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.

 

Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 33
172
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
turbo, You start a thread on Jones and his chemical analysis.
Refuse to answer pointed questions on issues raised.


To my knowledge, all have been answered except the outstanding
sourced info of the DSC graph (which is forth coming).


Now it's digging up photos to further deflect from the subject.


It's not deflection - it's called visual evidence of demolition to support the
thermite discovery.


Details of how and why the WTC buildings collapsed has been addressed on many ATS threads and sites like this one:
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


Those pages are prehisotric and date pre-thermite study, and also do
not address the photo/video evidence which I have posted.


Still waiting for an explanation of why thin layers thermitic material, even if it were found in debris, would have any significance.


I've already answered this as, "I don't know how it was applied". It's not
my job to know how it was used. The point is, the residue has been found
and it should NOT be in the dust.

If you want a "guess", then will assume devices such as a thermite shaped
charge, or linear cutting charge was used to cut the beams such as this:

www.youtube.com...

There's no telling what type of device was used, or where it was placed, or
what other sources of energy were used until your government allows access for further study.

OKay, now it's your turn. Please comment on the photo evidence I provided
as it relates to the destruction of the upper block of the tower(s).




posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by rich23
If you can explain how Jones' evidence for thermite stops anyone investigating any aspect of 9/11 they like, please do


The Jones thermite evidence is part of a broader context I referred to. The fixation on the mechanics of the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Maybe CIA/Mossad/Girl Scouts did plant explosives in those building that made them all the same day.

But let's get back to planet Earth, Sept 11, 2001. WTC and Pentagon were hit by hijacked aircraft, thousands died.


You didn't answer my question.

I think I made a fair point. All you can do is ridicule and deflect. That's not a good sign that your argument is strong. You complain that the investigation isn't going the way you want to see it. Well, in that case you should do something about it.

I'm interested in, as far as I can, putting together a picture that makes sense to me. All I have to go on is the internet. I'm not about to move to the US and start investigating myself, it's simply not practical. What I can do is try to sort out the information available, look at it for internal inconsistencies, and make the best sense of it I can. For me, there's no point in complaining about the way "the movement" is going. I don't care about how "the movement" is going because it's pointless. The situation is what it is and I'm simply tryint to make the best sense of it I can. The thermite stuff makes sense to me and the criticisms of it advanced thus far in this thread and elsewhere don't make sense.

And as I said, I'm convinced that Fintan Dunne is a disinfo artist. Therefore theories he advances - like Jones' alleged misdeeds - deserve particularly close scrutiny.

I have yet to see ANY evidence that Jones did anything untoward in the cold fusion controversy. It all looks like a smear to me, and people are prepared to disparage him on evidence that's not even flimsy, it's simply non-existent.


Were there a well organized Truth Movement with knowledge of investigative procedures they would be working day and night tracking down retired, laid off, ex-contracted, disenchanted intelligence people in the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, etc and pumping like mad for leads, info, insights.


Don't whine about it. If you're that fussed about it, do something yourself.

It's interesting that one of the few people on this forum who actually has gotten off his duff and interviewed people, Craig Rankin, gets probably more flak than anyone else.


adulation for underachiever opportunists like Jones, who I consider a snake in the grass (note: ad hominem attack)


Thanks for pointing that out. I might not have noticed. Oh, and you left out the word "unfounded".


in depth investigations like NIST are summarily dismissed... as coverups


Rather, what I've seen is logical and point-by-point rebuttal of NIST and the 9/11 commission report. To characterise these things as summary dismissal I think is an unjust summation.

I asked a question. You were kind enough to post it again (and honest enough to be open about the ad hom attack... but you didn't answer it.

You can't show how Steven Jones' thermite theories STOPS anyone else from asking questions about any other aspect of the attacks.

In which case I think you should abandon that as an argument.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I asked a question. You were kind enough to post it again (and honest enough to be open about the ad hom attack... but you didn't answer it.

You can't show how Steven Jones' thermite theories STOPS anyone else from asking questions about any other aspect of the attacks.


There have been wide speculation that the WTC buildings were actually destroyed by controlled demolition. I see Jones providing a justification of this belief in the minds of conspirators with his claims of the discovery of thermite in the debris.

