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: 35
172
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Who are we humble forumites to argue with those that know every single aspect of 9/11, politicians, counter terrorism veterans, structural engineers, military personal.

No matter how much disinfo and debunking goes on, nothing disproves or undermines the OS more than these big guns openly stating the farce that is the OS`s account of that fateful day.


CREDIBLE CRITICS OF THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11

41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11: "Terribly Flawed," "Laced with Contradictions," "a Joke," "a Cover-up"
May 18, 2009

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11 – More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official collapse reports
June 17, 2009

Respected Medical Professionals Launch New 9/11 Truth Group – Announces Online Petition Calling for New Investigation
Feb. 24, 2009

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce”
Jan. 14, 2008

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 "Flawed", "Absurd", "Totally Inadequate", "a Cover-up"
Jan. 5, 2008

Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed"
Dec. 13, 2007

Eight Senior Republican Administration Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False"
Dec. 4, 2007

When their very own national security smells a rat, there`s a rat.




posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Who are we humble forumites to argue with those that know every single aspect of 9/11, politicians, counter terrorism veterans, structural engineers, military personal.

No matter how much disinfo and debunking goes on, nothing disproves or undermines the OS more than these big guns openly stating the farce that is the OS`s account of that fateful day.


Interesting reply to this on another thread from an ATS memeber who is also an engineer.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

The bottom line is that the un#ingbelieveably vast majority (99%+) of experts say that the towers fell in a matter consistent with the official story AND many have put forth hard evidence and simulations to support it.

[...]

I happen to be an engineer several degrees over. I've got the education and experience to assess many of the claims. Most people however, do not. If there is one thing people don't learn in their schooling it's that experience counts. Experienced engineers, almost without exception, believe the 9/11 conspiracy claims to be bunk..

[...]

If the conspiracy had any meat to it then then the hundreds of thousands of qualified people around the world would say so. They haven't.



Mike




[edit on 12-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

Conjecture without fact by a 'credible source' is still conjecture without fact.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by mmiichael
 

Conjecture without fact by a 'credible source' is still conjecture without fact.




I gave a rely to a post that listed things like

"Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed"


The overwhelming majority of qualified professionals in related fields who have looked over the 9/11 evidence, maybe hundreds of thousands, do not see the need to form special organizations to assert their opinions on the credibility of the available reports.

They don't have websites, Youtube videos, or make cash offers to debate issues.

But do sometimes we hear from them when they come across information they know to be decidedly false thrown around.

The point was, 7 or 700 individuals making up a tiny minority in any field do not represent the consensus opinions of their profession.


Mike



[edit on 12-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The bottom line is that the un#ingbelieveably vast majority (99%+) of experts say that the towers fell in a matter consistent with the official story


No, the bottom line is ill-informed people like you keep saying this when there is absolutely no statistics to support it.

There ARE polls, scientific ones even that were carried out by Zogby, but I'm sure you won't walk to talk about them, because obviously they are biased.



When you talk evidence, instead of perpetually insisting you're right because everyone already agrees with you, maybe someone who matters will give a damn what you say.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, the bottom line is ill-informed people like you keep saying this when there is absolutely no statistics to support it.

There ARE polls, scientific ones even that were carried out by Zogby, but I'm sure you won't walk to talk about them, because obviously they are biased.

When you talk evidence, instead of perpetually insisting you're right because everyone already agrees with you, maybe someone who matters will give a damn what you say.



We're talking right now about the opinions of qualified professionals in related fields. Science isn't decided by popularity polls.

I'm pretty confident about an opinion when there are a few million experts in an area of science from dozens of countries who look at reports and, for the most part, agree with the conclusions.

When there things egregiously wrong in a high profile report it is made know and debated. Something as dramatic and topical as the physics and chemistry involved in the WTC collapses has not escaped the attention of the scientific community.

They are militant about Global Warming, Pollution, and many other issues. They have been largely silent on the WTC collapse controversies after the final reports came out.

Subcultures exist for many things. Some believe an alien craft crashed at Roswell, New Mexico. And that the US government is covering it up.

Even if it gets to 99% of the population believing this, it's the opinion of professionals looking at the evidence that matters.

Many will yell and scream they're biased and part of the cover-up.

And there will always be a few making a career appealing to these cults, as well as gullible professionals.


