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.

 

Chemical Traces of High Explosives in WTC Debris

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Many scientists and engineers have looked at the way the WTC towers fell and remarked that it had the appearance of controlled demolition. The buildings collapsed symmetrically, and fell straight down. The speed of the fall indicated that the buildings were collapsing unimpeded.





There is a science to placing the charges in such a way that the building falls inward. It requires a great deal of expertise to keep a tall building from toppling over sideways.

Many scientists and engineers have looked at the way the WTC towers fell and remarked that it had the appearance of controlled demolition. The buildings collapsed symmetrically, and fell straight down. The speed of the fall indicated that the buildings were collapsing unimpeded. They must have had the “legs” simultaneously pulled out from under them, because a layered collapse from the top down would have taken several minutes, whereas the observed collapse took place in less than 20 seconds.

Another anomaly in the WTC collapse was the violent explosions. Firemen reported earthshaking blasts from the basement before collapse, and the impact areas in the upper floorss of the buildings exploded just at the onset of collapse. Jet fuel burns but cannot explode.

In an article published this week in the journal Environmentalist, chemical engineer Kevin Ryan collects evidence from EPA documents that suggest there was both Thermate and high-explosives in the debris from the WTC collapse. Ryan was formerly employed by Environmental Health Labs, a division of Underwriters Labs, before he was fired for raising these and other questions.


Link to full text here PDF--->www.springerlink.com...


Has anyone ever discussed the possibility that some super skyskrapers were engineered to be destroyed one day, to collapse in its own footprint?

Is it possible that the wtc was pre rigged by explosives as a saftey measure to ensure the buildings dont fall over multiple city blocks like in the case of of the 1993 bombing?




posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Ivan,

This has been discussed before.

One simple question:

Can you please list all Controlled Demolition Experts that have stated that WTC's 1 & 2 looked like a controlled demolition.

Thank you,

-TY-



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Can you please list all Controlled Demolition Experts that have stated that WTC's 1 & 2 looked like a controlled demolition.


Why do we need CD experts to say this?

This looks pretty much like it.

www.youtube.com...

So much for "buildings are NEVER demolished from the top down" eh?

Also, this is what I would expect from a building progressively collapsing on one side (WTC 7)

video.aol.com...



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I'm more interesting in seeing documented proof that fire has caused steel-framed buildings to collapse after 2'ish hours of burning.

I once watched my kerosene heater burn for a bit and guess what...it never melted!



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


Why do we need CD experts to say this?

This looks pretty much like it.



Because ALL CD experts have stated that 1&2 DO NOT look like a controlled demolition. (including the one that said WTC 7 does look like one)



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


If it looks like control demolition.
Smells like control demolition.
Sound like control demolition.
Then IT IS CONTROL DEMOLITION!



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Funny, there isn't a single expert that agrees with you.

Should I disregard their statements and go with yours? Or Dora's?



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
In regard to your Original Post, Ivan, I thank you for sharing the report with us. There were some VOCs that I hadn't seen previously in test results for the WTC and surrounding area, 1,3-diphenylpropane, in particular. I would have surmised that the majority of the PVC piping, ureas, and other plastics would've been completely burned and vaporized -- at least in the core areas. Good info, thanks.

p.s. I don't agree that free chlorides or chloramines were likely to have been in the 10% range or even anywhere near that, at least initally. That level would have been likely to combine with other aerosolized compounds, and could have been fatal, or at lease strongly hazardous to those downwind of the towers. Perhaps, though, there are reports to that effect I missed.

Cheers



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
P.S. -- your thread title thought...... Chemical traces of high explosives? I don't see that substantiated in your link. I'm making an effort to stay on-topic here, and not get once again distracted into peripheral issues. Would you mind highlighting in your EPA link where it identifies VOCs that are consistent with "high explosives?" I'm not talking about the aluminum. Aluminum can increase brisance in an explosion, but surely there were several tons of aluminum in the building.