I am not at all convinced, nor are many scientists who have looked at his claims, that he has successfully proven his case. Nor as someone doing a forensic analysis has he provided any evidence of the claimed material being used. It looks more like shoddy cosmetic science with a predetermined agenda.

Nonetheless his receptive audience accepts without question that he has proven his case and that there is no longer any question on the issue.

Scientists and experts from around the world, examining the destruction have their work dismissed out out of hand while Jones's self-serving efforts are accepted uncritically.

For me this creates an impediment to further investigation. Those with little scientific training are seeing a CASE CLOSED stamp on the allegations of controlled demolition.

Bad science benefits no one except it's proponents. It too often deflects from the truth. I'm sure someon in the early 1930s asked what harm there was in the study of Eugenics.

I am strongly against the dissemination and perpetuation of misleading and false information. History is riddled with this kind of misinformation. It needs to be nipped in the bud at every opportunity.


Mike


[edit on 10-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Sure, let's get back to planet Earth shall we? So far Reheat, Exponent,
and Petridine failed to acknowledge this photo (video) evidence by avoiding the question.




Back on planet Earth, video frames with line diagram overlays don't seem to address Jones' thermite paper. I do concede that these video frames are definite evidence of collapse of a WTC tower. So far, there is no evidence of demolitions being involved, even with the publication of Jones' paper.

[edit on 7/10/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Did you ever intend to address or defend the scientific basis of the Jones' paper?



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineBack on planet Earth, video frames with line diagram overlays don't seem to address Jones' thermite paper. I do concede that these video frames are definite evidence of collapse of a WTC tower. So far, there is no evidence of demolitions being involved, even with the publication of Jones' paper.



Back on planet Earth where Physics and Nature happen, sections of building
that are supposed to crush objects (as per story) should not break
apart FIRST.

Back on planet Earth those lines clearly show about 300 feet of the
upper block vanishing before the 1000 feet begins to 'fall'.

Please exaplain how this is natural by gravity alone...back on planet Earth.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Back on planet Earth where Physics and Nature happen, sections of building
that are supposed to crush objects (as per story) should not break
apart FIRST.

Back on planet Earth those lines clearly show about 300 feet of the
upper block vanishing before the 1000 feet begins to 'fall'.

Please exaplain how this is natural by gravity alone...back on planet Earth.

What exactly is unexplained? You seem to like posting completely ridiculous questions and then repeating them endlessly.

What is unexplained? What happens when Physics "happen"?



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Back on planet Earth where Physics and Nature happen, sections of building
that are supposed to crush objects (as per story) should not break
apart FIRST.

Back on planet Earth those lines clearly show about 300 feet of the
upper block vanishing before the 1000 feet begins to 'fall'.

Please exaplain (sic) how this is natural by gravity alone...back on planet Earth.


I'm curious, as well. Care to explain what *should* happen to the top 300 feet of a 1,000 foot skyscraper when it begins to collapse? Use any historical model you care to. Feel free to delve into the past to find any similar event to show what *should* happen.

To reiterate, you used the auxiliary verb should, meaning you know definitively what should have happened as opposed to what did happen. Your expertise is noted - I'm just wondering where it comes from.

We'll wait.

[edit on 10-7-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Nevermind semantics. "SHOULD" is to mean MUST in this case.

The top section MUST remain intact to crush the remainder of the tower.

It is clear by video evidence that the top section does not remain intact
and does not crush the lower section of the tower.

More than two thirds of the upper block breaks apart.

How is this possible from a gravity collapse? Please explain.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Avoided from the beginning is that this debate centres around a controversial claim that potentially explosive material was found in WTC dust. Authors with an admitted vetted interest in proving this conducted tests with no regard for controls nor attempts to have independent confirmation of their findings by having outside sources specializing in the chemistry of munitions material test material from the same source.

An excellent overview of the methodology, biases and credibility of this paper, not subject to objective peer review, can be found below. Special note should be made of the key word in scientific proofs "replicability":



www.rushmessageboard.com...

