit like a ATS groupie, but do us a favour, just listen to it, and then comment on it.
He also talks about molten steel, and a lot more chilling facts.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

LaBTop wrote:
an interview with a former FEMA officer, mr Tartaglia, who worked at G-0 untill after Christmas


It's obvious he's making it up.

He's just trying to sell a book or something.

Is he a structural engineer?

What website is that which is hosting the file? I've never heard of it. Probably one of those "we never went to the moon" or "Planet X" websites. If what he is saying is the truth, it would be all over the news. The guy would be on CNN.

How does he know they were FEMA people stopping others from taking photographs? Is he qualified to identify a FEMA uniform? It could have been random people off the street who just wanted photographers to respect the victims. And yes, some clothes have badges on the shoulder which look very much like a FEMA badge. Some people think it's cool or something, I don't know why, but I see it a lot.

Of course they would restrict access to certain areas of the site. There was a fire, don'chyaknow? They didn't want people to get burnt because then they have to pay out compensation. It's a financial/safety issue, there's no "conspiracy".



(Just thought I'd save you guys the trouble.
)

[edit on 2005-12-3 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
First off, WCIP the burden of proof is on the parties claiming that there was literally molten steel. How exactly do you prove that something was not there? It is up to you to prove something positive.


Now let's examine these quotes from the expert witnesses, who can tell on site that a glowing peice of debris is in fact molten steel.

www.physics.byu.edu...


molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event


This one does not even say steel. Molten metal on top of everything, if they can see it, I think it's safe to say that it was out in the open and not buried under piles of debris.

The temperatures from the NASA thermal image show heats for which metals other than steel can be molten. Aluminum for instance has a melting point of 1220 degrees F.

The themal images also show how this is a slight exageration as on the 23rd of September, the hot spots are hardly there at all.

pubs.usgs.gov...





Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.


Another excellent example of someone using molten steel as an embellishment. How exactly does she know that molten steel is flowing if it's under the debris pile she's standing on?

Should we assume she has super powers like x-ray vision, that allows her to determine what kind of metal is molten underneath her?


"In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”


This one is another anecdote and she may have been as confused as the testimony in this eye-witness report.

www.gcn.com...


“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said.


So now we should believe that someone survived holding a peice of steel that was 2800 degrees F on one end?


While of course this doesn't prove the non-existence of molten steel, none of these quotes can be used to confirm that it was in fact 2800 degree molten steel.

These reports show that there was indeed molten debris and glowing peices of metal. However they agree with the heat of the fire inside the buildings, and do not require thermite or explosives.

Remember the Madrid fire reached temperatures of 1800 degrees F. The fires burning underground at ground zero could easily have reached such temperatures.









Originally posted by WCIP:
Oh, man... LeftBehind...dude, who do you think you're fooling with that? Maybe a couple of lurkers at most, assuming you're lucky and they haven't read any of your other posts. We all know each other quite well by now, do we not?


Using your logic WCIP we should never take anything you post seriously either. By your standards, we should hold your prior posts as proof that you are completely biased and agenda driven, and should ignore anything you say.

And on the contrary if I think I have stated my reasons for doubting these reports, not just dismissed them out of hand.



Are you so sure of yourselves in being right about every single tiny aspect of those events that you believe 110% that reopening a real 9-11 investigation would be a great wrong?


Not once have I said that we shouldn't reopen the investigation. I welcome it so that we can concentrate on the real issues of that day, instead of fantasy driven demolition theories.

I think that through incompetence or design the Bush Administration let 9-11 happen and in no way oppose a new more thourogh investigation.

If it happened by design I think we should focus on that, instead of rehashing the same demoliton arguments.




top topics



 
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join