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: 54
172
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
*** STOP IT ***

Here and now, the bickering and off topic posts, discussing the member and not the topic will end.

You Will Be Post Banned.




posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I just got a link from a friend who follows this stuff actively to a Science Forum where they have a whole section devoted to Pseudoscience. A little searching, and lo and behold:



www.sciforums.com...

Harrit doesn't prove that the Spheres are Iron, he assumes they're Iron, just like he assumed that the Kaolinite was aluminium.

He describes metallic spheres, and translucent blue spheres.

He then examines the metallic spheres, predetermining that they're Iron, while completely ignoring the translucent blue spheres - once again, he's examining the evidence in accordance with his beliefs.

Hematite is also metallic and forms spheres:

According to

geography.lancs.ac.uk...

We have, according to the page:


“Magnetite spherule (m) which contains hematite lamellae (brighter). This is welded to an unidentified iron oxide phases, one having metallographic skeletal textures (s) and the other containing small (~2mm) spheres that consist of metallic iron [SEM-EDS]. XRD also indicates wustite (spherule diameter 60mm). [RL optical, oil immersion]”

And take a look at the category that the photo occurs under:


“Anthropogeneic Magnetic Minerals"

fly-ash (combustion products), ferrous contamination “

Get it? We can expect metallic iron rich spheres to form when we burn hydrocarbons that are contaminated with iron.

Also note that this explanation has the advantage of being able to naturally explain the varying ratios of Iron:Oxygen found in the spheres that Harrit examined (their composition was highly variable, and only one or two of them came close to resembling the ratios of Fe:O found in the byproducts of the Thermite he examined.

Also, may I recommend you take note of the following chemistry:

3 Fe2 O3 + C > 2 Fe3 O4 + CO
Fe3 O4 + C > 3 Fe O + CO

(or Carbon Monoxide can substitute for Carbon)

The production of Iron doesn't necessarily require high temperatures, it can be done naturally, it requires a strongly reducing environment.

Veins of native Iron, although unusual to be found, because of how quickly Iron oxidizes, can be desposited hydrothermally.

So no, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the Linseed oil ignited and caused molten Iron to form.

I am, however, suggesting that the Linseed oil did play a role in setting the conditions necessary, and played a role in the production of the of the spheres, which Harrit failed to demonstrate were anything more than spheres of Iron Oxide produced as a combustion by-product.

[...]

Harrit did mess up his investigation, he himself admits he messed up in some areas.

I've outlined some other short comings in his paper.

Being Iron rich doesn't contradict anything that I've said.

I haven't said that the spheres were exclusively Iron Oxide, in fact, I've repeatedly pointed out that the fly ash ESM that I posted earlier contains Iron particles in it (in it's metallic form). In fact a 2:1 ratio of Fe:O can be trivially accounted for by the formula Fe.FeO

The closest I've come is stating that Iron Rich does not automatically imply metallic Iron. I've also said that high temperatures are not the only way of producing Iron, all that is required is a sufficiently reducing environment.

Well, here's a patent issued in 2000

www.patentstorm.us...

that uses additives to create a strongly reducing environment that enables the extraction of Iron from Iron oxides with an optimal operating range of temperatures 650-790°C easily within the range of hydrocarbons.

Flames can be a strongly reducing environment, they tend to produce lots of thick, black smoke, which is primarily carbon.

Hmm, and what's one of the reactions listed on the patent?

FeO + C > Fe + CO

... looks like I forgot to list that reaction in my list of reactions



Iron rich nutrients for the scientifically-minded.

M


[edit on 14-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
"Mike" please produce a 'live' , 'real time' forum like you suggested so
we can have a debate about this.

Your replies fail to address the points in the Jones/Harrit paper.

#1. You claim the science can't be reproduced, yet two indepedent
scientists verified, duplicated and agree with the results.

