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: 33
218
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Thousands of chemical reactions happen in a brief span of time with unusual materials combined at extreme temperatures.


So you would sooner believe that reactions that are more efficient at eating through steel columns than thermite, and yet of the exact same type of chemical reaction as thermite, just happened to form there by chance, in just the right ratios, in just the right particle sizes, from unknown sources? What other sources can you show that would form a eutectic mixture across so much surface area of the steel, besides someone doing it intentionally?

The reaction lowered the melting point of the samples, melted them (they were actually heated to 1000 C for the melting to have occurred, according to FEMA), ate holes through them, and caused them extreme deformation. Compare that to thermite. Thermite can hardly eat through steel because of its relatively coarser particle sizes. This stuff went into the steel's molecular structure with the sulfidation, which is why its melting temperature lowered. Obviously whatever the material was, it acted on a very fine scale.

FEMA shows it all here: wtc.nist.gov...

And do you notice any correlation at all between the texture of those corroded samples, and the "chips" discussed in the articles on nano-particles recently published? This is just simple stuff, just observation.


You carefully narrow in on some residual evidence


Remember that both the FEMA and NIST reports tried to explain the collapses as the result of fire and impacts alone right from the start, they never investigated anything else, they never tried to investigate anything that suggested anything else. They even admit as much themselves.

The samples I am talking about are from the appendix of the FEMA report, because that's where FEMA put a lot of data that didn't fit anywhere else in the report. Just because it didn't fit with the other information in the main body of the report (and didn't fit at all with FEMA's suggested collapse mechanisms), doesn't mean the data itself is irrelevant or doesn't mean anything.


For the most part intelligent people laugh at or just ignore the controlled demolition mythology.


This is an appeal to your personal perception of "intelligent people" as an authority. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and your perception of what constitutes "intelligent people" might as well be a ghost. Objectivity is not an illusion, that was the whole point of it.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by bsbray11]




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So you would sooner believe that reactions that are more efficient at eating through steel columns than thermite, and yet of the exact same type of chemical reaction as thermite, just happened to form there by chance, in just the right ratios, in just the right particle sizes, from unknown sources? What other sources can you show that would form a eutectic mixture across so much surface area of the steel, besides someone doing it intentionally?


... Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and your perception of what constitutes "intelligent people" might as well be a ghost. Objectivity is not an illusion, that was the whole point of it.




You got it wrong. Rejection of authority for the sake of rejection does not immediately demonstrate superior knowledge.

I take it under advice from governmental weather bureaus that a tornado is coming this way. They have been proven wrong countless times, but I don't use that as an indication that they willfully provide false information. They have the access to data and equipment, experience and knowledge I don't.

Calling something like this appeal to authority to champion one's own rejection of conventional sources is a immature approach to information exchange.

They sometimes are wrong means they are wrong when I want them to be.

My inability to explain your contentious chemical reaction - if it is unheard of to begin with - does not mean it points to a planned demolition. When FEMA or any forthright body provides analysis and states there are undetermined variables they cannot fully explain - this does not mean something not contained by their overall conclusions has happened. Their inability to explain every single phenomenon does not mean they are being evasive.

They address a thousand points, leave some unresolved. That's being straight.

I imagine insurance companies investigate building complex fires and find things they cannot account for. They don't immediately cry 'arson' unless a significant amount of other evidence leads to that conclusion.

Most supposed evidence for the claim of controlled demolition have been addressed by independent sources, official as well as professional hobbyist. The data and analysis provided are routinely ignored and dismissed by those who are agenda driven.

Routinely one or two yet to be explained anomalies are elevated to incontestable proofs. This cycle repeats itself to the point of absurdity.

The Weather Channel got the storm warning wrong. Conclusion - they are controlled by the government and mass media. They are covering something up. Only free thinkers can see this and know the REAL story.

How do you argue constructively with anyone who thinks like that?
Why even bother?


Mike


[edit on 7-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Yeah,mike,why bother?See ya.
Actually fires are examined minutely to rule out arson.Arson is so SOP for people in financial trouble,it is assumed and has to be ruled out.Hence they test for accelerents and trace the path of destruction to determine point of origin and question the people.It all has to add up for the fire to be declared not suspicious.And a smoky fire,by the way,does not have internal hot spots unless there is an oxygen source.The periphery of the fire is hotter as the combustion is so much more efficient with air freely available,it makes up for the cooling effect.That is what is so remarkable about the thermate bits they ignite at 430`F and burn at 1500`F,in the air,which is amazing for a tiny tiny bit,but you'd have had to actually read the thing to know that.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by trueforger]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
You got it wrong. Rejection of authority for the sake of rejection does not immediately demonstrate superior knowledge.