Mike



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


You talk like it's the evidence itself that matters to you (through the eyes of experts only, of course -- and even then, only the experts YOU like), but when it comes down to it, I know for a fact that you will defer to experts on the technical issues and so have no idea what you are talking about.

So basically, I am tired of hearing about how many people you think agree with you. I am saying the same thing you THINK you are: it doesn't matter how many people. But unfortunately that is ALWAYS what you turn back to, and that is why I don't even care to argue with people like you anymore. You say it's the evidence that matters but then you will eventually say you yourself aren't qualified to comment on such and such anomaly and somebody else just must know better. No worries. Carry on.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You talk like it's the evidence itself that matters to you (through the eyes of experts only, of course -- and even then, only the experts YOU like), but when it comes down to it, I know for a fact that you will defer to experts on the technical issues and so have no idea what you are talking about.

So basically, I am tired of hearing about how many people you think agree with you. I am saying the same thing you THINK you are: it doesn't matter how many people. But unfortunately that is ALWAYS what you turn back to, and that is why I don't even care to argue with people like you anymore. You say it's the evidence that matters but then you will eventually say you yourself aren't qualified to comment on such and such anomaly and somebody else just must know better. No worries. Carry on.




i have some technical expertise and have contributed to and edited a recognized peer review journal. No person can claim full expertise in analyzing something like the WTC destruction as it demands extensive knowledge in at least a dozen fields. So deference to the opinions and cumulative experience of others is unavoidable.

Anyone who does not do this or thinks they have sufficient understanding to make absolute judgements based on their limited knowledge is fooling themselves.

It's all opinion here. I'll choose the opinion of those who have demonstrated they fully understand certain scientific matters as opposed to those who claim they do.

Mike



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Anyone who does not do this or thinks they have sufficient understanding to make absolute judgements based on their limited knowledge is fooling themselves.


I'm not making absolute judgments. I am one of the ones who thinks a much more in-depth investigation is needed, remember? Are you, or have you reached an absolute judgment?


I will just say this. There are "anomalies" with the "official theory." Just so we are clear about this I will only mention the eutectic reaction (NO other form of corrosion!!) that made its way onto WTC columns and ate holes through them, as per FEMA app. C. An anomaly is by definition something that we do not understand, or else it would not be an "anomaly."

Something we do not understand. As a matter of fact, scientists have traditionally viewed anomalies with any scientific theory as evidence that that theory is lacking information and is incomplete or incorrect. Something to think about. Not saying it's evidence of anything, except your lack of understanding (because frankly it is not an anomaly to me
).



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm not making absolute judgments. I am one of the ones who thinks a much more in-depth investigation is needed, remember? Are you, or have you reached an absolute judgment?

I will just say this. There are "anomalies" with the "official theory." Just so we are clear about this I will only mention the eutectic reaction (NO other form of corrosion!!) that made its way onto WTC columns and ate holes through them, as per FEMA app. C. An anomaly is by definition something that we do not understand, or else it would not be an "anomaly."

Something we do not understand. As a matter of fact, scientists have traditionally viewed anomalies with any scientific theory as evidence that that theory is lacking information and is incomplete or incorrect. Something to think about. Not saying it's evidence of anything, except your lack of understanding.


I am always weighing possibilities. Good to see you do too.

I form interim conclusions until such time new conflicting information becomes available. I have deep suspicions on who knew what was going to happen in advance, how much, why it wasn't acted upon, etc.

The actual destruction of the towers seem more than adequately explained and internally consistent. Some question marks, of course. With an incredible tonnage of different materials rapidly combining in flames at extreme temperature, and still mixing after the collapses, it is virtually impossible to account for every anomaly. Nothing quite like this was ever recorded. No building with these unique structural designs have ever been under circumstances even remotely similar.

And I can't see the rationale of further destroying nearly destroyed buildings given the increased huge risks in terms of failure and exposure.


Mike


[edit on 12-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I will just say this. There are "anomalies" with the "official theory." Just so we are clear about this I will only mention the eutectic reaction (NO other form of corrosion!!) that made its way onto WTC columns and ate holes through them, as per FEMA app. C. An anomaly is by definition something that we do not understand, or else it would not be an "anomaly."


