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.

 

Thermite Search Protocol - US Law

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   
According to Dr. Harrit in this video, the United States has a routine check for
Thermite in fires which destroy buildings.

Move to the 10:00 minute marker here:
www.russiatoday.com...#

AE911 shows these same regulations at 5:00 within this video:
www.youtube.com...

NFPA Handbook. Section 921:
www.nfpa.org...

Two things jump out here:

1. NIST was supposed to conduct a search for thermite but DID NOT. This goes
against normal protocol.

2. All you GL's that cried that Harrit/Jones went "looking for something" and
had preconceived conclusions prior to conducting their tests are BLOWING SMOKE AGAIN!

The scientists did the routine check for thermite that NIST never did!

Make sure you watch all of these videos and become familiar with these instances.

Spread this information please.




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
According to Dr. Harrit in this video, the United States has a routine check for
Thermite in fires which destroy buildings.

Move to the 10:00 minute marker here:
www.russiatoday.com...#

AE911 shows these same regulations at 5:00 within this video:
www.youtube.com...

NFPA Handbook. Section 921:
www.nfpa.org...

Two things jump out here:

1. NIST was supposed to conduct a search for thermite but DID NOT. This goes
against normal protocol.

2. All you GL's that cried that Harrit/Jones went "looking for something" and
had preconceived conclusions prior to conducting their tests are BLOWING SMOKE AGAIN!

The scientists did the routine check for thermite that NIST never did!

Make sure you watch all of these videos and become familiar with these instances.

Spread this information please.



One thing that always jumps out at me is that if these people are claiming that super nano thermite can cut through the steel of the WTC buildings use only small strategically placed amounts - then why not prove it? Simple basic science experiment. Super nano thermite and a piece of steel. Show the world how it works. Prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


because only military has nano thermite. if you wanna get some from them and then try bringing a building down, gofor it



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by hooper
 


because only military has nano thermite. if you wanna get some from them and then try bringing a building down, gofor it


Why not reproduce it? Or is there some problem, like no one really knows if it exists or what its properties are? Besides, Jones and Harrit obviously do have some - where are the samples they tested and determined are - in fact - super nano thermite? Why not just initiate one of the samples and document the experiment?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


You bring up a good point, I think Turbo may be able to give you some insight there.

Regardless of what Jones and company have done, the fact that these NIST folks decided to go against protocol and not do their job, that in iteself raises a red flag.

The "why's" and "why nots" are the reason (or 1 reason at least) why we need a new investigation. NIST is full of %^&.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


If you really think there should be a reinvestigation, where would you start and what evidence would you look at. See my reinvestigation survey at www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by hooper
 


You bring up a good point, I think Turbo may be able to give you some insight there.

Regardless of what Jones and company have done, the fact that these NIST folks decided to go against protocol and not do their job, that in iteself raises a red flag.

The "why's" and "why nots" are the reason (or 1 reason at least) why we need a new investigation. NIST is full of %^&.


Sorry, NIST did their jobs just as they were supposed to. They were not conducting a fire and explosion investigation. They were investigating the mechnics of the structural collapse after the fire and explosion which was well documented as having been caused by the airplane impact.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Maybe thats the reason why they put in their report that fire had little to do with the collapse. If fire was the primary cause, they would have had to do that part of their job.

Just a thought.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


I don't know exactly what report you are refering to, but be that as it may, they were still not obligated to investigate the cause of the fire. The cause is well established.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Actually what they didn't investigate is the reason for 'global collapse'.

They only attempted to explain the initiation of the collapse, not the collapse itself. Another convenient failure for the government to completely explain what happened.

They want you to believe global collapse was inevitable once initiated, which is completely unscientific, and convenient for them, as they did not have to try to explain the lack of resistance in the collapses and how that was possible. They left it out because they wouldn't be able to explain it away however hard they tried.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Well, thats your opinion. I do not share it. I hold that the NIST investigation went far enough. I do not need a model for every failed bolt, nut and piece of rebar after the initial failure. The OP however, accuses the NIST of not doing its duty because they did not investigate the cause of the fire. I hold that they were not under any obligation to explain the cause of the fire, it is perfectly documented.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Explain how separate "thermite" and its slag from WTC site

Thermite is composed of iron oxides and pulverized aluminium

Now at WTC you had thousands of tons of steel - probably large smount
of oxidized iron (rust) can be found here

Exterior of WTC composed of aluminium panels. In addition had two large
aircraft built mainly out of aluminium crash in buildings. Collapse pulverized aluminium components as buildings fell.

