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: 21
218
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


very nicely put. I'm glad when someone can illustrate how chemistry actually works and be able to use science to support their argument.

Simply saying "this is that because i said so" isn't science.

But it is how conspiracies are started...




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
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.

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.

Could you please tell me whether the KABBOOOOMS!!! in this video qualify as being consistent with the sound of secondary explosions or are they disqualified by the fact that the explosions were heard in and around the WTC buildings?

I'm not sure about any shattered windows, except of course the massive sheets of plate glass in the WTC main lobbies, but I realize they don't count because the basement explosions that shattered sub-level freight elevators and everything in the lobbies were also heard.


I'm glad someone is finally making a distinction between the suspicious KABBOOOOMS!!! and the more benign, run-of-the-mill KABBOOOOMS!!! that can now be properly dismissed.


Hearing explosions in a large fire is not new and not indicitive of any explosives.

I understand. Thank you for clearing that up. If I may ask one more question, when the FDNY firefighter in the above video yells, CLEAR THE AREA -- THERE'S A BOMB IN THE BUILDING!!!, would that be the type of bomb responsible for secondary explosions or is it the common large fire bomb?


[edit on 13-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Could you please tell me whether the KABBOOOOMS!!! in this video qualify as being consistent with the sound of secondary explosions or are they disqualified by the fact that they were heard in and around the buildings?

[ link to video with uncertain title ]





While trying to keep in the spirit of intelligent discourse, I feel compelled to come down hard on this or any supplied video pseudo-documentary.

As a 9/11 expert you must know that there are numerous accusations and a few legal cases involving the doctoring of real footage and sound recording to show things that weren't actually there.

One I recalled reading about:




killtown.blogspot.com...

" ... Rick [Siegel] just made a new video clip that clearly shows how "9/11 Mysteries" altered the audio on his original footage by editing in explosions, sirens, and a police call operator. "







www.911mysteriesguide.com...

" Sophia Shafquat, Brad Waddell, and Avatar produce a product that has dreadfully distorted reality. Here is but one clip showing how they placed explosions and sounds of police radio calls where nothing of the kind existed. Secrets and Lies, frauds from those claiming to seek the truth. "




That this is being offered as a form of evidence speaks volumes in itself.

Mike



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


Feel free to repost without the snide comments



[edit on 4/13/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



or are they disqualified by the fact that the explosions were heard in and around the WTC buildings?




I live in a mid-sized city...population is about 120,000 people.
About 3 months ago, a very tall crane had some equipment malfunction and a piece of the crane (i think they said it's the "boom" ??) came tumbling down to the pavement below.


Above is the building im talking about.


The reason i tell you that is because as soon as the crane hit the pavement, there were multiple calls placed to 911 that a building had exploded.

You see, the impact of steel falling with tremendous force and landing on concrete created such a violent sound that it was mistaken for an explosion.



NOW, let's take that incident and multiply it by the # of floors there are inside the world trade center.
Every time one floor collides with the floor beneath it, im sure you're in for some loud-as-hell noises....which would easily be mistaken by anyone near it who had no idea what they're talking about.

Just because someone is staring at the sky screaming "FLYING SAUCER" does not mean it's not a 747.

You call those people credible because they agree with your fictitious story that is built on the lies you claim to be exposing.

The only thing you're exposing is just how far an individual will go to get some attention.

To call them explosions without ANY evidence is disingenuous at worst, and treasonous at best.

The fact that the 911 truthers had to edit in sound effects in order to prove their story is all the evidence one needs to realize that all this is is another movement of otherwise every day joe's living their lives looking for something to make them famous.

Pretty sad....in my opinon

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Fremd]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

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

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....

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Exuberant1]


I have shown how the science is flawed and that there was no "nanoenergetic compound " found.

Application of current to the device would require that the device be part of a circuit. Applying a voltage to the framework would just ground the voltage source. How would the devices have current flow through them?