I didn't say it did, I just said you were proposing logical fallacy, an appeal to authority in place of a real argument, and it was and is a fallacy, I'm not wrong. I could post sources illustrating what appeal to authority is and why it's a logical fallacy if you want. In other words you are never going to change my mind by saying "X believes it so it must be true," because logic doesn't work that way. You're the one posting things like that (well, you and every other "debunker").


My inability to explain your contentious chemical reaction - if it is unheard of to begin with - does not mean it points to a planned demolition.


That's from your perspective. From my perspective, I don't even care what you think of it, because it happened, and things like that don't just happen. It would be really far-fetched to suggest it would, because of all the variables I listed earlier that would have to just happen to work out so well.

Something that requires our most advanced military technology to be able to recreate in a lab, and no one else can offer any other explanation or way to produce it, that's saying something in itself.


Most supposed evidence for the claim of controlled demolition have been addressed by independent sources, official as well as professional hobbyist. The data and analysis provided are routinely ignored and dismissed by those who are agenda driven.


That's awful big talk coming from someone who refused to look at the FEMA analysis himself and just kept asserting that other people know better. You don't know what anyone has really demonstrated, I know how deep you have looked into these reports and it isn't very.


The Weather Channel got the storm warning wrong. Conclusion - they are controlled by the government and mass media. They are covering something up. Only free thinkers can see this and know the REAL story.

How do you argue constructively with anyone who thinks like that?
Why even bother?


I was actually wondering how I could try to have a rational discussion with you at all when you just keep making attacks like this? I don't think I can. All you can do is appeal to authority and make it obvious that you have a lot of faith in your opinions. I haven't seen a single demonstrated fact from you yet, but like I said earlier, I'm not mistaken in the least calling your appeals to authority logical fallacies. Look up "logical fallacy" on Google and read about it yourself and come back and tell me I'm wrong about it.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Just for the record, I did post some technical information and some links. In this hostile environment, it does nothing. Data even from someone demonstrably independent and knowledgeable like Ryan Mackey just gets dismissed out of hand. Then a whack of truther site quasi-science is linked to that contradicts it.

Battling web site links may be a popular game, but one that I don't play.
The particular game being played here is one of focusing on something the officials have not explained, and using it as an inference to dismiss their findings.

Buildings are hit by airplanes, fires, undue stress to support and loss of structural integrity ensue. Expert knowledge and worldwide and sufficient sampling demonstrates what made the buildings fall the way they did.

Not every ounce of a million tons of debris were examined. Not every single noted chemical anomaly was traced for a cause. There were unusual combinations of materials and chemicals at unusual temperatures that produce uncommon reactions. That in itself is not unexpected.

When an overwhelming picture of what happened and how is dismissed as being unsound because not every possible phenomenon is explained to everyone's satisfaction, that is reaching totally beyond reason.

I'm in a cul-de-sac of real world debate, a discussion thread on a conspiracy site focused on a physics professors claim of thermite in debris. It does not mean I have to defensively comply to giant leaps of faith and irrational conclusions that others in the same room happen to entertain.

If Dick Cheney or whoever decided the WTC had to have some super-nano-thermite installed for a rousing grande finale to the attack by hijacked planes that might be interesting.

But even the most open-minded person wants something more substantive than questionable video clips and unresolved chemical vestiges for such an extraordinary claim.


Mike




[edit on 7-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Most supposed evidence for the claim of controlled demolition have been addressed by independent sources, official as well as professional hobbyist. The data and analysis provided are routinely ignored and dismissed by those who are agenda driven.


That is completely true.

No matter how much evidence exists to prove the official story physically impossible it is continually dismissed.


Originally posted by mmiichael
The Weather Channel got the storm warning wrong. Conclusion - they are controlled by the government and mass media. They are covering something up. Only free thinkers can see this and know the REAL story.


It is more like they got the storm warning wrong and on that same day they did a drill for tornado emergencies and later said 3 tornadoes hit important buildings. Then they couldn't find any good pictures of the tornadoes and eye witnesses said it wasn't tornadoes. Also, a bunch of rich people made bets and made money of the anomaly tornadoes.

