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.

 

Hypothesis: The Professor Stephen E. Jones Story.

page: 4
55
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



There is no evidence for any demolitions, nuclear or conventional.


That’s your opinion here’s my opinion There is evidence of demolition.


The collapses started where the planes impacted, not in the basements.


That is your “opinion.” as always.


Building parts were not scattered far.


You’re absolutely right, WTC 7 imploded in on it’s self. Not damaging either building on each side of WTC 7.

WTC 1 & 2 scattered over 500 feet in all directions, this is a proven fact.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by impressme]




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by AntiShyster
 


There is no evidence for any demolitions,


and what makes you think that your opinionated guesstimates don't sound like a joke...

dynamiclist.com...




[edit on 3/9/10 by mcrom901]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 



The collapses started where the planes impacted, not in the basements.


That is your “opinion.” as always.



So your opinion is that the collapses of WTC1&2 didn't start where the planes impacted? Where do you think the collapses started?

You have no evidence of demolition; only speculation.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by AntiShyster
 


There is no evidence for any demolitions,


and what makes you think that your opinionated guesstimates don't sound like a joke...

dynamiclist.com...

They may "sound like a joke" to the uneducable few who wish to believe in CD in spite of the complete lack of evidence. One of your links to a youtube thermite video [why is "evidence" always on youtube?] failed because youtube cut the video due to a T&C violation. Gage, of course, is doing what he always does to sell video discs in spite of the fact that it is completely meaningless.
If you ever find any actual evidence of CD, please post it.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



So your opinion is that the collapses of WTC1&2 didn't start where the planes impacted? Where do you think the collapses started?

You have no evidence of demolition; only speculation.


Actually, there is evidence of controlled demolition and there could be much, much more, had it not have been quickly shipped off for scrap metal in an unprecedented move by those in charge. In fact, one of the biggest pieces of residual evidence was clearly pointed out by Prof. Jones and peered reviewed by other scientists. Are you declaring yourself more qualified than these professional scientists?

In all reality, there is much more evidence pointing to controlled demolition, than there is pointing to a collapse due to the impact of the aircraft. To go with the collapse due to the aircraft theory, you are basically taking the word of those who have repeatedly lied to us before. Such a theory is not based on evidence and instead is based purely off of hearsay.

In fact, you would expect that controlled demolition would have a perceived initiation at the place of impact.



--airspoon



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by pteridine
 



So your opinion is that the collapses of WTC1&2 didn't start where the planes impacted? Where do you think the collapses started?

You have no evidence of demolition; only speculation.


Actually, there is evidence of controlled demolition and there could be much, much more, had it not have been quickly shipped off for scrap metal in an unprecedented move by those in charge. In fact, one of the biggest pieces of residual evidence was clearly pointed out by Prof. Jones and peered reviewed by other scientists. Are you declaring yourself more qualified than these professional scientists?


In fact, you would expect that controlled demolition would have a perceived initiation at the place of impact.

--airspoon


Jones paper was not peer reviewed and I have pointed out the obvious errors that the authors either didn't realize that they had made or had purposely misled the readers. Jones skills in analytical chemistry and scientific methodology would earn him a failing grade in an undergraduate class.

The initiation question was directed toward Impressme. She responds to everything as being "opinion" except what suits her predetermined conclusions.
There is no evidence for demolition.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
They may "sound like a joke" to the uneducable few who wish to believe in CD in spite of the complete lack of evidence. One of your links to a youtube thermite video [why is "evidence" always on youtube?] failed because youtube cut the video due to a T&C violation. Gage, of course, is doing what he always does to sell video discs in spite of the fact that it is completely meaningless.
If you ever find any actual evidence of CD, please post it.


that is exactly why you sound like a joke....

nuff said... here is the link to said missing video....






posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Thank you for your video showing a few windows popping out due to the compression of collapse. You apparently believe that those were explosions, in spite of the lack of any other evidence. Maybe your experience with explosions is limited to Hollywood action flicks which may be why you have no idea what you are posting, other than what some clowns-for-truth website told you.
As many posters claiming demolition of WTC spend countless hours watching youtube videos, consider watching a few actual demolitions. You then may be able to see the difference between what happened and a real demolition.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Thank you for your video showing a few windows popping out due to the compression of collapse.

That's a laugh! Some of the squibs were many floors below the lowest level of collapse (I prefer the more accurate word 'demolition'). Even supposing that the air inside the building was being squeezed down, if the pressure had been great enough to pop open windows, it would have happened much higher, immediately below the highest intact floor. Anyway, likening what happened to air being expelled from a pump is not an accurate analogy because the floors were not falling intact, one on top of the other, squeezing air down the tower each time a floor fell. Instead, videos show successive floors being blown to smithereens at almost free fall speed. The explosive force caused by impacting floors would send a pressure wave to the next floor or two down, but NOT twenty or more floors down, popping out some of the windows far below and missing all the closed windows on intermediate floors. Get real!


Originally posted by pteridine
You apparently believe that those were explosions, in spite of the lack of any other evidence.

