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.

 

Jones Talks About His "Debunkers" and other Interesting Facts: Possible Use of Thermitic Material

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by micpsi
 


Jones isn't the only scientist on this paper. Using that excuse is pathetic; not only for the reason I just
stated, but because it doesn't address the peer reviewed and factual science.


Peer-reviewd by one of the actual authors!! LOL!! That is not a peer-review! That is self-review.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
[He also talks about the offer of a bribe of a large grant to divert the point of his research into fire prevention rather than forensic analysis of the red thermitic material discovered in the dust of the WTC.


I call BS. Why would they ask a physicist about fire prevention? Especially considering the events of 9/11 were not accidental. It was intentional.

They would ask a fire protection engineer, or a fire science specialist about fire prevention, not a physicist. Sorry. I call shenanagans!


Originally posted by ipsedixit

One of the funniest things in the interview is his retelling of Thomas Eager's reaction to the lack of zinc in the red material that Jones and his associates believe is an exotic nano-thermitic material. Jones et al did analyse the paint from the steel in the WTC rubble and found that it contained zinc as one of it's constituents.


No, Jones et al. tested paint from the BYU stadium. It even says so in the paper.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


_BoneZ_....your video.

Once again....what people HEARD, and then described as a comparison doesn't mean that what they HEARD was, in actual fact, HOW they described it!!! I have seen, besides that clip, one by the Naudet brothers....they are most famous for being out on the streets of Manhattan and swinging the camera around, upon hearing the approaching American 11, and catching the only footage if its impact. However, they filmed much more that day....including capturing the impressions and reactions of the NYFD personnel, IN one of the NYFD houses. In that clip I have seen, witnesses (firefighters) recall seeing the Tower (I assume the South Tower, first to collapse) and the progressive "popping" floor-by-floor. THIS IS CONSISTENT with the fact that, once the structure began the failure process, it progressed.

The load-bearing supports were designed, were they not, to bear the weight vertically, for the most part?? (Allowing for the built-in flexibility and tolerances for lateral wind-sway...).

The structural members themselves, steel beams and such, had tremendous compression strength of course (the ones NOT affected by the uneven heating of the intense fires). BUT ---- the connections, the joints, the places where each structural component HAD to be attached to another....those were the "Achille's Heel" of the building, once the imbalance (from the damage, and heat above) became too much.

!!BOOM!! !!BOOM!! !!BOOM!! as those connections failed, snapped, went !!BOOM!! ---- and other structural members, also subject to extreme forces that they weren't aligned to withstand, ALSO underwent stress and breakage and fracture.

It is a LOUD event...and those sounds can resemble "explosions"....because they occur with violence, as the material gives way. SO, in a sense, they do "explode". Same as you taking a wooden dowel, and subjecting it to enough stress so that it snaps...it "explodes" at the fracture point(s).


THIS video....it is a structure (steel) that undergoes an extreme stress, and thus beyond its design load limits, fails. It is NOT loaded with a detonating explosive....the sounds are purely those of the failing of structural members within the construct. AND are very similar to what were heard at the Towers, during their collapse (begins at :40):




There isn't always video and sound of similar events, such as that crane example, for comparison to the WTC collapses. But, a little bit of thinking and reflection will help lead people to the comprehension, and NOT the immediate leap to "demolition" ---- which is, frankly, ludicrous for many, many reasons already delineated countless times.


edit on 14 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Absolutely correct. A connection point is ALWAYS the weakest point in ANYTHING structrual. The weakest point in the core columns were the splice plates. Not to mention that the core columns were not designed for lateral loads, they were designed to vertical loads. The external columns were the lateral support for the tower. The core could not stand on it's own, and was never designed to.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


There are other individuals who have reviewed the paper and were not authors such as Basile.

Of course, yuo wouldn't know that...hence your comment.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by FDNY343
 


There are other individuals who have reviewed the paper and were not authors such as Basile.

Of course, yuo wouldn't know that...hence your comment.


