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 vicen
I think your friend is 100% correct. If 9/11 was an inside job, something I don't believe, it seems almost impossible that there would ever be any new investigation.
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
"Those professionals" never commented on all the explosions coming from all 3 buildings to begin with, especially with any evidence for any of the numerous different things you claim must have been causing them. That is blind speculation. Like I said, enough people will agree that this is totally unacceptable.
Originally posted by jthomas
If those professionals never commented on them then it follows they never speculated on them.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jthomas
If those professionals never commented on them then it follows they never speculated on them.
Right. You are the one speculating about what caused them, with no evidence, not "those professionals" who never said anything about them in the first place.
No one looked for explosives or tested for residues at any point during any of the investigations.
Originally posted by jthomas
"To wit, it matters NOT that I think "explosive sounds" did not come from explosives but came from crashing elevators, fuel ignitions, shifting girders, SOUNDS that none of us ever hear routinely."
Originally posted by bsbray11
Given that we already know what and where to investigate, if we had a truly independent panel with subpoena power and veteran teams of police and forensic investigators I think yes, a lot of things would change.
Originally posted by Jezus
You are starting at the conclusion that there were no explosions and working backwards instead of dealing with the evidence...
Originally posted by jthomas
Incorrect. The City of New York did in October of 2001 precisely to find what the chemical components of the dust were
So you are still left trying to convince someone of your speculations
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by Jezus
You are starting at the conclusion that there were no explosions and working backwards instead of dealing with the evidence...
No, I'm starting with the fact that there is no evidence for explosives.
Originally posted by jthomas
So how do you intend to proceed to get another investigation?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jthomas
Incorrect. The City of New York did in October of 2001 precisely to find what the chemical components of the dust were
Sorry, no one tested the steel itself for residues.
Funny you should mention the dust though, considering explosive "paint chips" were found there too. Who knows what we would have found on the steel itself!
So you are still left trying to convince someone of your speculations
No, you were the one speculating, remember?
By just blindly guessing at the unanswered questions with no evidence whatsoever and pretending that it settled something.
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by jthomas
Exactly, you are starting with a “fact”.
You need to start with the evidence before making conclusions.
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry, no one tested the steel itself for residues.
Source for your claim?
So if paint chips from the steel were found in the dust then testing the dust was sufficient to indicate the presence of explosives.
Originally posted by jthomas
I did. The fact is that there is no evidence for explosives
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry, no one tested the steel itself for residues.
Source for your claim?
NIST stated in one of their two WTC Tower FAQs that they did not test for such residue at all. FEMA similarly reported no such testing. There is no other source for anyone doing such testing either. If you believe someone else did this testing then I would love to see it, but no one else investigated the collapses or looked at any steel at all.
So if paint chips from the steel were found in the dust then testing the dust was sufficient to indicate the presence of explosives.
It was sufficient to find explosive "paint chips," yes.
I already have convinced many people that a new investigation is needed.
It's not hard to do. When most people learn things like the fact that there were explosions occurring in all 3 buildings and we still have no idea what was causing them, that alone is enough for most people to agree we deserve a more detailed study of that day's events.
The question is how long until a proper independent group with lawyers backing subpoena power and the other things I mentioned is initiated. Courts have been throwing these cases out left and right on "states secrets" privileges but now people like FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds are moving along with their cases with teams of lawyers anyway.
Originally posted by jthomas
Steven Jones tested two sections of steel beams
The "explosive paint chip" claim has been debunked pretty well.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jthomas
I did. The fact is that there is no evidence for explosives
Explosions that cause major damage, are evidence of explosives.
What you mean to say is there is little other evidence and no conclusive proof of what exactly was causing these explosions, ie no residues or anything like that.
Originally posted by jthomas
What explosions?
You still don't realize that the collapses have been explained without the need to introduce "explosives"
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jthomas
Steven Jones tested two sections of steel beams
I know this is going to be a shock, but I'm not satisfied with someone looking at only two beams. And I'm not satisfied that Steven Jones had to do it, because none of the organizations charged with the actual investigation of the collapses ever bothered to.
The "explosive paint chip" claim has been debunked pretty well.
I know. Paint doesn't actually explode like the samples Harrit, et al analyzed. So they weren't looking at simple paint.
* The "nanothermite" samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a "precision engineered" substance of any kind.
* The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type. Its "contaminants" are, in fact, the dominant species.
* Regardless of what it actually is, there's no evidence it was actually in the WTC to begin with, and considerable evidence against. The sampling strategy is wholly inadequate. A more thorough methodology was applied by Lioy et al., and they found no nanothermite at all. They did, however, find that a large fraction of the dust originated as paint, of numerous types.
* There is absolutely no coherent explanation for why nanothermite would be in the structure in the first place. It offers no advantages, either as an explosive or an igniter, over cheaper, less troublesome, actually available ordinary technologies.
* Absolutely no one has corroborated these findings, and the one person who was given a sample of the dust couldn't even match the visual description claimed by Dr. Jones.
forums.randi.org...
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by jthomas
Exactly, you are starting with a “fact”.
You need to start with the evidence before making conclusions.
I did. The fact is that there is no evidence for explosives