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.

 

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 52
274
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Originally posted by TupacShakur
--Red chips in the dust that have a similar chemical composition to thermite, react at a high temperature like thermite, and produce the same by-products as thermite.

They do not have a similar composition, the don't react completely when a blowtorch is put on them. They are not dangerous at all.

--Iron spheres were found both in the dust and in the chips after they were ignited.

Jones team showed they are incompetent and I don't not believe their conclusion. There is no reason to believe the spheres are the result of iron melting.

--Eutectic steel was found in the rubble, and thermite can create eutectic steel.

One piece of steel that had a weird reaction, so what? Ground zero should have been filled with them.

--Molten metal was found underneath the towers, and thermite reacts hot enough to melt steel.

And fires are hot enough to melt aluminum.




Your counter-arguments:
--That's just an extremely dangerous brand of highly reactive paint that has iron spheres in it.
--No those iron spheres didn't appear after the reation, Steven Jones and his colleagues are lying about that.
--Ignore completely and hope he doesn't notice.
--That's aluminum.....and with the, uh, combustable material energy....you know...stuff got hot down there.


My real arguments have be hand waved away. Instead you create a bunch of strawman arguments.

Anser this:

Why did Jones sample not completely react? How could such a material be more dangerous than regular paint?

Why could the molten metal not possible be aluminum?

I know, you don't have answers to that. You will just respond with "Iron spheres" and "Molten steel". Your evidence is extremely weak. And I am kinda done with you repeating the same weak arguments over and over.
edit on 18-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Why did Jones sample not completely react? How could such a material be more dangerous than regular paint?


Did you know that diesel will not ignite even if you put a torch to it and you can put out a burning match in a puddle of petrol without lighting it?

Have you ever hear of unconfined vapor cloud explosions as seen in flour mill explosions or thermobaric bombs?

Your contention that for something to be explosives it must completely react under all conditions is simply false.

What is happening here is simple: once the reaction starts the sample is small enough to be blasted away from the heat source before it can completely react. The sample chip is too small sustain a chain reaction.




Why could the molten metal not possible be aluminum?


Because it looks nothing like aluminium and behaves nothing like aluminium and black body radiation indicates that the temperature it was at was far too high too have been reached in an office fire.

There is no reason to suppose this was aluminium.



I know, you don't have answers to that. You will just respond with "Iron spheres" and "Molten steel". Your evidence is extremely weak. And I am kinda done with you repeating the same weak arguments over and over.


These are not new answers and you are making up nonsensical questions.

PROVE that something that is explosive must react completely under all conditions or that aluminium can be made to look or behave this way, then your questions will start having a little validity.

Next you will be asking us to prove that the stuff pouring out the window is not Taco dipping sauce for crying out loud, that's red too.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
What is happening here is simple: once the reaction starts the sample is small enough to be blasted away from the heat source before it can completely react. The sample chip is too small sustain a chain reaction.


And where is your experimental data to support this claim? Or did you just made that up because else your theory is rubbish?


Because it looks nothing like aluminium and behaves nothing like aluminium and black body radiation indicates that the temperature it was at was far too high too have been reached in an office fire.

There is no reason to suppose this was aluminium.


How do you know it looks and behaves nothing like aluminum? Or are you just making an argument from ignorance? As for the radiation argument, back it up with sources.


PROVE that something that is explosive must react completely under all conditions or that aluminium can be made to look or behave this way, then your questions will start having a little validity.


How about you prove that the substance that doesn't even completely react when put a blowtorch on it could take down those buildings?



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Question to -PLB-

how could metallic iron spheres form from the burning of paint containing rombohedral Fe2O3 particles?

Very simple question. Please cite your souces.






edit on 18-7-2011 by Herkus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Herkus
 


They didn't. (very simple answer).

(EDIT: I will add a source for this as requested)


I could not confirm a reaction producing molten iron. I was told that my red-red chips may have already reacted on 11/9, or be deactivated by heat, humidity and oxygen of the air ( natural aging). But if my chips are the same as those S.Jones &co discovered and studied in the dust, shouldnt mine have remained reactive as long as their owns (but K Ryan also confirmed the presence of red-red inactive chips in his samples)? Indeed in their initial publication, S Jones and co clearly state that all their chips reacted when heated producing molten iron and dont even mention the existence of red-red chips.


www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf
edit on 18-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




And where is your experimental data to support this claim? Or did you just made that up because else your theory is rubbish?


I cited an example of explosive material that will not fully react unless conditions are perfect, these things are regular parts of many armies. Flour explosions are common (or used to be at any rate). You can test petrol and diesel in your backyard.

I have, in my youth, made some chlorine bombs, gunpowder rockets and other boyhood toys. Are you going to argue that because there is chlorine residue that it didn't explode at all, that an imperfect burn means that gunpowder won't explode in a confined space?

How much do you want to bet that your average garden variety firecraker will have gunpowder residue on it after exploding. Do you really need to go test for unburnt powder afterwards?

