Photos You Cannot Deny

It was a terrorist attack alright,but it is the issue of the falling buildings that most people have difficulty with,so perhaps a terror attack with a helping hand.
There was a report in 2002 on the dust and elements found in the WTC area,and i'm near sure that Barium Nitrate and also indications of unburned jet fuel were found among all the other stuff,but that was then,long before Stevens theory.And I am near sure that report was done by at least some members of the later NIST report,I will try to find that report.

reply to post by BASSPLYR


Thermite needs an ignition source. Plain fire won't do it. Magnesium will. It's essentially iron oxide mixed with powdered aluminum.

reply to post by GenRadek

A related family of aluminum materials termed near-nanocrystalline are under development with US Air Force funding.

Circa 2003, under development. Not found in paint.

reply to post by jprophet420


Right, under development.

So when exactly and how did they manage to obtain and paint a whole bunch of it onto the core, trusses, and columns of the WTCs without a soul noticing or the enormous costs of obtaining it? Also, allegedly it was a very very thin coating. Recall how on Mythbusters 1000lbs of thermite couldnt even cut a truck in half, how is a thin coating going to cut horizontally through an inch or more of solid steel? Also, how is that going to work considering the "therm*te" layer will just pour down thereby not being on the horizontal beam long enough to cut it?

Edit to add:
A few examples of aluminum in coatings and paint.
www.topsecretcoatings.com...
www.alibaba.com...
www.reade.com...

Also this gives a good idea of the many uses of aluminum. The Air Force would use aluminum powders as it is used in rocket propulsion.
www.micronmetals.com...


[edit on 7/11/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


Real science is accomplished whenever we look at the data we have, draw a conclusion, and determine if the process is in need of more data.

All the questions you are asking me should be asked in the new investigation. If the chips are not paint, that is enough evidence for a new investigation right now.

reply to post by jprophet420


But they have not been proven to be thermite either. So in effect, yes there should be more investigations into the allegations, HOWEVER, they should be done without a predetermined bias like how Jones and crew did. At best his analysis is an example of how NOT to do an experiment. At worst, it needs to be thrown out on the simple sloppy and unprofessional manner it was done. And sad to say, the so called truth movement has gone back to square one.

I'm all for science explaining what happened as that is the only way to do so. I refuse to listen or accept things that were done NOT in a proper scientific way. the NIST report was done in a proper manner, with numerous checks and procedures as best as they could, Jones and company entered with a pre-determined, biased approach and worked hard to get it to conform to it, thereby rendering the whole thing pointless and garbage in the eyes of the true science method.

EDIT to add:

There was a great analysis on a different forum on the red chips and kaolinite:
forums.randi.org...

[edit on 7/11/2009 by GenRadek]

If you want to debate like gentlemen that great, but to claim that the NIST report is not biased is not on that level.

I am 100% sure that both reports are biased, and not willing to debate that.

I am 100% sure both reports are not perfect, I am willing to debate which is closer to perfect.



[edit on 11-7-2009 by jprophet420]

reply to post by jprophet420


Well in that case how was the NIST report biased, in your opinion?

Also remember this: NIST had hundreds if not a few thousand professionals, engineers from all fields, architects, physicists, and such put in for the entire investigation. Many are professionals who were asked to assist in the process and to come to a scientific conclusion based on experiments that were properly executed to the best of their abilities and to make sure the results were not fixed or false.

What did Jones do? Set out on a preconcieved notion that what he had was some sort of thermite chips, based solely on...... well, really just "looking at it" and assuming thermite was used in bringing down the WTCs. He failed to properly execute the experiments, he failed to properly sort and go through NUMEROUS other possibilities of what else it could have been. He did NOT run the test also under an inert atmosphere with no oxygen (because this alone would have given him a big boost. The claim that since a sample of "known nano-thermite" which was burned under oxygen, was used as the comparison for this 'test' is a huge flaw because he should have known that thermite will react in oxygen AND in zero oxygen. And here are not too many things that will burn in zero oxygen.) Thermite creates its own oxygen. Using a jet of air on the sample with the flame over a period of a few minutes, of course it will burn.
And then they go and claim that yup! Its special magic nano-thermite. Where was the additional tests by outside professionals? People who could confirm or deny the results of Jones?

reply to post by turbofan


I deny that those photos even exist. I just denied them, so I guess your thread title is incorrect.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply to post by scubagravy


Okay, rather than actually discuss how I show that it is complete nonsense that cars on FDR drive burned - which is absolutely false, and thereby causes the theory's author to lack any credibility - you choose to insult me.

Firstly, I'm an atheist. Secondly, you clearly lack even the most basic level of intelligence required to give any thought to the idea that a "truther" website that contains lies is a bad source of information to discover TRUTH.

reply to post by SPreston


Thermite is a stoichiometric mixture of aluminum metal and iron oxide. Its reaction is a simple redox reaction that produces aluminum oxide and iron. The heat of the reaction is such that the iron is molten. The thermite reaction requires high temperatures to start but once it starts in bulk, it is difficult to stop. Molten iron certainly effects plant and animal tissue. Ask anyone who worked in a steel mill about accidents with hot metal and what it will do to things it comes in contact with.