The Iraqui's detonate their IED's remotely with cell phone circuitry. Wires, batteries, and detonators are certainly required at the device.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
How convinient is it that after so long, and after the whole 9/11 movement for truth was going down a slide, with even members arguing among themselves this comes up.

Did anyone even bother to check the original link from where this story came from?

www.bentham-open.org

Here is a link to the list of "real" scientific journals in physics.


en.wikipedia.org...

Nowhere does "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" appears, except on websites from "Bentham Open".

I did a search about "Bentham Open" and found the following.



A short post about Bentham Open

I've had my eye on Bentham Open since before various bloggers, Peter Suber and Richard Poynder raised concerns about their email marketing and the recruitment of their editorial boards.

When they launched they copied some of their instructions for authors verbatim from the BMC-series journals, but the below really took the biscuit. Spot the difference. They stopped using that logo pretty sharpish; I think someone put a shot across their bows...

journalology.blogspot.com...

Doing even more research on people which this "Open Betham" have tried to hire as writers, and which Bentham open claims are experts I found the following.



A new model for open access: the pyramid scheme
Yesterday I got an e-mail from a company that seems to specialize in coming up with new open-access journals:

Dear Dr. Wynn,

In recognition of your outstanding reputation and contribution in the field of Demography ,we are pleased to propose your name as the Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Open Demography Journal’. After the selection your role as the Editor-in-Chief will not be an onerous one. You will not be expected to process any submitted manuscripts to the journal nor referee them (unless you choose to do so). What we would expect from you is that you would arrange to solicit and submit a minimum of ten manuscripts to the journal each year. Moreover, from time to time we would hope that you would offer advice on how best to develop the journal in order to maintain and improve on its success in the field. You would also be free to invite new editorial board members to the journal who wish to take an active editorial role. For all manuscripts that you submit to the journal, from above ten that are published, we will pay you annual royalty of 5% of all fees received on these manuscripts.

Since the launch of the new open access journal entitled “The Open Demography Journal” there has been a lot of interest in the journal from both authors and readers. The journal is freely available at no costs to readers via the journal’s website at www.todemoj.org. We expect that this year the number of submitted manuscripts to the journal will rapidly increase and that the journal will establish itself internationally.

Your term as the Editor-in-Chief would be initially for two years which is renewable by mutual agreement. We hope you will consider this offer and look forward to receiving your positive reply. Please could you reply to me by return email at email: editor@benthamopen.org within 24 hours after receipt of this offer along with your detailed CV and list of publications so that it can be sent to the Advisory Board for review.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
BENTHAM OPEN

[This message has been sent to you because of your eminence in the field. If, however, you do not want to receive any email/offer/invitation in future from Bentham Open, then please click here.]

Hmm. I know that open access publishing requires a different funding model than the traditional subscriber-pays, and perhaps that will entail a different approach to soliciting and rewarding academic labor. Yet I hadn’t quite imagined my way to the model outlined in this letter, which is almost a pyramid scheme. It does explain all the e-mails I’ve gotten this year from the editors of obscure open-access journals, inviting me to contribute. They’re all looking for their 5%, I guess.

Perhaps I would be more inclined to take the funding model seriously if it weren’t obviously spam. Not only am I not a demographer, I’ve only ever published one article in a demography journal (which I assume is where they got my name). I’m about the furthest thing from “eminence in the field.” What’s uncanny is that just last month I also got invited to be the editor-in-chief of a new medical journal devoted to women’s health. (Ditto as with the demography business: I’m not a physician, though I do publish in medical journals and write about reproductive health policy.)

Is anyone else getting stuff like this?

–L.L. Wynn

culturematters.wordpress.com...

This is nothing more than a scam. This company tries to hire people, which the owners call scientists, but they are not real scientists.



[edit on 13-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fremd
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

To call them explosions without ANY evidence is disingenuous at worst, and treasonous at best.

