Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl, page 15

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:20 AM

link

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by GoldenFleece

Your BBC news article is from September of 2001. This is so old that it's coming around again and still has no basis other than commonality of names in mid-east countries.

Another big lie. I guess you didn't read the article. These are the actual "hijackers" (according to the U.S. government.) Matching photos, passports, personal info, everything.

pteridine

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:33 AM

link

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by GoldenFleece

Your BBC news article is from September of 2001. This is so old that it's coming around again and still has no basis other than commonality of names in mid-east countries.

Another big lie. I guess you didn't read the article. These are the actual "hijackers" (according to the U.S. government.) Matching photos, passports, personal info, everything.

These are the people that were thought to be the hijackers a few days after 9/11. They were shown not to be the hijackers.
Why do the conspiracists overuse the words "Lie" and "Liar" when they wish to disagree? It is not conducive to discourse and makes them look like they are in denial.

mmiichael

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:42 AM

link

I'm guessing few if any went to the link I posted containing a very rigorous analysis of the thermite claims.

www.debunking911.com...

A couple revealing notes mid-way through show where distortions arise in the reporting process.

" Alex Jones, professional conspiracy theorist radio host, has said Jones found evidence of thermite. This isn't true. What Jones found was something which would have been in the debris pile anyway.

Sulfur... "

--

" In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done."

However when you look at the link he uses

www.newsday.com...

You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know. "

Mike

GoldenFleece

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:22 AM

link

Originally posted by pteridine
These are the people that were thought to be the hijackers a few days after 9/11. They were shown not to be the hijackers.

They were? When? By who? Prove it.

Why do the conspiracists overuse the words "Lie" and "Liar" when they wish to disagree?

Not disagreement. It's a lie, pure and simple. Just like your statement above and numerous others. When you stop making false blanket claims and flat denials without offering any substantiation or proof, I'll stop calling them lies.

Let's start with proof of your assertion that "they were shown not to be the hijackers."

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm guessing few if any went to the link I posted containing a very rigorous analysis of the thermite claims.

www.debunking911.com...

That's because everyone already knows what debunking911.com is.

Just ask for the government version and cut out the middle man.

Speaking of government versions, I find it humorous that ATS's most prolific, uhh, professionals don't even know about this thread because they've never left the 9/11 forum!

Like this guy.

And this guy.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]

mmiichael

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:08 AM

link

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

... everyone already knows what debunking911.com is.

Just ask for the government version and cut out the middle man.

Have you read it or have you just divined what it says?

The science is a bit more involved than the high school physics I've seen from certain other sources.

And as to another point, of course no Truth believer has ever knowingly uttered a false statement. We can only expect that from government employees. Maybe it's because their families are threatened that they don't come forward and tell all.

I can't help but note how this discussion has evolved into a demonstration of pride in having a Key to some Forbidden Knowledge.

A quick question related to the initial chemical composition inquiry to someone like yourself claiming expertise in such matters:

Had the two Towers just been been hit by the planes as they were, with no government sanctioned controlled demolition as you allege - exactly what shape do you think the WTC would have been in at the end of the day?

Mike

[edit on 10-4-2009 by mmiichael]

GoldenFleece

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:03 AM

link

Originally posted by mmiichael
Had the two Towers just been been hit by the planes as they were, with no government sanctioned controlled demolition as you allege - exactly what shape do you think the WTC would have been in at the end of the day?

I'll let the WTC's architects and engineers answer that question. Not only was the WTC construction manager confident that the towers could absorb multiple airliner impacts, the 707 that it was designed for is very similar in weight and fuel capacity to a 767:

WTC Construction Manager: Towers Were Designed to Take Numerous Plane Crashes

Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, discusses the fact that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting. DeMartini was adamant that the towers would not collapse. DeMartini died in the towers on 9/11.

This interview clip was taken from video shot in January 2001:

www.truveo.com...

