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: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent



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!


And a footnote to this...

NO INVESTIGATION TO THE OFFICIAL STORY EITHER!!!

This was a controlled demolition all the way!!! There is nothing to prove otherwise other than what MSM and the government "SAY" not prove....Their official story happened the day of 9/11 with no investigation or back up for that claim.

How are there ABSOLUTELY no remains of the plane in PA but there are papers for passengers???? Doesn't this strike you as a little odd??

How does building 7 free fall to the ground with no damage to the roof of the building?? Doesn't this strike you as a little odd??

How does "FIRE" burn steel in a few hours?? Enough to bring a building down from 40 stories up??? Doesn't this strike you as a little odd??

How are there no camera angles of the plane hitting the Pentagon?? THE PENTAGON!!!!??? Doesn't this strike you as a little odd??

And the biggest kicker is HOW DOES $3.2 TRILLION DOLLARS "go missing" after the towers fell????

How does Dick Cheney's company Halliburton get the oil bid into Iraq after we invade because of "terrorists" crashing planes into the towers??

Money is the root to all evil, and if you follow the money here....IT LEADS YOU BACK TO AN INSIDE JOB!!!




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by pcrobotwolf
 



Ok first off the towers had been built to withstand a plane hitting them!

No they weren't! Not the way you mean! Besides, the buildings did withstand the intial impact even though it was well outside the catastrophe envelope anyone ever considered!

that should make you question what was done.

Only if you don't question the person who told you that line of crap!

I do believe they got hit by a plane.

Phewww! What a relief, I shall alert the press.

I dont believe it had enough fuel after exploding into a fireball to drain directly on all 4 support beams and make them melt.

Neither does anyone else. You are objecting to crap that you are making up. That should be a hint.

When i saw it the first thing i thought was controlled demo.

Really? Not - "Oh my God the humanity"?

then add in tower 7 and it becomes laughable.

Yeah, lot of laughing going on that day. Just a riot. Real knee-slapper.

Amazing luck that owner had getting a insurance policy one month before the planes hit the towers.

Uh, not luck - its called common business practise to insure your assets. Remind me not to frequent any businesses that your involved with.

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.

Maybe first you need to "independently investigate" the source for all that crap. Thats a first big step.

When you can explain all these things without resorting to name calling and paint chips we can talk

When you can go past a "9/11 was an Inside Job" website without instantly absorbing every piece of nonsense, lets talk.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
And why isn't this a legitimate scientific paper, hooper? Because it was published online so that it would be freely available to everybody? If you have a scientific paper that refutes this one, please feel free to respond with it. Otherwise, you have no argument.

www.benthamscience.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 

The main issues with is:
It's published in a pay-to-publish vanity paper. Bentham has gone downhill very rapidly, to the point that all the current owners care about is whether your check bounces or not. See www.guardian.co.uk...
The paper was written with a very clear agenda and a very clear audience, with all objectivity thrown out the window. All of the authors were deeply involved in the 9/11 truth movement prior to writing this.
The paper was reviewed by fellow 9/11 truthers, who ascribed to the same theories as the authors. Why not get someone truly independent to review it?
And speaking of independence, why have the authors repeatedly refused to submit their samples to independent laboratories for tests?
And speaking of the samples, there's a very big question mark over some of them. Given how much material from the WTC collapse was spread across Manhattan, it's impossible to determine if a particular sample did in fact have something to do with the WTC in the first place. I even seem to recall that one sample was taken from one of the bridges going from Manhattan and out into the boroughs!

But above all, is the fact that both lead authors have moved on from the "WTC was demolished by thermite"-theory and have instead reverted to the good old "Explosives took down WTC"-theory. With all the problems associated with that.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I was asking hooper. Quite the crack team of pro official story users on here. It's almost like you're on the same payroll...

Regarding the legitimacy of the nano-thermite paper, it was peer reviewed just like any scientific paper. And your claim that all of the people who worked on the paper were big in the 9/11 Truth movement beforehand is a lie. See the documentary Hypothesis for proof on this. Once again, produce a scientific paper that refutes this one, otherwise the debate is over.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
NIST did not test for explosives. They did not think it necessary even though the last attack on the WTC was a truck bomb in the basement. No need to test for explosives.

NIST Website


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwasabi
it was peer reviewed just like any scientific paper


So who actually peer reviewed it?