Perhaps you should review the above compilation of news clips from 9/11 and hear for yourself the wide variety of police, firefighters, federal agents, rescue workers, WTC building employees, anchors, reporters and passers-by who referred to the numerous "secondary explosions." That's exactly what they were, what else would you call them? Should that FDNY firefighter in the video be charged with treason for warning people to "clear out, there's a bomb in the building?" Should the Associated Press be charged with treason for initially reporting that a car bomb had gone off at the Pentagon? Should police spokesmen be charged with treason for telling TV stations there are suspicions that secondary explosions contributed to the collapses?


The fact that the 911 truthers had to edit in sound effects in order to prove their story is all the evidence one needs to realize that all this is is another movement of otherwise every day joe's living their lives looking for something to make them famous.

What makes you think they're real 9/11 Truthers? If "9/11 Mysteries" is what I think it is (the no-planes documentary that alleges TV stations faked all the footage on 9/11), I was suspicious of them from Day 1.

But thank you for an irrelevant distraction.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Did you check my response, and the research which I made in about 10 minutes that shows this is nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by Bentham Open which is a scam?

The company sends emails to "regular people" who have no real scientific background, and are not experts at all, who maybe write one paper with their own opinions, but "Bentham Open" claims these people are experts.

"The Open Chemical Physics Journal" is not a real peer-reviewed journal, it was made up by Bentham Open, and only apears in "Bentham Open" related websites.



[edit on 13-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
[
Thank you for your intelligent discourse and hard-line skepticism that's exclusively one-sided. However, have you noted that the above "pseudo-documentary" is simply a compilation of news clips from 9/11?

Even know I realize you're the master of straw man correlations and irrelevant analogies, has it ever occurred to you that the accusations you've cited have nothing to do with the validity of news stories that are easily verified?


[edit on 13-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]



While I'm sympathetic to your "Bad News - shoot the messenger!" reactions, I don't think it is an effective avoidance strategy.

You linked to a video to show a "KABBOOM" that would demonstrate an explosion consistent with a planted device.

It has been noted there were explosions and they are consistent with fires of this magnitude. I also related that a number of videos have been shown to add or amplify sound. For the record it has also been demonstrated that some broadcast material related to 9/11 was tampered with for heightened dramatic effect.

I don't see your argument furthered by the contents of the video.

If, on more than one level, I question the reliability of this video as tangible evidence of what you claim, I am labeled a skeptic for doing so. Well, guilty as charged.

Furthering my skepticism, I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation why there would need to be explosives devices planted in nearly destroyed edifices that in the best of circumstances would be structurally unsound and almost certainly have to be torn down?



Mike



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Yep, checked your response, which falls neatly into the "if you can't dispute the information, attack the source" category.

But you'll have to excuse me as I was seeking answers to my own questions which remain unresolved. I still haven't found anyone who can explain how these oxygen-starved aviation fuel fires on the 70th or 80th levels flew past the collapsing floors and ended up beneath the WTC wreckage. Being a layman, it's probably a technicality that I don't understand.

And lots of responses, but still no answers to my original query:


Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Could you please tell me whether the KABBOOOOMS!!! in this video qualify as being consistent with the sounds of secondary explosions or are they disqualified by the fact that the explosions were heard in and around the WTC buildings?

I'm not sure about any shattered windows, except of course the massive sheets of plate glass in the WTC ground floor lobbies, but I realize they don't count because the basement explosions that shattered sub-level freight elevators and everything in the lobbies were also heard.




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
While I'm sympathetic to your "Bad News - shoot the messenger!" reactions, I don't think it is an effective avoidance strategy.

You linked to a video to show a "KABBOOM" that would demonstrate an explosion consistent with a planted device.

It has been noted there were explosions and they are consistent with fires of this magnitude. I also related that a number of videos have been shown to add or amplify sound. For the record it has also been demonstrated that some broadcast material related to 9/11 was tampered with for heightened dramatic effect.

I don't see your argument furthered by the contents of the video.

If, on more than one level, I question the reliability of this video as tangible evidence of what you claim, I am labeled a skeptic for doing so. Well, guilty as charged.

