Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

They used to believe water turned to a gas at 100 Celcius, and about a quadrillion other facts that were independently verifiable. They still do.

Presentd so far, there is no rigorous scientific substantiation of demolition of the already destroyed building at WTC on September 11, 2001. Vast amounts of evidence show they were toppled by the combined devastation of two airliners flying into them, uncontrolled fires, and severe loss of structural integrity.

I simply cannot say any more on the subject. Worldwide concerned professionals, the majority independent, with experience and knowledge on the specifics, have weighed in on the subject with a consensus.

You might want to take your arguments up with some of them.


Mike










[edit on 22-4-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
They used to believe water turned to a gas at 100 Celcius

Actually, they defined that temperature based on the fact that water boils there. And 0 is freezing, that's no coincidence. There wasn't any kind of discovery that needed a theory for that, the guy just made the numbers up arbitrarily.

Theories are almost never perfect from the start (I can't think of any examples that were!), and need constant revision as science goes on. Even quantum mechanics is refining the way we think of temperature, just because it exists on a level that comes before temperature, but that's relatively trivial.

Here's another example: three different reports claimed the USS Maine (remember it?) exploded from an external object, and then many decades later, a Navy report conclusively showed it actually was an INTERNAL explosion, and that the three previous reports had all been wrong. This doesn't mean anything at all to you, does it sister? The truth came out decades after people didn't want to hear it, we went to war based on it anyway.

And again you talk about lots of people and consensus. What a shock that the last 3 times I said I don't care about that, you weren't even paying attention. You must not really understand what a "logical fallacy" is, either. History never teaches people like you anything, that's why it always repeats itself. Why are you so arrogant on behalf of a lot of people who have seen little to no evidence in the first place? Have you really seen some kind of "proof" that I haven't?

[edit on 22-4-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Theories are almost never perfect from the start

... and need constant revision as science goes on. Even quantum mechanics is refining the way we think of temperature, just because it exists on a level that comes before temperature, but that's relatively trivial.

Here's another example: three different reports claimed the USS Maine (remember it?) exploded from an external object, and then many decades later, a Navy report conclusively showed it actually was an INTERNAL explosion, and that the three previous reports had all been wrong. This doesn't mean anything at all to you, does it sister? The truth came out decades after people didn't want to hear it, we went to war based on it anyway.

And again you talk about lots of people and consensus. What a shock that the last 3 times I said I don't care about that, you weren't even paying attention. You must not really understand what a "logical fallacy" is, either. History never teaches people like you anything, that's why it always repeats itself. Why are you so arrogant on behalf of a lot of people who have seen little to no evidence in the first place? Have you really seen some kind of "proof" that I haven't?

Let's start out with making it clear I'm not your sister or anyone's. You want to argue by personal insult go somewhere else. I don't find it particularly useful to show examples of when theories have been proven wrong somewhere and draw an immediate parallel for argument sake. Exceptions don't disprove all other cases. Theories have been proven right, investigations have been conclusive.

This thread intially focused on evidence pointing to a controlled demolition of WTC buildings. Unlike many event in the past, witnesses, videotaping, photographs, are available. Chemical analysis was done on the rubble. The collapses were viewed and recorded and overwhelming qualified conclusions were consistent with the the buildings falling as they did due to the massive damage incurred.

I wasn't there, but neither were you, or so many people who claim there were explosives used to bring the critically damaged buildings down. They haven’t proven their alternative scenario, and some have raised the spectre of falsified data.

A sub-culture has developed with people so intent on proving the US government or it's agencies were so intent on providing a horrific spectacle that day, they found it necessary to further demolish buildings that were already destroyed by massive impacts, fires, and critical structural damage.

Thorough analysis has been done by reliable unencumbered professionals to determine exact causes of the collapses. I accept them for now, with no plausible substantiated alternative explanation being presented in 7+ years.

That's all I am saying. I do not argue that theories and understandings can’t change after re-examination or new information becomes available. That goes without saying.



Mike


[edit on 22-4-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Let's start out with making it clear I'm not your sister or anyone's.

How do you know that? I could be appealing in Jungian terms to your anima.

I don't find it particularly useful to show examples of when theories have been proven wrong somewhere and draw an immediate parallel for argument sake. Exceptions don't disprove all other cases.