Why didnt the so called peer review pick up that the samples were not tested in a oxygen free environment to confirm that they were actually thermite?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
According to the scientific method, the proper way to rebut a science study is to write up a paper, submit it to a journal for peer review and see it published. No such scientific rebuttal to the Harrit et al paper has yet appeared. When you can direct me to such a paper, I will consider this a real debate. Until then, you have no argument.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwasabi
According to the scientific method, the proper way to rebut a science study is to write up a paper, submit it to a journal for peer review and see it published. No such scientific rebuttal to the Harrit et al paper has yet appeared. When you can direct me to such a paper, I will consider this a real debate. Until then, you have no argument.

Had the paper actually been peer reviewed, the many problems and inconsistencies would have been noted and it would not have been published as-is. As written, it only shows that Bentham will publish anything.
If you would like to discuss the technical details at any level of complexity, just ask.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Actually, the paper was peer reviewed, that is the only way it got into the scientific journal. If it's so easy to get a paper on there, maybe you should create a proper rebuttal and get it published on there. Until then, what is presented in the paper stands as scientific proof that nano-thermite was used on 9/11.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by pcrobotwolf
 



Ok first off the towers had been built to withstand a plane hitting them!

No they weren't! Not the way you mean! Besides, the buildings did withstand the intial impact even though it was well outside the catastrophe envelope anyone ever considered!

that should make you question what was done.

Only if you don't question the person who told you that line of crap!

I do believe they got hit by a plane.

Phewww! What a relief, I shall alert the press.

I dont believe it had enough fuel after exploding into a fireball to drain directly on all 4 support beams and make them melt.

Neither does anyone else. You are objecting to crap that you are making up. That should be a hint.

When i saw it the first thing i thought was controlled demo.

Really? Not - "Oh my God the humanity"?

then add in tower 7 and it becomes laughable.

Yeah, lot of laughing going on that day. Just a riot. Real knee-slapper.

Amazing luck that owner had getting a insurance policy one month before the planes hit the towers.

Uh, not luck - its called common business practise to insure your assets. Remind me not to frequent any businesses that your involved with.

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.

Maybe first you need to "independently investigate" the source for all that crap. Thats a first big step.

When you can explain all these things without resorting to name calling and paint chips we can talk

When you can go past a "9/11 was an Inside Job" website without instantly absorbing every piece of nonsense, lets talk.
Ok hopper explain how professional pilots with 30 years flight experience cannot reproduce what happened at the pentagon on a simulator. Or the fact that the plane cannot reach the speed. Discovery channel not a conspiracy web site.I know i know this shatters you little world filled with terrorist and super cells and would no longer mean you can hate the 7-11 guy for nothing



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Please stay on topic. We are talking about the scientific PROOF that nano-thermite was used on the WTC on 9/11.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by barryb
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


I read the first two entries in your blog and have to admit that you and I think alike.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by kiwasabi
Please stay on topic. We are talking about the scientific PROOF that nano-thermite was used on the WTC on 9/11.


Then how about showing some peer reviewed "scientific proof"

The Bentham paper was not peer reviewed - they will publish anything if you pay them to.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by kiwasabi
Actually, the paper was peer reviewed, that is the only way it got into the scientific journal. If it's so easy to get a paper on there, maybe you should create a proper rebuttal and get it published on there. Until then, what is presented in the paper stands as scientific proof that nano-thermite was used on 9/11.


I see we are having another go at the "publish your rebuttal," yet again, because you believe that the paper was peer reviewed and had some technical merit. Bentham peered into the envelope and reviewed that the $800 check was there, hence 'peer review.' Pranksters had a nonsense paper accepted in a Bentham journal to show that the level of technical review was very low or non-existent. See forum.davidicke.com... and others. Bentham is a laughingstock.
There are many technical problems with the Jones paper and with the use of self-extinguishing paint-on material, as many previous posts have pointed out. If you really need a conspiracy about WTC CD, you should find one that makes more sense and is not self-inconsistent.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pcrobotwolf
 



Ok hopper explain how professional pilots with 30 years flight experience cannot reproduce what happened at the pentagon on a simulator.

Because they are con artist that simply hope to drive people to their phony website so they can sell advertising space.

Nothing about the flight patterns, speeds and manuvers known to have happened on 9/11/2011 were impossible. Thats all you need. Just remember, just because someone can't "reproduce" a moving path does not mean that it cannot be achieved.

I can throw a baseball from the mound over the plate. If we are able to check the exact path of the ball and then ask 20 professional ball players to EXACTLY reproduce the path none of them will be able to do it. They would get the ball from the mound to the plate, but never exactly on the same path as my pitch.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I have to say I think it is funny that the Op started this thread and then drove it headlong into the OS believers hideout.