#2. The page you link about fly-ash mentions a reducing agent which
is required to remove elements. This cannot not happen in the environment
in which the towers fell. Futhermore Jones explains this in the video
(Part 8 and Part 9 PLEASE VIEW) about how MEK cannot separate these
elements. IE: Aluminosilicates

#3. The temperatures suggesed by your source mention 650'C, where
the DSC trace by Jones/Harrit exhibits the exotherm at about 450'C.

That's a delta of 200' C!

Again, your sources are weak. Please stick to your word and provide
a forum which we can debate live so that I know you're not surfing the
net pulling up usless posts such as your last reply.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
"Mike" please produce a 'live' , 'real time' forum like you suggested so
we can have a debate about this.

Your replies fail to address the points in the Jones/Harrit paper.

#1. You claim the science can't be reproduced, yet two indepedent
scientists verified, duplicated and agree with the results.

#2. The page you link about fly-ash mentions a reducing agent which
is required to remove elements. This cannot not happen in the environment
in which the towers fell. Futhermore Jones explains this in the video
(Part 8 and Part 9 PLEASE VIEW) about how MEK cannot separate these
elements. IE: Aluminosilicates

#3. The temperatures suggesed by your source mention 650'C, where
the DSC trace by Jones/Harrit exhibits the exotherm at about 450'C.

That's a delta of 200' C!

Again, your sources are weak. Please stick to your word and provide
a forum which we can debate live so that I know you're not surfing the
net pulling up usless posts such as your last reply.


1. Duplication by disinterested parties is what is needed. Duplication by true believers seeking to prove thermite is suspect.

2. Fire produces reducing agents in the form of carbon and carbon monoxide.
MEK is a poor solvent for cured coatings. It will not "separate elements" in aluminosilicates. Neither will any other organic solvent. What an appropriate solvent will do is dissolve or disperse the organic matrix and allow separation and identification of the components.

3. The temperature range and shape of the DSC traces [420-440C peaks] is indicative of combustion of the organic matrix and not a thermitic reaction. Jones' data shows that this is a combustion. The energy per unit mass plot showing 1.5 to almost 2 times as much energy per unit mass in the chips says that the ca. 420 C peaks are not a thermitic reaction but are combustion in air. This is because no matter how finely divided the thermite is, the energy per unit mass cannot exceed the Gibbs free energy of reaction.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Turbo, I do believe the environment of the pile that burned for weeks underground was more than enough to create the said iron-spheres. The reducing agents? well, you have plenty of elements and reactions in the pile to create said reducing agents. You do know that sulfur is a common element that can reduce the temperature of the melting point of steel.

This site gives us a great list of agents of corrosion that can account for the conditions in the pile:

www.corrosionsource.com...



Corrosive gases


Air, oxygen: The reaction between air and a material is normally called oxidation and is quite often observed as a separate discipline in regard to corrosion science. In most industrial cases where metal is in contact with air, the oxidation processes are not as much determined by plain oxidation by oxygen but one has to consider all possible contaminants of the air which can have disastrous consequences for the oxidation resistance.


Steam: Steam in contact with steel can effect the carbon level of the steel can also oxidize the iron.


Carbon, carbon oxides and methane: Compounds of carbon like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane can change the carbon level in the steel and subsequently influence the mechanical properties of the metal.


Sulfur containing Gases: Even in small amounts, sulfur in various forms can accelerate corrosion at high temperatures.


Hydrogen: Hydrogen gas is a reducing agent and in contact with steel at high temperatures can result in decarburization and the subsequent formation of hydrogen carbons; C(Fe) + 2H2 CH4


Nitrogen: Nitrogen plays in most cases no role in oxidation phenomena as it is overshadowed to the large effect of oxygen and most nitrides are only formed at high temperatures. However, active nitrogen produced from ammonia can form nitrides below 540oC.


Combustion gases: The gas mixture arising from combustion of fuels contains for a large part carbon oxides and water vapor together with nitrogen. In situations with incomplete combustion hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and several hydrocarbons are present as well as oxygen. Most fuels contain sulfur compounds so that sulfur oxides and even hydrogen sulfide will be present in the combustion gases resulting in more severe corrosive conditions.