Afterwords the country declared war on tornadoes and no one was allowed to go outside.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Come on. Why do you always just posts rants like that? Even Ryan Mackey? Jesus, another authority to appeal to.

I know this sounds like blasphemy to you but take me as an example: I've only appealed to a FEMA analysis so far, and the science related to it. The FEMA analysis is not a person, or even an authority, but simply data that is interpreted using physics and logic. Can you do anything like that yourself, or can you only post links and other peoples' names?



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Amazingly enough, this thread is about Jones' paper. You probably hadn't noticed as you were busy cornering people with logic. Would you care to comment about the paper or are you still busy cornering?



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Actually,mike,the buildings were built to withstand airplane hits,so it was not,"undue stress".And,of course bdg.7 wasn't hit by plane.This does get tedious,like explaining to a little boy.

And speaking of little balls,these iron spheres in question were found,"in abundance."Yet not found in any other steel framed high rise destroyed by fire to point of collapse.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by trueforger
Actually,mike,the buildings were built to withstand airplane hits,so it was not,"undue stress".And,of course bdg.7 wasn't hit by plane.This does get tedious,like explaining to a little boy.

And speaking of little balls,these iron spheres in question were found,"in abundance."Yet not found in any other steel framed high rise destroyed by fire to point of collapse.


The fact that someone thought that the buildings were designed to withstand airplane hits doesn't mean that they were "airplane proof" and could actually survive such a strike. If it wasn't undue stress, what was it?

Building 7 was hit by large pieces of the tower and then burned for hours. The iron spheres in question were found in dust and may have come from the WTC buildings. What "steel framed high rise destroyed by fire to point of collapse" are you referring to?



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by trueforger

the buildings were built to withstand airplane hits,so it was not,"undue stress".And,of course bdg.7 wasn't hit by plane.This does get tedious,like explaining to a little boy.

And speaking of little balls,these iron spheres in question were found,"in abundance."Yet not found in any other steel framed high rise destroyed by fire to point of collapse.



The WTC was designed over 45 years ago using a tube-frame structural design. The engineered distribution of support and dispersed usage of space were innovative and untried. Allowances were made for a worst case scenario of an airplane of the known types of the day colliding accidentally.

In 2001 two modern wide body 767s were flown with volition into the upper floors within minutes of each other. No one, not even the insurance companies, had anticipated such a massive assault tantamount to bombing. Although fireproofing and sprinkler systems were installed, they were disabled and fuel induced fires spread throughout.

WTC 7 suffered extensive secondary damage. Well documented photographically is a series of gradual structural failures putting unsustainable weight on crucial junctures.

All major structures are designed to withstand collapse. But it still happens.

As to little iron balls "not found in any other steel framed high rise destroyed by fire to point of collapse" - exactly who documents what has and has not been found in such high rise fire collapses? How often has it mattered after a building burns down for them to measure precisely the dimensions, quantity and dispersion of the rubble?

Or is this another unsourced 'expert' opinion?


Mike



[edit on 7-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mikey my amigo you still here???


After viewing all the information presented in this thread and combining that with all of the other suspicious behavior (Pentagon, 931 lies, No Osama on most wanted list etc) you have got to say that there is a strong probability that the Govt was involved with 911 and are trying to cover it up.
What do you really think bro??? Give a little it's aight, you have to admit that at the least they knew something about it.......

Check out this NIST guy tremble when he gets put on the spot, they all do....



Peace



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

Actually they were designed to withstand hurricane winds and TWO airplane strikes.Each.And there never was a total collapse due to fire of any other high rise steel framed building,ever,before or since,so that one was a gimme.

Loved watching that NIST spokesthing try,but fail,to convincingly lie about the molten pools of steel.Especially where he sorta grins at a supporter when the thermate issue comes up.His handler,perhaps?Wotta stuffed suit.D'ya think he got his boots melted off at ground zero helping out while there?He oughta,to be prepared,as there is a place in HELL for them that murder and abet same and escape earthly justice.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 


What they were "designed" to do and what they could actually do may be entirely different. Cars are designed for people to survive collisions but that isn't always the case. Building design is not evidence of a plot.

One problem with the therm*te theory is timing. Therm*te can't be timed very well because heat transfer is always slower than kinetic energy transfer. This means no split-second timing. A series of charges that some claim to have caused collapse wouldn't work with the "split-minute" timing of therm*te. It was all kinetic and not thermal.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus


Mikey my amigo you still here???


