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.

 

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

page: 18
218
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
A question for the ages..

Is it possible for people interested in the Conspiracy surrounding 9/11, either side, to discuss the topic intellectually and thoughtfully without resorting to talking about other members?

Answer:

No one knows.. It's apparently never been done..

Well here we have it...

The Off Topic Snide Remarks stop now..

Any further remarks directed AT another member, their occupation, status in life or ethical standing, will be removed and the poster warned...

No matter how much pertinent information you put in the post, if you include a snide remark, it is gone..

I hope we are clear on this..

The 9/11 forum has seen some of the most hateful posting with members warned and banned on a regular basis. Why do you all think there is that advisory at the top of this forum?

So, On Topic, Professional and Polite, or not at all...

Semper




posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
At Semper's suggestion, a topical post open for rebuttal.

Jones investigates only the red and gray chips, ignoring all other dust, and has a small sample size. He rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint with the red chips. He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion but claims thermitic reaction, anyway. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this possibility; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the chips with a more agressive solvent, which would allow analysis of individual components. His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data.
He has and continues to publish unscientific propaganda in journals of questionable reputation. He has his own agenda and is not to be trusted.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
At Semper's suggestion, a topical post open for rebuttal.

Jones investigates only the red and gray chips, ignoring all other dust, and has a small sample size. He rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint with the red chips. He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion but claims thermitic reaction, anyway. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this possibility ; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the chips with a more agressive solvent, which would allow analysis of individual components. His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data.
He has and continues to publish unscientific propaganda in journals of questionable reputation. He has his own agenda and is not to be trusted.


Assumptions.

Based off of speculation.

In order to rationalize evidence to fit preconcieved notions.

A common defense mechanism of those in denial.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I have a question for the people in this thread who believe jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees and weakened the steel to the point of failure. It may have a simple answer, but I can't think of one and would like to hear your thoughts.

We know that kerosene does not burn any hotter than 1200-1300 degrees in perfect conditions and such conditions were not present that day, but for the sake of this question, let's assume it does burn at 2000 degrees for a moment.

All kerosene would have completely burned up in 10-15 minutes and become a non-factor. Burning temperatures inside would immediately decline sharply as all that's left to burn is office supplies. The south tower took an hour to collapse and the north tower took an hour and 45 minutes to collapse. So, if jet fuel caused the steel to weaken to the point of failure, why did the south tower wait 45 minutes and the north tower for an hour and a half after all the kerosene was gone before collapsing? The jet fuel was a non-factor after 15 minutes max and the steel had ample time to cool back down. How does this happen without some kind of help? If the jet fuel weakened the steel with 2000 degree heat, shouldn't it have fallen much sooner while the steel was still superheated and weakened? Office fires would not have been able to even remotely sustain such temperatures.

How does jet fuel burning at 2000 degrees for 15 minutes cause rivers of molten steel to flow like lava as reported by firemen? How does jet fuel burning at 2000 degrees for 15 minutes cause the towers to turn to dust 45 and 90 minutes later and collapse from top to bottom leaving nothing standing? How does molten steel remain molten three months later from jet fuel burning at 2000 degrees for 15 minutes? How is this logical especially when you consider that jet fuel does not burn at 2000 degrees at any time and that perfect conditions were not met for it to even burn at 1200-1300 degrees on that day?

That's without factoring in that the UL certified this steel to withstand 2000 degree temperatures for six hours without being compromised, yet all it took was 15 minutes of temperatures less than 2000 degrees on 9/11 with 45 and 90 minutes of cooling time immediately afterwards to collapse long after high temperatures had completely dissipated? How is this logical?



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
After all this, in an urban complex of this vast scale with it's small army of maintenance people and many storage areas, would it have been that unusual to find a small cache of industrial thermite somewhere that was used for repairs?

No sarcastic comments.


Mike



[edit on 11-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


The Jones paper is bad science. I have pointed out the errors and scientific misconduct. Jones is a fraud or disinformation agent.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_eighth_tower
It is quite amazing. The science has been debunked. The scientists have been debunked. Even the publisher has been debunked, but the truthers march on.


There are scientists and engineers on "both sides" of the issue, but you act as if there aren't. There is no consensus. And if you're one of the people who thinks there are "thousands and thousands" of people/papers/etc. supporting NIST's hypothesis, show it to me. The NIST report wasn't even peer reviewed, and they didn't even release all of their technical data and calculations so their work CAN'T be reproduced or therefore peer reviewed. All the same issues that you'll accuse "truther" scientists and engineers of but then turn a blind eye to when it's anyone that tries to confirm what you believe...