Chlorine and hydrogen chloride: Dry chlorine and hydrogen chloride do not cause major problems as far as corrosion is concerned however, accidental or deliberate increases of the moisture in the gas result in rapid localized attack.


I'm willing to bet that the above materials were all present in the piles of the WTC for the weeks and months afterward. Chemical reactions would have easily produced the above compounds and allowed for the corrosion and iron spheres to occur that were seen.

You can also learn more about corrosion of steel here:
www.livingsteel.org...



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
"Mike" please produce a 'live' , 'real time' forum like you suggested so
we can have a debate about this.

Your replies fail to address the points in the Jones/Harrit paper.

#1. You claim the science can't be reproduced, yet two indepedent
scientists verified, duplicated and agree with the results.

#2. The page you link about fly-ash mentions a reducing agent which
is required to remove elements. This cannot not happen in the environment
in which the towers fell. Futhermore Jones explains this in the video
(Part 8 and Part 9 PLEASE VIEW) about how MEK cannot separate these
elements. IE: Aluminosilicates

#3. The temperatures suggesed by your source mention 650'C, where
the DSC trace by Jones/Harrit exhibits the exotherm at about 450'C.

That's a delta of 200' C!

Again, your sources are weak. Please stick to your word and provide
a forum which we can debate live so that I know you're not surfing the
net pulling up usless posts such as your last reply.



turbo,

No separate debate on any Jones-Harrit claims. Their data demonstrably unreliable. This is a key elements of this discussion which you refuse to acknowledge.

It's called B A D S C I E N C E.

But get them to argue directly online real time in a neutral forum. Then watch the fireworks. Volunteers will line up.

Stop trying to use this forum to act as Jones PR agent.


Mike



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Is this turning into a circus?

Someone give this to me straight please. There have been pages and pages, countless posts in this thread, arguing about 'bad science' because there was no reproduction of Jones' results.

There are now TWO separate, independent series of tests on these chips which have produced the same results as Jones did.

I don't get it. So now, THESE results are ALSO bunk/wrong/bad science...because the parties doing the tests have to be "disinterested"???

Are we serious here? A circus I tell you.

Pterdine, get some samples for yourself, invite genradak, Mike and Turbo over, and have a party of testing the chips. Honestly man, you guys are smart, but this is getting stupid now.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
Is this turning into a circus?

Someone give this to me straight please. There have been pages and pages, countless posts in this thread, arguing about 'bad science' because there was no reproduction of Jones' results.

There are now TWO separate, independent series of tests on these chips which have produced the same results as Jones did.

I don't get it. So now, THESE results are ALSO bunk/wrong/bad science...because the parties doing the tests have to be "disinterested"???

Are we serious here? A circus I tell you.

Pterdine, get some samples for yourself, invite genradak, Mike and Turbo over, and have a party of testing the chips. Honestly man, you guys are smart, but this is getting stupid now.



I don't think you've been following the argument. Understandable with so much to read. There haven't been properly controlled objective tests. Jones-Harrit and a bunch of lab managers are claiming the red chips are some mysterious nanothermitic material that melts steel.

Many other experienced scientists who have looked at the results say it isn't so. The consensus is the chips are red oxide primer paint. Consistency of composition, presence of clay fillers, kaolinite, etc - confirm that.

Outside of Truther circles no one takes these highly biased flawed experiments seriously. No recognized chemistry journals will publish the results or comment on them favourably.

The claim nanothermite has been found in the WTC debris has simply yielded no convincing proof. And even if it were there, such a thin layer would do little more than slightly warm up adjacent steel for a few seconds. Jones has conceded this and has moved the goalposts now to his thermite being possibly some sort of igniter and there being undetermined explosives involved. But no forensic evidence or characteristics of massive explosions have ever been noted.

You will get histrionic disagreement with this. But read through the thread looking at the information and links provided and you'll see.


