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.

 

It was scientifically proven that nano-thermite explosives were used on 9/11

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I realize that Abovetopsecret is crawling with NSA/CIA disinfo agents who would prefer for you to believe that controlled demolition was impossible, that a plane hit the Pentagon, etc, but I just want all the legitimate users on this forum to know that it has long been scientifically proven that nano-thermite was used on WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

www.benthamscience.com...

Please watch this recent interview with one of the authors of the paper, this is one of the most credible videos you'll ever watch on 9/11:

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

If any disinfo agents out there would like to refute this scientific PROOF that controlled demolition was used on the World Trade Center on 9/11, please provide a legitimate scientific paper, not some blog post or bogus article from Popular Science. Thanks.

edit on 22-6-2011 by kiwasabi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   
As I understand it, amongst the rubble, material was found that one would expect so see after the use of military grade-nano thermite, and there aren't many other ways it could have gotten there. But that does not prove beyond doubt that nano-thermite was used, and people are stupid enough to deny all the different bits of evidence which together create an undeniable case. It's the same thing with Aliens actually. If your single piece of proof isn't 100% conclusive, it wont matter, and the entire body of evidence will be ignored.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Nano-thermite chips were found in the rubble. That is what the paper is about, not about "the type of rubble you'd expect to find after nano-thermite was used". Nice try though.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


I said the "material" not "rubble" actually. Read my post again. You're misunderstanding me.
Another problem: too much emotion. That's why I stay clear of this stuff usually.


edit on 22-6-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: small correction



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
And what type of material are you referring to then?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
A one and a half hour video? I dont think so! My GB allowence does not permit that. Propably what peole are saying is drowned out by bash bash bash bash any way. Amazing the number of people who are trying to get a messge out drown it out with noisic.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


The so called "chips of nano-thermite".
I was under the impression they were like chips of nano-thermite ash, after it has burned. Not actually left over thermite that didn't burn.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
bussoboy, it's 50 minutes long. Your attention to detail is stunning.

ChaoticOrder, look at the title of the paper. "Active Thermitic Materials...". Active as in unused and still usable.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


Ok first off the towers had been built to withstand a plane hitting them! that should make you question what was done. I do believe they got hit by a plane. I dont believe it had enough fuel after exploding into a fireball to drain directly on all 4 support beams and make them melt. When i saw it the first thing i thought was controlled demo. then add in tower 7 and it becomes laughable. Amazing luck that owner had getting a insurance policy one month before the planes hit the towers. how independent investigation is ignored and scrapes have been disposed of then add in the big fact that you cant control an airliner at that speed that close to the ground even if you are a pro to be able to hit the pentagon. When you can explain all these things without resorting to name calling and paint chips we can talk



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
And why shouldn't the nano-thermite paint chips be mentioned exactly?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


Ok, fair enough. I'll have to take a look at some of the new evidence and information, it's been quite a while since I looked at anything relating to 9/11.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Just watch that video and you'll be covered.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by pcrobotwolf
 


Exactly but Nano-Thermite in the Dust proves it even more. Then maybe the sheeple will wake up and smell the coffee.

Look anyone with half a brain can tell 911 was inside job WTC 7 is 100% proof.

Thats why the Media had a 100% black-out on talking about WTC 7 because they know its the forbidden topic.

Also yes you're correct There is no way a human pilot can manoeuver a plane to hit the Towers. Let alone the PENTAGON



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


you should, theres a lot of info out there now and a lot more people are starting to wake up to the fact that this was an inside job. Personally I think TPTB should be getting worried - it's only gonna get more coverage the more people wake up - and they are waking up

INSIDE JOB - THE EVIDENCE IS IRREFUTABLE



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   


Thats why the Media had a 100% black-out on talking about WTC 7 because they know its the forbidden topic.


Since when can you silence the media?
Think Weiners weiner.
Think Clintons BJ.
Think Watergate.

You truthers have been making up things to keep this fake conspiracy going for ten years.
When are you going to get a witness to come forward and say "I planted explosives"?
When are you going to get a witness to come forward and say "I remotely flew the planes"?

Ten years and have NADA!



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 




You truthers have been making up things to keep this fake conspiracy going for ten years.
When are you going to get a witness to come forward and say "I planted explosives"?
When are you going to get a witness to come forward and say "I remotely flew the planes"?
Oh...wow. Now it's like the opposite of aliens. Evidence doesn't matter, but witness testimony does. Haha. If only it worked that way for aliens aye!



edit on 22-6-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Hey Guize,

what if it blew in from a base downwind where they were doing nano-thermite training?

Totally plausible.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I am guilty of steering clear of 9-11 threads completely...and I confess my guilt because I actually feel that way...guilty! Standing on the sidelines and watching the debate and trying to decide if someone proves something with enough evidence that I can agree and not look stupid...how sad really!

I think...and yes it is an opinion...that the events of 9-11 are indeed an example of government corruption at it's best and I am further convinced that the truth will be told one day (no I do not believe anything close to the truth has come from our government).

A little common sense and some discernment leaves any rational thinking human with questions...a lot of questions...and if you are questioning events that means the answers are not sufficient to cause belief...plain and simple. Those that provide "proof" than 9-11 could not have been an inside job are denying the fact that our government could be capable of such a thing....too many points...too many arguments. I say B.S....our government is capable and in fact has been proven to be much more scandalous than we could ever of imagined...at yet some people want to completely exonerate them of any such thing in 9-11...really?

I don't care what angle you play...there is serious opposition to meet you...how perfectly planned...seems like most everyone is content to just graze in the open pasture while the wolves circle around looking for the fattest weakest sheep to pick off.

Yes I am guilty...not speaking can be just as bad as telling the worst of lies...and to provide proof of something you know to be false is just as bad as never intending to tell the truth in the first place. Deny complacency...is your government giving you answers that you accept...are you content really despite the evidence of opposition?
I am not...the opposition in most cases just supports my true feelings even more...my gut knows all is not well.

Causation is not correlation...one of my favorite problem solving techniques...are you really correlating the events of 9-11 with the convenience of the terrorist war just because it seems to fit...or are you really thinking about why you are so quickly believing what fits into the agenda?

I don't buy the governments cover-up story for one second...never have...something smells fishy and it just might be fish...call it like I see it...this whole thing stinks of cover-up and corruption at it's finest!



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
It amazes me that everyone doesn't see the obvious: WTC 1,2,7 were imploded. I summarize the NO PLANE theory on my blog: www.barryb911.blogspot.com



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 



....please provide a legitimate scientific paper,....


You first.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join