This is a completely fair analysis, but utterly inconsequential. There are, as you say, anomalies everywhere. For example en.wikipedia.org... is one of my favourites.

The problem is that people feel free to jump from "aha we don't fully understand this" all the way to "bush and cheney are responsible for those towers falling" with the only evidence usually being something like "the towers COULD NOT DO THAT" etc.

I don't think any debunker will claim that the 'official story' is perfect. There is plenty of room for revision, but there is no room for ignorance.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
This is a completely fair analysis, but utterly inconsequential.


You say this like you know where the "revisions" of the theory need to be, before they have even been made.

>Snip< you have nothing to do with any of it anyway, so there's little point wasting time arguing with you about it.

Mod edit: Removed profanity. Please see section 1b of the Terms & Conditions


[edit on 7/13/2009 by junglejake]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You say this like you know where the "revisions" of the theory need to be, before they have even been made.

It's not that I know, it's that I have confidence. I speak of confidence in the statistical sense, there is a massive amount of evidence favouring the 'official story'. As I have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, even if we accept that this is thermite, many serious questions remain which are currently unanswered.


I'll let you guys circle jerk to this one, though, because you have nothing to do with any of it anyway, so there's little point wasting time arguing with you about it.

Pretty much, we'll have to wait and see what happens. I hope that Jones does in fact submit this to an independent lab for analysis.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I speak of confidence in the statistical sense, there is a massive amount of evidence favouring the 'official story'. As I have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, even if we accept that this is thermite, many serious questions remain which are currently unanswered.

[...]

I hope that Jones does in fact submit this to an independent lab for analysis.


Unfortunate for those dismissing the Official Story, there isn't a second best choice. I doubt 1 in 100 who chastise it have actually dipped into the massive documentation. No quick Youtube versions for the reading impaired.

We could offer $50 to Jones for postage and handling to send his samples to MIT or wherever. But the fact that he hasn't chosen that route pretty much tells the story. And then their negative results would be accused of being part of the Great Cover-up.

Jones et all will keep the ball in their court for as long as they can milk their audience. PR and marketing dubious but highly controversial scientific claims has become a new field of endeavour.

Note someone has recently found a sample in the Roswell rubble that they claim was the basis for the later development of memory retaining metals. And guess what? The Official Story of how they were developed years before is a Cover-up.


Mike





[edit on 12-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Interesting reply to this on another thread from an ATS memeber who is also an engineer.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

The bottom line is that the un#ingbelieveably vast majority (99%+) of experts say that the towers fell in a matter consistent with the official story AND many have put forth hard evidence and simulations to support it.

[...]

I happen to be an engineer several degrees over. I've got the education and experience to assess many of the claims. Most people however, do not. If there is one thing people don't learn in their schooling it's that experience counts. Experienced engineers, almost without exception, believe the 9/11 conspiracy claims to be bunk..

[...]

If the conspiracy had any meat to it then then the hundreds of thousands of qualified people around the world would say so. They haven't.



Mike

[edit on 12-7-2009 by mmiichael]


No matter how much we debate this from our respective sides of the fence, the one huge aspect that favours the Truthers is thus (apart from the nut jobs), we do not intentionally overlook, back track, disguise blatant anomalies, and the reason for this is quite simple... there is none whatsoever.

Looking at the bigger picture, take a deep breath and look at every single aspect of that fateful day, be it the complete twisting of the laws of physics, every single one of those planes managed to perform outstanding feats of never done beforeness, as did the collapse of three towers, locating passports belonging to the terrorists, piloting skills that veteran Jet pilots would be pushed to accomplish, and so much more.

NIST`s report is flawed and John Gross`s denial of evidence of molten steel can plainly be disproved no doubting this, just this one aspect again must raise alarm bells, if there were explosives planted there would have to have been a lot of building work undertaken prior to 9/11, again this has been exposed, if there were controlled detonations they would be seen in the videos, yet again this is covered, also the use of thermite to weaken and remove any resistance has also been indentified.

Every single angle that would back up and make the Truthers version seem realistic has been covered, now the debunkers have tried to negate every single aspect of this, and this matters not, what does matter however is that there is all this evidence to debunk in the 1st place.

