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.

 

The simple reality of 9/11, what we know and what we don't

page: 5
91
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

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.




Beijing CCTV tower fire -- never collapsed:

Built after close scrutiny of the events on 9/11, to prevent that exact same scenario repeating it self:
www.arup.com...




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

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Jones' paper was not peer reviewed by any analytical chemist or it would have not been published.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?


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.

If this was a highly engineered thermitic material, why did it only partially burn when ignited? Why did it self extinguish if it was such a deadly material?
This question is a bit of a conundrum for the Jones fan club but I'm sure you can explain it or ask someone to explain it for you.

There is no evidence for thermitic material at the WTC site.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

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.


What are you talking about? Did the Madrid Windsor tower collapse into dust neatly on it's footprint or not? Of course it didn't! BTW, the ENTIRE building is steel-reinforced concrete. They're not separate sections, ya know...



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I am the source.


Why do you put yourself above all, including all the experts who disagree with you, your presentation lacks any real scientific data and you have not tested any of the original dust sample.


I showed the flaws.


You gave your opinions nothing more.


I have offered to explain it to you but you have not taken me up on it.


I did take you up on it and I proved your work and opinions were a fraud.


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,


So you say, as for the link you provided it is a joke, let the ATS casual readers make that determination for themselves.


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.


So he says, and if this disinformation was so right, why isn’t the government all over this information using their loyal scientist and to shut A&E and Jones scientific research down to prove it is all a fraud. I believe you have searched the web for anything and this is the best you can come up with (Henryco's site. ) its not credible it is someone else opinions. I will be waiting to hear your excuse.
The fact is no one, and I mean no with any credibility has DEBUNKED Jones' peer reviewed paper or the experts and engineers of A&E.


The only way this paper was peer reviewed was by Bentham peering into the envelope to review the check for $800.


Your insults and ridicule are not even funny, yet you want everyone to look up to you as very credible.


The paper is substandard and wouldn't have passed any real peer review. Jones had to pay to have it published.


Yes, it cost money to publish a papers and you call yourself a what? (Scientist) and you didn’t know that, yet you have bragged in many 911 threads that you have written many journals that have been peer reviewed. When I asked you to what publications and what Title Articles and page number ect… You came back with a BS excuse and gave us nothing to show you have. I think that speaks volume to your credibility, don’t you think.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
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, i am more skeptical regarding other aspects of 9/11. I would think many of the debunkers on here when it comes to the demolition theory may actually have doubts or not believe other aspects of the story, in which case could you call them truthers as well? or is it simply a term for demolition CT'ers? Anyhoo, good thread s&f.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

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,



How about now?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   

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.

Isn't it interesting that you accept the nonsensical minutiae that Jones wrote without criticism because, even though nano-thermite was not found in the WTC dust, you want to believe that it was found. Typical.

As to the buildings design and construction, the engineers plan and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. The buildings did remain standing after impacts which is a testament to the engineers. The loss of fireproofing by the impacts was a consequence that they had not accounted for and that is where their design failed.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I have already read and watched most of the info(including that vid) plus all the 'best' threads on ATS. There is a conspiracy regarding 9/11, but i don't believe it has anything to do with demolition...just doesn't click for me im afraid.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

Yeah, those darned WTC architects, structural engineers and construction managers were just incompetent, weren't they?



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."

911research.wtc7.net...


[edit on 8/1/2010 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I didn't say they were incompetent. You said it. I said that their design failed due to unforseen circumstances.

DeMartini's statement about a pencil and a screen door is a poor analogy as he does not consider a winged pencil whose wings span a significant part of the screen.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I think I will let someone else point out the problems with his post...especially the pictures he used.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Airspoon, thanks for putting your thoughts into words in this public forum. I hope more of our vets do the same because the only way this country will change is if some hard truths are accepted. It can't be harder for anyone to do this than for our soldiers and the families of the victims of 9/11.

The bottom line is, if there was nothing to hide, Bush and Cheney would have had no reason to conduct themselves the way they did with respect to being questioned by the 9/11 commission. That administration did NOTHING to quell the public's concerns about 9/11 as they continued to mount. Obama hasn't acknowledged these concerns either.

Considering the magnitude of the topic, you would think a president who was completely committed to the American people and who wasn't in any way responsible for this crime would publicly address these issues in order to regain some kind of trust from the public. Their refusal to do so not only makes them appear guilty, it shows how little we matter when it comes to their self-serving agenda.

This is the frightening part--when you're little more than collateral damage.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



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.


Why don’t you show us a list of the experts who do agree with you, and please show their credentials and statements that support your opinions?

Also, please do get technical with us, give it a try.

BTW, you never did give us any of your background, so there is no reason to take your questions seriously. Perhaps you should ask Professor Jones or some of the other scientists who agree with Jones to explain it all to you. I cannot believe you haven’t already researched what percentage of this particular application of this material would likely be expelled unspent. Please, explain it to us and get as technical as you must. Please cite your exact sources so we can verify your explanation(s).



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Look at what they make you give.--Bourne

He pull the demolition trigger and now they hunt him to hide it.
You cover up anything here and next you will be hunted for knowing too much.

What goes around come around.

Lying is not what we, American people, want from our government, do not be part of it, oath to the devil is meant to be broken if the means is wrong.

Just a reminder from a friend.

Look at what they make you give.--Bourne



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   

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.



Soda is bad for you.

Molten Steel

Why would these people and video evidence LIE?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

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.


It took three months to put the fires out. One person basically said it was like dumping an entire lake on the WTC foundation. Thermite generates it's own oxygen apparently. It burns underwater according to physicist.

But here's what gets me. If they were already discussing the towers might fall then why didn't they warn anyone?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
"Nanoscale composites are easier to ignite than traditional thermites. A nichrome bridgewire can be used in some cases. Other means of ignition can include flame or laser pulse. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is developing super-thermite electric matches that use comparatively low ignition currents and resist friction, impact, heat and static discharge.[1]"

[1]."Lead-Free Super-Thermite Electric Matches". Los Alamos National Laboratory. www.lanl.gov... Retrieved December 2, 2009.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Navy just test some super secret laser?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   







 
91
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join