You came into this thread with knives in both hands a bayonet in your teeth a bandoleer of frag grenades and two M249 SAWs on your back. The take no prisoners mentality makes me question why you keep the name kiwasabi as your avatar profile and not the "Punisher"


I don't have anything to add since I stay out of these threads. I don't know how things happened on that day only that I believe government corruption played into it and that it was an inside job to be sure.

Anyway there it is.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Anything published by Bentham should be taken with a whole spoonfull of salt. You can you read the entire article.

Here

Below is a short summary that give you the idea of how bad Bentham is.




Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals –

Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year.

So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

The paper, entitled "Deconstructing Access Points" (pdf) made no sense whatsoever, as this sample reveals:

In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].


Yet four months after the article was submitted, "David Phillips" received an email from Sana Mokarram, Bentham's assistant manager of publication:

This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ.

The publication fee was $800, to be sent to a PO Box in the United Arab Emirates. Having made his point, Davis withdrew the paper.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
The difficulty with using Thermite is to get it to stay on the steel beams.
Steel is very magnetic.

Neodymium Iron Boron magnets are flammable. A modified composition of Neodymium Iron Boron may burn hotter than standard thermite. The enthalpy of Nd and Oxygen is higher than for Al and Oxygen

Thermite like compounds can be made magnetic. Magnets will usually stop working (Curie Temperature) before the thermite will ignite.

Coating unmagnetized thermite pellets with a thermal bonding material, before magnetizing them, will allow them to mechanically bond to the steel. When the temperature exceeds the magnetic thermal limits (Curie Temperature), they will remain in contact with the beam. After a time the jet fuel fire will reach ignition temperature for the material bonded to the steel.

Upon ignition the steel beam will weaken or melt.

Neodymium Iron Boron magnets are very expensive, but cost would not have been an issue for this application.

Were any strange elemental signatures detected in the dust?

The building did not need to be specially prepared. Even with access to the site tightly controlled by the FBI, headed by Pasquale J. D'Amuro, too much evidence might have survived.

Enough magnetic thermite could have been in the cargo hold of the planes to do the job. It could have been actually listed in the cargo and ignored, or it was placed there by the ground crew in full knowledge of the results.

A single security firm, owned by one country, but controlled by another, was in charge of security at all the departure points for 9-11 flights. The FBI's lack of thoroughness in all of this appears to be intentional.

All the directly impacted beams had been removed by the time (a month later) when investigators were allowed on site. Why were they in such a hurry to recycle the metal and then argue for years about how to use the empty site?

Statement of Anthony Weiner (He was stupid and he made a lot of enemies.)

Thousands of families will enjoy dinner together tonight because even under the most unimaginable circumstances, these proud buildings stood tall for more than an hour. But for the families of those lost, today's report offers little consolation and leaves many questions unanswered. And, sadly, because of the early missteps in the investigation, some of the most vexing questions may never be unraveled.

Thousands of tons of steel were carted away and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been telltale clues. Support trusses, fireproofing fragments, and even burned-out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever even before an investigation was underway.

Ladies and gentlemen, this amounts to what is, indeed, a crime scene investigation. Yet, not only is there no smoking gun, there wasn't even a weapon found. There weren't even fingerprints taken, and, if truth be told, there wasn't even a detective assigned to the case until very late in the process.

THE INVESTIGATION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE: FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent



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!



Who said anyone silenced the media? The media often silence themselves when told to.. Actually they get permission from the whitehouse before they discuss or announce anything controversial

All of those cherry picked scandals you mentioned are the kind of sensationalized "good for ratings" type scandals that the media loves to exploit for fun, ridicule lulz, and profit.. and as such are a whole different scenerio than any so called anti-government news like 9-11 being an inside job or not.. Obviously the media will NEVER entertain those topics on the air because they would have their license pulled along with whatever other threats would be issued to them by government people. This is why media people go ballistic whenever anyone even tries to broach the subject of inside jobs and such.

The arguments you present in your post ignores ALL of the evidence and facts already discovered and presented over the years, which in turn makes you appear to be living in complete denial so that you can continue living in your self made delusional fantasy... I do have sympathy for you though, because I know how difficult it is to consider our own american government being almost 100% corrupt with greedy, vendictive and selfish politicians, which is quite a tough pill for anyone to swallow..







 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join