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: 20
218
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




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


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
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.

What you actually said is what I actually quoted.

And what makes you think this isn't about evidence or that it has anything to do with politics? What are we, a bunch of disgruntled Bush haters who've decided to continue harassing him until he's dead? I supported a Republican candidate in 2008. You don't get it because you don't want to get it. You'd rather make straw man analogies and irrelevant comparisons instead of doing any real research.


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

Who knows? And who cares? I personally believe there were planes, except at the Pentagon. Shanksville is bizarre and remains a mystery. Are you suggesting that it's necessary to explain or prove every detail of what did happen before concluding the official story is a monumental lie? I don't know who killed JFK, but I know the Magic Bullet Theory is equally ludicrous.


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.

No, those are your faulty inferences and conclusions, not mine. What I said is what I meant. When a government has a long history of deception, dishonesty and false-flag operations that continually subvert the will of the people and inevitably lead to disastrous and economically-crippling wars, or when they won't even admit to shooting down a civilian airliner (TWA 800 accidentally and United 93 deliberately), why would you give them the benefit of the doubt on anything, especially when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary?


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?

How bizarre that you're continually focused on the what-ifs, why-nots and how-could-it-bes instead of impartially examining the numerous anomalies, implausibilities and flat-out impossibilities in the official story. If I'm ever on trial for premeditated murder, giving nonsensical and evasive answers that will hopefully distract from my long list of crimes, I want you on the jury.


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

So call me a skeptic.

And seemingly proud of it. I'd call you biased with an inability to objectively examine history, evidence and motives, or assemble pieces of the puzzle into a comprehensive understanding (e.g. attributing the 9/11 truth movement to "politics" or implying there's no evidence, which is absolutely ridiculous.) The fact that you've gotten all your erroneous information and stubborn conclusions from a website that you know nothing about except that it's called "Debunking911" says it all.

Is this how you were taught to research a story in journalism school?


[edit on 13-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I somehow thought that this thread was discussing the red chips that Jones analyzed, in a broad sense, and how they are thermitic or not based on the evidence. As Jones logic faults are many and his analytical protocol is rife with error, we can conclude that they are not thermitic and once again say that there is no evidence for planned demolition.
The arguments for demolition are basically those of incredulity when the destruction of unique buildings appears to be what it is evidentially not. These events were unique and so far outside the experiential base that hard evidence and not mere gut feelings are required. Whining about speed of collapse and fire damage "not being enough" is pointless. Unless there is hard evidence of demolition [for which there is no rationale for motive or explanation of method] it must be concluded that the planes and fires caused the destruction of the WTC's and the Pentagon.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_eighth_tower


What the hell has this got to do with the red chips?




Not a whole lot. But I think it is relevant to note that the chemistry behind the red chip investigation using house paint as a control has been demonstrated to be so ... flaky ... those trying to accept it as solid evidence feel compelled to condemn the messengers and their skepticism.

Though maybe deviating from the original topic, it's insightful to see how non-science like the kind Steven Jones utilizes finds a receptive audience because it lines up with conclusions that whatever comes from the US government is an immediate lie.

By inference things like atomic energy and weapons, even the Internet, are perpetrated con jobs considering where they originated. The government lies about everything. Great if it true and they aren't as cash strapped as they are claiming.


Mike



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I see there hasn't been much of a counter explanation for my kerosene theory, so I guess that means I'm on to something. Ok, here's where I'm at right now.

So far in this thread, we've seen some pretty convincing video evidence. We've seen:

- Firefighters reporting secondary explosives planted in the buildings before they collapsed

- Firefighters testifying that they were in fact blown back and had their hats blown off their heads by huge explosions in the lower levels of the towers before they collapsed

- Eyewitnesses, rescue workers and news reporters reporting hearing several explosions in the towers nowhere near the impact zone

- Firefighters on tape saying they saw molten steel flowing in the channels under the towers after the collapse and described it as "like being in a foundery, like lava from a volcano."

Outside of these video testimonies and reports from credible people, we have pictures of red hot steel being extracted from the rubble two months after the collapse dripping with molten steel. We have videos of the towers just before they collapsed with what appears to be molten liquid pouring out of the corner of the buildings.

I think my jet fuel analysis is solid in that it is impossible for jet fuel to have caused the collapse of the towers considering the time it burned for, the insufficient temperatures it burns at even in perfect conditions and the lengthy amount of time the towers stood after the kerosene was no longer a factor which common sense tells me would give the steel more than enough time to cool down. Then, the UL certification of the steel of 2000 degrees for several hours and the fact that kerosene does not burn that hot and didn't burn long enough to cause this on top of everything else.