Every time you pretend there is already a consensus, what you're doing is the equivalent of cheer leading. No one cares what your opinion is, stating it won't change anybody's mind here, and yes, a debate will go on.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kratos1220
That's without factoring in that the UL certified this steel to withstand 2000 degree temperatures for six hours without being compromised, yet all it took was 15 minutes of temperatures less than 2000 degrees on 9/11 with 45 and 90 minutes of cooling time immediately afterwards to collapse long after high temperatures had completely dissipated? How is this logical?


The structure was certified for two hours with the fireproofing in place. There is some question as to the integrity of the fireproofing even before the planes struck but it is concluded that the impact dislodged the fireproofing material as it was not really designed for impact.
The jet fuel started many simultaneous office fires over multiple floors so the cooling time statements may not be valid as there was continued heating of the structure.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by Solomons
 



So why exactly isn't this being shown to the courts or start a legal battle which if this report is true proves conclusively that 9/11 was an inside job?


It doesn't. It simply proves thermite was present in the rubble of WTC, which most of us knew back since 2004.

Thermite being present in the rubble is a far cry from proving actual demolitions charges took down the towers; as much as I would like to see that proven.

You can't exactly build a case against the United States government for deliberating killing it's own civilians on circumstantial evidence.

[edit on 5/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

The easiest thing to prove, given the near free fall, symetrical total destruction of the buildings from the top, all the way down to the ground, is that they did NOT and could not possibly have done so, as a result of some sort of progressive "pancake" collapse. The law of conservation of momentum would preclude such an occurance as observed in the videos. Those buildings just blew up, and poured out their contents from the top down, in a cascading fountain of debris, to within a mere two or three seconds of ABSOLUTE FREE FALL, all the way down to the ground!!! In other words, it's entirely SELF EVIDENT! - the only thing standing in the way of the realization being the nature of "The Big Lie" whereby the evil of the act and the wickedness of the LIE just cannot be fathomed, let alone contemplated, in spite of direct evidence of cause and effect to the contrary. I would imagine that many of the NIST people who helped with the report didn't even stop to consider any other possibility, and thus began their "study" with only one possible conclusion. The alternative is just "unthinkable".. and yet, the reality remains, and will remain, from generation to generation and from age to age, unless they can somehow scrub away all the videos of the destruction of those towers.

For every action there is an equal and opposite REACTION, and an object in motion will remain in uniform motion UNLESS ACTED UPON BY A FORCE OF RESISTANCE! But there was no resistence.

NIST of course fails to address this, stating simply that once initiated the cumulative weight of debris would just crush the remaining structure "as seen in the videos"
, the remaining structure unable to offer any resistance - and this is absurd.

I applaud Jones' work, but why, being a physicist, does he not address the actual physics of the collapse itself, showing the absolute preposterous nature of the official NIST story, which actually OMITS a physical description and explanation for the collapse itself, except to offer a theory regarding collapse initiation only.

Wake up people! History, looking back can't NOT record this thing accurately, as a military operation and global psy-op, a ruse of the very worst kind and of the farthest reaching implications.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



After all this, in an urban complex of this vast scale with it's small army of maintenance people and many storage areas, would it have been that unusual to find a small cache of industrial thermite somewhere that was used for repairs?


Why on earth would volatile Thermite be stored in commercial offices? Why.

Ignoring for a second the fact that Thermite is not actually used for high-rise welding...

Just ask yourself why a janitor, technician or maintenance crew would actually be authorised to perform spot welds on the structure's steel frame without first consulting with competent civil engineers and construction consultants?

That's such a ridiculous notion it doesn't merit a response. Saying ordinary commercial maintenance people were allowed to waltz into the internal core shafts as they pleased and make welding repairs to WTC's steel framing.

Welding is not polishing, you do understand?
With substances that burn at 3000C you can seriously damage the structural integrity of any steel column.
Not to mention it would require contacting the main contractor, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson, before any structural changes/repairs were made.

Modifications to the WTC complex had to made in accordance with the Port Authority's Tenant Alteration Review Manual and were reviewed by the Port Authority to ensure the changes did not compromise structural integrity of the buildings.

Yes. Very plausible notion indeed. [/sarcasm]

[edit on 12/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
At Semper's suggestion, a topical post open for rebuttal.

Jones investigates only the red and gray chips, ignoring all other dust, and has a small sample size. He rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint with the red chips. He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it.


Hmm, paint has organics yet this material doesn't. Why the need to test the organics from the paint sample?


He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion but claims thermitic reaction, anyway.


Again, if he retests without oxygen, will you concede?


His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this possibility; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in coatings.


Since this material is obviously a "coating" of some sort, I have no idea why this is important?


He does not extract a larger sample of the chips with a more agressive solvent, which would allow analysis of individual components. His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data.


Based on the data, what would you do to determine the difference?


He has and continues to publish unscientific propaganda in journals of questionable reputation. He has his own agenda and is not to be trusted.


