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: 19
218
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Speculation as to precisely how it was done ie: planting of explosives, is a waste of time imho.

What concerns me is the actual occurance of the destruction of the those buildings, in reality, an occurance which was recorded in real time, when it happened from a variety of angles and perspectives.

Try this simple thought experiment. Imagine each floor of the twin towers suspended in mid air, with no central columns upholding the building, and then imagine the first section of floors being allowed to fall in free fall, first grouping together, and then descending, while colliding with each successive floor, which begins at a state of rest and only starts to descend when impacted, and consider this occuring in free fall - and that's perhaps the closest one could possibly get to the actual fall time as recorded.

Now consider all the welds and joints and bolts, and how at each level there was sufficient structural support to uphold the entire remaining structure and more (overengineered) above that level, all the way from the bottom to the top - and then, consider the way that the building material was ejected in that cascading fountain of debris pouring out, from the top down, leaving little more than atmosphere in it's wake - moving all the way down with continual momentum, all the way down to the ground to within a few second of absolute free fall time from the same height and distance - and perhaps, you will begin to understand why I call the official story "the foot of God hypothesis".


Lastly, it is highly disingenuous to suggest that every Civil Engineer the world over has looked at this, or even the 144,000 of the ASCE, or, that there are any plausible simulations of the occurance of destruction I just described, something conveniently left out of the NIST report. And how is it that people cannot examine something and look at it and evaluate it for themselves, why the appeal to experts, when what I'm suggesting is that it is entirely self evident by open minded rational analysis that the official story about it is absurd.

You see the problem here is the false causal connection with the plane strikes and fires - for who in their right mind would think that the two things are NOT causally connected, or, that some conspiracy or "inside job" would blow the buildings on the heads of the firemen and everyone left inside, as a false pretext to waging wars of aggression in the Middle East?!

It is important to remember that any engineers on record supporting the official story begin with only ONE possible presupposition in mind and only ONE possible conclusion, which then backs into a collapse INITIATION hypothesis ONLY - never dealing with the actual occurance of destruction or the actual collapse itself - since it is PRESUMED that the plane impact area of initation is the causal mechanism, and that once started, the whole building would just disintegrate beneath the descending weight of debris, which on the face of it, is an absurd assumption (ie: Newton's 3 Laws of Motion).

I'm fairly smart but I'm not THAT smart, and if I can see this clearly, then anyone can, but it takes a strong mind to really LOOK at it open mindedly without any assumption or bias.

And again, I am reminded of what Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw were reporting at the time when it happened, they knew something else was happening than a "collapse" of the buildings due to plane impacts and fires. The one reporter stated "this is certainly NOT from the plane strikes and fires. Everyone knows that to bring a building like this down, you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building." (paraphrased)

And then there were all those first hand accounts of explosions, in some cases which blew firefighters right off their feet! Blew out the lobby, sub-basement explosions, etc.
video.google.com...

So therefore, I must refer to Hitler's Big Lie to explain how so many people, even Engineers and Architects could be hoodwinked by it. It MUST have been the result of the plane impacts and fires - anything else is unthinkable, namely that the plane impacts and fires were the cause to SELL the ruse that they were the cause of the building's demise for who would assume anything else?!

Could someone post a series of videos now of the buildings going down? Thanks.

P.S. Regarding the notion that pre-planted explosives in the buildings would require with absolute certainty, if they were to be used, that the planes would fulfill their mission and manage to hit their targets - please consider carefully the following information.

South Tower Plane Was A Military Drone Aircraft, NOT Flight 175!
letsrollforums.com...

[edit on 12-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]




posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 05:37 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.


It isn't hard to fool a lot of people, or to get a lot of people to behave stupidly. I hope I don't have to give examples; you probably think I'm under such influence right now, but hopefully you will see after reading my post that I actively discriminate against appeals to authority and popular opinion, and what's called "good" reasoning.

You're arguing from arrogance. You might as well say, these conspiracy theories can't be true, or else all us geniuses would have already known it by now and put everyone in jail and figured it all out. You might feel confident that that's true, but to me, the absurdity of your argument just demonstrates that people such as yourself simply don't grasp logic in the first place. Using that kind of thinking, what's right and wrong isn't a matter of debate but of popular consensus. And obviously this kind of "reasoning" weighs heavily for you, or else you wouldn't post things like this.


The biggest argument against the theory of the Sun being the center of our solar system was "common sense." Oh, that theory was violently opposed for generations. The man who first introduced it to the public didn't even see it gain popularity during his life time. He died ridiculed, people thought he was a fool. Let me guess what YOU would have thought of that man's theory in those times.
Even the experts "knew" he was wrong.

My point is, "that can't be right or we would all be wrong!" is not an argument. It's almost the definition of ignorance. It's something close actually, like I mentioned earlier, it's called "arrogance."



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
"There is a principal which acts as a bar against all information, and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is - contempt, prior to investgation."
~ Herbert Spencer



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Yes, and I especially liked my contribution to that thread that pretty much ended the debate.



