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: 24
218
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jnl07142008
 


This is my stance on the subject, thank you for putting it into words!

---Topic
(The part of me in favor of "not thermAte")
Since I do not have enough evidence to make a judgement that thermAte was not used, a test on the same samples (as well as additional samples) should be taken with the opposite goal. (ie To show that there is no ThermAte)

Of course this would have to be done by another 'team' of scientists, could not be the same fellows.

Now I know that there are people that will/would never accept a "planes only" outcome. But there are those of us who are on the fence.

(The part of me in favor of "thermAte")
Read above...

The point of this, for me, is the evidence out right now is not enough to convict a criminal of either action. That alone is enough to warrent further investigation (assuming that "we" want to know) in my opinion. And remember my opinion is small, every single opinion is. Two opinions are twice the size of the first, and so on.




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jnl07142008
The real conspiracy here is not how the towers were brought down, but the United States' inability to see this coming / lack of action IF it did. The heads of our intelligence services should have rolled. People at the FBI should have been fired for lack of investigating "fly planes but not land" memo.



No question so many things did not happen as they were supposed to. Gross incompetence or more?

It is now known there were serious rifts among US intelligence agencies who were supposed to be sharing their information co-operatively. The results were the biggest intelligence failure in modern US history.

I do wonder had they responded immediately how they would have proceeded with two hijacked airliners flying over Manhattan.

Shoot them down knowing so many people would die as a direct result of this?

What options did they have?


Mike

[edit on 15-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jnl07142008
The real conspiracy here is not how the towers were brought down, but the United States' inability to see this coming / lack of action IF it did. The heads of our intelligence services should have rolled. People at the FBI should have been fired for lack of investigating "fly planes but not land" memo.


Funnily enough, pretty much everyone was promoted instead. Go figure huh?


But, that's not the topic.

[edit on 4/15/2009 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The hijackers were identified


This time I will take the word of our government, since you do.


FBI Denies Mix-Up Of 9/11 Terrorists
The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." After that admission a strange thing happened - nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open.


www.prisonplanet.com...

I guess FBI Director Robert Mueller got it right, they do not know who the highjackers are, and they have no proof no DNA to match to anyone nothing, nada.

More lies being unearth that proves cover-up.




[edit on 16-4-2009 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
The Mueller misattributed comment on the identities of the hijackers is from from September 2001 but incorrectly given as a year later on a site.

A few days after 9/11 the identities of the hijackers were still being confirmed.


And no actual record of him saying exactly that. The often used comment appears to be paraphrased by someone else and quotes added later. So the wrong year, attribution and quote are repeated endlessly on Truther sites.

www.911myths.com...


It seems the government doesn't have a monopoly on incorrect information.



Mike


[edit on 16-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


" ...U.S. Citizens do not have the right to hold a sitting President accountable for anything..."

This is true. It is provided for in the US Constitution. You can't go after a sitting President, period.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I'm not convinced there is any sort of smoking gun here. First, why did it take eight years to figure out this stuff was "super thermite"? The chips were collected in the first week or so; what took so long to identify them and make an announcement?

Iron oxide is rust. Aluminum is a common metal, used for airplane fuselages among many other things. I wonder whether the metals vaporized from the heat of the fire, then condensed as an extremely fine powder. Just a thought.

Personally I'd buy the notion that our government deliberately ignored a known threat, in order to enact fascist laws (and to fund expensive "defense" and "security" measures). I can't really see even the Bush regime actually plotting the destruction of those buildings - as well as part of the Pentagon. Just seems a bit much.

Of course, maybe I'm just naive.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

The option you plaintively rhetorically ask for is called "Home Run".All US airliners have it.It is remote control.This is probably how it WAS done.

Back to specially formulated incendiaries,please.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by mmiichael
 

The option you plaintively rhetorically ask for is called "Home Run".All US airliners have it.It is remote control.This is probably how it WAS done.

Back to specially formulated incendiaries,please.



I don't want to diverge from topic here, either. I think the specially formulated incendiaries question has been well addressed.

Not claiming any great knowledge, I recall reading about the suggested remote controls. An untested patent pending system concept for returning planes home if pilot became incapacitated. It would secretly have had to be installed in each plane as an override.

Maybe theoretically possible. But zero evidence of either this or any consistency with how things actually unfolded.


Mike



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
I'm not convinced there is any sort of smoking gun here. First, why did it take eight years to figure out this stuff was "super thermite"? The chips were collected in the first week or so; what took so long to identify them and make an announcement?