This article that was written after the first WTC attack in 1993 is especially interesting because the lead structural engineer speculates on the potential for demolition:

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
The Seattle Times
Saturday, February 27, 1993
By Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.

And an early NY Times excerpt about the "mysterious collapse" of WTC 7:

Engineers are Baffled Over the Collapse of 7 WTC
New York Times
29 November 2001

by James Glanz

Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.

...The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.

I can't help but note how this discussion has evolved into a demonstration of pride in having a Key to some Forbidden Knowledge.

Nope, not forbidden. But if you don't take the time and effort to thoroughly investigate 9/11, you'll never understand how the world really works. Because of the knowledge I gained from looking into what the hell was going on with 9/11, I was able to accurately predict the current economic recession (depression) -- something that very few economists were able to do.

Knowledge is power.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Griff

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:14 AM

link

reply to post by esdad71

And how exactly is laboratory assessment a peer review of the 9/11 WTC report?

Griff

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:26 AM

link

Originally posted by mmiichael
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know. "

So, Jones (either one) is supposed to report on speculation from the EPA?

I guess the air at ground zero was "most likely" to be breathable too huh?

rko_radio

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:17 AM

link

Originally posted by esdad71

The NRC is the peer review for NIST.

Lol.

"The NAS, NAE, IOM, and NRC are part of a private, nonprofit institution that provides science, technology and health policy advice... "

We know that the CIA has infiltrated state governments en masse. You wanna bet that they (or another alphabet agency) has the NRC by the pursestrings (or balls)?

Fremd

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 08:52 AM

link

reply to post by Griff

yup. camera's are also illegal in movie theaters and other public places as well.

Doesn't stop people from leaking them into the public eye.

It's just too funny and curious how people can make such bold statements without EVER having been there, and not a single shred of proof.

Some guy shows up in a online blog and says he saw a molten river.
Wow. Woopty do, let's type and print the conspiracy now.

Oh, by the way, i also saw a guy in a blog say that he was Jesus Christ, another one claiming to be Lucifer Incarnate.

My favorite though was all the blogs claiming they had proof that the world is literally flat.

Without so much as a picture for evidence, given all the technology we have in cell phone camera's these days (and all the pictures OF the 9/11 site...hmm....i thought camera's were illegal??....what about all the media coverage and pictures like this?)

And anyone who is truly objective (as 99.99999% of all conspiracy theorists claim to be) and you're left with one big steamy pile of SHamless hypocrisy pie.

GoldenFleece

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 09:43 AM

link

reply to post by Fremd

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2a57b39858ee.jpg[/atsimg]
Here, are you happy now?

Is this really gonna change your mind about anything?

Didn't think so.

Originally posted by Fremd
I'm Fremd...but you already knew that

I came to ATS in search of somewhere i could have a voice. Having been so fed up with the way things have been for so long (as far as the united states goes) i've been yearning for somewhere i can find people as fed up as i am ...seems i've found it!

Do not worry - i am not an extremist politician - i'm not a wackaloon or a troll. My politics are about the people vs govt. and of course i'm on the people's side.

With fed-up friends like Fremd, the people don't need enemies.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Kratos1220

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 11:16 AM

link

I just love how what the firefighters in the videos posted have no bearing at all on anyone's opinion. Just ignore them even though they report secondary explosive devices planted in the buildings and telling people to get away, explosions below the impact zone, rivers of molten steel flowing under the towers described as lava from a volcano and more. If you talked to one of these firemen, would you call them liars? Would you direct them to a 9/11 debunking site to educate them on what really happened and what they really saw even though they were actually there and know it to be false?

I did visit that 9/11 debunking site which is really nothing new, but you know, I'm going to believe what the firefighters, rescue workers and all those people there on that day told us was going on during the time all this was happening. Those guys were there and know what they saw and is, IMO, the closest thing to the truth that we've heard, but you guys go ahead and pretend it's not there so you can continue thinking what you already believe to be true. Words straight from the mouths of people like these both after and during 9/11 is as good as it gets.