Mike

[edit on 15-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Tell me about it. No matter what happens, these guys will always make
excuses. They cry about everything, and when it happens, they come
up with some lame junk to help them sleep at night.

Forget that the science has been proven, let's attack the scientists instead.


Now the new buzz word is "disinterested"!



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


[sarcasm] Because preconception and bias is never a motivator and neither is it detectable. [/sarcasm]
Or is that only claim you get to make?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mike, I've been following this thread since Turbo started it. At this point, at least in my opinion, it's not really about the details of the science anymore.

Now, this is not to say that I don't think those details are important - they absolutely are of course...butt here's the deal...

Turbo obviously has a passion for the intricasies of the events of 9/11. With ATS being a conspiracy site, Turbo brings information regarding those events to the forums for all of us to read about.

Do you realize this thread was started back in March? MARCH?!?!

For FIVE MONTHS, you and others have continuously argued with him about this. FIVE MONTHS! Why on EARTH do ANY of you continue to give this guy a hard time? It would almost seem like you have a hidden agenda! The sad part is, I'm only talking about his particular thread.

My point is, if you, or anyone else reading this disagrees with him, or I should say disagrees with the information he brings here, that's fine, good for you, we are all entitled right? But this is supposed to be a place where we can learn. No one learns anything in most of these 9/11 forums because it's common place for anything "Truther" related turns into a game of how much ridicule can we dish out? How many times have the mods had to step in already? They shouldn't have to at all.

You guys arent morons, and *most* of you arent children. I'm just sayin, you've all given your opinions. If you can't personally prove that the information Turbo brings here is inaccurate, then just leave it be.

And no, I'm not his dad/spokesperson/bodyguird/etc. I don't even know the guy, but even I feel his frustration...he's a mere messenger.

When is enough enough?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


ahfogettaboutit.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


The thread was started in June. We argue because the claims turbo makes are false. He continues to carry the water for Jones in spite of being shown that Jones has doscovered paint.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
if you, or anyone else reading this disagrees with him, or I should say disagrees with the information he brings here, that's fine, good for you, we are all entitled right? But this is supposed to be a place where we can learn. No one learns anything in most of these 9/11 forums because it's common place for anything "Truther" related turns into a game of how much ridicule can we dish out? How many times have the mods had to step in already? They shouldn't have to at all.


You are trying to be polite in your disagreements and that's appreciated.

We obviously have gotten very different impressions on this extended thread.

I looked at the hard science presented by a handful of obviously knowledgeable contributors supplying chemical and thermodynamics data and critiques. What little I could do was link to discussions of the thermite claims elsewhere. It really seems inescapable that in the course of comparing the supplied information the super nanothermite inducing explosions argument has been completely demolished.

We're not supposed to get into personalities, but I have never seen a thread where the OP is constantly pushing for contributors with paid incentive to go and register at some site with personal ID and debate with Jones. This for me raises a red flag.

Overall, the persistence and the level of arguments have been alternately amusing and confounding. I am argumentative by nature, but actually don't like to make people uncomfortable. But when people trying to inform the group with their knowledgeable opinions and reason and are insulted for their efforts, one gets annoyed and nasty.

It's been educational seeing how reasonably intelligent adults will dismiss objective detailed scientific evidence in favour of embracing agenda driven junk science.

You might say that's just an opinion, but it the observations of detached professionals who have looked closely at the Jones-Harrit claims.

There are millions of working scientists in the world. They try their best to make sure their work is as free of errors and false assumptions as possible. Still mistakes and misinterpretations creep in. A small handful have been known to manipulate their data and findings to derive self-serving attention-seeking results.

Bad science should not be tolerated.


Mike



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Everything duly noted my friend


Pterdine, yea...when I looked at the date of the OP I didnt realize the format of the date....so I apologize, thread was started in June which is my bad.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Drummerboy, I appreciated your enforcement of the facts. Don't let
these guys get you down on what you've researched.

it's clear these guys have an agenda as they wont accept any positive
evidence/science as it comes forth. They are unable to break down the
details and science, and need to resort to excuses.