Furthering my skepticism, I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation why there would need to be explosives devices planted in nearly destroyed edifices that in the best of circumstances would be structurally unsound and almost certainly have to be torn down?


Mike


Shock and awe effect. It just woundn't have bene the same if the fires went out and the buildings had to be torn down. The buildings going down are the thing that was the most evocative in the collective psyche.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Oh boy, of course I am going to check from where this claim came from, and the research shows this is nothing more than a sham. A hoax perpetrated by Bentham Open.

You actually think I am going to believe any, and every claim made on the internet without making some research on those claims?

It is obvious by now that those who keep wanting to see something else on what happened on 9/11 will never change their minds no matter what.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Yep, checked your response, which falls neatly into the "if you can't dispute the information, attack the source" category.

But you'll have to excuse me as I was seeking answers to my own questions which remain unresolved. I still haven't found anyone who can explain how these oxygen-starved aviation fuel fires on the 70th or 80th levels flew past the collapsing floors and ended up beneath the WTC wreckage. Being a layman, it's probably a technicality that I don't understand.
................


It does not fall into any "if", it falls into the category of "another proven hoax".

BTW, your statement makes no sense at all. The 70 through 80 floor were not the highest point of these towers...

I guess you actually think that the fuel and flames should have just stayed in the floors where the planes crashed, but you are forgetting that there were staircases, and ACs which connet all floors and whch would be part of the reason why the fuel, and fire spreaded so easily.

As for the explosions heard, how many maintenance rooms are there is such a large building which are full of flammable materials?

You can continue to believe whatever you want, but now we know for certain this "peer-reviewed investigation" is nothing more than another hoax.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint


Shock and awe effect. It just woundn't have bene the same if the fires went out and the buildings had to be torn down. The buildings going down are the thing that was the most evocative in the collective psyche.




Thanks for your input. i agree it wouldn't have been the same without a proper final act denouement.

But two airliners with passengers ramming at top speed into the tallest buildings in the world causing tremendous destruction and in the process killing thousands, seemed pretty dramatic to me.

Following the reasoning, they knew what was coming down and how horrible it would be. Still, they were willing to enormously increase the risk of discovery by employing crews and supervisors to take apart walls, plant explosives surrepititously but strategically, that could be detonated to make the already nearly destroyed buildings collapse in much closer time frame of the initial impacts. Timing is everything.

Bush, Cheney, Mossad, those shadowy NWO figures, or whoever, said "To hell with the extra expense and risk, let's give them something they'll never forget!"

Buildings just being torn down by supervised professional demolition companies weeks later is so anti-climactic.

Hardly worth watching it on Youtube.


Mike









[edit on 13-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Should I post more evidence that this is nothing more than a hoax?



Be careful with Bentham Open -- it an odd publishing venture
by Ken Friedman-2 Sep 11, 2008; 04:37pm :: Rate this Message: - Use ratings to moderate (?)

Reply | Reply to Author | Print | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Friends,

Letters are now going out from a firm called Bentham Open to scholars in different areas of design research inviting them to join editorial boards of the Bentham Open Journals.

Please look them over with care before accepting such an offer. At my faculty, we encourage people to work as journal editors and journal reviewers. This is an important service to the field. Respectable journals always need more skilled and active reviewers. If you're interested in doing this kind of work, why not contact the editors of our many good journals?

Bentham's flavor of open access publishing is a for-profit venture, and it seems to me organized for profit rather than for scientific or scholarly contribution. The submission fees are too high as far as I am concerned, and I just don't see that Bentham has serious experience in scholarly or scientific publishing.

Few of these journals can have serious impact. Several Bentham journals appear be indexed only in Directory of Open Access Journals as well as Google and Google Scholar. DOAJ is a reference valuable tool, but it is not an index based on any factor other than the fact that a journal is available free on the web. And who on earth would claim articles are "indexed" in Google and Google Scholar? These are search engines, not indexes.