Even if ONE of them is the author, it tells me that Benthams "peer-review" is garbage. It's the wolf watching the henhouse.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
just to add $0.02 - something many overlook is the incredible amount of kinetic energy a Boeing in a dive has. Just for a moment, ignore the 50 years of war in Palestine that for decades has motivated terrorists to bear arms against the USA and other supporters of Zionism in the Knesset.

bad science and conspiracy theories cannot trump simple physics, when properly applied, much of the "evidence" i see in support of 9/11-inside-job theories is devoid of objective or proper analysis. the boeing fuselage is similar to KE-type munitions and makes an ideal weapon for the purpose of destroying buildings. in lieu of bunker-busting missiles, the boeing 700-series airframe is in fact a very near equivalent.

but unscientific speculation gets us nowhere, the only truth i can give you is the physical equation for kinetic energy of rigid bodies, the fuselage is a rigid body, by the way, despite have a hollow interior (again, similar to KE munitions). the energy is equal to half of the mass multiplied by the velocity squared. if you'll forgive me for not reproducing my workings here (sorry for the ad verecundium!), a single boeing in a dive possesses energy on par with 10-12 bunker-busting missiles, striking at once. these munitions are designed to penetrate reinforced concrete-steel bunkers, up to about a dozen meters underground.

knowing the true energy contained by such a vehicle, it's nigh-on impossible to reasonably consider theories that rely on the assumption that a boeing would not destroy or sufficiently damage the targets in question. this assumption, to me, appears to be the basis for all "science" in support of 9/11 inside job theories, and that assumption is wrong.

please don't get me wrong, there is more to this event than a simple 'attack on america' but, if you apply skepticism and analytical thinking, it becomes difficult to side with the fervent rhetoric spewing from alex jones' cotton-mouth.

---edit---
the spectrum analysis referred to previously appears to show a sound I would describe as a 'rumble' similar to the sound of P-waves during a shallow earthquake. explosions are a transverse wave that do not have a large frequency component, and primarily have a single front of pressure with relatively minor low frequencies following, relying on that 'sonogram' to determine whether a subject sound was an explosion or otherwise shoud lead the observer to conclude there was no explosion in the subject material (the spectrum analysis you call a 'sonogram').
edit on 20-1-2011 by barfnz because: add reply regarding sonograms



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
also, I'm not sure if the subject has been raised before anywhere, but the sounds described as explosions by witnesses to the event and probably lamb waves - en.wikipedia.org... travelling through denser (ie; metal / alloy) portions of the structure. concrete would likely just explode if lamb waves travelled through it, and we know this to be true because of earthquakes.

as the structure was compromised by the impact (i don't think anyone's refuting that, are they?) transiences in load upon the structure would create lamb-type waves that may produce bangs or similar sounds to the ones described.

even a small bolt shearing off due to excessive torque can produce very loud bang-type noises, as most engineers would know.
edit on 20-1-2011 by barfnz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
How do bolts snapping throw people around (WTC occupants/witnesses), and slam them up against walls prior to collapse?
edit on 21-1-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
How do bolts snapping throw people around (WTC occupants/witnesses), and slam them up against walls prior to collapse?
edit on 21-1-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)


Citation Needed. Thanks. (Link?)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 



Officer LeClair

Suddenly, there was a monsterous explosion, with extremely high wind and debris, and the lights went out immediately. I was physically picked up and hurled across the concourse, slamming into a wall.




Officer Sue Kain, PAPD & 13 yrs Military

A couple of minutes later, it sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened...
EACH ONE of those explosions picked me up and threw me....


The complete transcript can be found in the documented testimonials. Much more to read here:

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



....that even the reporter in the video calls an "explosion."

And even I can hear. I can hear them every time they play "collapse" footage on TV through my sound system too, even though they rarely actually do that outside of a special documentary anymore. It sounds just like the firefighters said it did, "boom boom boom boom boom."


Ah yes, a reporter who says an explosion has happened, and you see the building collapsing, yet, I dont here a damn thing until the building is already collapsing. Where oh where is that sound of EXPLOSION KABOOM!!!!!! anywhere prior to ANY movement of the building? Everytime I mentioned this before, I'm met with silence. It is ALWAYS, detonation is heard first, THEN the building starts collapsing. Not: building starts collapsing, then you hear a kaboom (unless you are 3 miles away observing this), and especially moreso if you are video taping this less than a 1/4 mile away, or for that matter right under it!