... the height of irony (hypocrisy actually) that 9-11 conspiracy buffs discounted the importance of peer-reviewed papers these last eight years in which they failed to produce such a paper.

Now, they bask in the glow of the “imprimatur of peer-review" and say that the “world has changed” because they have one published paper (such as it is).

The thousands of pages of peer-reviewed investigations that have reached utterly different conclusions can now be dismissed. “Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands.”

[...]

This is not how scientific fact is established.

Peer review does not equate with established scientific fact. The scientific literature is replete with peer-reviewed papers whose conclusions are diametrically opposed to each other. Only after numerous studies reach similar conclusions do we say that the preponderance of evidence supports a scientific claim.

This requires that numerous unaffiliated research groups reproduce the results of the testing and experiments completed in others' published work.

It’s called replicability.

It doesn’t matter if a study was subject to “several pages of tough comments that required of our team months of additional experiments and studies.”

Samples of materials from the WTC collapse have been stored by others and can be subjected to independent testing for the sort of materials detailed in this paper.

Until respected specialists in the relevant areas of expertise confirm these findings, and publish their findings in an actual established journal, all we have are the claims of nine avowed 9-11 conspiracy buffs and their vanity paper.



Mike



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I think it's been amply covered in this thread. Turbofan seems to be doing an excellent job. No-one's picked any holes in it that he hasn't countered. I'm not about to waste my time duplicating his excellent work.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by rich23
You can't show how Steven Jones' thermite theories STOPS anyone else from asking questions about any other aspect of the attacks.

There have been wide speculation that the WTC buildings were actually destroyed by controlled demolition.


As I said earlier in the thread, I should form a company that demolishes buildings by flying planes into them. Two of the largest towers collapsed into their own footprints using this method, and we're repeatedly told in this thread that such a job would be phenomenally difficult if not impossible.


I see Jones providing a justification of this belief in the minds of conspirators with his claims of the discovery of thermite in the debris.


Oh no! People might disagree with you!


I am not at all convinced, nor are many scientists who have looked at his claims, that he has successfully proven his case. Nor as someone doing a forensic analysis has he provided any evidence of the claimed material being used. It looks more like shoddy cosmetic science with a predetermined agenda.


People have suspected the use of thermite for years. He's provided evidence for it which people are critiquing. You seem to think he shouldn't be allowed even to voice his opinion. Because it's "bad science"?

Sadly, this is an occasion when even the so-called "scientific method" doesn't apply because it's possible that the science is being perverted for political ends. The US Government clearly wants Jones to go away. So do you.


Nonetheless his receptive audience accepts without question that he has proven his case and that there is no longer any question on the issue.


But there are still plenty of people like you to argue the other side. And of course there's "Section Q" of the NSA or whatever they're called.

For me, there was no question that there was something funny going on when I saw the first tower collapse into its own footprint. I thought, "that doesn't just happen with a building that size". And one of the amusing aspects of this thread is watching people trying to argue that a plane could do the job by hitting the towers when a demolition team could not.

It happened twice in a row, and then again with Building 7.


Scientists and experts from around the world, examining the destruction have their work dismissed out out of hand...


Can you give some examples? Because I thought that the investigation that was done by the USG was pretty rushed and shoddy, myself.

while Jones's self-serving efforts are accepted uncritically.

Not by you or the other debunkers weighing in on this and other threads. That is therefore a demonstrably false statement.


For me this creates an impediment to further investigation. Those with little scientific training are seeing a CASE CLOSED stamp on the allegations of controlled demolition.


Explain how this stops anyone else from investigating independently. People agreeing with Jones doesn't stop anyone else from disagreeing. To pretend otherwise is ludicrous.


Bad science benefits no one except it's proponents. It too often deflects from the truth. I'm sure someon in the early 1930s asked what harm there was in the study of Eugenics.


This is itself deflection. Just because one person argues one side of an argument DOES NOT STOP ANYONE ELSE FROM ARGUING THE OTHER SIDE. You're doing it yourself right now.


I am strongly against the dissemination and perpetuation of misleading and false information. History is riddled with this kind of misinformation. It needs to be nipped in the bud at every opportunity.