There is an immediate parallel: arguing just on the fact that a lot of people seemingly agree with you in their ignorant state of awareness is a logical fallacy. For the 4th or 5th time, even in the most technical sense, it is a logical fallacy to say "this must be true because so many people believe it," or anything even remotely similar to that. Are you not trying to make valid points in your posts or something?

Unlike many event in the past, witnesses, videotaping, photographs, are available.

You mean unlike the relative movements of the Sun and Earth which are plainly visible to every single person on the face of the Earth, every single day?

The collapses were viewed and recorded and overwhelming qualified conclusions were consistent with the the buildings falling as they did due to the massive damage incurred.

This is you just stating your opinion as a fact. Show me "overwhelming qualified conclusions"! Please!! That's what I'm really asking for every time I tell you to stop appealing to your perceived consensus! Is that really so wrong?

There was the ASCE's report, which was preliminary and later accused of corruption by a member of a public FEMA team, then FEMA proper released a preliminary report, then the same ideas (and even engineers) went to NIST and refined and elaborated the theories before publishing them. They were not peer reviewed. They did not show all of their data, so that their calculations or even methods could be reproduced. They didn't actually test their final hypothesis. I could go on and on. These are the only forensic reports available, they are actually inconsistent on their collapse mechanisms, and no one can reproduce or test their work in any way. If you think these reports have no room for error, you've fallen victim to mass mentality based around the purely psychological effect these reports had when they were released, that here is something "official" and professional, so it must be accurate. There is no basis for that. It should be judged on the actual substance in it, of which there isn't much, but if you would actually provide whatever you can find maybe you can see for yourself.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Chemical analysis was done on the rubble.

When did this happen? Unless I missed something? And who did this analysis and in what setting and where? Can we reproduce their "findings" then? Has it been peer reviewed?

I'll rest with those questions for now.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by mmiichael
Chemical analysis was done on the rubble.

When did this happen? Unless I missed something? And who did this analysis and in what setting and where? Can we reproduce their "findings" then? Has it been peer reviewed?

I'm pretty certain the NIST report discussed examination of the steel in the rubble and other materials. FEMA did a qualitative chemical study.

I claim no expertise in this field, but there has been discussion of specifics earlier in this thread, and I think in some of the links provided.


Mike



[edit on 22-4-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by bsbray11

There is an immediate parallel: arguing just on the fact that a lot of people seemingly agree with you in their ignorant state of awareness is a logical fallacy. For the 4th or 5th time, even in the most technical sense, it is a logical fallacy to say "this must be true because so many people believe it," or anything even remotely similar to that. Are you not trying to make valid points in your posts or something?

Unlike many event in the past, witnesses, videotaping, photographs, are available.

You mean unlike the relative movements of the Sun and Earth which are plainly visible to every single person on the face of the Earth, every single day?


This is you just stating your opinion as a fact. Show me "overwhelming qualified conclusions"! Please!! That's what I'm really asking for every time I tell you to stop appealing to your perceived consensus! Is that really so wrong?

There was the ASCE's report, which was preliminary and later accused of corruption by a member of a public FEMA team, then FEMA proper released a preliminary report, then the same ideas (and even engineers) went to NIST and refined and elaborated the theories before publishing them. They were not peer reviewed. They did not show all of their data, so that their calculations or even methods could be reproduced. They didn't actually test their final hypothesis. I could go on and on. These are the only forensic reports available, they are actually inconsistent on their collapse mechanisms, and no one can reproduce or test their work in any way. If you think these reports have no room for error, you've fallen victim to mass mentality based around the purely psychological effect these reports had when they were released, that here is something "official" and professional, so it must be accurate. There is no basis for that. It should be judged on the actual substance in it, of which there isn't much, but if you would actually provide whatever you can find maybe you can see for yourself.

OK, this is my final response. I came into a discussion of a paper published purportedly showing thermite traces in WTC rubble. Knowledgeable and detached people have demonstrated with hard data, I'd say very satisfactorily, the source is at best employing poor science, at worst isfraudulent.