Here is footage shot from inside WTC1 when 2 starts collapsing. Maybe our TM's superhearing sleuths can pick out the loud demo explosions prior to the sound of the collapse. Also, why doesnt anyone in the lobby of this WTC building, hear or even notice those powerful demo charges going off prior to the sound of collapse? In fact, why doesnt anyone notice anything, until there is a shadow forming and a distant rumbling sound that is fast approching them? Jump to 3:33 in the video. Please tell us where exactly are the demo charges that are so distinct prior to the collapse? Something that should sound like this:

And dont give me this "low frequency explosive charges" crap. that is just trying to twist reality into garbage.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Oh you mean the air pressure of the collapse from above coming down and throwing people around? Yeah that is what they described, being thrown down the stairs and out the doors and such. I've never heard of explosives used in demolition throwning people around and then having them survive it. In fact, I havent really hard of explosive charges launching people anywhere, without tearing them to shreds first or shattering their internal organs from the blast of pressure, enough to rupture their internal organs. Do you even know how explosives work?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Sorry buddy, the towers will still standing. Read their testimony.

They were thrown several times from several explosions.

Do you know how that works?





posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


And yet, even after the collapses, some still thought the Towers were standing.

Dont you know that some people were describing the collapse as an explosion? Geeze I mean 110 floors collapsing down on them, must have sounded like hell coming at them.

Being thrown several times by explosions? really? In a stairwell? Did the walls blow out next to them? Or did the blasts come down the stairs before the collapse? Cause it seems to me, reading their accounts, they were thrown about or launched when the building was collapsing on them, forcing a HUGE blast of air down through stairwells, shafts, etc, which actually did launch people out and into the streets. I dont see how a demo charge or a series of demo charges can do that!

Oh wait wait wait, turbo! Wait a minute, how the hell can thermite/ate do that? I thought Jones found thermite or thermate and that is what brought down the WTCs. How can an ignition of paint on nano-superthermite launch firefighters down stairwells???
I had no idea thermite was so powerful!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by FDNY343
 



Officer LeClair

Suddenly, there was a monsterous explosion, with extremely high wind and debris, and the lights went out immediately. I was physically picked up and hurled across the concourse, slamming into a wall.




Officer Sue Kain, PAPD & 13 yrs Military

A couple of minutes later, it sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened...
EACH ONE of those explosions picked me up and threw me....


The complete transcript can be found in the documented testimonials. Much more to read here:

www.nytimes.com...


Sorry, neither of those appear there. Citation still needed.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by FDNY343
 



Officer LeClair

Suddenly, there was a monsterous explosion, with extremely high wind and debris, and the lights went out immediately. I was physically picked up and hurled across the concourse, slamming into a wall.




Officer Sue Kain, PAPD & 13 yrs Military

A couple of minutes later, it sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened...
EACH ONE of those explosions picked me up and threw me....


The complete transcript can be found in the documented testimonials. Much more to read here:

www.nytimes.com...


Sorry, neither of those appear there. Citation still needed.



So Anywhere from 60 to 90% think the official story is just that, a cover story and you along with 4 911 deniers on this forum are the only sane people left? Is that what you think?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ah yes, a reporter who says an explosion has happened, and you see the building collapsing, yet, I dont here a damn thing until the building is already collapsing. Where oh where is that sound of EXPLOSION KABOOM!!!!!! anywhere prior to ANY movement of the building? Everytime I mentioned this before, I'm met with silence. It is ALWAYS, detonation is heard first, THEN the building starts collapsing. Not: building starts collapsing, then you hear a kaboom (unless you are 3 miles away observing this), and especially moreso if you are video taping this less than a 1/4 mile away, or for that matter right under it!


I'm sure you've gotten responses and just didn't like them. If all it would take to fool you, would be to delay major explosions until the building is already moving, then you really wouldn't be hard to fool. One word: thermite. Oh yeah, now here comes where you have no response to that so you just post some lame sarcasm and ignore me.


And dont give me this "low frequency explosive charges" crap. that is just trying to twist reality into garbage.


From what I'm observing I'd think your reality has already been twisted into garbage. So are you saying that low frequency "booms" don't exist now, or just that explosives/bombs can't make them? You guys act like you have to hear the relatively sharper crack of C4 or TNT, and everything else is impossible. It wasn't TNT or C4 in 1993 and yet that single bomb destroyed the whole parking level.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


You're just as lost as Pt! I guess yuo don't know the meaning of energetic, thermitic material either.

Oh well, no sense beating a dead horse.




top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join