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.

 

Danish Scientist verifies 9/11 demolition

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 





Continue to believe in your magic dust, which some person suposedly saved, just for the purpose of giving to professors for analysis.


That "magic dust" was saved, and documented with chain-of-custody because of the many 9/11 responders and their families as well as New York residents who knew it would likely make them ill. To be used as evidence for future lawsuits, since the fed's spokeswoman said the air was safe.
Now your "magic dust" is coming back to haunt the perps. I'd be worried perps.....



[edit on 22-6-2009 by 1SawSomeThings]




posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 1SawSomeThings
 


A chain of custody? Methinks the "chain of custody" regarding the magic dust is about as reliable as a politician's promise.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


If you didn't know this already, saying it's "magical dust" and that it's "made up" is not a valid argument, all you're doing is diminishing the little amount of common sense and logic you might still have left.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


I have about 12 underailed threads, bsbray has about 20 more than me. go debunk if you can. Exponent doesn't seem to have any problems presenting a rational case.

Sorry for OT post but lets put the debate where it belongs.

And keep in mind, no evidence was presented by any supporter of the OS in this thread. You can't expect to be taken seriously without presenting anything "tangible".

stared and flagged. I would vote for WATS but I cant.


[edit on 23-6-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I guess I'm missing this whole "magic dust" quip. You are aware there was several inches of pulverized concrete, glass, asbestos, etc. covering a large area of NY.

Doesn't it seem feasible some of this would end up in the possession of someone who may want to have it studied? As far as I can make out, that is/was the scenario here...and this scientist is reporting his findings. Another poster verifies this scientist is not alone in his findings, but has a commonality with other research done independently from U.S. interference.

Please...show an example, or two, of why THIS evidence should not be taken as valid. And if it nothing more than an attack on me, or Neils Harrit, don't bother.

i am inclined to discuss the information at hand, not your personal acceptance, beliefs, or mis-guidance.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by daddymax
 


A sample of paint chips/dust turns up seven years after the attacks and it is accepted as the Holy Grail of conspiracy theories. Gee, nothing at all wrong with that picture. Not to mention, the sample is comprised of elements that one would expect to find at a construction site. As I have said before, the logic behind deducing that this sample indicates an explosive compound is flawed and very reminiscient of what NIS concluded after the USS Iowa accident. They found residues of several items and deduced it had to have been a bomb......and never once thought to check and see if those items belonged there. Same logic in use here.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


As usual you are confusing fact with opinion.

Show me the proof that it was paint chips.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


LOL. No, its up to YOU to prove its not something you would find at a construction site.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I don't believe it to have been paint chips that is in question,,,I believe the concern is over the residue(s) caused by thermite use. Also the sample is not from a construction site...but more a destruction site.

This sample would not be a viable sample if it came from ground zero after the attacks...during the carting off of the remains to foreign countries. this sample was taken from the dust covering NY during the aftermath of the collapses.

Did you watch the vid, or check the report posted on pg. 1?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I downloaded the study and tried to read through the thing and I must say it has given me a headache, some of that stuff in there is kind of hard to comprehend. I am tired, it is late, so I should not be surprised. I'll give it another shot over the weekend so until then a little more lighter reading is in order.

I do have a few initial thoughts about it though.

Is it just me or does anybody else find it odd that within minutes of witnessing the second tower fall Mr. Frank Delessio grabbed a hand full of the dust and decided to save it? Seems kind of bizarre to me.

What about the issue of deliberate or unintentional contamination? Here we have 4 separate samples of the dust that has been sitting around in these peoples homes (?) for over 6 years ....the issue of contamination should not be overlooked.

The paper did mention that the samples could have been "contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings" and "surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer".

What that exactly means ....I really can't say at this time.

Another thing I found interesting and I hope I read this right (I only gave it a brief read) was that this stuff could be painted on to surfaces forming an explosive paint.


Excuse me if I read that wrong.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Don't be silly, you are making the claim that it's paint chips, if you have no proof of this then it's just your opinion and nothing else.

You have no idea what it is, and neither do I, but it's not me here making any claims just asking you to support yours, otherwise you have nothing.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
yaaayyyy +1 to the danes
(filler)



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by daddymax
 





check the report posted on pg. 1?


Yes I did. There is a reason that a bunch of other scientists do not support their claims.

It appears that they predetermined the result they wanted and went from there.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Has anybody looked into who did the actual study?

Can they be trusted?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
It appears that they predetermined the result they wanted and went from there.


You mean like the NIST report?

It started with the predetermined assumption that aircraft impacts and fire caused the global collapses, and made it's results fit that assumption.

It also assumed that once initiated global collapse was inevitable, based on what exactly we have no idea.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join