In addition had iron workers using thermal lances (bundles of iron/aluminium rods in a pipe feed with pure O2) to cut large pieces of
steel for removal. Slag left would mimic that from termite

Short answer is WTC scen was full of components for trhermite and its
slag. Anyone who said found thermite at WTC is a fool - it is equivalent
to going outside and saying found dirt....



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Short answer is WTC scen was full of components for trhermite and its
slag. Anyone who said found thermite at WTC is a fool - it is equivalent
to going outside and saying found dirt....


Ahh no. What you conveniently leave out here is the issue of NANO thermite found in the Jones study, and the fact that all indications are that this specific, advanced type of NANO-thermite could only have been developed in the most advanced military facilities.

So Steven Jones is a fool huh? Wrong. The fool here is the person that listens to people like you who are trying to deflect from the truth.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by thedman
Short answer is WTC scen was full of components for trhermite and its
slag. Anyone who said found thermite at WTC is a fool - it is equivalent
to going outside and saying found dirt....


Ahh no. What you conveniently leave out here is the issue of NANO thermite found in the Jones study, and the fact that all indications are that this specific, advanced type of NANO-thermite could only have been developed in the most advanced military facilities.

So Steven Jones is a fool huh? Wrong. The fool here is the person that listens to people like you who are trying to deflect from the truth.


So when will the good professor honor us with a demonstration of the effects of the nano-thermite that he found? He obviously has some, why not hire an independent laboratory to conduct the experiment and confirm, was and for all that it is, indeed, super-nano-thermite?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Nano thermite, and I imagine 'regular' thermite doesnt magically mix together during the collapse of a building. That's asinine.

IF he really has found this stuff, it didnt form during the collapse.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Are you daft or just trolling? He made a post that directly shows how they violated protocol, the implication is start here.


One thing that always jumps out at me is that if these people are claiming that super nano thermite can cut through the steel of the WTC buildings use only small strategically placed amounts - then why not prove it? Simple basic science experiment. Super nano thermite and a piece of steel. Show the world how it works. Prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.


Yes really, we should do their job for them. We already know for a fact thermite and thermate work, theres no need to demonstrate. There is a need however to demonstrate that thermite/thermate was not used, it is a need required of such investigations. This one has FAILED intill the issue is reconciled.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by pteridine
 


Are you daft or just trolling? He made a post that directly shows how they violated protocol, the implication is start here.


One thing that always jumps out at me is that if these people are claiming that super nano thermite can cut through the steel of the WTC buildings use only small strategically placed amounts - then why not prove it? Simple basic science experiment. Super nano thermite and a piece of steel. Show the world how it works. Prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.


Yes really, we should do their job for them. We already know for a fact thermite and thermate work, theres no need to demonstrate. There is a need however to demonstrate that thermite/thermate was not used, it is a need required of such investigations. This one has FAILED intill the issue is reconciled.


We know regular themite works - we also know that it would have taken tons of the stuff to do what you think it would have done, plus with no easy way to initiate it. My question is - if they have samples of this heretofore unknown substance why not prove it by showing that just a small amount would be necessary to cut the steel. And while they are at it, show us how it was so secretly applied and secretly intiated. You are accusing unknown persons of some of the foulest acts of mass murder, don't you feel some obligation to at least demonstrate the "evidence"?

As to the NIST, the accusation is that they were delinquent because they did not investigate the source of fire. Again, the NIST was not charged to conduct a fire and gas explosion investigation.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by hooper
 


Nano thermite, and I imagine 'regular' thermite doesnt magically mix together during the collapse of a building. That's asinine.

IF he really has found this stuff, it didnt form during the collapse.


No, but the basic compounds can be easily found. Are you saying that fully compounded "nano" thermite was found?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


TBH I don't really care what your question is. You aren't a professional and neither am I. Once the fact of the matter is exposed (the protocol was bypasses) it is clear it needs to be re-investigated. If the re-investigation is unbiased, the answers will come. If there is no re-investigation it becomes clear that there is limited interest in justice.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


It's not my opinion, NIST did not investigate the actual collapse.

And you're OK with this huge omission?

NIST claimed that global collapse was inevitable once initiated. Are you fine with that statement?

Please explain how they would know global collapse was inevitable when all know physics tells us it isn't, and has never happened. Where is the precedent for this claim?

NIST conveniently didn't do it, have YOU ever asked yourself why? What reason do you think they would not complete their investigation?
A scientific investigation cannot even contemplate assumptions, yet that statement from NIST is nothing but assumption, they have nothing to support their claim of inevitable global collapse as they didn't investigate it, and there is no precedence for it.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join