I think it can be safely concluded that what we saw on that day was done by much more than a couple of planes and some kerosene. We have several witnesses of numerous explosions and firefighters finding secondary explosive devices inside, so that's it. There WERE explosives planted in the buildings, there's no disputing that. This, however, doesn't explain the "lava" found by firefighters in the rubble and seen being extracted in the few pictures that are available. We now have a study here claiming intimately mixed nano-thermite was found in dust recovered from the rubble. I mean, it seems to add itself up, doesn't it?

Explosives WERE planted in the buildings unless you think those firefighters were just playing jokes on people in the middle of this incident. IMO, whether or not explosives were planted in the buildings isn't even up for debate.

This study's findings would explain the "lava" and red hot steel dripping with molten steel being extracted months later and the video showing what appears to be molten liquid pouring out of the side of the towers just before they exploded to dust and collapsed. There's no way to know for sure what that was in the video, but what it looks like is red hot liquid, kind of like "lava". That is why I believe this study. It explains the "lava" straight from firefighter's mouths who were there and it explains the high temperatures and molten steel being extracted from rubble months afterwards.

I don't think there is any question that a mix of explosives and therm*te were used to assist the destruction of these two buildings.

I would also like to say that there are many intelligent people participating in this thread on both sides, but it seems like believers of the official story base too much of their opinions on what the majority says instead of using critical thinking and their intelligence which is clearly not lacking from OS believers. The denial is holding you back. C'mon guys, use that brain. Think for yourself instead of letting others do it for you.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Kratos1220
 


You said "This, however, doesn't explain the "lava" found by firefighters in the rubble and seen being extracted in the few pictures that are available. We now have a study here claiming intimately mixed nano-thermite was found in dust recovered from the rubble. I mean, it seems to add itself up, doesn't it?"

Actually, it doesn't add up. Thermite would have nothing to do with any heated metal after that amount of time. Thermite reacts in seconds and the metal cools like any other molten metal source. The only way for it to remain hot or get hotter is to have a continuing source of heat. The towers were mostly unburned when they collapsed and all that office furniture, paper, rugs, wallcoverings, plastic, etc. was nothing but fuel for a slow burning fire that was insulated by the debris.
As for the molten material pouring out of the building, it was unlikely to be steel and was probably aircraft aluminum. If you look closely, you will see the steel structure near the metal spill does not seem to be damaged by the metal. Aluminum melts at 660C, well within the temperature of burning jet fuel in air while steel melts at higher temperatures.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Kratos1220
 

The towers were mostly unburned when they collapsed and all that office furniture, paper, rugs, wallcoverings, plastic, etc. was nothing but fuel for a slow burning fire that was insulated by the debris.

Tell us again how those oxygen-starved, black-smoke fires that were 70 or 80 floors high ended up burning 3-4X hotter in the WTC sub-levels, and also how relatively small fires that were buried under 100 floors of dust and rubble found enough oxygen to burn for 3 months when a gaping hole in the building didn't provide enough oxygen for 3 hours?

Something about a coal fire?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Tell us again how those oxygen-starved, black-smoke fires that were 70 or 80 floors high ended up burning 3-4X hotter in the WTC sub-levels, and also how relatively small fires that were buried under 100 floors of dust and rubble found enough oxygen to burn for 3 months when a gaping hole in the building didn't provide enough oxygen for 3 hours?




The science of this is pretty basic. Open air burning allows for more rapid combustion. A large mass with air gaps burns more slowly and heat builds up.

There was a massive fire of 12-14 million tires in Hagersville Ontario in 1991. Temperatures were estimated to be 2000 degrees Fahrenheit at the centre. Despite efforts to extinguish it with water hoses, it burned continuously for 17 days.

The outer layers of such large scale fires contains the burning making it smoulder even longer.


Mike



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

OK first of all, ask Debunking911.com if 12-14 million tires burning in an enormous open-air pit sounds like the equivalent of an oxygen-starved aviation fuel fire smoldering within 100 floors of steel and pulverized concrete.


Early in the morning of February 12, 1990, a deliberate act of vandalism began the conflagration, which soon engulfed almost all of the 14 million tires. Dennis Corr of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment explained that tires are "...probably perfect for burning" because of their high-flame temperature and their shape, which allows an abundant supply of air and keeps the fire going.

Once again, I'm asking how these relatively small, black-smoke fires that were probably burning at 600-700 degrees F max jumped past 70 floors during the collapse and ended up beneath 110 floors of debris, in the WTC sub-levels.

