Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

page: 34
218
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


BS,
Actually, there is little technical information posted by the CT side. You continually remind people that you are an "electronics major" implying some sort of technical expertise and then go off about logical fallacies without any technical input.
I posted technical criticisms of the Jones paper that were not refuted by you or anyone else. All that happened was demands for web references for my criticisms, as though web references were some sort of standard of proof and the only way criticisms can be validated is if someone else published them on the web.
Check my posts on the Jones paper and technically refute my criticisms or accept that the Jones paper proves nothing other than that physics professors are not chemists.




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

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



So you are capable of all this analysis and critical thinking and speculation. and you STILL believe in the official story?

I just don't really understand you.

You make a lot of speculation and assumptions in order to dismiss this evidence, but I'm just wondering if you only question evidence that goes against the official story?

If you are actually interested in science it should take even less time that this thread to figure out the official story is a physical impossibility.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

So you are capable of all this analysis and critical thinking and speculation. and you STILL believe in the official story?

I just don't really understand you.

You make a lot of speculation and assumptions in order to dismiss this evidence, but I'm just wondering if you only question evidence that goes against the official story?

If you are actually interested in science it should take even less time that this thread to figure out the official story is a physical impossibility.



The official story is the only one that offers a comprehensive analysis and explanation of the events that occurred. It is backed up by forensic evidence, testimony, video and photography.

Looking at some points of the alternative explanation presented:

One ton of therm*te would have been required for every 8 tons of steel to reach a sufficient weakening temperature of 1300 degrees Fahrenheit. So we are talking enormous quantities installed. As many or more of the columns damaged by the airplane impact or weakened by the fire would have had to be covered.

As the steel structural skeletons were not exposed, planting incendiaries in advance would have required major invasive work on the buildings, far beyond the removing of wall panels. Concrete would have had to be drilled or blasted through for incendiaries to be positioned and then damage repaired and expose surfaces repainted. The building would virtually have had to be taken apart in numerous places, most in full business operation. This would mean working around electrical wiring, heating and cooling systems, water lines, insulation, fireproofing, etc. All to be done inconspicuously by skilled crews without raising undue suspicion.

Fully successful remote ignition with precision timing would be needed. Given the relatively slow burning rate of therm*te it would somehow have had to be kept in direct contact with steel surfaces for minutes to work effectively.

All happening in the turmoil of buildings with burning airplanes on top and fires raging throughout.

Is all this possible?


Mike



[edit on 9-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
We're not talking about regular thermate here Mike.
Try again.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 


Mike is correct, the amounts would have to be exceptionally large, and the placement would have been exceptionally difficult. There is only so much energy available from any of these reactions; none of this is magic.
Jones paper shows no evidence for therm*te of any kind much less "nano-engineered thermate." There is no oxidizer such as barium nitrate, nor elemental sulfur found in the chips. The particle sizes are widely distributed and many are not "nano." Thermal demolitions are not predictable or readily timable because heat flow is much slower than kinetic disruption and failure times are not precise.
There is no chemical evidence of therm*te, no video evidence for for therm*te, and no rationale for its use.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
ah, ...
the old does not compute argument....


it would take tons of explosives to do the work that was done with no explosives.

how energy affects collapse times



[edit on 9-5-2009 by billybob]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


It would take tons of therm*te to demolish the buildings. Assume the tons of therm*te was in place ready to go. Assume the aircraft did not disrupt the process. Assume ignition was timed to the millisecond.

Sequential failure cannot be timed to the second in a thermal demolition.

No therm*te.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
it would take tons of explosives to do the work that was done with no explosives.


Brilliant. =D



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
When i was in the special forces we also used what we called chemical or plasma cutters to breach steal constructions like harden steal or walls. Like steal containers, submarines, boats and so on. This stuff works a lot like termite. And it oxidise or cools of quite quickly after it is exposed. We often used secondary shaped charges to get the breach clear. We placed a shape charge in one corner of the shaped hole. And stood right by the charge for a fast entry.

What if the the two towers where rigged with Chemical or plasma shaped cutters. The Army uses them.
The triggers needed to set of a chemical or plasma cutter is a lot like a buckshot placed in a chamber to create pressure to push the plasma out in the direction desired. This will not create a explosion at all. It will only give of a small bang. Like a gun going of.


Edit:

We also used what we called silenced charges with a longer burning time. That is just a mixture that makes the gun powder burn slower. So it wouldn't make any noise when working or making pressure to push out the chemicals.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
By far the most motivated body hoping to find evidence of preplanned foul play were the insurance companies and their reinsurers that had to pay out billions for the destroyed buildings.

They would have launched their own investigation. Though it could potentially have saved them a fortune, they came up with no evidence of anything conflicting with the accepted version of events.


Mike



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
ah, ...
the old does not compute argument....


it would take tons of explosives to do the work that was done with no explosives.



Could you please qualify that statement somehow? I followed the link and it drives traffic to another thread of yours and not any credible sources.

Inside that thread, the links you claim sum it all up for idiots like me has a banner across the top stating "Free webhosting, set your site up in 10 minutes!"

That is not any more credible than ANY other free website on the web.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The official story is the only one that offers a comprehensive analysis and explanation of the events that occurred. It is backed up by forensic evidence, testimony, video and photography.



Oh, well why didn't anyone say so. I guess all the debating, even among experts can stop now because of this right?

What forensic evidence was collected and when was it collected?

Who's testimony are you going by? Where and when was this testimony given.

Video and photohraphy was awesome documentation when Eastman was still alive but not so much in the last few years. Aside from that?