Then, there's the things that guys like Kevin Ryan and the UL say.

In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible for the thermal testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples tested for the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg for 6 hours without failing their rated load characteristics. And that is without insulation. The WTC beams were insulated. Jet fuel burns at only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not indicated by the black smoke that issued from the fires. There was nothing contained within the buildings that could have raised this figure, and those that use the example of ancient furnaces that tempered steel as a argument, again, do not understand the principles involved.

Source

Kevin Ryan and UL says no way jet fuel melted the steel

pteridine

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 11:17 AM

link

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by mmiichael
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know. "

So, Jones (either one) is supposed to report on speculation from the EPA?

I guess the air at ground zero was "most likely" to be breathable too huh?

Jones writes papers about his speculations. Where could such large amounts of 1,3- diphenypropane come from? Decomposing plastic. Jones wants you to believe that it is plasticizer from demolitions. In those quantities, the entire building would have to be made of "plastique." This irrationality and bending of evidence to fit predetermined conclusions is what makes Stevie Jones papers so ludicrous. He is not a scientist anymore, he is merely a media hog, wanting to be famous again.

mmiichael

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 11:28 AM

link

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Not only was the WTC construction manager confident that the towers could absorb multiple airliner impacts, the 707 that it was designed for is very similar in weight and fuel capacity to a 767

And he was proven very wrong just as the architects of the buildings did not anticipate the massive assault of two airliners being flown directly into the parallel structures within minutes. Just at every architect and construction manager of buildings that have collapsed believed their work would withstand almost any kind of impact.

if you don't take the time and effort to thoroughly investigate 9/11, you'll never understand how the world really works. Because of the knowledge I gained from looking into what the hell was going on with 9/11, I was able to accurately predict the current economic recession (depression) -- something that very few economists were able to do.

I have read a number of books and articles on the subject - both pro and con. A mass of skewed data and unscientific speculations may seem compelling to a layperson, but if you dismiss the overwhelming evidence to the contrary as government controlled disinformation, you deprive yourself of a full perspective.

I might also note that there are hundreds of seasoned professional journalists and historians, many highly critical of the US government and it's intelligence agencies, who have literally and figuratively sorted through the rubble. Expectedly, a handful do question the "Official Story" but the vast majority, with no agenda either way, after doing their own research, come down on the side of the generally accepted version.

As for predicting the current economic collapse, well it's no secret that innumerable ordinary people and experts did as well. A tremendous amount of published works document this.

If you feel choose to believe the US government demolished already severely damaged buildings on 9/11, and reject all the accumulated contrary evidence that shows how they were unable to withstand the trauma and subsequent weakening of the structures, you make it clear that no hard data or analysis will convince you otherwise.

You should not be accusing others of close-mindedness if that is the case.

I get the impression you have immersed yourself primarily in the written material, websites, and videos attempting to prove the WTC buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition. Selectively accepting only the opinions and data that conforms to an anticipated conclusion cannot be called research.

Mike

[edit on 10-4-2009 by mmiichael]

GoldenFleece

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link

Speaking of speculation, I'm still waiting for evidence that backs this:

Originally posted by pteridine
These are the people that were thought to be the hijackers a few days after 9/11. They were shown not to be the hijackers.

DohBama

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link

So they found aluminum and rust in the dust of rubble that was formerly modern skyscrapers?

Aluminum and iron oxide is indeed used in thermite, but is also used to build architecture. There was plenty of aluminum and iron that composed those buildings. It's what they're made of.

This is a real stretch.

pteridine

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link

reply to post by GoldenFleece

OK, Fleece, here it is...........

From BBC [first link below]:

"We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names."

Second link: Saudi Arabia admits hijackers were its citizens.

www.bbc.co.uk...
www.usatoday.com...