I couldn't agree more. However, the US government has a HUGE track record for spreading disinformation. As I've stated before, I have yet to see even the slightest hint of convincing evidence that SJ is linked to the USG - quite the reverse. He lost his tenure over speaking out.

[edit on 10-7-2009 by rich23]



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
The report is comprehensive and a bit impressive. All that remains now is to answer the question: How did it get there! I think we may never find out that answer but it proves something beyond a doubt. Something jiggery pokery has been going on in WTC 1, 2 and 7.


I will tell how they probably got in there, 5 men were arrested that day in New Jersey.
Find them and you will be well on your way.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Thanks Rich, that is very nice of you to notice.

I see Mike contines to post opinionated links without addressing the
physics behind the linked photos.

I see that his comments try to discredit a peer reviewed paper, and
some illogical statements about 'peer review' in a general sense.

Still nobody tries to attack the science as they know it cannot be beat.
Typical.

Again, I'm calling anyone out who disagrees with this paper to form a
scientific explanation of how the upper floors of the tower lose 2/3 of
size before the demo wave descends.

You can deny ignorance, but you cannot avoid the video proof of what
really happened to the towers.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
People have suspected the use of thermite for years. He's provided evidence for it which people are critiquing. You seem to think he shouldn't be allowed even to voice his opinion. Because it's "bad science"?


Not at all. There are people who doubt that the plane crashes, fires in the buildings, inherent design flaws in the structures, all contributed to the collapses.

They're then told a recognized professor has proven thermite was used. Laymen, not familiar with the world of scientific rigour and conflicting scientific claims will accept this as it conforms to their beliefs.

I'm saying it's bogus science and should not be touted as definitive proof.

When someone goes through the standard procedures of controls, double blind, replicability. there might be something to talk about. Right now it's at the credibility level of a jargonized dressed up basement experiment reported on a discussion group.



Sadly, this is an occasion when even the so-called "scientific method" doesn't apply because it's possible that the science is being perverted for political ends. The US Government clearly wants Jones to go away. So do you.


The opposite is the case. There are thousands of scientists both in the US and abroad with no affiliation or loyalty to the US govt who would be thrilled to find something that would put a feather in their caps. Some of them contributed to and critiqued the NIST and FEMA reports. You can fake a lot of things, but with the public availability of data and visual evidence you can't easily fake science.

The US govt, if they noticed, or gave a damn, would be pleased at what's out there after 8 years. A handful of lone gun nut scientists who can't even manage the basic requirements of peer review. If anything, it strengthens the official analysis and conclusions.



For me, there was no question that there was something funny going on when I saw the first tower collapse into its own footprint. I thought, "that doesn't just happen with a building that size". And one of the amusing aspects of this thread is watching people trying to argue that a plane could do the job by hitting the towers when a demolition team could not.

It happened twice in a row, and then again with Building 7.


Lots of people, myself included, had a similar initial response. Only when reading the full breakdown did it become clear. The buildings were constructed with a highly innovative structural design. They could probably stand for 100 years. No one anticipated the combination of large fuel laden planes being flown into them, the overwhelming fires and inherent vulnerability of steel reaching temperatures sufficient to compromise it's structural integrity. It was a major structural design flaw that only came to light under the most extreme conditions imaginable.

WTC & was smaller and not hit directly. But even the damage to a side and the fires inside weakened the steel enough for it to lose it's ability to remain upright. There is documentation of it's gradual dissembling leading to collapsing in the last hour.


I thought that the investigation that was done by the USG was pretty rushed and shoddy, myself.


One can always hope for a more thorough examination of anything. But the key questions were addressed and answers supplied that were consistent with the evidence. Nothing of this complexity and magnitude can resolve every possible concern. There will still be bugs ironed out. Science works to remove remaining inconsistencies and contradictions.

But as far as I can see, and tens of thousands of professionals as well, they more than adequately did their job of telling us what happened, how, and why.



Just because one person argues one side of an argument DOES NOT STOP ANYONE ELSE FROM ARGUING THE OTHER SIDE. You're doing it yourself right now.