If you'd like a good list of current journals, we'll soon be releasing a widely accessible version of our recent study on design journals. We did it to assist the response of the Australian Deans of Built Environment and Design to the government's Excellence in Research for Australia initiative. Preliminary results went out a month ago, and we are now preparing a better and more useful draft with added information before extending and deepening the study. This lists some 200 or so journals, and among our 300+ informants, none mentioned any journal published by Bentham.

Elsevier, MIT Press, Berg, Oxford University Press, Intellect, and others publish serious journals in design, design research, and cognate fields, along with the independent publishers of specialized journals and journal hybrids. No need to waste time on journals that primarily exist to bring money into the companies that own them. My experience is that all journals need serious reviewers. It's also my experience that good reviewers are often invited to editorial boards.

Best regards,

Ken

Ken Friedman
Professor, Ph.D., Dr.Sci. (hc), FDRS

Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

www.nabble.com...

Bentham Open from which this so called research comes from is nothing more than a for profit website which makes money from hoaxes such as this.

Again, here is a link to where this hoax came from.

www.bentham-open.org




[edit on 13-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, your statement makes no sense at all. The 70 through 80 floor were not the highest point of these towers...

I guess you actually think that the fuel and flames should have just stayed in the floors where the planes crashed, but you are forgetting that there were staircases, and ACs which connet all floors and whch would be part of the reason why the fuel, and fire spreaded so easily.

Got it. The oxygen-starved fires ran down the staircases ahead of the collapsing floors to continue burning -- with even less oxygen and beneath 110 floors of wreckage -- but they somehow became so hot that molten steel formed and raging fires burned for three months straight until they were finally extinguished by a "giant lake" of pumped water.

Quite a fire.


As for the explosions heard, how many maintenance rooms are there is such a large building which are full of flammable materials?

You mean maintenance rooms that are 80 floors from a fire and explode with a force that shakes the walls and foundation? Explosions that were heard before any planes hit? FDNY captains who evacuated people away from imaginary bombs? Law enforcement spokesmen who told TV stations that they knew of explosives that were planted in the towers?

Quite a story.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Got it. The oxygen-starved fires ran down the staircases ahead of the collapsing floors to continue burning --


....Got it, those buildings were oxygen starved, I guess the people working there must have had oxygen tanks to help them breathe....



Originally posted by GoldenFleece
You mean maintenance rooms that are 80 floors from a fire and explode with a force that shakes the walls and foundation? Explosions that were heard before any planes hit? FDNY captains who evacuated people away from imaginary bombs? Law enforcement spokesmen who told TV stations that they knew of explosives that were planted in the towers?

Quite a story.


yeah quite a story from you, and others like you who want to see something else from what happened that day...

We all saw the "real" videos of what happened that day, and the only explosions that "rocked the foundations" were the initial impact of the planes, and the collapsing structures....

Quite a story you are making up..

[edit on 13-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I am just amazed that even after a story such as this is proven to be a hoax, that some people continue trying to validate claims which have never been corroborated.

This article in particular is about this research paper, which Bentham Open claims to be peer-reviewed, but after doing some research we can see that this is nothing more than a hoax.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



BTW, your statement makes no sense at all. The 70 through 80 floor were not the highest point of these towers...


Yes and...? He never claimed they were.


but you are forgetting that there were staircases, and ACs which connet all floors and whch would be part of the reason why the fuel, and fire spreaded so easily.


Fire spreading down concrete stairwells to other floors?

Oh really?

I'm to assume all the jet fuel inside the fuel tanks somehow burst out into the office corridors upon impact, snaked it's way through cubicles and walls and travelled behind sealed fire escape doors and down/up stair wells to other floors?

Despite the fact most of the jet fuel splattered on impact on the exterior of the building in a giant fireball.


As for the explosions heard, how many maintenance rooms are there is such a large building which are full of flammable materials?


Like what exactly? Please give me some valid examples of flammable chemicals that would need to be stored in commercial offices.

I can think of 3: cooking oil, deodorant, certain alcoholic-based cleaning fluids.

You think they had diesel fuel and oil drums up there?




top topics



 
218
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join