But forget about all that. Let's assume that these mystical fires found a way to travel faster than the near free-fall speeds that the floors below them collapsed. Hey, it's the physics-defying WTC, so anything's possible. Now let's soak those 12 million tires in Jet fuel A and pile them throughout ten floors of WTC towers. Remember, tires are "perfect for burning because of their high-flame temperature and their shape." Then let's remove the exterior walls and floors above and to the sides to expose the structure to the open air and maximize the flow of oxygen. Finally, we'll let this conflagration burn for a week or until it reaches it's maximum intensity. Even THAT wouldn't have been hot enough to have melted or even compromised the strength of the WTC's structural steel.

A common claim is that "not one person has come forward to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job." Not only is that blatantly untrue, there are many more people like Kevin Ryan of Underwriter Laboratories, who quietly resigned (or was removed) early on after a dispute or disagreement about uninsulated steel in the WTC towers being rated to 2000 degrees F. Most people like Kevin are smart enough to quickly assess the situation and quietly resign rather than raise a stink.

Damn, I oughta win a research award for that one. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate how hot 2000 degrees F. really is.

Now if you can find a way in your mind to figure out how these fires zoomed past the other floors on the way down and burned 1500-2000 degrees hotter than they were capable of burning with whatever unburned fuel and combustibles were left. Even after a "giant lake" of water was poured on the burning pile for 3 months straight, I'm confident you'll somehow find a way to justify it.

The incredible mental gymnastics and self-deluding abilities that some people exhibit in order to avoid an uncomfortable reality is nothing short of mind-blowing.


[edit on 13-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Perhaps these newly developed nanoenergetic compounds were added to the structures under the guise of 'fireproofing' foam.

The nature of this compound would allow for it to be disguised in what would appear to be fire-proofing foam - when is actually a demolitions technology that is being applied directly to the metallic frame of the buildings.(other elements could also be added to the foam matrix s as to facilitate and increase the efficacy of the primary reaction)

This highly energetic compound can be activated electrically, negating the need for a conventional activation mechanism (wires,detonators, etc.). Many high-grade thermates/thermites can be activated in this manner.

**A sufficient charge need only be applied to a single point on the metal framework to initiate the reactions this destructive compound disguised as fireproofing throughout the entirety of the areas where it is applied - and would do so almost instantaneously due to the conductive nature of the metal framework of the buildings. No detonators would be required, just exposure to sufficient amount of electrical current. ;-)

Remote Detonation of the conventional explosives would reduce the amount of cordage and detonators that would otherwise be required or such an operation. Modern technology would also greatly reduce the requirements of such things as wires being connected to each device - wireless technology exists that would be sufficient for the task, and which would negate the need for such things.

Modern remote detonating capabilities should be considered, as they would explain the absence of many of the things the public commonly associates with controlled demolitions....

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Tell us again how those oxygen-starved, black-smoke fires that were 70 or 80 floors high ended up burning 3-4X hotter in the WTC sub-levels, and also how relatively small fires that were buried under 100 floors of dust and rubble found enough oxygen to burn for 3 months when a gaping hole in the building didn't provide enough oxygen for 3 hours?

Something about a coal fire?


Molten or glowing metal after two months doesn't have anything to do with the presence or absence of thermitic materials. The fires in the rubble were limited by the total fuel and air available to them. They burned as fast as those conditions allowed but were insulated by the many layers of rubble and could not radiate heat as well so, over time, they became hotter than open-air fires. The hole in the building allowed better combustion, still not stoichiometric, and the heat was better dissipated.
The air for the combustion can come from many places because the rubble was not sealed air tight. Diffusion and chimney effects cause air flow sufficient for slow combustion. The subway system was directly under the WTC complex and is a nice source of air.
I had used mine fires as an example of slow burning fires limited by oxygen availability. They burn slowly and are difficult to put out.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


The electrical ignition concept requires wires connecting the various thermite charges and switches to initiate the demolition. As you might have noticed, once the collapse started it went fairly quickly. It went much more quickly than the time required for a series of thermite charges to be effective.
The entire thermite theory logically fails on collapse speed alone.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
A while back, there was a grocery store that burned down about 2 miles from where i lived.

So as the fire fighters were investigating the fire, if they had found trace amounts of the chemicals used in orange juice concentrate.....would you come in here claiming that the building was napalmed?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Now I do understand where you are coming from on this, but you have to see everything else that happened that is NOT consistant with any controlled demolitions. such as, the lack of the characteristic sound of charges going off in the towers and WTC7 prior to collapse. Note: This does not get confirmed by "explosions heard" randomly in and around the buildings. Hearing explosions in a large fire is not new and not indicitive of any explosives. Another important thing, minutes prior to collapse, the exterior columns are seen to bend inwards, all the way up to collapse. Now what explosives can do that, I'd like to know. Explosives do not cause beams to bend gradually inwards prior to collapse.