So you're saying when it takes so long to figure something out, they probably got it wrong? Does that same logic also apply to the NIST reports? In fact I think the WTC7 report was just released last year. Maybe the reason scientists are having such a hard time with this is because what really happened can barely be understood by scientists familiar with public technology?


Iron oxide is rust. Aluminum is a common metal, used for airplane fuselages among many other things. I wonder whether the metals vaporized from the heat of the fire, then condensed as an extremely fine powder. Just a thought.


Sounds like something someone would say with no understanding of how much energy is required to break so many bonds to render something to such a consistently fine powder. It's not something that happens often in nature, in any circumstances (and why don't you post the temperatures required to vaporize metals, btw?
). Things breaking up from all sorts of natural reasons leave coarser particles in a larger range of sizes than what requires multi-trillion dollar defense industries (like Los Alamos) to produce, you see what I'm saying? Radioactive materials can also be found all over the Earth but that doesn't mean a fission reaction is going to start without some engineering beforehand.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Not claiming any great knowledge, I recall reading about the suggested remote controls. An untested patent pending system concept for returning planes home if pilot became incapacitated.


Home Run may have been untested, but there were definitely tested equivalents of what you describe. You can even find old NASA video from the 80's on YouTube showing them flying around Boeings remotely and trying to land them.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Home Run may have been untested, but there were definitely tested equivalents of what you describe. You can even find old NASA video from the 80's on YouTube showing them flying around Boeings remotely and trying to land them.




I know very well that remote control flying is a reality. I was doing it with model planes as a kid.

There is also advanced technology that can implant chips in people's brains so they can be controlled. It's not impossible the pilots onboard had that done to them surrepititiously.

But what we are dealing with is 4 planes that set off on routine passenger flights, two of which rerouted directly into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and one that was crash landed.

We have nothing except surmise and suggestion of possibilities that the hijackings were not what has been reported.

Yes, supporting evidence like telephone calls, security videos, air controller recordings, objects found at crash sites, can all be faked.

But the argument gets back to overwhelming substantiated evidence from the US, and abroad, including testimonies, confessions, written notes, emails, etc. From weighing it all carefully, the conclusion is that foreign national suicide terrorists commandeered those planes and with volition crashed 3 out of 4 of them into planned targets. Many people from many countries with no affiliations with the US government have gone over the evidence with a fine tooth comb.

There are counterclaim possibilities with no solid supporting evidence or testimony. And a sub-industry and virtual counterculture have developed entertaining and trying to further those notions.

Those who gravitate to finding the US government and it's agents complicit will always be able to suggest possibilities. But more than theory, rumour, speculation and conjecture are required for these to be advanced.

Because something conceivably could have happened is no reason to believe it did happen. That is unless you have decided there is an answer you want and are working backwards to find any explanation that might fit the bill.

Because there is a receptive market, there are people who do this as an occupation, dishonestly and unscientifically. That is where this thread started.


Mike



[edit on 19-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
We have nothing except surmise and suggestion of possibilities that the hijackings were not what has been reported.


Nothing to prove what was reported, either, so it's no big deal either way. The only foolish thing one could do is assume one or the other happened and exclude the other possibility.


But the argument gets back to overwhelming substantiated evidence from the US, and abroad, including testimonies, confessions, written notes, emails, etc.


No, what it always gets back to is people like you mentioning all this overwhelming evidence, but it never gets back to the evidence itself. That's what always separates the wheat from the chaff. I would like it to get back to the evidence, because I haven't seen very much personally, and I'm one of the few American citizens that actually actively looked for it for a time. I've seen what there is, a hijacker or two on some security cameras before they were on the plane, a suitcase that one of them conveniently left behind with all the plans and names of the other hijackers, etc. Enough to suggest something but nothing to show what actually happened on the planes.


Many people from many countries with no affiliations with the US government have gone over the evidence with a fine tooth comb.


I'm going to call BS on that one, would like to see what kind of "fine tooth comb" you're talking about.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The only foolish thing one could do is assume one or the other happened and exclude the other possibility.

No, what it always gets back to is people like you mentioning all this overwhelming evidence, but it never gets back to the evidence itself. That's what always separates the wheat from the chaff. I would like it to get back to the evidence, because I haven't seen very much personally, and I'm one of the few American citizens that actually actively looked for it for a time.

I would like to see what kind of "fine tooth comb" you're talking about.



