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.

 

NEWS: Steve Jones gets approval of peers - "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T)

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
The official story may not be totally accurate. However, that doesn't explain what is being covered up. For instance, could the bombs have come from the planes?

If there were nuclear or biologically weapons on the planes, could the US military have purposefully blown them up to prevent them from spreading?

The other thing is that the WTC could've been poorly built. Were there structural flaws in how the WTC was built? These might've contributed to the problem. Other actions could have been related to covering this up. What were the various government offices storing in the WTC? Did they store explosives? Could that have been the cause of some of the explosions? Were they worried that certain things in the evacuated buildings would fall into the wrong hands?

I'm no great Bush fan, but I do want to point even scientific evidence that contradicts the official story, does not explain why. It merely explains what happened. Explain why something happened requires adducing motives to various actors, which can often be clouded by our perceptions or misperceptions of those people.



df1

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
It strikes me that the folks that buy the official 9/11 story just arent listening given the mulitude of evidence found in the Found In The Mainstream Media. Perhaps the preceding link will help put reality into perspective for these folks.
.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I have posted this to a thread of it's own, but I think I should have posted it here.




Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax


Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbour."

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I will say it once more...and this is just my opinion but I honestly feel that the people in the Bush administration just don't have the imagination to have planned and pulled something like this off. I believe that either they simply did not believe the intelligence that was coming in, (the election of Hamas highlights both their lack of imagination and their refusal to believe anything outside their world view...I thought it was a given Hamas would, if not win, do extremely well, and that waas just from watching the evening news) or they did and let it happen for political gain...which is what I think did happen. Either way they were either negligent in their duties or criminally negligent in letting it happen...both impeachable offenses in my book. If they were involved in the carrying out of the attacks, then the whole lot of them are traitors and deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Now as to the "Proofs"

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia. How is this possible?
Stolen identities...happens in this country all the time...best bet of being untraced as well.

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
A large chunk was knocked out of each building on both sides due to the impact...the outer walls were the weight bearing ones and with less support the upper floors caved, taking the rest of the building with them.

* The melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
when you add everything else that was burning 200 F + could be added quite quickly I would think.

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
flying below radar...after all they would have known already that the trade center had been hit so they would have tried avoiding detection as long as possible.

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
I didn't know this...did anyone else outside of the Pentagon? I doubt it.

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
no comment I've never heard about this. (personally I believe cheney is the anti-christ but thats besides the point)

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
every airplane crash I've heard of had debrie scattered all over the place. I would guess it would depend on the speed at impact...but it is also possible it was shot down and the admin. just doesnt want to admit it.

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
no comment...never heard about this.

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet th administration has asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
its called covering your arse. poorly but none the less.

I don't necessiarly advocate any of the above solutions I have offered (except the cheney as anti-christ one) but I do think that each one is a valid possiblity. Enough said.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
www.physics.byu.edu...

and if you go to his website, there are 3 pictures of WTC 7, and the last one shows it "collapsed upon the footprint of itself". Have you actually looked at the picture, the building still has one corner standing about 10 stories high.


Could you point this out to me in the picture, because I can't see any of it still standing?

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...

I have edited my post, I thought it was much higher when I looked at it last time. I apologize, but here is the picture, that does not look like a controlled demo, but twisted steel that collapsed. Also look at the pictures and the 'walls' that are still intact. That would not support a controlled demo eother, would it? If it cane straight down upon itself, would it not have collapsed all the walls?

[edit on 31-1-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
911research.wtc7.net...

Also look at the pictures and the 'walls' that are still intact. That would not support a controlled demo eother, would it? If it cane straight down upon itself, would it not have collapsed all the walls?

[edit on 31-1-2006 by esdad71]


from you own link the wall are leaning against the Verizon Building so they are not for all intents and purposes intact.



These four photographs show a large assembly from Building 7 leaning against the Verizon Building, which stood directly east of Building 7.




[edit on 31/1/2006 by Sauron]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
esdad71 - Thank you for your response.

The internal structure of the building is exploded to smitherines. There wouldn't be a need to pulverize the outer walls. They would naturally collapse inward on top of a heap of aforementioned smitherines. Which is exactly what the pictures appear to present.

I'm not interested in convincing anyone that the building was demolished. I am sure it was. I just couldn't see the 10 story piece you talked about.

No offense intended, but perhaps you should look a little more closely at the pictures you just linked, particularly the 1st picture in the 2nd link, and ask yourself why everything except for the very outer wall structure is in millions of pieces...

[edit on 31-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
esdad71 - Thank you for your response.

The internal structure of the building is exploded to smitherines. There wouldn't be a need to pulverize the outer walls. They would naturally collapse inward on top of a heap of aforementioned smitherines. Which is exactly what the pictures appear to present.




is this WTC 7 or the Towers?



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The internal structure of the building is exploded to smitherines. There wouldn't be a need to pulverize the outer walls. They would naturally collapse inward on top of a heap of aforementioned smitherines. Which is exactly what the pictures appear to present.



is this WTC 7 or the Towers?