Where is the video of the terrorists getting on the planes?

Where is the video of the plane that hit the pentagon?

I can go on asking the where and when of anything you claim proved 9/11's official story. Can anyone go on and on supplying the answers?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Perhaps the thermite was applied to the skeleton of the towers under the guise of fireproofing.

Thermite and thermate can even be mixed in a 5:1 ratio with plaster of paris and applied to the surface that you need to cut through.... although far more primitive than what the military uses as a medium for it's nanotech incendiaries, it shows that this substance can be applied in advance and is quite versatile.

Bubbled Latex or foam caulking would have provided an even better medium - and when combined with dyes would have passed for fireproofing foam.

*Obviously, incendiary devices alone did not bring down the towers; high explosives were used and there is an abundance of witnesses who heard the detonations.

During this period of time, Marvin Bush was in charge of security - no one was going to get caught.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Perhaps the thermite was applied to the skeleton of the towers under the guise of fireproofing.

Thermite and thermate can even be mixed in a 5:1 ratio with plaster of paris and applied to the surface that you need to cut through.... although far more primitive than what the military uses as a medium for it's nanotech incendiaries, it shows that this substance can be applied in advance and is quite versatile.

Bubbled Latex or foam caulking would have provided an even better medium - and when combined with dyes would have passed for fireproofing foam.

*Obviously, incendiary devices alone did not bring down the towers; high explosives were used and there is an abundance of witnesses who heard the detonations.

During this period of time, Marvin Bush was in charge of security - no one was going to get caught.


I think they used a mixture of aluminium and chemicals to get a temperature around 2-3000 degrees. Probably fitted in bras pipes around a column/structure. They can even make the piping look like water pipes for internal fire extinguishing. Like you would see in many ceilings in a building.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You really aren't too familiar with this material, are you? Burning holes in submarine hulls and clearing breaches with shaped charges doesn't sound realistic. Therm*te in water pipes would start fires but wouldn't do much damage to th estructure.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

What forensic evidence was collected and when was it collected?

Who's testimony are you going by? Where and when was this testimony given.
...

Where is the video of the plane that hit the pentagon?

I can go on asking the where and when of anything you claim proved 9/11's official story. Can anyone go on and on supplying the answers?



If you use online conspiracy sites and videos as your sources these and many more leading questions exist.

If you read literature on the subject from not only governmental agencies but engineers and professionals who've reviewed the evidence you get a completely different picture. Add the testimony of multiple eyewitness, firemen, on site medical teams, etc.

Then there are a number of online sites from interested non-affiliated professionals worldwide who address the Truther issues with documentation and photographic evidence. No one should make claims about what did and did not happen on 9/11 until they've at least looked at these thoroughly.

A plane hit the Pentagon. There has never been any question. Hundreds of ordinary people watched it happen, some took pictures. The destroyed plane with it's dead passengers and crew were removed. Hundreds were involved in the horrific clean up. Some of them you can send an email to right now and ask them about it. They are more reliable than a guy peddling his video.


Mike



[edit on 9-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
If you read literature on the subject from not only governmental agencies but engineers and professionals who've reviewed the evidence you get a completely different picture.



Really?

Is that why you have avoided reading the FEMA analysis?

*Perhaps you should take your own advice and bone up on some prerequisite data - there is no excuse not to



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by evil incarnate

What forensic evidence was collected and when was it collected?

Who's testimony are you going by? Where and when was this testimony given.
...

Where is the video of the plane that hit the pentagon?

I can go on asking the where and when of anything you claim proved 9/11's official story. Can anyone go on and on supplying the answers?



If you use online conspiracy sites and videos as your sources these and many more blah blah blah blah.


I asked pretty simple basic questions. I would think if you were so educated on the subject you could have just answered them instead of trying so hard to fit a tinfoil hat on me. No save your rants for people that ask about whatever you want to rant about. You did not address even one of the very simple questions that I asked you.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

I asked pretty simple basic questions. I would think if you were so educated on the subject you could have just answered them instead of trying so hard to fit a tinfoil hat on me. No save your rants for people that ask about whatever you want to rant about. You did not address even one of the very simple questions that I asked you.



I asked some basic questions too, that remain unanswered. We all have.
I don't claim to have every piece of evidence, every video, every picture, every first hand report, at my fingertips. No one does.

I also don't respond to what I think might be attempts at entrapment like asking for somethings that may not be available.

If, as you queried, where is the proof of a plane hitting the Pentagon, let me ask:

Where is your proof something other than a plane hit the Pentagon? Why did so many people passing by claim to have seen a plane hit it? What then did knock out a section of the Pentagon? Do you have solid proof of something else?

And on and on.

I get irritated because these discussion wind up as self-righteous attempts to display some kind of superior knowledge rather than to ascertain what happened and why. It ends up inevitably with the Truth Seeker Boys Club trying to find some fault with the supposed Official Story.

I've read enough of the amorphous Truther Bible to say it has holes big enough to fly a plane through.



Mike



[edit on 9-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
It ends up inevitably with the Truth Seeker Boys Club trying to find some fault with the supposed Official Story.



No, it doesn't.

We always uncover something new - such as the ability to electrically detonate thermate, and the various unconventional ways in which it can be applied to structures.

Then there is the confirmation of nano-thermate - this discovery of which, is what this thread is all about. It actually lead to us finding out about the unique properties in both application and detonation that are possessed by this form of incendiary.

Have you read that FEMA analysis yet?

Tell us when you do





top topics
 
218
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join