Nope. I believe the squibs were due to detonations of explosions because fire fighters spoke of all the explosions (Boom! Boom! Boom!) they heard as the towers came down. Of course, you now have to expose your desperation by arguing that fire fighters cannot tell the difference between the noise of explosives detonating and of a building falling to the ground. But you will find few in agreement with you.....

Originally posted by pteridine
Maybe your experience with explosions is limited to Hollywood action flicks which may be why you have no idea what you are posting, other than what some clowns-for-truth website told you.

If you want to see some real clowns-for-truth website, check out some 9/11 truth debunking sites. That aside. Your weak-as-tissue paper argument makes the assumption that anyone questioning your version of the precious truth concerning 9/11 is too ignorant to do so. How arrogant do you get?

Originally posted by pteridine
As many posters claiming demolition of WTC spend countless hours watching youtube videos, consider watching a few actual demolitions. You then may be able to see the difference between what happened and a real demolition.

No one has said that the destructions of the twin towers were orthodox demolitions. For example, the demolition started from the top instead of from the bottom. This was because the buildings were too tall for conventional demolition, which posed the risk of their falling sideways, as has happened on a few occasions in the past in such demolitions. So a different method of demolition was used. Your argument is invalid because it makes the false assumption that 9/11 truthers claim a conventional controlled demolition occurred at the WTC. They don't. Of course you knew that, and it exposes your desperation in having to misrepresent their position.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

No one has said that the destructions of the twin towers were orthodox demolitions. For example, the demolition started from the top instead of from the bottom. This was because the buildings were too tall for conventional demolition, which posed the risk of their falling sideways, as has happened on a few occasions in the past in such demolitions. So a different method of demolition was used. Your argument is invalid because it makes the false assumption that 9/11 truthers claim a conventional controlled demolition occurred at the WTC. They don't. Of course you knew that, and it exposes your desperation in having to misrepresent their position.

Of course, the truthers can't claim regular demolition methods. There is no evidence for them so, to fit their predetermined conclusion, it is necessary to start from the top down using secret, quiet explosives. Did you calculate the sizes and numbers of charges needed? Were they all the super quiet type or were they thermite that was so well disguised that it had all the properties of red paint?
If you claim thermite, do you also claim quiet explosives? I am interested in this theory and what evidence there is to support it. So far, I have not encountered anyone, Jones included, who can make a coherent argument for demolition. Usually, the defender of CD is a non-technical person who just parrots truther websites and says that the collapse didn't "look right" and therefore something is amiss. Unfortunately, the websites are also populated with hand wavers who have no concrete theories. If you have actual evidence, indictments surely will be forthcoming. If all you have is someone's gut feelings about a youtube video, then you have nothing at all.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



You have no evidence of demolition; only speculation.


You have no evidence to prove that no demolition happened only your assumptions.
Second line…



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



If you ever find any actual evidence of CD, please post it.


The fact is there is plenty of evidence that the WTC were destroyed by demolition why don’t you read about it? Perhaps, ignoring every piece of credible evidence because you cant handle the truth. Anyone with half a brain that can think logically can see the evidence. Only people who are in complete denial will ignore all the evidence as you continue to demonstrate. Go ahead and hand - wave everything that I have presented to you, I expect it. The evidence is plain as day.


The smooth rate of descent was measured at 2/3 of free-fall. In other words, the building is accelerating (traveling faster and faster) straight down through what should have been the path of greatest resistance – the 80,000 tons of structural steel designed to resist this load. Physicists and other experts agree that this could have happened only if the underlying supporting structures were removed ahead of the falling upper building mass. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) acknowledges that each building was destroyed in fewer than a dozen seconds, and that they “came down essentially in free-fall”.



For many New York City firefighters on the scene, this rapid destruction was simply beyond their prior experience. Sgt. James Canham, in the oral histories of 118 first responders, put it this way: “This changed all the rules. This went from a structure to a wafer in seconds, in seconds. I couldn’t believe the speed of that tower coming down. I heard the rumble. I looked up. Debris was already 50 feet from the ground...”



Other first responders reported experiencing explosions and flashes of light as the destruction commenced. Much of this evidence was also captured on video by multiple cameras. EMT Captain Karin Deshore, in a Nov. 7, 2001, New York Times interview, described the astonishing events like this: “Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.” There are many similar accounts in this astonishing series of oral recordings effected by NYC Fire Commissioner, Thomas Von Essen, but kept hidden by the city of New York until it was ordered by a federal appeals court to release them to the New York Times.


Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.
--Karin Deshore, in a Nov. 7, 2001, New York Times interview



As the WTC skyscrapers disintegrated before the eyes of stunned observers, steel framing sections weighing four to nine tons were hurled up to 600 feet away. This required an explosive force capable of ejecting the perimeter wall units at up to 70 mph as if out of a cannon. Some 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking were pulverized, creating pyroclastic-like flows (hot gases with suspended solids) similar to those observed and filmed during the explosion of the Mt. St. Helens volcano.

www.ae911truth.org...

