It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Seventh
How many cars were partially burnt?, in places where there was loads of paper which wasn`t burnt at all, plus none working phones and radios, the guys in the basement whom discovered the 50 ton hydraulic press (and I know it`s not the weight) and the 300 lb plus steel and concrete door vaporised, the heat still there 3 months after, they did try and disinfo this as tons of nano thermite every where lol.
Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by pteridine
My mistake I mis-stated the press bit, they were the guys that stated it had vaporised, and the cars are a prime example of EMP, semi burnt and catching fire under erratic circumstances, energy bombs do not have to be nuclear based btw and nothing gets the job done as efficiently by completely removing any clues, apart from the steel ofc, which was treated accordingly and rapidly removed.
Apart from those injured and trapped or dead, the majority of people were around the impact zones and above, traces of 1700 + of them where never found, they were understandably crushed and heavily mutilated, but what reduced them to microscopic particles and deposited parts of bodies no bigger than this - (16th of an inch) on rooftops over 400 feet away?.
Having 40 + storeys mostly reduced to dust come tumbling down on you, will leave a mess, but completely vaporised like all the furniture does not add up.
Energy bombs do not have to be nuclear but any such device would put out a great deal of heat and blast from expanding air. No such observations were made.
The human body parts found on rooftops were likely from the passengers on the airplanes.
Why do you think all the furniture could have been vaporized without vaporizing anything else such as the paper that was in the furniture and the people in the offices? The furniture was crushed, not vaporized.
Originally posted by Donny 4 million
1.) Evidence of squibs (CD explosions) visible throughout the buildings as they are falling (regardless of whose video you look at)
2.) The fact that the news reported the ground floor windows blown outward hundreds of feet below the crash site.
3.) Explosions in the basement destroying the parking garages - before and after either plane hit
4.) Traces of thermite and thermate being found on some of the columns that were shipped to so-called "freedom parks;" and
5.) The ground still burning at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit eight weeks after the collapse - only thermite/thermate with its built-in oxygen supply (in its iron oxide compound) can provide that massive amount of heat so many weeks later, buried deep underground - not jet fuel underground in an oxygen-less environment.
6.) steel beams weighing hundreds of tons thrown laterally 400 feet and imbedding themselves in neighboring buildings
7.) Larry Silverstein admitting to having building 7 "pulled" (controlled demolitions terminology for demolishing a building) on a PBS documentary...
Wow - another internet genius at play.....
1) Squibs - usual sequence is to detonate explosives then watch building fall. Why are the so called "squibs" being seen as building collapses?
Just ahead of the debris wave....
It is air being forced out of structure ahead of the debris wave coming down. The pressure wave was strong enough to flip over fully loaded
2) Windows blown out in lobby - this happened at IMPACT time, in North Tower not 102 minutes later when building collapsed. Blast was caused by jet fuel falling down elevator shafts and igniting. Number of people in yhe lobby were badly, even fatally burned by this.
Reference Lauren Manning, Jennieanne Maffeo, Vasana Mututanont who were badly burned then
3) Parking Garages destroyed - False, parking garages were intact until building collapse. Must be thinking of 1993 bombing which blew giant hole
in basement garage
4) Traces of Thermite - False this is idiot Stephen Jones who claimed to find so called "thermite" on steel beam for a monument. What was found slag from cutting torch used to slice beam up for shipment.
Worker slicing columns with thermal lance - which uses iron and aluminum rods with pure 02 to reach temp of 7,000 F. Also produces aluminum oxide
slag - same as thermite
5) Thermite when ignited burns quickly usually under a minute it can not burn for 3 months. What was burning was contents (furnishing, paper, etc) in debris pile. Oxygen to fuel fires came in through voids in pile. Coal mine fires can burn underground for years - witness Centralia PA which has been burning since 1962!
6) Steel beams - on one hand say WTC collapsed in "own footprint" as proof of demolition, now saying since beams flung 400 feet from tower this is proof, Somewhat inconsistent and illogical, Beams (actually exterior wall panels) were tossed outwardly force of collapse - WTC was over 1300 ft and those at top would fly for distance before hitting ground
7) Silverstein - The pull comments comes year later when being interviewed for PBS show. It was during a call from FDNY chief who told him WTC 7 was being abandoned, Silverstein did not order it and could not as it was FDNY chief in charge not Silverstein. Also "pull" is term used by firefighters to evacuate - as in "pull those men out!"