Originally posted by Griff
Here's what Dr. Quintiere had to say about the NIST report after it was published:


James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World
Trade Center Towers on 9/11.




Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions
on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety
Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he
said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records
that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like
to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both
structurally and from a fire point of view.


I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is
questionable
,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real
alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the
World Trade Towers


www.opednews.com...

It really doesn't sound to me like he agrees with his former employers.

Here's more.


3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?


Although Dr. Quintiere doesn't agree with the CD theories, the fact that he disagrees with NIST shows us that engineers are NOT in agreement as of yet.

So, claiming that 141,000 members of the ASCE are all in agreement is false.

[edit on 12/31/2008 by Griff]


BTW, ASCE member right here. And experienced too.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Do sign up with these guys when you get a chance, if you have not done so already.

www.ae911truth.org...



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
The official story conflicts with what was observed and fundamental aspects of physics and chemistry.

The official story is ridiculous

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.

It wasn't just Rather and Brokaw. If you'll review the coverage from the first day, everyone was talking about secondary explosions. I mean literally everyone. Firefighters are even on tape telling people to clear the area because there's a "bomb in the building." One person is so surprised, he asks the firefighter to repeat himself, which he does: "There's a bomb in the building."

As the scientific investigative panel Physics911 notes,


Witnesses to WTC Explosions
There are dozens of live video captures of the multiple internal explosions that brought down the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. What’s amazing is not that it happened, but that it happened in broad daylight, thousands experienced it first hand, millions saw and heard the overwhelming evidence on TV and in spite of that, a government-created myth has become the official version of events.



Wow -- 10,800,000 views!

It's the strangest thing, almost like the Ministry of Truth from '1984' confiscated all the 'secondary explosion' and 'bomb-in-the-building' reports from the first day, flushed them down the Memory Hole, then substituted their Osama bin Laden myth on 9/12. Except that story does not match what was clearly seen and heard by many, many witnesses in the news reports above.

It's like CNN's Jamie McIntyre standing in front of the Pentagon on 9/11 saying, "based on my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the building", then clarifying what he really meant later!

Have we really become that easy to hypnotize and manipulate?


[edit on 12-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   






Maybe that is your impression, but no one has ever said that *every* professional engineer agrees with NIST conclusions or that they are without errors. Given an arbitrary 1% disagreement level, that would make 1,400 unsupportive. Are there that many who have come forward to say so?

A more thorough analysis has to be done and documents preserved for future researchers. But as provided, critics of the vast study are aware of flaws but do not immediately dismiss it in it's entirety.

Just as any detailed report of an event containing incorrect conclusions does not mean it did not occur.

We can all agree NIST is not the final answer. But what's wrong with it does not make it a jumping off point to claim controlled demolition is the alternative and real answer.

In discussions I've seen, many point to any type of problem with NIST, real or imaginary, as a vindication of a CD scenario.

This willingness to jump to conclusions and dismiss contrary evidence is one reason I rarely engage in discussions of this subject.


Mike



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff,
I'll rewrite this to be more clear about how Jones' group have done bad science.
The red chips have an organic component but he doesn't analyze it. He tries to dissolve it with MEK which he says is a paint solvent. It is actually not a great solvent for cured coatings and there are many better solvents readily available in most chemical laboratories. Jones, et al., then takes some paint of unknown composition and compares the effects of MEK on that paint withthe effects on the red chips. He doesn't say what the paint is and for how long it was cured, but it is dissolved or degraded more than the red chips. Aha says Jones, since the MEK dissolved the paint and didn't completely dissolve the red chips, then the red chips cannot be paint.
High school science, grade school logic.
Then they run DSC to look for reaction. Unfortunately, they either don't understand what they are doing or are committing fraud because they run the DSC experiment in a flow of air while looking for a reaction that does not need air. There is an exotherm. It could be the organics burning off or anything else but they claim thermitic reaction and shout about proof. In this experiment, they could have used sawdust and seen an exotherm. Is this stupidity or malice?
Finally, they show backscatter results such that Al, Si, and O all appear in the same geometric locations. Any scientist would look for aluminosilicates [clays; a commmon component of many formulations] but, of course, they do not. Ignorance or an agenda?
When we add all of this up we must conclude that these are either the most incompetent group of people ever to disgrace an analytical laboratory or that they are willfully perpetrating fraud.

In either case, there is no evidence for thermite.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
This gets even more and more insane.

I can't believe our own government would allow such a hideous thing to happen in New York.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
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.

Instead of the inevitable 'Sasquatch/Space Aliens/Elvis/Hitler are still alive' straw man comparisons, how about analogies that are a bit more realistic and relevant?

Like the people who claimed that FDR had absolute advance knowledge of every detail of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Like the people who claimed that the CIA/government was responsible for assassinating JFK. Or RFK. Or MLK.

Like the people who claimed that Gulf of Tonkin never happened.

