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 GoldenFleece
In contrast, here's the Madrid Windsor fire -- never collapsed:
Beijing CCTV tower fire -- never collapsed:
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
Jones' paper was not peer reviewed by any analytical chemist or it would have not been published. It is fatally flawed on many levels and it is internally inconsistent.
There is no evidence of thermite at the WTC.
The information that you are spreading in here is false.
No one has proved Jones’ paper was flawed, if so you would have posted some credible sources. Jones’ paper was peered reviewed and that is a proven fact.
The only thing you have given about Jones paper in your opinion and nothing else.
Jones is either loathe to admit his errors or is blinded by his desire for celebrity.
Wow, talk about proving someone's assumptions?
Originally posted by roboe
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
In contrast, here's the Madrid Windsor fire -- never collapsed:
Well, apart from the steel section of the building. The only part that didn't collapse, was the concrete section of the tower.
I am the source.
I showed the flaws.
I have offered to explain it to you but you have not taken me up on it.
I offered to debate anyone from any of your favorite websites, but they have not shown up. I provided a link to darksideof gravity.com,
Henryco's site. Henryco, like Jones, desperately wanted a grand conspiracy and analyzed the chips. To his great disappointment, they didn't react in the absence of air. Henryco was honest enough to state what he found.
The only way this paper was peer reviewed was by Bentham peering into the envelope to review the check for $800.
The paper is substandard and wouldn't have passed any real peer review. Jones had to pay to have it published.
Originally posted by Solomons
I don't know if people would describe me as a 'truther', i think the OS is a pack of lies...but i don't believe the demolition conspiracy,
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by pteridine
Isn't it interesting that you're focused on nonsensical minutiae about the nano-thermite (which WAS found in the WTC dust) instead of asking how massive steel-framed buildings that were specifically designed and constructed to absorb the impacts of 707s could've collapsed from oxygen-starved, black-smoke fires?
Typical.
John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners traveling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01:
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001:
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
I haven't noticed any experts that disagree with me so I will make this easy for you and the non-experts. I won't confuse you or your pals with anything technical. I won't explain, again, the flawed DSC, the contradictory energy balances, or the lack of scientific rigor.
This will be easy for you. Please explain why, when the super-nano-thermite was ignited, it went out and didn't burn completely. Why would a super thermite stop burning once it was ignited? This has to have a simple answer and I'm certain I am asking the right person.
I know that you won't disappoint the many ATS members following these threads.
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Come Clean
Seems odd water would work if the fire was so hot it melted steel beams
When I got done laughing and wiping the soda off of my screen...I realized that you probably believe the statement you made. Of course, you are stuck on the falsehood that the beams melted, so I should not be surprised.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme
I haven't noticed any experts that disagree with me so I will make this easy for you and the non-experts. I won't confuse you or your pals with anything technical. I won't explain, again, the flawed DSC, the contradictory energy balances, or the lack of scientific rigor.
This will be easy for you. Please explain why, when the super-nano-thermite was ignited, it went out and didn't burn completely. Why would a super thermite stop burning once it was ignited? This has to have a simple answer and I'm certain I am asking the right person.
I know that you won't disappoint the many ATS members following these threads.