I have acknowledged there is always room for error. That's basic common sense. I have repeatedly stated I accept the most thorough and scientific analysis and conclusions available from anywhere. Implicitly I am prepared for any properly substantiated demonstration of anything that supercedes what is currently understood.

I am not a spokesman for US government or it's agencies. I am not American. I am not an expert on the array of sciences involved or claim a complete understanding of structural vulnerabilities required for a full comprehension of exactly how those buildings collapsed. I leave the comprehensive analysis to those who deliver independently verifiable professional data have shown themselves to be reliable.

I have frequently looked at and sadly dismiss what too often turns out to be pseudo-science from agenda driven claimants.

I do not buy into the arguments attempting to show how certain already destroyed buildings were even further destroyed by planted charges. I fail to comprehend the reasoning behind such an act, considering the tremendous complexity of execution and risks. All to bring down wrecked burning buildings faster for an extra dramatic effect.

If you are looking for an opportunity to argue about points of contention, real or imagined, you'll inevitably find it.

If you still conclude, after reviewing the rigorously scientific substantiations that have been provided, that unscrupulous agencies were involved in demolition of those already destroyed buildings - go ahead.

You are, of course, free to think whatever you want.

But please do not address any more of your arguments to me.


Over and out.


Mike


[edit on 23-4-2009 by mmiichael]

Ok, so obviously WTC was taken down by gov't forces. Hence the thermate:

Aluminum + Iron Oxide + Sulfur + Magnesium.

The point is why? Problem Reaction Solution. Not to quote David Icke, but it does make sense. The Solution: Lesser freedoms, and more control. Problem: 9/11, Reaction: what will the gov't do to protect us? Back to Solution: Patriot Act.

If you disagree, you're a terrorist ;-)

much love to all...

[edit on 23-4-2009 by flysse]

We do realize that it was ThermAte and not ThermIte correct?

Mike keeps calling it ThermIte in his debating attempts, as well as several other members.

Thermite is a simple compound, this ThermAte is a nano compound. Which means it was HIGHLY advanced, and could not have formed naturally. (That is what the nano represents, not saying that they found (or did not find) and at WTC)

Calling it thermIte just gives the bad debators ammo for their horrible debating tactics. Thermite can/could be explained as a coincidence, ThermAte had to be used for a demolition.

(Watch, I bet I get a "bad debate" over calling the ThermIte on the carpet.)

ThermAte
ThermAte
ThermAte

--------

And having buildings torn down weeks later, with way less covereage than a terrorist attack would be a good reason to have them demolished in a controlled situation.

This is just deductive reasoning on my part, I have no evidence to support this train of thought. Of course, these scientists seem to have some evidence, and instead of looking at it with an open mind many shoot it down with words like "truther" and "official". Deny ignorance, I find that hard to believe...

EDIT
Heh, thermite/thermate sheesh

[edit on 4/23/2009 by adigregorio]

Originally posted by adigregorio
We do realize that it was ThermAte and not ThermIte correct?

Mike keeps calling it ThermIte in his debating attempts, as well as several other members.

Thermite is a simple compound, this ThermAte is a nano compound. Which means it was HIGHLY advanced, and could not have formed naturally. (That is what the nano represents, not saying that they found (or did not find) and at WTC)


--------

And having buildings torn down weeks later, with way less covereage than a terrorist attack would be a good reason to have them demolished in a controlled situation.

This is just deductive reasoning on my part, I have no evidence to support this train of thought. Of course, these scientists seem to have some evidence, and instead of looking at it with an open mind many shoot it down with words like "truther" and "official". Deny ignorance, I find that hard to believe...

Quick follow up.

For the record, in the original postings the terms "nano-thermite" and "superthermite" were used. I think it was clear throughout the discussion different state names for thermite were referring to the thermate claim.

I noted that the supposed controlled demolition would have been to buildings directly or by proximity that suffered impact from the two planes, uncontrolled fires throughout, and loss of structural integrity. They would have been unsafe and uninhabitable and would have had to be torn down.

So as the story goes, the incendiary materials were planted at great risk of discovery and expense. so that orchestrated explosions could occur during the chaos. A surprise attack by 2 passenger planes, destruction of the buildings, thousands of deaths, was not considered sufficiently dramatic. The buildings also had to fall to the ground on the same day. Among many things conflicting with this, the contentious WTC 7 was witnessed and photographically documented as in a gradual state of collapse before it completely fell.