Or how about WMDs in Iraq? In every case, the official story has come under decades of withering attack until a majority of the population, authors and historians alike just don't believe it anymore.

I could continue with examples from the USS Liberty, TWA 800 and Oklahoma City (another incident where the government's 'Timothy McVeigh/truck bomb' myth replaced initial TV and newspaper reports that unanimously mentioned and even showed several "sophisticated explosives devices" being removed from the Murrah Federal Building.) Then there's the hundreds of eyewitnesses -- including some very credible military/law enforcement types -- who saw a fiery red light rise up from the ocean and impact TWA 800. All ignored.

It always becomes, "don't trust anything that you personally saw or heard -- trust the official story from the Ministry of Truth.

If they occasionally told the truth, people wouldn't be so skeptical.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Do sign up with these guys when you get a chance, if you have not done so already.

www.ae911truth.org...


To risk going off topic, I have already signed the petition.


On topic: I haven't been to the ae site since this paper came out. Any word from their end that hasn't been discussed here yet?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
When we add all of this up we must conclude that these are either the most incompetent group of people ever to disgrace an analytical laboratory


So, you have contacted them then and "schooled" them in their method and explained what method you would accept?


In either case, there is no evidence for thermite.


That's because it's not thermite.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Jones has been in touch with others via other websites. The latest claim is that the therm*tic material was used as a fuse for other explosives. That may change again when he figures out exactly what he wants to claim, next.
The more I read the paper, the more flaws I find. He'll need a redo if he can get more sample.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Hey Fleece, how many more flags until it get to top topics???

I have to thank you and the other onto members for your efforts in this thread. It is good to see that 911 is still getting plenty of attention. It has awoken many of the sleeping masses but unfortunately not enough.......


What do you amigos think are the top 5 'smoking guns' of 911?

The Pentagon is the nail in the coffin for me. There is no way a 747 made that hole. Then the footage is confiscated


I had a look at 'fox & fox.' Hundreds of posts every single one supporting the OS??? Dodgy to say the least...........

Thank again, peace



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Instead of the inevitable 'Sasquatch/Space Aliens/Elvis/Hitler are still alive' straw man comparisons, how about analogies that are a bit more realistic and relevant?

Like the people who claimed that FDR had absolute advance knowledge of every detail of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Like the people who claimed that the CIA/government was responsible for assassinating JFK. Or RFK. Or MLK.

Like the people who claimed that Gulf of Tonkin never happened.

Or how about WMDs in Iraq? In every case, the official story has come under decades of withering attack until a majority of the population, authors and historians alike just don't believe it anymore.

I could continue with examples from the USS Liberty, TWA 800 and Oklahoma City ...

... It always becomes, "don't trust anything that you personally saw or heard -- trust the official story from the Ministry of Truth.

If they occasionally told the truth, people wouldn't be so skeptical.



Sorry, from your reply I see an un willingness to discuss or even listen to arguments. What I actually said was there are always dissenters, people who disagree with the common consensus in any group. It should be about the merit of the evidence, not the internal politics.

How about those who buy into the No Planes Theory? Are they brainwashed lackeys or fighters for truth?

Collectively from your arguments I see a list of the times the US government has enacted subterfuge in pursuit of foreign policy. This then
is supposed to prove, by inference, 9/11 was pre-planned, and that thermite was the means of CD.

It is the "'Socrates is Greek, all Greeks are human, therefore all humans are Greek" argument.

The thrust of my argument, which has been circumvented, is how do you plant thermite co-ordinating with anticipated plane collision destruction that can be blended in credibly? And why go to such lengths and inherent risk of discovery when you've accomplished the panic you are trying to create?

I find gaping holes in the logic and plausibility alongside the scientific dubiousness, quite frankly.

So call me a skeptic.


Mike



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 
,

Amen Billybob!! The fact of the matter is I feel that people keep forgetting that never
in history has a steel framed building EVER collapsed due to fire only, before and since
911.That is a fact.Building 7 barely had any fire damage and was never hit yet it
still collapsed.This fact alone should be recognized way more than it is.
That day,for the first time in history, 3 buildings collapsed due to fire?? Rubbish!!
So forget about the thermite, "red chips" and bla bla bla!
That is absolutely petty compared to the other facts out there. There is so many
people that do NOT want to believe our own government could do such a horrible
thing therefore will shut their eyes to the truth. It doesn't matter what facts remain,
they will REFUSE to accept the truth.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

Hey Fleece, how many more flags until it get to top topics???

Just 3 or 4.


I have to thank you and the other onto members for your efforts in this thread. It is good to see that 911 is still getting plenty of attention. It has awoken many of the sleeping masses but unfortunately not enough.......

Agreed. I had a hard time believing it myself for a long time. Much of my family still doesn't (except the official story is so implausible, even they sometimes concede it's possible that the government "let it happen.") LOL. That's a relief!


What do you amigos think are the top 5 'smoking guns' of 911?

When you start looking into all the crazy unexplained anomalies of 9/11, it quickly becomes more like 500.

These are just for starters.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join