Hope set you straight, but rather doubt it.....
Originally posted by turbofan
The study has been independently checked and the results have been
reproduced by two other scientists. Mark Basile from the Netherlands
is expected to published the results in a reviewed forum.
Good luck with the paint theory as Jones futher explains how it cannot
be paint in his latest presentation.
So, you all got your wish. The tests have been duplicated, what are you
going to complain about now?
Jones claims that samples a-d are essentially the same material and I agree with him. His paper's EDS spectra are very close and this confirms that the materials are identical.
"An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the similarity of the chips and to determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips."
"All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet."
"Similarities between the samples are already evident from these photographs."
We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them.
Comparing this report and Jones' we see from these SEM photo-micrographs that samples a-d are identical to the chip in the above report.
We can now closely look at the morphology of the chips a-d and compare the structures therein to see whether there are any similarities between observed structures in the sample and known structures.
Jones' paper clearly examines these structures in samples a-d and notes
"The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen intermixed with plate-like particles"
"By placing the beam on a cluster of plate-like particles, the spectrum in Fig. (11a) was generated. The spectrum in Fig. (11b) was acquired from a cluster of the smaller bright faceted grains. Again it was observed that the thin sheet-like particles are rich in Al and Si whereas the bright faceted grains are rich in Fe. Both spectra display significant carbon and oxygen"
"The results indicate that the smaller particles with very bright BSE intensity are associated with the regions of high Fe and O. The plate-like particles with intermediate BSE intensity appear to be associated with the regions of high Al and Si. The O map (d) also indicates oxygen present, to a lesser degree, in the location of the Al and Si. However, it is inconclusive from these data whether the O is associated with Si or Al or both."
The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right)
Examining the two side by side clearly shows similarity in size, crystal shape and thickness between the two groups of plate-like particles. Note the exact same style of grouping where platelets have "sandwiched" together in the top middle of b) and the top left of c) in Jones' samples and the exact same phenomenon in the photo to the right. This indicates very strongly that these particles are indeed Kaolinite.
There are many such photo-micrographs of Kaolinite available.
Therefore it is now essential that we examine EDS data of known samples of Kaolinite and compare them with the EDS data generated in Jones' paper. Note that I also include data from the chip sent in the report linked earlier. I have scaled these SEM spectra as best I can in a short space of time in order that the KeV scale matches across spectra.
One of Jones' claims, as is that of the author of the above linked report, is that the EDS spectra of the red layer show signs of contamination
"The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings."
Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral and aswell as being used in wall board or drywall is also used in the manufacture of paint. The following are EDS spectra from Kaolinite with Gypsum, Fig 7 c) of Jones' paper and finally slide/page 14 of the above link.
It is abundantly clear that the spectra share more than enough characteristics to say that not only is gypsum present, but that Kaolinte is too.
The plate-like structures seen in the photo-micrographs, of both "thermite chip" samples, share not only the same crystalline morphology and grouping, but also the same EDS signature.
This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminium". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe2O3) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.
Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.
For Jones to now claim that elemental aluminium is present then the only way to confirm this is by XRD analysis or a suitable equivalent.
We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe2O3 that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.
When we look at the material that the "red layer" in the samples is attached to and the notable difference in the structure compared to the "red layer" along with it's EDS spectra it is clear to see that this is a form of Iron Oxide. The corresponding Carbon peaks and the possibility of Mn peak at 5.9KeV indicate the source of this oxide as being steel.
If you also not in the second photo on this page you can clearly see this oxide layer is also attached to a crystalline fibrous material that again does not share morphology with the "red layer" or the "gray layer". The French paper linked has EDS data of this layer. Notable we do not see the underside of the "gray layer/iron oxide layer" in samples a-d in Jones paper.
Originally posted by turbofan
Please copy these links and paste them anywhere you see claims that the
chips are paint. This is Dr. Jones explaining the charts and why the chips
cannot be paint. You will also see reference to the two new independent
studies confirming the thermite paper:
... and the taxpayers’ money.” .
"If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time