Jones et al bypass the accepted routes of demonstrating a scientific claim. They know they have a relatively unsophisticated audience, and exploit their credibility. The specifics of their shortcomings have been outlined at length in this thread.



the US government has a HUGE track record for spreading disinformation. As I've stated before, I have yet to see even the slightest hint of convincing evidence that SJ is linked to the USG - quite the reverse. He lost his tenure over speaking out.


The US has done many things over decades, both good and bad. Under discussion is whether they were actively involved in destroying valuable property and taking thousands of lives on their own soil. How many precedents are there for that?

On Jones, I think you've got things skewed. Burnt out from constantly dissing him, I think he's just an obscure professor who from previous experience learned association with high profile scientific controversies translated to attention and new revenue streams.

People like yourself, on a conspiracy forum, take offense to those of us trying to debunk popular proffered theory and data. Debunking means getting rid of bunk. The motive is to get rid of demonstrably false information and improperly obtained analysis.

Jones and his cohorts are using their thin veil of scientific credibility to attract attention to themselves and maybe seek ancillary benefits in the process. Though the vast scientific community rightly ignores them, they know well there are millions hoping for evidence that will implicate and incriminate the US govt.

They play to this audience, knowing there will be no rigorous examination of their procedures, methodology, and unsubstantiated conclusion.

Some of us do not want to this self-serving unethical travesty of science go unchecked.


Mike



[edit on 10-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by rich23
People have suspected the use of thermite for years. He's provided evidence for it which people are critiquing. You seem to think he shouldn't be allowed even to voice his opinion. Because it's "bad science"?


Not at all. There are people who doubt that the plane crashes, fires in the buildings, inherent design flaws in the structures, all contributed to the collapses.

They're then told a recognized professor has proven thermite was used. Laymen, not familiar with the world of scientific rigour and conflicting scientific claims will accept this as it conforms to their beliefs.

I'm saying it's bogus science and should not be touted as definitive proof.


If you were that confident about the science, why is there such a huge and wasted effort by disinfo people to discredit him for him entirely minor part in the cold fusion controversy.

Again, you just don't address the arguments.

You throw around issues of replicability like you know what it means. There is one huge argument against Jones' work, which I'm aware of, but I'm not about to hand it to you. I'm surprised no-one's thought of it yet. I'm satisfied that it doesn't apply, but I'm not about to raise the subject for another dreary discussion.


There are thousands of scientists both in the US and abroad with no affiliation or loyalty to the US govt who would be thrilled to find something that would put a feather in their caps.


You do like these sweeping meaningless generalisations, don't you?


Some of them contributed to and critiqued the NIST and FEMA reports. You can fake a lot of things, but with the public availability of data and visual evidence you can't easily fake science.


And I'm happy with what I've seen of Jones' science so far. Again, I haven't seen any holes poked in it in this thread. The revelations about the connections between the NIST panel and nanothermite research is, if anything, more grist to the mill.


The US govt, if they noticed, or gave a damn, would be pleased at what's out there after 8 years. A handful of lone gun nut scientists who can't even manage the basic requirements of peer review. If anything, it strengthens the official analysis and conclusions.


Presumably that's why the NSA have a special section to counter the 9/11 skeptics of the OCT.


Lots of people, myself included, had a similar initial response. Only when reading the full breakdown did it become clear. The buildings were constructed with a highly innovative structural design. They could probably stand for 100 years. No one anticipated the combination of large fuel laden planes being flown into them, the overwhelming fires and inherent vulnerability of steel reaching temperatures sufficient to compromise it's structural integrity. It was a major structural design flaw that only came to light under the most extreme conditions imaginable.


Yup. All that stuff about them being able to withstand plane impacts was just bunk then.


There is documentation of it's [WTC7] gradual dissembling leading to collapsing in the last hour.


And eyewitness testimony to people counting down to its demolition.


One can always hope for a more thorough examination of anything. But the key questions were addressed


Not according to the widows, they weren't.

And you just won't get away from the central problem, which is a question I asked which you quote and then conspicuously fail to answer...




Just because one person argues one side of an argument DOES NOT STOP ANYONE ELSE FROM ARGUING THE OTHER SIDE. You're doing it yourself right now.