They threaten to call up live debate forums, then fall back on their word.

They make unfounded claims and do not provide scientific studies, or
references.

They cannot submit a theory that satisfies all of the anomalies, nor can
they answer my questions which rule out any sort of attempt they have
made to discredit Jones/Harrit.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
is there some kind of visual aid that would help describe where in the buildings the thermite was planted?

[edit on 17-8-2009 by piddles]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Your arguments are always based on ghost legions of millions of scientists and engineers that you can never name except for the small handfuls we already know of. You can never really tell us how many people know what about 9/11 when it comes to technical issues.

One day you will realize that this consensus is just part of your vivid imagination, and there is no reason to think every engineer in this country is so well informed, and to the contrary it is much more realistic to believe most engineers have not read any of NIST's reports and are literally too ignorant to have any educated opinion on the issues. Every engineer I have personally talked to has had a different version of what happened to the towers, none of them what NIST published but one of them agreed vaguely with FEMA because they read the FEMA report. Talk to engineers yourself and see if they can't keep their opinions straight about what the exact failure mechanism was, because they don't really have any clue. I know this isn't going to mean much of anything to you when you read it but nearly your entire argument is based on arrogance from a perceived consensus when there is no reason or need for any of it.

Until you have a better understanding of the nature of people in this country, that you and I are already much more educated than the vast majority of them as far as 9/11 goes, including the engineers, all I think we are asking is that you post actual science, and be able to defend it yourself if you do, not just constantly defer to other people or to perceived expert opinion and leave it at that simply because you have faith in these people. Not everyone has the same faith in these people. Yes, we are all crazy and paranoid for not having faith in government scientists. Be that as it may, faith is never proof or evidence of anything in itself, and the number of people you can round up to agree with you doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me. If it would, I would still be Christian. Notice that the number of Christians in this country had no sway over me whatsoever. That is why you can tell us how many people you think there are, that think we are wrong, over and over every day like this, and you'll notice none us give a damn at all, because we value something different from you, ie something different than what "everyone else" thinks. At least what everyone else thinks according to you, which no one also cares about.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Your arguments are always based on ghost legions of millions of scientists and engineers that you can never name except for the small handfuls we already know of. You can never really tell us how many people know what about 9/11 when it comes to technical issues.

One day you will realize that this consensus is just part of your vivid imagination, and there is no reason to think every engineer in this country is so well informed, and to the contrary it is much more realistic to believe most engineers have not read any of NIST's reports and are literally too ignorant to have any educated opinion on the issues. Every engineer I have personally talked to has had a different version of what happened to the towers, none of them what NIST published but one of them agreed vaguely with FEMA because they read the FEMA report. Talk to engineers yourself and see if they can't keep their opinions straight about what the exact failure mechanism was, because they don't really have any clue. I know this isn't going to mean much of anything to you when you read it but nearly your entire argument is based on arrogance from a perceived consensus when there is no reason or need for any of it.

Until you have a better understanding of the nature of people in this country, that you and I are already much more educated than the vast majority of them as far as 9/11 goes, including the engineers, all I think we are asking is that you post actual science, and be able to defend it yourself if you do, not just constantly defer to other people or to perceived expert opinion and leave it at that simply because you have faith in these people. Not everyone has the same faith in these people. Yes, we are all crazy and paranoid for not having faith in government scientists. Be that as it may, faith is never proof or evidence of anything in itself, and the number of people you can round up to agree with you doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me. If it would, I would still be Christian. Notice that the number of Christians in this country had no sway over me whatsoever. That is why you can tell us how many people you think there are, that think we are wrong, over and over every day like this, and you'll notice none us give a damn at all, because we value something different from you, ie something different than what "everyone else" thinks. At least what everyone else thinks according to you, which no one also cares about.



You're in such a frenzy to be outraged, indignant, anti-authoritarian, demonstrably free-minded, you immediately gravitate to anyone and anything representing those values.