WTC 7.
See the links esdad71 posted. That's the pictures I'm talking about.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
There was a special on recently that explained that there was a fire in the lower levels, and it was due to gas and propane located under the building for heat. This was a main contributor and why it took so long to come down. What sense would it make to wait? Why not bring them all down at the same time?

Where is the proof of controlled demo? Where is one blasting cap? All explosions leave trace elements and there are no confirmed reports of finding any, are there?

science.howstuffworks.com...

Take a look at this article for a quick review of what would be needed. Look at the preperation that is needed to bring down a building, and maybe some of you will change your mind when you state it was a controlled demoliton. This is not about putting in a few charges and remotely detonating them. It is a project that would not have gone unnnoticed by anyone who worked at WTC 1,2 or 7. There were state, local and federal offices in that building, you think they were ALL in on it?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
What sense would it make to wait? Why not bring them all down at the same time?


To make it look like fires brought them down maybe? Wouldn't it be rather suspicious if they all came down at the same time?


All explosions leave trace elements and there are no confirmed reports of finding any, are there?


How about the sulfide residue found on the steel from ALL 3 structures? I guess NIST is wrong in that also.



Take a look at this article for a quick review of what would be needed. Look at the preperation that is needed to bring down a building, and maybe some of you will change your mind when you state it was a controlled demoliton.


And yet you believe that one story failing from damage and fires was the reason the whole building imploded? Where's the logic in that? Either it takes a massive amount of preperation and charges or one story failing. Make up your mind because you can't have it both ways.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Here is another article about steel and strutural integrity with heat...

www.wpi.edu...



Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.



Are these the "sulfites" you are reffering to, or did you read an article about the WTC bombing in 93 when those elements were found? Could you give me a link on the NIST report as I have never read that part. Thanks. Most people who support the controlled demo condemn the NIST and FEMA reports.



Implosion does not destory the whole building, it destroys the inner struture, which is what the palnes did. Gravity assists the building coming down, EVEN in a controlled demo. Read the article please.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The interior spaces of all the WTC structures were built out with drywall, or gypsum board. The chemical formula for gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO4 2H2O).

Did you know that when gypsum is heated it releases sulfur dioxide, a highly corrosive gas?


df1

posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The interior spaces of all the WTC structures were built out with drywall, or gypsum board. The chemical formula for gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO4 2H2O).

Did you know that when gypsum is heated it releases sulfur dioxide, a highly corrosive gas?


This may be of interest:


Wikipedia: Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide (also sulphur dioxide, sulfurous anhydride or sulphurous anhydride) has the chemical formula SO2. The gas is irritating to the lungs and is frequently described as smelling of burning sulfur.

It is produced by volcanoes and in various industrial processes. In particular, poor-quality coal and petroleum contain sulfur compounds, and generate sulfur dioxide when burned: the gas reacts with water and atmospheric oxygen to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and thus acid rain.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The interior spaces of all the WTC structures were built out with drywall, or gypsum board. The chemical formula for gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO4 2H2O).

Did you know that when gypsum is heated it releases sulfur dioxide, a highly corrosive gas?



So you're saying that every time a building catches fire, sulfur dioxide is released? Why do we continue to use drywall then? I don't buy that theory.

Also, why is gypsum board used for fire walls if it is so corrosive?



Meets BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI Code
requirements for shaft walls, area separation
walls, fire walls, party walls, and townhouse
separation walls


source: www.gypsum.org...='gypsum%20board%20in%20fire'

edit: also a good site. www.architecturemag.com...='gypsum%20board%20in%20fire'


Gypsum Association Presents
Using Gypsum for Fire Control
With their inherent fire-resistive properties, gypsum board area separation
walls have become the wall systems of choice for an increasing number of
townhouses and multifamily housing units.


I'll let everyone else decide for themselves if gypsum was the cause of the sulfides found. But it doesn't sound like it to me.


edit: Don't know why it's linking everything after the link?

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
wtc.nist.gov...

Look at the twisted beams. and trusses. Take the time to read NIST's report and you may see things in a different light.

Yes, sulfur dioxide is released from the heating of the steel beams under intense heat. It is in the NIST report.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I think you have to let the steel and drywall dust “cook” at high temps for a couple of weeks, just like the eroded steel that was pulled from the rubble.

gypsum



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Yes, sulfur dioxide is released from the heating of the steel beams under intense heat. It is in the NIST report.


Could you supply a link to this because I don't see how steel which is Iron and Carbon can give off sulfides?


Steel is a metal alloy whose major component is iron, with carbon being the primary alloying material. Carbon acts as a hardening agent, preventing iron atoms, which are naturally arranged in a crystal lattice, from sliding past one another (dislocation).


The only mention of sulfur is Iron Sulfide (sulfate?) FeS2, which is pyrite or fools gold. Unless the towers were made of pyrite, I highly doubt that the steel was the source of the sulfides.

source: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I think you have to let the steel and drywall dust “cook” at high temps for a couple of weeks, just like the eroded steel that was pulled from the rubble.

gypsum




Yes, but how did the steel that they tested "cook" for weeks when it was concluded that those pieces never reached a temperature above 250C?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join