Jones et al bypass the accepted routes of demonstrating a scientific claim. They know they have a relatively unsophisticated audience, and exploit their credibility. The specifics of their shortcomings have been outlined at length in this thread.


Anyone reading that exchange with any shred of intellectual honesty will see that your response is not an answer to the question. You dodge away from your original accusation, which is that Jones' activities stop discussion. They don't.


People like yourself, on a conspiracy forum, take offense to those of us trying to debunk popular proffered theory and data.


I'm not taking offence. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in the arguments you advance.


Debunking means getting rid of bunk.


Like it or not, it has acquired a pejorative meaning: to attempt to denigrate a theory or testimony by any means, fair or foul.


The motive is to get rid of demonstrably false information and improperly obtained analysis.


Improperly obtained? Not quite sure what you're driving at there. But you're confusing stated intent with motive. The two are not necessarily coextensive by any means.


Jones and his cohorts are using their thin veil of scientific credibility to attract attention to themselves and maybe seek ancillary benefits in the process.


Ad hom smear disguised as statement of fact. Again you have nothing to back up that statement. It's just your opinion.


Though the vast scientific community rightly ignores them, they know well there are millions hoping for evidence that will implicate and incriminate the US govt.

They play to this audience, knowing there will be no rigorous examination of their procedures, methodology, and unsubstantiated conclusion.


See previous response. Ad hom smear etc etc.


Some of us do not want to this self-serving unethical travesty of science go unchecked.


You've pulled off quite a good trick there, which is to sound pious and pompous at the same time. Unfortunately your arguments have been unconvincing throughout, to me at least.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Nevermind semantics. "SHOULD" is to mean MUST in this case.

The top section MUST remain intact to crush the remainder of the tower.

Why must it? What scientific paper backs you up on this?

What happens when debris from the top section breeches the floors of the lower section? 4 inches of concrete and a steel pan does not make for a particularly large amount of resistance.

Unfortunately again it seems you are just repeating the opinions of others and trying to convince yourself that they are fact.

Tell me, how exactly can you tell from videos what crushes what?

Oh and rich23, are you really going to use the "well why don't controlled demolition companies just fly a plane into the building" argument? It is perhaps the single poorest argument ever produced by the truth movement.

Here is a small list why not
  • Planes cost millions of dollars
  • Flying a plane into a building will kill the pilot
  • The location of the plane's impact cannot be sufficiently accurate
  • The collapse of the building would be uncontrolled


Can you name a single reason that a controlled demolition company would use a plane over precisely placed explosives?



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Unfortunately your arguments have been unconvincing throughout, to me at least.


I have the same response to your arguments, but appreciate the fact that you attempt to be objective and civil in your exchanges.

We'll continue to differ because you accept things as verified facts which I consider anecdotal, hearsay, or just wrong.

Just an example, you state the buildings were designed to resist even the impact of a plane crash. Inferentially, that fact that they couldn't stand up to even residual damage from one makes you conclude there was control demolition.

This ignores the fact that buildings fall spontaneously that were designed to stand, people are killed in car crashes where the vehicle was designed to protect them, and tens of thousands of other examples where initial design did not meet expectations.

Unexpected unprecedented things happen. Many did on 9/11. There are many outstanding questions on prior knowledge on the parts of some, poor intelligence and military co-ordination, even the possibility the event itself was not prevented.

But the material evidence and analysis of how and why those buildings collapsed has bee addressed. In my opinion, and that of experts in fields ranging from engineering, architecture, demolition - they are satisfactory.

It all comes down to a conspiracy theory that a building complex attacked by loaded planes acting like virtual bombs also had explosives planted to make the event even more dramatic with collapses. This would mean a vast amount of money, time, and effort was expended just for this 'coup de gras.' That the perpetrators assumed extreme extra risk of discovery involving large crews and the possibility their plan would not go off as anticipated.

So far no substantiation of this theory except Jones et al's thermite claim.

Most who are aware of the details consider far from proven. Myself I say it's highly suspect.


Mike



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 

It has more holes in it than any of the non-technical folks realize. If you don't understand it, how can you support it?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Mistaken reply to a message. Sorry.

M

[edit on 11-7-2009 by mmiichael]



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join