I hope this answers your concerns.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
So as the story goes, the incendiary materials were planted at great risk of discovery and expense.

Great expensive and risk of discovery to whom? And prove it.

A surprise attack by 2 passenger planes, destruction of the buildings,

The buildings were not fully destroyed by the two impacts. In fact, the floors that were impacted still had the majority of their columns. Only (less than) 15% of the perimeter columns and an even smaller percentage of core columns were severed or even significantly damaged. It would have taken a lot of money to repair, if the buildings didn't have to be at least partially de-constructed after that, which is extremely expensive.

thousands of deaths, was not considered sufficiently dramatic. The buildings also had to fall to the ground on the same day.

I can't tell if you're just being emotional about the idea or if you have a particular technical issue with it?

Among many things conflicting with this, the contentious WTC 7 was witnessed and photographically documented as in a gradual state of collapse before it completely fell.

What photographs? You mean the ones of SOME of the claimed damage to WTC7 from WTC1? There's not photos of all of what was claimed, NIST claimed the impact damage didn't contribute much anyway, and there are certainly no photos showing WTC7 gradually collapsing.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
thousands of deaths, was not considered sufficiently dramatic. The buildings also had to fall to the ground on the same day.

I can't tell if you're just being emotional about the idea or if you have a particular technical issue with it?

Don't forget that most of those deaths happened in the collapses.

reply to post by mmiichael


Nice to see someone else who will not tip over to the other side of the fence. Just ask one simple question and it all goes away.


Where is the physical evidence?


No matter how sophisticated something is, there is always something left to show that it was used. I am sorry but heating a chip and seeing a spark jump from it does not justify the use of nano technology. None. If you read the document you know exactly what I am talking about. This is not about theory or conjecture at this point but verifiable proof which was claimed but not proven......

No remote detonators....No trails of any kind. However, we do have a 1000 page document created by a bipartisan commission that states terrorists planned and executed 9/11 that everyone dismisses. Everyone dismisses NIST as if it was something created to protect the gov't on 9/11. Some of you should not be so ignorant. I mean, some people believe Flight 93 was set to hit WTC 7



[edit on 23-4-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 23-4-2009 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
Nice to see someone else who will not tip over to the other side of the fence.

Are you priding yourself on being stubborn?

Where is the physical evidence?

Evidence for what theory? Your straw-man theories? Or evidence of, say, thermate? Have you read the article, Esdad?

reply to post by adigregorio

Your concept of thermate is incorrect. Thermate is thermite with an additive or two. Some claim elemental sulfur, some claim a nitrate salt, like barium nitrate. There is even less evidence for such a compound. Jones paper proves nothing other than Jones does bad science.

reply to post by bsbray11


BS,
One may ask if you have read the paper. Do you not see the many errors?

reply to post by pteridine


Regardless of what you think his science is, it does mention that it is not run-of-the-mill thermite.

Of course, I think many of you keep calling it ThermIte because of its simplistic nature, that way all the "truthers" seem like they are grasping at imaginary strawmen.

When you have a team of scientists do what you deem "good" science then you may claim his is bad. Until then you are just another joe (or jane) with a keyboard and an opinion.

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

 

Read my previous post. Thermite is simply too hot to be used to weld common construction materials like steel, iron and corrugated metals because it would melt them instantly.

It simply burns at too high a temperature to be a useful welding medium. It might have limited use in welding heat-resistant compounds or fire-retardant materials used in skyscrapers but not ordinary steel and things like that.

Thermite is best suited to pyrotechnics and demolition.

Thats a load my friend.

It’s used extensively in the railroad industry for welding rails. It was likely also used in the Trade Center.

www.weldprocedures.com...

[edit on 25-4-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

reply to post by Donkey_Dean


ThermAte = Too hot
ThermIte = Not too hot

It is okay, I think that was the goal of certain folks when they kept calling it ThermIte.

This is an advanced form of Thermite aka ThermAte.

Again, no worries it seems to be a common mistake throughout the thread.

reply to post by adigregorio


It is not run-of-the-mill because there is no evidence that it is therm*te at all.