Sounds exactly like the PNAC crowd. Doesn't it?

[edit on 4/12/2009 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

The structure was certified for two hours with the fireproofing in place. There is some question as to the integrity of the fireproofing even before the planes struck but it is concluded that the impact dislodged the fireproofing material as it was not really designed for impact.
The jet fuel started many simultaneous office fires over multiple floors so the cooling time statements may not be valid as there was continued heating of the structure.


There are two things wrong with that statement.

First, it was the steel that was certified, not the fireproofing. The steel was certified to withstand 2000 degree temperatures and it did not after only 15 minutes. I seriously doubt the UL dumped a bunch of fireproofing on the steel before testing it. They were testing the steel.

Second, continued heating of the structure? Um, no. The only thing in those buildings capable of sustaining "2000 degree" temperatures was the kerosene. There is no way that paper, desks, chairs and other office materials were burning by themselves at 2000 degrees. That is impossible. That's the thing, how does that happen? Nothing in those towers were capable of burning at 2000 degrees for even one second including the kerosene. Without the kerosene, you're looking at temperatures that are no match for steel. There is no continued heating of the structure without more kerosene, period.

The buildings should not have collapsed and certainly not because some jet fuel burning for 15 minutes weakened steel so much that it waited 45 and 90 minutes later to fall. Plenty of time to cool down from kerosene burning temperatures. It makes no sense whatsoever that they fell because of some quick-burning jet fuel and certainly not the oxygen starved fires going on that day indicated by the black smoke.

Kevin Ryan's words about the steel certification

I know, it's a truther website, but unfortunately, 9/11 truth sites are the only ones that care about this stuff. Otherwise, I would have sourced it from a neutral site.



[edit on 12-4-2009 by Kratos1220]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

After all this, in an urban complex of this vast scale with it's small army of maintenance people and many storage areas, would it have been that unusual to find a small cache of industrial thermite somewhere that was used for repairs?


The article actually has this:


They claim their analysis has uncovered "active thermitic material": a combination of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in a form of thermite known as "nanostructured super-thermite."

[...]

According to the Navy's Small Business Innovation Research, super-thermite "is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services."

"This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been shown," said Jones in a media advisory. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available to just anyone."

"The cost and production rate of super-thermite composites has limited the use of these materials in DoD applications," claims the Navy's SBIR.


It's not "industrial strength," it's "military grade." The particle size is what makes the difference, thermite normally having coarse particles, so less surface area between the iron oxide and aluminum contacts, and the reaction is less energetic. They are talking about an unusual kind of thermite with special properties, nothing new because I've seen people talking about the possibility for years now.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I applaud Jones' work, but why, being a physicist, does he not address the actual physics of the collapse itself, showing the absolute preposterous nature of the official NIST story, which actually OMITS a physical description and explanation for the collapse itself, except to offer a theory regarding collapse initiation only.

Wake up people! History, looking back can't NOT record this thing accurately, as a military operation and global psy-op, a ruse of the very worst kind and of the farthest reaching implications.


EXACTLY !

It is difficult and complicated to prove the details of the conspiracy.

However, it is EASY to prove that the official story is physically, scientifically, and logically IMPOSSIBLE.

The official story conflicts with what was observed and fundamental aspects of physics and chemistry.

The official story is ridiculous

This should be enough to make anyone look into the details.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
An engineer member of ATS weighed in with this response to the dismissal of the so-called "official story" here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Very much worth a read for those convinced there is a massive cover-up silencing or deceiving hundreds of thousands of professionals across the globe.





“... Are you telling me that of the 141,000 [members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)] ... plus all the ones who aren't members, plus all the civil engineers, demolitions engineers, architects, etc. around the world are just too cowardly to stand up and say that what "they" say happened isn't what really happened? That they believe that their current job, something they'll likely have for only a few years anyway, is more important than standing up against the greatest crime ever committed? You sure don't put much faith in people to do the right thing.

... The bottom line is that the un#ingbelieveably vast majority (99%+) of experts say that the towers fell in a matter consistent with the official story AND many have put forth hard evidence and simulations to support it. How many conspiracy believers have put forth hard evidence? Oh right, Steven Jones "lost" the evidence.

... I happen to be an engineer several degrees over. I've got the education and experience to assess many of the claims. Most people however, do not. If there is one thing people don't learn in their schooling it's that experience counts. Experienced engineers, almost without exception, believe the 9/11 conspiracy claims to be bunk.

... If the conspiracy had any meat to it then then the hundreds of thousands of qualified people around the world would say so. They haven't.”




Mike

[edit on 12-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I applaud Jones' work, but why, being a physicist, does he not address the actual physics of the collapse itself, showing the absolute preposterous nature of the official NIST story, which actually OMITS a physical description and explanation for the collapse itself, except to offer a theory regarding collapse initiation only.