[color=gold]

Nullifying Newton: Official Story Violates Laws of Physics


www.ae911truth.org...


Richard Gage's Auckland Presentation Silences The Debunkers


www.ae911truth.org...

[color=gold]

118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers


www.journalof911studies.com...


Concrete Pulverization Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air


911research.wtc7.net...


Forensic Metallurgy Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives


911research.wtc7.net...


Shredding of Steel
Twin Towers' Steel Frames Ripped to Small Pieces


911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 4-9-2010 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Since you have so much evidence, it should be no problem for you to post the types and amounts of explosives used in the demolition.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Since you have so much evidence, it should be no problem for you to post the types and amounts of explosives used in the demolition.


Just as I thought! you never read a single source that I sent you in the above post.
Your questions have been answered and are in the above post why don' t you read them. As far as what type of demolition that was used we can only "speculate," from the scientific findings and film evidence until a new investigation is done. The evidence of demolition has been proven by science. You think you are being smart ( funny ) when asking me to show the evidence of the exact demolition that was used. Asking me to prove somthing that was compleatly destroyed in the destruction of the WTC and all the physical evidence that "may have" survived in the debri field at ground zero, was carted away to China.

That is no diffrent than me asking you to prove the real identities of the allaged hijackers, when in fact the head of the FBI, "Robert Muller" said we may never know who those hijackers really were, because they left no paper trail. Not to mention they were using stolen identities and now seven of the 19 hijackers are proven to be alive. Many have sued our government into clearing thier names. Yet you want me to give you the bombs that blew up the WTC, where is the logic in that? and you call yourself *a scientist*? yeah right, and I am the Queen of England. Having this discussion with you is no diffrent than talking to a brick wall.

Your evidence that there were "no" implosions or explosions, are what again?

[edit on 4-9-2010 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 



Since you have so much evidence, it should be no problem for you to post the types and amounts of explosives used in the demolition.


Just as I thought! you never read a single source that I sent you in the above post.
Your questions have been answered and are in the above post why don' t you read them. As far as what type of demolition that was used we can only "speculate," from the scientific findings and film evidence until a new investigation is done. The evidence of demolition has been proven by science. You think you are being smart ( funny ) when asking me to show the evidence of the exact demolition that was used. Asking me to prove somthing that was compleatly destroyed in the destruction of the WTC and all the physical evidence that "may have" survived in the debri field at ground zero, was carted away to China.



None of those seemed to be specific as to the types and quantites of explosives used. The theorizing of important details continiues to elude the theorizers. Perhaps you have a theory of the amounts and types of explosives. You could just say what you or your sources postulate but invoking magic or saying that they were super-secret explosives of unknown quantity says that you and they don't even have a theory.

What Jones did was definitely not science and he did not prove anything. If, as you claim, all the evidence went to China, how would a new investigation help your case? What would you investigate? If you hae nothing to investigate, why would you ask for a new investigation?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Thank you for your video showing a few windows popping out due to the compression of collapse. You apparently believe that those were explosions, in spite of the lack of any other evidence. Maybe your experience with explosions is limited to Hollywood action flicks which may be why you have no idea what you are posting, other than what some clowns-for-truth website told you.
As many posters claiming demolition of WTC spend countless hours watching youtube videos, consider watching a few actual demolitions. You then may be able to see the difference between what happened and a real demolition.


Here seems to be a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black! Pteridine is not only uneducable but seeing as the obvious can get no grip whatsoever on his mind, he is also intellectually intractible...

Just put the poor man on 'collective 'ignore'. I'm sure he 'didn't inhale' while he was in college either.

LMAO!!!


[edit on 4-9-2010 by AntiShyster]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Maybe some of these hopped-up debunker 'head cases' have an explanation for 7,000cuft/acre of pulverised building DUST extending 2-3 inches deep in the Manhattan aftermath, from 'river to river as one journalist described it.


Oh! it just occurred to me that I am totally wrong... the real cause of those buildings 'going to pieces' was not exposive demolition but rather that fact that WTC 1&2 could not handle all the trauma of public attention in addition to the wounding by 'airliner' and they fainted and collapsed from STAGE FRIGHT!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAH




[edit on 4-9-2010 by AntiShyster]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AntiShyster
 


You pretend to know what happened. What explosives and in what quantities were used to bring down the buildings?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



What Jones did was definitely not science and he did not prove anything.


Another “false assumption” by pteridine.

No one said they were “super-secret” explosives.
Perhaps you can tell everyone on here how the WTC fell by showing your scientific sources. ( I didn’t think so )

Professor Steven Jones not only proved that he found a super na-nothermite in his testing but he shows what was paint and what super na-nothermite. Your opinions are wrong. You can continue to make the claim that the green grass is red all you want, but no one is taken you seriously anymore. I had already set up a thread to challenge you to prove Jones science was wrong, and you failed miserably.

Carry on, asking questions with questions…



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



You pretend to know what happened. What explosives and in what quantities were used to bring down the buildings?


Pot calling kettle
Second line…



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join