You have no idea what my political position is. And I have no reason to share it with you. But I'm no fan of the Bush admin, US intelligence agencies, the people they employ.

In this narrow context of 9/11 discussion I simply oppose a bunch of academic whores like Jones, Harrit, and their underpaid lab manager and water tester sycophants scrambling for their moment of media recognition and a few extra bucks with their thermite carnival act.

I don’t have a stomach for the propagation of lies for cheap self-serving purposes. They spread like viruses. I've had to interface with kids telling me "Some scientist found evidence of explosives used to blow up the WTC."

Factually baseless memes like this are created and no explanation or formal retractions will ever removes them.

You don't know them - but there are hundred maybe thousands of concerned knowledgeable professionals who do know about structural engineering, thermodynamics and chemistry enough to assess the Jones-Harrit claims. Their input can be found on dozens of non-politicized scientific forums online. I've linked to a few. Sometimes participants use their real names, often not. You can usually get a private reply from them, as I have, and they will provide credentials.

Believe me, no one outside those who willfully opt for this currently faddish form of denial can look at the amateurishly assembled heap of claims for WTC demolition and see a solid case for it.

Acknowledging this does not make anyone an immediate apologist for the status quo. Those of us trying to keep informed now know certain US government and intelligence personnel were aware there was going to be a large scale terrorist attack in 2001. Turkey, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, were providing intelligence. The solid documentation on all this is vast, deep, overwhelming.

But there is zero, and I mean zero, evidence outside the delusions of Conspiracy Land of anyone anywhere planning, installing, and executing explosives of the WTC buildings. Absolutely no observed demolition characteristics or forensic evidence seen by the many experts who have gone over all the evidence. And there are any number of journalists and specialists who would love to capitalize on finding something so controversial - if it existed.

Thousands of people from all over the planet have tackled the claims. Their conclusions are consistent. No planned demolition.

It didn’t happen and it’s embarrassing to see otherwise intelligent people like yourself so relentlessly pursuing this bizarre chimera.

Your government may have people in it who are working against the country's best interest, they may have devious arrangements with foreign powers, they may deceive the public and withhold critical foreign policy arrangements. But they did not plant explosives to blow up buildings that were already destroyed by impacts, fires, and critical structural losses on September 11, 2001. Period.

You might find some morbid satisfaction in believing that, and a sense of empowerment and community with others who do as well.

But we all make mistakes. Even the brightest people sometimes have to admit they’ve been deceived. Being deceived by a pack of flaky loser attention seeking profs may be a tough one to swallow. But continuing to deny what’s in front of you because it fits some angry betrayed socio-political self-image is far worse.


Mike


[edit on 17-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by piddles
 


None of the theorists can explain anything with regards to any demolition. Generally speaking, they want something but don't propose anything specific because it would be too easy to refute. This has continually been a "maybe thermite maybe explosives" issue, depending on the individual and the counter-arguments of the moment. Switching between the theories at will prevents the CTer's from having to admit that they have no evidence and that their stories are inconsistent.
Jones' paper is touted as a triumph of science but it is, in fact, poorly done and published in a vanity journal. This is the only person who has tried to find physical evidence. Paint is all he has and he is determined to show that it is not paint. The next paper should be interesting.
All of the rest of the claims are based on assumptions of how the buildings should have collapsed. Ask how anyone knows how they should have collapsed and you get smoke and mirrors, diagrams on video frames, calculations, and just about everything else except evidence.
When anyone asks for theories, such as amounts and types of explosives used, methods of initiation, placement, conspirators, pre-planning, or anything else along these lines, no one can provide anything but repitition of another tenet of the CD religion; the explosives/thermite were so advanced that they left no traces or all the evidence was carried off.
If any CTer's answer your post, you will get video frames with lines overlaid and things circled showing how the collapse had to be a demolition. These are directly lifted from websites promulgated by those with financial or egomaniacal interests in such a demolition. The website owners either have no knowledge of demolitions and building collapse or are deliberately misleading the technically ignorant to their own ends.



new topics




 
172
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join