Thanks



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Because ALL CD experts have stated that 1&2 DO NOT look like a controlled demolition. (including the one that said WTC 7 does look like one)


I'm sorry that I can't believe you when you state what all CD experts say and have said. Have you spoken to them all? Read their statements in their entirety? See what I'm getting at?

It's the same argument made that all structural engineers and ASCE members agree with NIST and disagree with Gage. Well, I'm proof that that statement is a delusion of grandeur, so I'm going to assume that the statement of all CD experts is also.

On topic: I have come to the conclusion that there is not going to be any headway made in claiming that explosive residue was tested positive or thermite etc. etc. Why? Because those same elements make up just about everything else throughout the building. Gypsum has sulfur, computer screens have bromium (I think), exit signs and watches have tritium etc. etc., so IMO it's a dead horse. Plausible deniability at it's finest.

Edit: Before someone looks up my name in ASCE, I am not an active member anymore. But, I would be willing to scan my certificate from ASCE and send it to a mod to verify that I was indeed a member.

[edit on 10/20/2008 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


list the ones that state it looked like a controlled demolition.

thanks dude



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 



(Funny, there isn't a single expert that agrees with you.

Should I disregard their statements and go with yours? Or Dora's?)


That is a LIE!



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


tsk tsk


Please prove that I am lying



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


TY,I don’t need too, you know all the expert as I do, I am not going to waste my time this is a game infact its call the pissing game.

Most people already know that explosives were used to bring the WTC down. Nothing more need to be said thank you.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
The VERY first thing i thought when i saw the towers collapse inside their own footprint was 'oh they're bringing the buildings down'...

Weren't those buildings DESIGNED to cope with aircraft collision?

I'm sticking with the rule of common sense, and common sense tells me that those buildings were brought down in a controlled order.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


TY,I don’t need too,




yes you do. you accused me of lying. Back it up



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Disgustingly valid, but unsound argument. Don't simplify things on this serious of a topic.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Collision with a smaller aircraft. Look this up. It has been covered.

People need to stop with the common sense "arguments". There is no rigor or testing there, just talking and claiming. I know that the posters on this thread are capable of more quality than this.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations
Frank Legge (Ph D)
Logical Systems Consulting
Perth, Western Australia.
flegge@iinet.net.au
Version 3, 29 Mar 2008, with added references to steel temperatures

www.journalof911studies.com...


Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
www.attackonamerica.net...


9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!
www.youtube.com...


WTC Nuke Thesis from "Anonymous Physicist"
wtcdemolition.blogspot.com...


9/11: Controlled Demolition Vs. North Tower
www.metacafe.com...


Demolition Proof of 9-11
stargods.org...


WTC 9-11 'Zero' DvD Demolition Proof by Noble Prize winning Scientist
www.youtube.com...

WTC - demolition - the real proof UNSEEN before
uk.youtube.com...


WHAT WE SAW - NEW FOOTAGE OF FLASHES & POPS IN WTC
uk.youtube.com...


9/11 PARKING LOT EXPLOSION @9:46am- Rare Footage
uk.youtube.com...

Carpenter Marlene Cruz Survives Explosions in WTC Basement
uk.youtube.com...

9/11 - WTC: Compiled Eyewitness Report on explosions – 1
uk.youtube.com...


Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
Steven E. Jones1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Gregory S. Jenkins3, Frank Legge4, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan,
Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.
1 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
3 Physics Department, University of Maryland at College Park, Maryland
4 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
5 Department of Physics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
www.journalof911studies.com...


Solving The Great Steel Caper:
DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
www.journalof911studies.com...


DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
www.journalof911studies.com...


Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
University of Iowa and SeaLane Consulting
www.journalof911studies.com...

Are you going to call all these people liers too.
This is a lot of reading, and watching videos, so I shouldnt here from you for a week right. because you can not read all of the truth in 10 mins.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by newagent89
 

Yes it has been covered. The buildings were constructed to sustain multiple impacts from 707's, the largest aircraft at the time of construction.

Please provide a link that states small aircraft.

Sheesh, this is the first time I've seen the small aircraft argument. The debunkers are running out of ammo, soon it'll be that the buildings were built to withstand model remote control airplanes.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join