Any thermitic materials in the dust would not be able to initiate or sustain reaction because of the dilution with non reactive materials.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by GreenBicMan

 

I'm not a chemistry expert, but following the most recent developments, it appears that the dust that settled during the collapse was full of microscopic particles of an incendiary used to cut through steel. I'm presuming that clouds of this material may well have been active in the air and reacted to metal vehicles on the ground.

Judy Wood who is a Phd. in engineering has studied different aspects of the damage done at the WTC. She thinks a lot of the steel in the buildings was vaporized by a powerful beam weapon of some kind, but recent discoveries point to the presence of incendiary material in the WTC dust. It's just a short hop from there to thinking that the dust may have had enough kick left in it to set the cars on fire or to have some kind of very corrosive effect on them.

what's really strange is, the paper isn't on fire AT ALL and the fire is on the INSIDE of most of the cars with no other fires around them other than, other cars.

ahhh...after looking at the cars being burned as they are burnt from the inside out, and seeing 4 tons sections fly 600+feet from gnd zero, and then went back and stared at this image for like 5 mins and thinking where the heck have I seen this before...where a building is getting obliterated from the top down ..

then it hit me like a ton of bricks and litterly gasped when I remembered.. (no i'm not joking either)..starting at 1:05-1:07



I for one, believe Judy is correct in that energy weapons were used in some way....I think there maybe some misdirection going on right in front of us.

We all gaze at the gaping hole but we cant look into space where possibly some sort of beam weapon is located (yea I know, hear me out a min). We've all seen the satellites loaded with beam/laser weapons in the movies where they are poised at some target here on earth. I think 007 was one of them.

So, when we're watching the gaping holes with smoke (with no fire) and then suddenly they start at the top and get obliterated downward much like the one in the you tube above, just on a much small scale, are we seeing the results of such a weapon?

When it reaches ground zero, it keeps going and ignites the foundations so much so that they burn for a week(s). concentrated beam/laser energy would do just that IMO.

No one sees the beam because (theory) everyone is running away and the HUGE amount of debris/smoke is a perfect cover for it. The beam doesn't have to be 'colored' either, it could be microwave which is totally invisible to the naked eye. (as far as I know & and you can wiki that)

Concentrated beam of microwave energy, hmmm...I'd definitely like to see what it does on a large scale. what's intresting is, maybe that is why the interior of the cars are ignited rather than the exterior? Metals melt at higher degrees obviously than say cloth, paper, leather. I've personally witnessed a Theremite grenade used on a diesel engine block, back in 78', which burned through it like a hot knife through butter in about 2 mins, MAX.

What's also intresting is, (bit of a rabbit hole)should this be so, it gives strong evidence to the theory that whatever technology they are using in the movies, is either being used now, being made to use now, or will be in the future.

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston

 

Molten iron certainly effects plant and animal tissue. Ask anyone who worked in a steel mill about accidents with hot metal and what it will do to things it comes in contact with.

You really took me out of context didn't you? Molten iron was not mentioned as affecting the apparently undamaged trees was it?

Nano-thermite was my suspected agent wasn't it, and the topic of my post? Were you deliberately creating a strawman argument? Did you want us to be arguing molten metal falling on the cars instead of the suspected nano-thermite? Was that your intention pteridine?

This nano-thermite discovery in the dust of the WTC really frightens the pseudoskeptics and government loyalists and shills doesn't it?

posted by SPreston
Thermite reacts with steel. It was designed to do so.

It may not react with live tissue.

Nano-thermite apparently was in the WTC dust and as it drifted over the cars, it reacted with the steel and started burning and melting the cars. Metal parts such as door handles disappeared. Tires melted supposedly from steel wheels burning.

Here is a progression of photographs of a parking lot just to the north of WTC7 filled with cars which started burning after being affected by the dust cloud from WTC1.

1400 Vehicles Damaged or Burned By Reaction With WTC Dust

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/57fb5f19b2de.jpg[/atsimg]

The dust cloud from WTC1 has not reached the parking lot yet

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5d6571946cc6.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/292d1ddd1bd1.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0060d6d07e71.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ccf3ab7430d.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/41a3f9927db7.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/64c15a6e7617.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 7/12/09 by SPreston]

posted by finemanm
reply to post by scubagravy

 

I show that it is complete nonsense that cars on FDR drive burned

a "truther" website that contains lies is a bad source of information to discover TRUTH.

Well those cars on FDR Drive did burn or were damaged or had steel parts melted off by the WTC dust; it is just likely it did not happen right there. It likely happened somewhere else closer to the WTC and they were moved over there. Perhaps some vehicles were already parked there when they were damaged by the dust.

