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.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Originally posted by discombobulator
reply to post by ipsedixit
Two points:
1) If they found traces of thermite in the dust, why didn't they find traces of "explosives" as well? According to you the thermite was mixed in with the "explosives" presumably to demolish all of the concrete, so why was one found and not the other?
I don't know.
I've done a certain amount of what might be called original thinking on the subject of 9/11, but for the most part I just try to keep up with investigations published by others. You are asking a technical question that is beyond my competence.
Remember that for the most part, the real investigation of 9/11 is being done by citizens on their own tab. Not by law enforcement agencies with large budgets.
This is Gage's opinion. He doesn't claim expertise in controlled demolition techniques.
Just to cut to the chase on thermite. It is used to try to contain the debris field created by an explosive demolition.
Being discrete has nothing to do with it.
The destruction of these towers never looked like an ordinary collapse to anyone.
Mainstream broadcasters like Dan Rather
Gage and his group are experts on the structural aspects of the towers, not on the demolition techniques. I have heard him say so himself in an interview.
I don't know where all of the speculation about being discrete came from.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by discombobulator
Another jailhouse lawyer.
I stand by what I have written. The readers will have to judge for themselves.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
We're miles away from William Rodrigues now
and I'm not going to indulge these guys, in this thread, by going into chapter and verse rebuttals of every quibble they bring up.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by discombobulator
You are making a lot of assumptions about the details of my beliefs. Traditional explosives, non-traditional explosives, thermite, etc.
These are all technical areas that can be argued over by experts.
If you look at Rick Siegel's 9/11 Eyewitness (the Hoboken edit of the video), you will see a lot of evidence that points toward controlled demolition and explosive demolition, upward trajectory of debris,
lateral ejection of tons of material hundreds of feet, seismic evidence, etc.
There is no discussion at all about the kinds of explosives that may or may not have been used.
Many debunkers place too much emphasis on tiny areas where truthers may not have made a complete case. They ignore the preponderance of anomalies in the 9/11 story, the multiple war games, the insider trading, the failure of the insurers to investigate Silverstein for fraud, the anomaly in the M-1 money supply just prior to 9/11, the unprecedented collapse of three skyscrapers in one day, where other much worse damaged buildings have not collapsed. There are other things as well, a long list of them.
I don't know the details of how the controlled demolition was done. I can't explain inconsistencies in the findings of Steven Jones, if they are there.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
I think that's it for me. I stand by what I have written.
I think it's reasonable. People who can think for themselves will make up their minds on their own.
not to mention detonator cord that, itself, ignites as mentioned in the linked video on shaped charges.
Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by GoodOlDave
you seem knowledgeable in the area,
Why did the committee deem it necessary to question this man in a closed door session?
I just find it odd that the committee chose this route. Did the committee feel this man had info that could be damning to the nation's security or what?
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Baloney. I've already had lunch.
I apologize for being flippant, immediately above, but the scenario you describe is not believable. The fuel down the elevator shaft acting with explosive force more than eighty stories below the plane impact is a fantasy.
Firefighters arriving on the scene said that it looked like a bomb had gone off in the lobby of the building, with marble panels off the wall, broken plate glass windows, etc. Rodrigues said that they felt the floor rise when the bomb in the sub level of the building went off. It's far more reasonable to assume that explosion cause the lobby damage than fuel in the elevator shaft more than eighty stories below the impact zone.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
One of the oldest publications in the fire fighting trade called the investigation of the destruction of the towers a "farce".
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Tell me you are kidding right?
Are you seriously claiming that there were literally hundreds of burning fuses (yes a simplification I know, but fairly accurate) running into the three buildings from....somewhere....and NOBODY noticed?
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Are you seriously claiming that there were literally hundreds of burning fuses (yes a simplification I know, but fairly accurate) running into the three buildings from....somewhere....and NOBODY noticed?
Do you seriously require clarification on that?
Do you seriously require clarification on that?
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
At this point it would be easier to fly a jet into the building.......