Wake up people! History, looking back can't NOT record this thing accurately, as a military operation and global psy-op, a ruse of the very worst kind and of the farthest reaching implications.


EXACTLY !

It is difficult and complicated to prove the details of the conspiracy.

However, it is EASY to prove that the official story is physically, scientifically, and logically IMPOSSIBLE.

The official story conflicts with what was observed and fundamental aspects of physics and chemistry.

The official story is ridiculous

This should be enough to make anyone look into the details.

I'm glad someone gets it, how straightforward it is.

Those reporting it when it happened including Dan Rather and I think Tom Brokaw I believe it was, were NOT of the impression that the destruction ofhte buildings was caused by the plane strikes and fires. Their immediate impression was that the buildings were demolished intentionally.

The buildings exploded from the top down, while explosively ejecting their contents in a cascading fountain of debris, all the way to the ground, to within two or three seconds of absolute free fall.

For every action there is anequal and opposite reaction, and an object in motion will remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force of resistence.

I like to call the official story theory "the foot of God hypothesis".



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
An engineer member of ATS weighed in with this response to the dismissal of the so-called "official story" here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Very much worth a read for those convinced there is a massive cover-up silencing or deceiving hundreds of thousands of professionals across the globe.





“... Are you telling me that of the 141,000 [members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)] ... plus all the ones who aren't members, plus all the civil engineers, demolitions engineers, architects, etc. around the world are just too cowardly to stand up and say that what "they" say happened isn't what really happened? That they believe that their current job, something they'll likely have for only a few years anyway, is more important than standing up against the greatest crime ever committed? You sure don't put much faith in people to do the right thing.

... The bottom line is that the un#ingbelieveably vast majority (99%+) of experts say that the towers fell in a matter consistent with the official story AND many have put forth hard evidence and simulations to support it. How many conspiracy believers have put forth hard evidence? Oh right, Steven Jones "lost" the evidence.

... I happen to be an engineer several degrees over. I've got the education and experience to assess many of the claims. Most people however, do not. If there is one thing people don't learn in their schooling it's that experience counts. Experienced engineers, almost without exception, believe the 9/11 conspiracy claims to be bunk.

... If the conspiracy had any meat to it then then the hundreds of thousands of qualified people around the world would say so. They haven't.”




Mike

[edit on 12-4-2009 by mmiichael]

Some of them are beginning to chime in about it

www.ae911truth.org...

The rest have moved on and probably have not looked at it in any great detail, assuming like everyone else that the causal mechanism MUST have been the plane strikes and fires. In other words they too swallowed the Big Lie.




In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick – a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.
~ Adolf Hitler, on "The Big Lie"



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

Some of them are beginning to chime in about it

The rest have moved on and probably have not looked at it in any great detail, assuming like everyone else that the causal mechanism MUST have been the plane strikes and fires. In other words they too swallowed the Big Lie.




~ Adolf Hitler, on "The Big Lie"



Yes a number of professionals believe the WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition. Something like a fraction of 1%. The rest, many who have looked at the evidence professionally or out of personal interest accept the official explanation as sound. We don't hear from them often, because there is no attention given to people who have nothing to say that is controvesial. No websites, no books, no DVDs, no media coverage.

The insurance companies spent a chunk of change on their own investigations and would have had a legitimate reason to delay paying out had their highly motivated professional investigators found reason for serious doubts.

The government may tell lies, but that doesn't mean anyone critical of them is automatically completely truthful.

A number of sensationalist sources for years claimed Hitler had survived in 1945 and there were articles, reported sightings, stories of doubles, with photographs, testimony, all sorts of evidence. In the end none of it stood up to even casual scrutiny. Historians in 1965 saying "Hitler is still dead" got little attention. But those with the extravagant claims proved to be completely wrong, and they were right.

The demolition theory is based on foreknowledge and planting massive amounts of thermite or whatever, on the presumption that the planes would hit the buildings dead on at top floors and do enough damage to cnceal the later use of explosives.

What could have been the contingency if the damage was limited, say if only a wing hit or the destruction was mainly in adjacent parts of Manhattan?

A large number of complex variables and tremendous risk of exposure to bring down buildings that had already been critically damaged and the point of the massive assault already made.


My scepticism extends not only to the lack of convincing evidence on the logistics of surrepititiously installing the required quantities of thermite, but also being able to anticipate so precisely the scale and characteristics of the destruction.

And why go to this length when the supposed intent of creating alarm could have done more easily and less expensively?

So much just doesn't add up.


Mike







[edit on 12-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


Removed due to these two comments as per the advisory above.




You don't even understand these theories yourself so why bother commenting on them?





Pray tell demolition man!


Warnings are coming people

[edit on 4/12/2009 by semperfortis]




top topics



 
218
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join