After viewing all the information presented in this thread and combining that with all of the other suspicious behavior (Pentagon, 931 lies, No Osama on most wanted list etc) you have got to say that there is a strong probability that the Govt was involved with 911 and are trying to cover it up.
What do you really think bro??? Give a little it's aight, you have to admit that at the least they knew something about it.......



You're probably young and maybe new to all this stuff.

For sure there's a story yet to be told as to who in the US was aware in advance of 9/11. Intelligence agencies were in an internal war, not sharing all their information. A few likely knew there was an imminent major attack, but collectively they weren't pro-active in getting on top of it. Negligence? Selfish self-interest? Who knew how much and was anyone aware of the exact timing? Still outstanding questions.

I recommend reading beyond the agenda-driven conspiracy literature. There is fascinating stuff out there that succinctly debunks it all. For a chaser look at summaries of the official reports. You'll get a fuller picture.

The Truther loose movement in 7+ years has been busy finding holes in what they call the Official version of events. But they've come up with virtually nothing in the way of solid evidence regarding planning,
communication documentation, testimony, witnesses, etc. That doesn't keep them from obsessive dot connecting and wildly speculating.

So the focus has shifted to demonstrating the Towers fell due to controlled demolition. Errors and oversights can be found in the analysis and reports and these are exploited as supposed proof the whole thing is a cover-up.

The NIST and FEMA reports do their best to explain what happened and how. In doing their work they did not feel compelled to examine every single conspiracists claim, but others have done a good job of that.

In the years since the event a whole sub-culture and sub-industry has risen that tries hard to find evidence of the speculative false flag operation. An area open for isolating inconsistencies is the masses of video and data on the collapses of the towers. A tough nut to crack because one also has to explain why it was necessary to bring down buildings that were destroyed already by being virtually bombed.

But the compulsive need to prove the US was complicit in the attack on it's own soil overrides reason. Nothing will shake the conviction of those who desperately want to believe the US government or it's agencies went through the elaborate, expensive, and highly risky process of ensuring there was a climactic falling to the ground of those structures on the same day they were hit. A couple planes flying into the buildings, massive fires and the deaths of thousands wasn't dramatic enough, they argue.

As even the Truthers will agree - you can't believe everything you've been told.

Look at a wider selection of the information available from all sides of the coin, apply common sense, and draw your own conclusions.


Mike



[edit on 8-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Can you tell me what exactly what facts you have demonstrated in your last two posts and how exactly you demonstrated them? And a follow-up question that you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I'm just curious, how old are you?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Can you tell me what exactly what facts you have demonstrated in your last two posts and how exactly you demonstrated them? And a follow-up question that you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I'm just curious, how old are you?



For someone new to this scene, I did my best to provide a summary overview of the accumulated thousands of pieces of data available on 9/11, where and how they are compiled.

Vast amounts of technical information were exchanged in the first 500 or so messages on this thread. All seemingly to no avail. Most of it has been ignored and the same questions are being asked.

If this was about arguing the merits of the Jones paper, as it began, that would be fine. But it gets shot down by solid facts and it is then resuscitated.
This is no longer about that paper.

My age? I'm not young. This discussion isn't about me. You can send me a U2U.

Pax.


Mike



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Vast amounts of technical information were exchanged in the first 500 or so messages on this thread. All seemingly to no avail.


Maybe that's because you don't actually post any proof for what you say? You think that might have something to do with it?


If this was about arguing the merits of the Jones paper, as it began, that would be fine. But it gets shot down by solid facts


Like what?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
Vast amounts of technical information were exchanged in the first 500 or so messages on this thread. All seemingly to no avail.


Maybe that's because you don't actually post any proof for what you say? You think that might have something to do with it?


If this was about arguing the merits of the Jones paper, as it began, that would be fine. But it gets shot down by solid facts


Like what?


Read through the thread. Substantive information was provided by a number of people. It is not my job to reiterate it. That's why it is archived.

If I may say so, in this phase of this extended thread you've come in pointing to a claimed eutectic reaction that FEMA left unaddressed and expanded that to some sort of leading indicator of a controlled demolition.

The stated topic of the thread was the Jones paper implying the presence of large quantities thermite or some compound thereof. I can't say you've been able to sufficiently reinforce that position with further data.


Mike



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join