There is no smoke without fire, nothing made up, no cover ups, just basic ammunition for you guys to feed on



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 

Thermite and explosives have not been shown to be the causes of collapse. Jones has discovered red paint. Videos do not show demolitions before collapse. Demolition residua [caps, wires, unexploded charges, etc.] was not found in the debris. Plotters were not discovered bringing demolition charges into the buildings, removing walls covering the structure, planting demolition charges, precutting beams and supports, cabling structures for controlled fall, or wiring demolition charges. No plans were discovered, no orders were found, no one in this enormous plot ever let slip a hint that there was such a plot. There were no confessions from guilt or on a death-bed.
The only thing that the CTer's have are feelings that the buildings didn't collapse as they, as large building collapse experts, thought they should. Apparently, the bases of those feelings are youtube videos and disaster movies. The videos of the towers collapse do not show the many small explosions before collapse that the controlled demolitions videos do. Seismographic analyses show no big explosions. The CTer's claim that "the laws of physics" have been suspended or violated is based on video frames where the structures have been obscured by dust and debris. All this is driven by the desire to be special by discovering overlooked clues in the videos. For many this is just entertainment but for some it is obsession. This belief will not be dissuaded by lack of evidence because emotions are driving this.
There is no evidence of demolition of the WTC.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Did someone mention no evidence of explosions?.......

911review.org...


Pay particular attention to the flames these are caused by combustible office furniture, my mistake /blush, there`s me thinking that the symmetrically fashioned and perfectly timed explosions were controlled explosions......



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Love your signature Seventh, and the link you supplied in your last post.

There are some great references there for everyone to study.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Love your signature Seventh, and the link you supplied in your last post.

There are some great references there for everyone to study.


Hehe, thanks, I try and keep my links separate from the already debunked ones, the link above has some quality frames, disproving also the pancake affect theory



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Looking at the bigger picture, take a deep breath and look at every single aspect of that fateful day, be it the complete twisting of the laws of physics, every single one of those planes managed to perform outstanding feats of never done beforeness, as did the collapse of three towers, locating passports belonging to the terrorists, piloting skills that veteran Jet pilots would be pushed to accomplish, and so much more.

NIST`s report is flawed and John Gross`s denial of evidence of molten steel can plainly be disproved no doubting this, just this one aspect again must raise alarm bells, if there were explosives planted there would have to have been a lot of building work undertaken prior to 9/11, again this has been exposed, if there were controlled detonations they would be seen in the videos, yet again this is covered, also the use of thermite to weaken and remove any resistance has also been indentified.

Every single angle that would back up and make the Truthers version seem realistic has been covered, now the debunkers have tried to negate every single aspect of this, and this matters not, what does matter however is that there is all this evidence to debunk in the 1st place.



Your approach is fair-minded in intent. And nothing should be ignored. But a perspective pervades the anomalies you list, that the Truthers have determined something and the nasty debunkers try to deny it.

Literally debunking is getting rid of the bunk. Trying to get closer to the truth when there's incorrect information.

Quickly from what I recall, the vast majority of pilots have said there was nothing unusual done by the 4 pilots who all had licenses. No phenomenal maneuvering, basically steering into targets. The Pentagon one always noted was doing a circle and returning back.

There was molten metallic fluid from the contained burning but no one knows for certain now how much was a mixture of aluminum, brass, even glass.

The recovered passport seems an incredible coincidence except that masses of other paper were thrust into the air on the crashes including personal paperwork and documents from briefcases and purses, magazines, etc.

Thermite in the debris is claimed but not proven. Some very serious doubts about this. And how effective a thin coating would be.

This all should be co-operative, but there is a repetition and enhancement of seeming anomalies in an attempt to discredit the US investigations. Weighed in has to be an overwhelming amount of validated evidence on most questions that contribute to the accepted analysis.

Though they're less vocal than dissenters, independent investigators from many countries are for the most part satisfied what we are told happened actually did happen.

On conspiracy forums trying to get closer to the facts by negating the disinformation spread on websites and video is a thankless task. Those wanting to show certain outrageous are untrue are accused of being sheep, disinfo agents, part of a government cover-up, etc. While the question is still open as to who knew how much in advance, it's beyond question the US was attacked by terrorists flying planes into their chosen targets. And that the destruction and deaths were a direct result of this.


Mike



[edit on 13-7-2009 by mmiichael]



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join