Those websites that you do "research" on are biased, out of date, and promote an agenda. They claim to be searching for the "truth" but have already invented it and are selling you a version that you seem to want to buy. You should consider expanding your research and reading all sides of the story rather than taking a stand first and trying to rationalize it later.

GoldenFleece

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Not only was the WTC construction manager confident that the towers could absorb multiple airliner impacts, the 707 that it was designed for is very similar in weight and fuel capacity to a 767.

And he was proven very wrong just as the architects of the buildings did not anticipate the massive assault of two airliners being flown directly into the parallel structures within minutes.

But in fact, they did anticipate that exact scenario -- not from just one, but multiple airliners. Did you not read the articles?

I get the impression you have immersed yourself only in the written material and videos attempting to prove the WTC buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition.

Then you get the wrong impression. This isn't a conclusion anyone would want to come to. Maybe it's why you're having such a difficult time in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Using only opinions and data that conforms to an anticipated conclusion is not research.

You asked me how the towers would've fared if they hadn't been brought down by controlled demolitions. Sorry you don't like the answers from the WTC architects, engineers and construction managers.

Fremd

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Awww, thats' cute, i have my own little stalker now.

im curious, is that photograph supposed to be showing me something? I see no river of molten steel....

First you claim no photo's of the molten river exist

then suddenly you have one(but no river...just something that looks like some glowing hot metal...but camera's were illegal, right?

Here's another tip you might not know about your workplace.

Did you know that studies can find fecal matter in the ice machines in Mcdonalds (and other equally disgusting places to get 'food') ?

So does that mean that someone dropped trow and pinched off a loaf in the ice machine?

Well...im most cases no, though im sure it's happened....but it's just residue from the employee's not washing their hands.

So you and your "truth" squad find residue that happens to be used in explosives.

I bet you look hard enough you'll find some nails, bolts, and screws in there as well.

That must be the evidence we need, becuse that kind of stuff is used in pipe bombs.

and...gasp...terrorists use pipe bombs.

CASE CLOSED

I really wish that the world was as simple as you see it to be.

here in the real world, where the adults work and play

you need a thing called evidence.
Even in a conspiracy theory.

What you have is not evidence. It's just deceit and lies.

The real conspiracy is people who have nothing better to do than try to manipulate facts to get their own group of people to follow their ideals in hopes that they'll some day amount to something....

They go around spouting lines like "open your eyes, dont be a sheep! Think for yourself"

and then anyone who actually does think for themselves is automatically labeled a sheep.

Yeah....really sound intellectualism these groups got going for them, eh?
I guess that's why it's called conspiracy theory. Any schmuck can have a theory, but 9/11 of them have absolutely no proof what so ever.

The other two just made it up.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Fremd]

mmiichael

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

... they did anticipate that exact scenario -- not from just one, but multiple airliners. Did you not read the articles?

... You asked me how the towers would've fared if they hadn't been brought down by controlled demolitions. Sorry you don't like the answers from the WTC architects, engineers and construction managers.

I don't have the information at hand, but something I read recently elaborated in detail how the combination of secondary trauma to WTC 7, the most controversial collapse, resulted in undermining the designed distribution of weight and stress where the prime factors of it's inability to remain standing.

No one had ever seen or anticipated two airliners near simultaneously being flown at high speed into a cluster of mega-skyscrapers. There was no precendent.

I'm not American but have a great respect for many of it's citizens. If the Bush administration and/or the CIA or some rogue governmental types did in fact conspire to demolish those already nearly destroyed building almost a decade ago it effects me only peripherally.

But standing back, it makes little sense why they would choose to demolish the most critical financial structures in the country when so many other alternatives were available. Tantamount to shooting off one's foot to make a statement. Few realize the economic losses to the US that happened that day. In many ways the collapse of American dominance was set in motion that day. The US has enemies, and they succeeded in doing even more damage than they had hoped for. This is ignored at one's peril.

I would say to anyone really genuinely seeking truth, summarily dismissing whatever conflicts with formed beliefs does not get you closer.

Mike