Really PLB, this is beneath you, I know you can do better.




How do you know it looks and behaves nothing like aluminum? Or are you just making an argument from ignorance?


Please review this link.

You are the asking for us to believe that it is aluminium solely on the basis of the fact that we cannot PROVE to some absurd standard that it is not.

We know how aluminium looks and behaves, nobody but you is ignorant about it.



As for the radiation argument, back it up with sources.


What?

When I say chain reaction I simply mean that the heat from the reaction is not being efficiently transferred to the remaining material and thus not able to ignite it because the surface area is too small on the rest of the material due to the sample being so small.

You couldn't figure this out by yourself?




How about you prove that the substance that doesn't even completely react when put a blowtorch on it could take down those buildings?


The hydraulic jacks used in Verinage don't react at all...
edit on 18-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: bits

edit on 18-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: missing word



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Frederic H. Couannier tested only red-red chips in his furnace test, not one red/gray chip was heated by him in a calorimeter.

The discussion is about the red/gray chips, not the other way. So address the issue, how could metallic iron spheres Fig.(21) form from the burning of paint containing rombohedral Fe2O3 particles Fig.(9) ?

Please cite your souces.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I cited an example of explosive material that will not fully react unless conditions are perfect, these things are regular parts of many armies. Flour explosions are common (or used to be at any rate). You can test petrol and diesel in your backyard.

I have, in my youth, made some chlorine bombs, gunpowder rockets and other boyhood toys. Are you going to argue that because there is chlorine residue that it didn't explode at all, that an imperfect burn means that gunpowder won't explode in a confined space?

How much do you want to bet that your average garden variety firecraker will have gunpowder residue on it after exploding. Do you really need to go test for unburnt powder afterwards?

Really PLB, this is beneath you, I know you can do better.


The examples you come with are not explosive materials. They only become explosive when mixed with oxygen. Are you saying that the material Jones is testing also only becomes explosive when mixed with oxygen?



Please review this link.

You are the asking for us to believe that it is aluminium solely on the basis of the fact that we cannot PROVE to some absurd standard that it is not.

We know how aluminium looks and behaves, nobody but you is ignorant about it.


So how do you know how aluminum looks and behaves? (please don't answer "from looking some Youtube videos).


What?

When I say chain reaction I simply mean that the heat from the reaction is not being efficiently transferred to the remaining material and thus not able to ignite it because the surface area is too small on the rest of the material due to the sample being so small.

You couldn't figure this out by yourself?


When I say radiation I do not somehow mean chain reaction.



The hydraulic jacks used in Verinage don't react at all...


Just to get this straight, you think that thermite was only used for collapse initiation?



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Herkus
 


Again, they didn't. Jones his analysis is flawed and has never been reproduced by anyone, not even by other truthers who received dust samples. I suspect the spheres were already in the samples. Until an independent party is able to reproduce Jones results, we can dismiss it as being scientific. And we all know, the truth movement is not eager at all to have an independent analysis done. Why would that be...



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



Hmm, I don't see that quote in www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf. All I see is:


Interpretation by S Jones, N Harrit and associates confirmed:

Observations compatible with the hypothesis that a layer of nanothermite, usually a Si matrix with Iron oxide particles (red) and Al, was sprayed (?) onto the steel columns. Carbon : probable organic residue from the sol-gel solvents (isopropanol, organic epoxide).



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamaperson

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Prior Knowledge:
-- Our government had knowledge prior of the attacks and knew that airplanes would be hi-jacked, but they took no measure to prevent such an event from happenning. Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer worked with a military intelligence program "Able Danger" in 2000, and they identified 4 of the hi-jackers as possible Al Qaeda members. Beginning in September 2000, three meetings set up with the FBI by him were each canceled by military lawyers. Shaffer lost his security clearance to view classified information after going public. This prior knowledge blatantly contradicts George Bush's and Condoleezza Rice's statements that nobody could have predicted terrorists to fly airplanes into those buildings.


If they had prior knowledge, doesn't that mean it was not an inside job. What sort of prior knowledge did they have, if they only knew that there could be a terrorist attack involving planes, what should they have done about it? Put in the scanners that people (especially on ATS), are completely against, how would people have reacted to such a move pre911? Would people have been happy with it in 2000, more then they are now? I don't think so.

Didn't the hijackers that flew the planes have commercial pilots licenses, if so I would suspect they can fly planes. Perhaps the quote from the instructor was one of the earlier instructors, not the one who gave the license to fly.

Rest of it I probably cannot reply to, since I have no knowledge in this area, but will say that there have been heaps of these Undeniable Conclusive Evidence threads, and yet I haven't noticed anything major.



really? nothing major?...wow, hard to believe that with as many inconsistancies, information denial, expert testimony not even acknowledged, and no balanced investigation, you cannot find anything major. i guess logic is not your strong suit.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Herkus
 


Again, they didn't.


Then please tell me, what this XEDS spectra shows in Fig.(21) on page 21?



I suspect the spheres were already in the samples.