I'm not American, I don’t consider myself to be what people call a debunker, I'm not even particularly skeptical. I don't accept anything from the US government as an article of faith, and harbour my own suspicions on how much knowledge some had in advance of the 9/11 attacks.

I do get annoyed when disinformation gets embellished and starts to become accepted as fact. Particularly when ignorant and/or dishonest people are trying to further their agendas. Like you I don't claim to have all the answers and am prepared to look at new ones that replace the current one's.

I'll narrow down the area of discussion to keep to the thread topic which was evidence of incendiary materials planted in the WTC for the purposes of a controlled demolition. Not my style linking to articles and videos, but I have read extensively and exchanged insights with a number of credible unbiased sources. Tens of thousands qualified professionals with no allegiance to the US have weighed in consistently on the causes of the collapse of the buildings. Maybe differing on fine points, but agreeing fire and structural damage combined to weaken the critical support causing them to fall the way they did.

As noted, the controversial WTC 7 was reported, photographed and videoed collapsing in gradual stages until it gave in completely. Inconsistent to the allegations of explosives being used.

Those wishing find serious faults with the NIST Report have to at least be well versed in what it DOES say rather than dismissing it out of hand. There also needs to be a substantiated alternate version of what happened and why. I have seen anecdotal assertions and lists of credentialed people, but little in the way of solid proof. Counter claims have to have the same scientific rigour as the ones they are opposing.

The genesis of this discussion was Steven Jones and his reported experiments put forward as evidence that thermite was present at the WTC site. Within the few hundred threads posted on the subject, I think the legitimacy of his procedures and claims has been ascertained.

If there is other conflicting substantiated information, data, testimony, that has not come to the fore, I wait for it with as much interest as anyone else.

Until then I accept the best evidence and explanations available.


Mike



[edit on 19-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 


The hijackers were identified


This time I will take the word of our government, since you do.


FBI Denies Mix-Up Of 9/11 Terrorists
The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." After that admission a strange thing happened - nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open.


www.prisonplanet.com...

I guess FBI Director Robert Mueller got it right, they do not know who the highjackers are, and they have no proof no DNA to match to anyone nothing, nada.

More lies being unearth that proves cover-up.


Thank you for revealing something many many official story believers often do.

A common superficial debating technique often used with semantics and rhetoric is - Vague statements of undeniable certainty.

1. No matter how many anomalies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the official story are revealed...

2. No matter how much observable, logical, and scientific evidence is revealed...

3. No matter how many eye-witnesses (firefighters) and insiders divulge supporting evidence...

4. No many how many scientists and experts analyze the proof...

And my personal favorite...

5. No matter how many bizarre *speculative and circumstantial* connections are made... (Marvin Bush, wall street put options, lack of videos that could easily disprove the conspiracy, strange statements made by insiders [Rumsfield], strange actions made by insiders [George Bush], the use of 9/11 as a political tool, the Osama charades, the Iraq related motives, etc....

People continue to make Vague statements of undeniable certainty

"That evidence doesn't exist"
"That isn't proof"
"That has been debunked"
"That isn't right"
"That isn't true"

Issues in category 5. can possibly be responded too in this manner, but science can't be disproved with a "ummm no." Officialness is not proof...officialness is not evidence. Where is the proof for the official story? Where is the evidence to disprove and explain all these issues?

Semantics
en.wikipedia.org...

Rhetoric
en.wikipedia.org...

Has semantics and rhetoric won over science?

Has naive trust and apathy won over critical thinking?

Please America, I beg you stop believing and starting observing.










[edit on 19-4-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus


FBI Denies Mix-Up Of 9/11 Terrorists
The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN ...





If you check the postings of the last couple days you'll see that Mueller did not say this or anything like it in 2002. A website error in 2002 attributed his open admission a few days after 9/11, that identities of the hijackers were not fully determined. Quotes were added and this misquote, misattribution, and incorrect date appear on thousands of Truther sources including Alex Jones.





Semantics
en.wikipedia.org...

Rhetoric
en.wikipedia.org...

Has semantics and rhetoric won over science?

Has naive trust and apathy won over critical thinking?




Your closing lines sure sounds like rhetoric to me.


And I'm not clear what is gained by linking to definitions from Wikipedia.
Like a phone book, Wikipedia contains information but no ability to analyze singular events or situations. If it says the average American is 33 years old, does that make you 33 years old?


Claiming information from demonstrably reliable sources is the way to go may sound like rhetoric. But we have to weigh quality as well as quantity of data. Somewhere online someone is proving something. But is is acceptable proof?