Third: Debris being ejected from the floors is NOT consistant with explosives. Why? Explosives have a characteristic KABBOOOOM!!! when they go off. also with that power, windows would have been shattered all around the site by the powerful blast waves, and heard for blocks around and also, would mean that EVERY single floor would have had to been jampacked with explosives to create that effect. Also, you forget the design. The floors were wide open. No columns or anything between the core and exterior. That means lots of floor space. Lots of floor space = lots of air. Crushing tons of drywall+concrete+debris+everything+air pressure from the collapsing floors will cause such "ejections". However, why were the beams selectively "thrown" out during the collapse? if the explosives were spaced out, the exterior columns should have been thrown all at the same time and distance with the characteristic KABOOM preceeding it. However, the exterior columns fall over like they are getting peeled off piece by piece and falling off as a banana peel.
You also overlook the size of the connections of the floor trusses to the exterior and interior columns. There was plenty of evidence of shearing of the bolts and bolt connections, which is indicitive of collapse and failure of the connections.
Lastly, there should have been plenty of evidence of explosives used, ie blasting caps, debris, explosive residues, even evidence of blasting. But none were found ever. The vidual evidence of beams twisted, bent, snapped, is only proof of the magnitude of the forces of the collapse and destruction of the buildings. It is silly to think that 110 floors collapsing is not all that big. You have thousands of tons of debris collapsing, twisting, etc etc down with forces unimmaginable. also the after affectes in the caustic conditions of the pile. After all it is widely known, heat and rust and water is steel's kryptonite. Add to that the sulfur from drywall, all the chemical reactions one would expect in such an environment that lasted for months, and its NO surprise to see what happened to some of the steel. Those that study and understand these things were not surprised when they saw the results. However laypeople, those that dont understand it, see it as mysterious, magical, unbelieveable, and that is understandable.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


You forget the chemical reactions deep inside the pile that also create heat: ie rusting. Also the reactions of sulfur with the heated rusting steel causes reactions that eat the steel up and destroy it. You also forget that acids also create heat. Certain chemical reactions create morefree oxygen which then gets used in another chemical reaction which creates more heat. basically it was a nasty nasty environment. Sulfur mixes with water and flashes into steam from the hot beams creates more heat. Water mixed with sulfuric acid creates heat. And with the thousands of tons of debris, of drywall, of heated beams, water, other chemicals and elements, its not surprise we saw what we did in the piles afterwards. Its all basic chemistry.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Thanks for explaining the heat and temperature issues so succinctly.

I'm still at a loss to understand the unswerving belief in controlled demolition. How much more would anyone think to gain? How could they anticipate the quality, timing, and scale of damage that would make it possible for them to blend it in with the already massive destruction incurred?

The claim is an incredibly elaborate and secretive planting of explosives was done on massive buildings that would already have incurred so much damage from the initial assault of two jetlines they'd be unsafe and unoccupiable, and inevitably have to be torn down.

So the explosives would serve the purpose of insurance of collapse the same day and for dramatic purposes.

Blowing up the buildings conventionally and planting evidence on Iraq io whoever would have accomplished the same end with less risk of discovery for those involved in the plot.

And so far not even consensus on what the explosive material was, or solid evidence of where it came from, who installed it, how, on whose orders, and for what purpose.



Mike







[edit on 13-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
It went much more quickly than the time required for a series of thermite charges to be effective.


No one has said that the demolition was conducted solely using thermitic compounds - that just happens to be the primary topic highlighted in the OP.

I have no doubt that conventional explosives were used, but we are discussing the nanoenergetic compound discovered not the residue of as conventional explosive.



Originally posted by pteridine
The electrical ignition concept requires wires connecting the various thermite charges and switches to initiate the demolition.


You must have missed the part of my post where I covered this particular method of activating a thermitic reaction....
"*A sufficient charge need only be applied to a single point on the metal framework to initiate the reactions this destructive compound disguised as fireproofing throughout the entirety of the areas where it is applied - and would do so almost instantaneously due to the conductive nature of the metal framework of the buildings. No detonators would be required, just exposure to sufficient amount of electrical current"


Wires and cordage are not required to initiate reaction in this type of nanoenergetic compound.

As far as wires and cordage being a requirement for conventional explosives; Even The Iraqis detonate their primitive IEDS remotely....

Here is a Scientist on Dutch TV saying what I have just said - a posteriori, of course.





[edit on 14-4-2009 by Exuberant1]




top topics



 
218
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join