Maybe you are right, but there is no proof that this is the case. Only an unfounded opinion.




Until an independent party is able to reproduce Jones results, we can dismiss it as being scientific.


Preliminary Mark Basile reproduced Harrit et al findings and concluded in this presentation that these chips are thermitic.



And we all know, the truth movement is not eager at all to have an independent analysis done. Why would that be...



I don't know about others, but I am for an independent analysis. I would encourage ''debunker'' community to do their own analysis, but appareantly they are too lazy to do such simple tests.

Who Needs Debunking When Insults Are So Easy



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Use a little common sense will you please. If you are blaming the government you need an independent investigation and it should not be funded by the tax payer since the 9/11 commission report was. You all disagree with it anyway.

As in any legal proceeding, you need experts. You need research. You use independent resources to show that the 'main-stream' may be incorrect. This is cases are turned over and precedents for future cases are set. A no peer reviewed paper

Why would you want the ones you think pulled it off to investigate it again??? That is showing the pure ignorance and blind following that you have ingested and live within. I would declare that the 911Truth and the rest pony up the cash they have raised and start it instead of paying for their engagements and protests with your money that was provided to investigate and not cover hotels stays. That is not how it should be done.

911truth.org...

They collect it and where does it go? Education? All they have are links to existing sites....

I also find it funny that you rely on Jones and the mainstream truth movement does not evfen acknowledge he and Fetzer.

If there is true evidence, you need only to find ONE lawyer who is a truther and raise money. Instead, a small group of people decided they could live of the fantasy of others for a few years and this is what they did. Where is the new investigation???



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Herkus
Maybe you are right, but there is no proof that this is the case. Only an unfounded opinion.


Isn't that impossible to prove? Yes it is. So I go with reason: there were already iron rich spheres present in the dust, formation of iron spheres was not reproduced with Jones dust samples by others, no independent testing was ever done to confirm Jones.



Preliminary Mark Basile reproduced Harrit et al findings and concluded in
that these chips are thermitic.


Although I highly doubt that person is independent, it is intersting to see something new. What time should I skip to? And did he ever publish something else than a Youtube video?


I don't know about others, but I am for an independent analysis. I would encourage ''debunker'' community to do their own analysis, but appareantly they are too lazy to do such simple tests.


I suppose the line of reasoning is that when even truthers can't be bothered, why should critics care. But its good you are for independent testing, although we both know that won't happen. Can you give a good explanation why that is? (I can)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Can you give a good explanation why that is?


Because Jones has only so many samples perhaps? Because he claims samples he has sent to labs have been tampered with/interfered with in the past (I am inclined to believe this to be highly likely to be true whether or not Jones is right).

There IS a pool of samples that the is held in government vaults though as far as I am aware. Perhaps we should test those. Or maybe they have all been destroyed before any tests could be done to them.

Why would THAT be now, dear PLB?



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

edit on 18-7-2011 by Herkus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-


what time should i skip to?



watch the whole video.


And did he ever publish something else than a Youtube video?


I hope so. I know that Farrer et al are performing TEM analysis on these red/gray chips. One advatage of using TEM is:
"TEMs provide topographical, morphological, compositional and crystalline information." Source

Because often you hear 'duh'bonkers' crying about the XRD test, so this device will show how the Al/Si elements are unbounded or bounded - amorphous or crystal.


But its good you are for independent testing, although we both know that won't happen. Can you give a good explanation why that is? (I can)


Because Jones et al are running out of their samples and there are plenty of dust samples in other apartments in NYC, but to get these samples you have to lift your ass up and it will never happen, if you, duh'bonkers, will chant this phrase "it's paint, it's paint". Let the actual testing begin. Go and get some dust from your local NY resident, take the sample to RJ Lee or to other independent lab. Maybe Mr.Sunstealer aka Sunny boy will perform a test on these red/gray chips.
edit on 18-7-2011 by Herkus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Herkus
 



Because Jones et al are running out of their samples and there are plenty of dust samples in other apartments in NYC....


So are you suggesting that any dust collected in any apartment in NYC at any time after 9/11/2001 should have the same exact properties as the alleged samples that the jones et al gang is supposedly testing? And if that is not the case does it then prove that jones et al are officially full of it?



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herkuswatch the whole video.


No thanks.


Because Jones et al are running out of their samples and there are plenty of dust samples in other apartments in NYC, but to get these samples you have to lift your ass up and it will never happen, if you, duh'bonkers, will chant this phrase "it's paint, it's paint". Let the actual testing begin. Go and get some dust from your local NY resident, take the sample to RJ Lee or to other independent lab. Maybe Mr.Sunstealer aka Sunny boy will perform a test on these red/gray chips.


It is up to the twoofers to prove their claims. Indeed, let the actual (independent) testing begin (although I am not going to hold my breath).



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


First you claim that samples are hold in vaults. Then you claim they are destroyed. And then you ask me to explain why they are destroyed. Right...




top topics



 
274
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join