Lies? Wouldn't errors or mistakes be a better term? So they hauled 300 (or less) damaged police vehicles over to store under FDR Drive. The fact remains that those police/government vehicles were damaged or burned by the dust from the WTC wherever they were originally parked, as well as 1100 other private vehicles. That is the issue and the photographic evidence preserved by this website is very important.

We will get to the bottom of this nano-thermite in the WTC dust, and hopefully the heads of the traitors will roll soon.

1400 Vehicles Damaged or Burned By WTC Dust

The cause of that damage (nano-thermite?) is much more important than chasing after where the vehicles were stored afterward. So how about facing up to reality and investigating what caused all of this destruction instead of telling us you saw them fall with your own eyes? Everyone has seen the towers fall repeatedly from many angles and in slow motion. You have no special advantage with the evidence.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f54f6bb4567e.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 7/12/09 by SPreston]

posted by GenRadek

So when exactly and how did they manage to obtain and paint a whole bunch of it onto the core, trusses, and columns of the WTCs without a soul noticing or the enormous costs of obtaining it?

We don't know. We weren't there. It is useless to speculate on how the nano-thermite was used or how it was applied. Only those responsible and the insiders could possibly know for sure. Hopefully a real investigation could determine that; especilly if knowledgable insiders were given immunity from prosecution and witness protection for their testimony.

Getting large amounts of nano-thermite and demolition explosives and incendiaries into the Towers would be simple with security passes and freight elevators wouldn't it? Do you honestly think the CIA or the FBI or the Secret Service or the US Military or the Israeli MOSSAD would be incapable of obtaining security passes to the WTC?

But first we need a real investigation don't we?

All we know is that large amounts of nano-thermite has been found in the WTC dust and nano-thermite was apparently responsible for the 1400 damaged/burned/melted vehicles at the WTC, and all three skyscrapers gave every appearance of deliberate demolition.

What would be your explanation for the 1400 damaged vehicles?

Spontaneous combustion? Magic? More on 9-11 only special physics laws?

reply to post by SPreston


A large amount of red paint chips was found in the WTC dust. Jones is a long way from proving it is anything but red paint. In a paint-like form, the purported nano-thermite would do nothing with respect to demolition. Thin layers on metal would be exceptionally difficult to ignite and maintain enough heat to sustain reaction. Thermal output would barely warm the metal. This entire thermite theory has no basis.

reply to post by turbofan


While I do believe in 9/11 conspiricy I can deny any photographic evidence because if one side may doctor photos or evidence so may the other side do the same thing.

The real truth does not lie within photos it is seeded in those who had a hand in the plot itself. This is what must be exposed to get to the "real" truth.

reply to post by SPreston


I can't keep trying to convince you that the cars weren't burned by dust anymore than I could convince a nun that Christ was not the Messiah.

Neither you, nor your source have ever been to New York, let alone were present here when the attacks took place.

You are guessing and surmising based upon a conclusion that you have already formed and you are looking for "proof" that fits that conclusion.

If the dust burned cars, why didn't my car go on fire? My car was parked in an outdoor lot right across the river from Manhattan literally 3 blocks from the Brooklyn Bridge. I was in an office building watching everything that happened that day both on TV and THROUGH A WINDOW with my own eyes.

I didn't leave the office until after the second tower collapsed. I watched tens of thousands of people covered in WTC dust walking across the Brooklyn Bridge. Their belt buckles and watches were not on fire.

My car was covering in WTC dust an inch thick when I got to it. No fire at all. I brushed it off and drove home. People had WTC dust in their air conditioners miles away, no house fires. What, the nano-thermite only fell right next to the WTC site while all the other dust and smoke traveled for miles.

You keep saying 1400 cars like that is a lot. This is New York. Over 8 million people live here. The WTC alone have over 100,000 people working there. Are there 100,000 people in the town you live?

There are literally hundreds of thousand of cars, trucks, taxis etc.. in Manhattan every day. This all happened during rush hour. If you want to drive up the west side of manhattan, you MUST pass the trade centers.

Try actually coming to New York, look around for your self and make an informed decision if this bupkis has any validitiy. Come here and talk to some New Yorkers and ask them what the SAW happen that day.

You really need to get a life. Energy weapons and nano-thermite, bla bla bla. Try Muslim terrorist and very large airplanes. Usually the simplest explanation is the right explanation.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by finemanm]

Oh I know, Captain Kurk when back into time and destroyed the WTC with phaser beams and photon torpedos.

You fringe truthers are a discrace to the truth movenment. If there was a real conspiracy, it was behind the scenes in the White House, Pentagon and Haliburton's HQ.

I believe that they let 9/11 happen so that they could further thier agenda, make money and invade Iraq. They didn't need Star Trek weapons to do it. Just some help from their buddies in Suadi Arabia and some true believers who thought they were taking the war to the infadels.

The Romulans did it, no Darth Vader used the force, a Jedi Mind trick on all the New Yorkers who saw what happened with their eyes.

Maybe Superman pushed the towers down.

Really, get a life.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by finemanm]