We are dealing with specifics of a claim of traces of an incendiary chemical allegedly from World Trade Center rubble. It's existence is supposed to support a theory of controlled demolition.

From what has been presented, it looks like those who don't accept the official version of how the buildings collapsed, instead are allowing themselves to be victims of bad science from bad scientists.


Critical thinking means examining and weighing all evidence, supporting and conflicting.

Rejecting one version of events and accepting another as the only possible interpretation blindly is naive trust and apathy.


Mike




[edit on 19-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Rejecting one version of events and accepting another as the only possible interpretation blindly is naive trust and apathy.


ver⋅sion
–noun
1. a particular account of some matter, as from one person or source, contrasted with some other account: two different versions of the accident.
2. a particular form or variant of something: a modern version of an antique.

What you fail to understand is that it is not about accepting one version, account, or source over another.

The entire prospect of accepting a version is not science.

1.You don't "accept" anything, you prove it, you analyze the details.
2. You don't analyze in groups, each individual detail must be supported

Version, account, source....again all this is meaningless.

The science of the details is what is critically analyzed...everything else is semantics and rhetoric.

Stop trying to decide what source is right and analyze all the available information with equal objectivity.

Main Japanese Opposition Party Questions 9/11 in Parliament
www.globalresearch.ca...

Mr. Fujita:

Fujita said in an interview, "but I still couldn't believe this was done by anyone but al-Qaida."

But then he decided to analyze the evidence...

"I would like to talk about the origins of this war on terrorism. You may recall that in November I asked you if terrorism was war or if it was a crime. And the whole start of this war on terrorism was 911. What I want to know is if this event was caused by Al Qaeda or not. So far the only thing the government has said is that we think it was caused by Al Qaeda because President Bush told us so. We have not seen any real proof that it was Al Qaeda. I would like to know why the Prime Minister thinks it was the Taliban who was responsible for 911. Committee Chief, I want to ask the Prime Minister because he was chief cabinet officer at the time."

Officialness is not evidence.

The official story is completely unsubstantiated and ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I just realized that I was getting off topic, so I shortened my post.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Not my style linking to articles and videos, but I have read extensively and exchanged insights with a number of credible unbiased sources. Tens of thousands qualified professionals with no allegiance to the US have weighed in consistently on the causes of the collapse of the buildings.


I asked you for evidence and these are more appeals to various unnamed authorities. Remember I just posted this?:


...what it always gets back to is people like you mentioning all this overwhelming evidence, but it never gets back to the evidence itself. That's what always separates the wheat from the chaff. I would like it to get back to the evidence, because I haven't seen very much personally


This is exactly the kind of endless circle presenting absolutely no evidence. You can appeal to authority all day and it doesn't matter, because it's a logical fallacy. You could argue any number of illogical things all day, and you won't ever change my mind.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I asked you for evidence and these are more appeals to various unnamed authorities. Remember I just posted this?:


...what it always gets back to is people like you mentioning all this overwhelming evidence, but it never gets back to the evidence itself. That's what always separates the wheat from the chaff. I would like it to get back to the evidence, because I haven't seen very much personally


This is exactly the kind of endless circle presenting absolutely no evidence. You can appeal to authority all day and it doesn't matter, because it's a logical fallacy. You could argue any number of illogical things all day, and you won't ever change my mind.



I am not the final word or a source of evidence. I did appeal to the evidence presented on alleged thermite traces and the prospect of incendiary devices planted in the WTC, as well as links provided by myself and others. And then gave a cursory summary of my impressions, if I recall correctly.


One of the best overviews of the fallacies in WTC demolition theory is presented here:

www.911myths.com...

Other aspects are covered well at the site.


If you think that sources I consider to be reliable can be dismissed as an appeal to authority, and that to be wrong, I cannot change that.

This is not an attempt to be evasive. But the discussion becomes circuitous when things I said are taken out of context and contested, which I think you have done.

I suggest a reread through the relevant posts and the linked page above might convince you of that.


Mike


[edit on 21-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I am not the final word or a source of evidence.


But you have the final say in what makes sense, and what doesn't, in the broadest and most non-social terms. In other words, the whole rest of the world can know for a fact that the Earth is the center of the universe, and you still have the personal capacity to realize that the Earth is simply revolving around the Sun. That is a personal responsibility that I take very seriously, because my example is too real. I use that example all the time but no one really gets how momentous that debate used to be, compared to our relatively trivial 9/11 debates now.



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join