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.

 

Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 15
137
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CraigSnedeker
This has got to be one of the best 9/11 threads I have ever seen, it basically debunks the official story.


I agree!! Amazing video!

Now if we could just get those 5 or 6 vocal people who still believe the OS to WATCH IT we'd be in great shape


There's simply no denying that explosives/incendiaries were used after watching the vid the OP is based on.






edit on 15-1-2012 by Thermo Klein because: added a little more substance




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein


I agree!! Amazing video!

Now if we could just get those 5 or 6 vocal people who still believe the OS to WATCH IT we'd be in great shape


They watched it, they are not here to seek education on either side of the arguement.
They are here to 'confuse, muddle and discredit' rational discussion.

Great Video , If you couple this with Able Danger, 13 of 15 Saudi Passports being given out at Jeddah under the orders of the CIA , what else do you need



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I posted this reply a while ago, this thread made me think of it something usually overlooked when people say the steel beams were weakened from an open jet fuel fire.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Gotta love the NIST story supporters... they fight for what they truely belive dont they.


anyway. I have just one question for you if you think fire made these buildings collapse.


What is the melting point of steel. ???

it's 1300 Degrees up to 2400Deg.

have any of you ever welded one of these beams together.? or cut one in half?

It takes a torch and several hours to cut one of these beams with temps. of 3200deg - 3500deg that with a focused tip and pressure of 250psi.


so now how can you explain a fire creating that much focused heat? the jet fuel fires could not have gotten over 1800Deg.


all of these temps. were taken from Wiki google it... heck take a simple welding class and learn about Steel and why we use it to build Fireplaces among other things that do NOT melt or weaken with a lifetime of heat.

ever use a Kiln I heat my kiln up to 2000 degrees depending on the glass I am working with and the steel table the kiln sits on is still standing.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





I am not sure why you direceted your post to me but, as you have, I will give you my opinion.

Explosions heard at the WTC were few, random, variable in loudness and preceded collapse.

With a real controlled demolition; as here :-

www.youtube.com...

The explosions are rythmic, sharp and loud and accompany collapse.



So what you are saying is that every demolition is done in exactly the same way and requires similar amounts of explosives in similar places?

Again, anyone wanna play spot the fallacy?

The amount and nature of the damage that was done to destroy the WTC buildings was exactly equal to, no more no less, the amount of damage done to destroy the buildings.

Your argument isn't even consistent with itself since any non-explosive demolition is necessarily less energetic than whatever happened to the buildings (less explosives) plus whatever explosives was in the building (if any).

If you are arguing that there was no explosives there is no MINIMUM amount of explosives that can make your argument valid as a debunking of the presence of explosives.

Your argument is rubbish.

I'm sorry if my position seems a bit convoluted, but the idea that the insufficient apparent magnitude of the explosions to effect the collapse proves that there were no explosions used to effect the collapse is some of the most twisted pieces of thinking in the history of thinking.
edit on 15-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


so your answer is NO then?




WTC 7 was abandoned because of the severe structural damage and fact there was no water to fight the fires



the quotes you posted do NOT support your theory. I would like to know exactly what structural beams were compromised and who inspected them and as so many NIST believers say, police/firefighters witness testimony of the events is not believable they are not experts.

you also left out several pieces of important testimony that show the damage to Bldg 7 was not caused by fire or the falling of the two towers the damage was comparable to a large Bomb going off. as can be seen by video evidence of the Lobby of Bldg 7 and if you trust firefighters their experience inside the BLDG 7 which can be read and viewed. more experience than the fire chief and not just one firefighter many of them have the same story several explosions throwing the firefighters around as well as Granite walls being thrown down to the floor something fire can NOT do.

but dont let the lack of evidence stop you from believing fire can melt or even weaken steel.
and like I say many times to those who have very little knowledge go get a 1" thick structural steel Ibeam and some Racing fuel then melt it.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by -W1LL

the fire dept. was told to evacuate because it was known by some that the bldg would be pulled.


You only need one additional piece of evidence to support this nonsense. Produce even one legitimate Firefighter not afflicted with dementia who supports this bull flop nonsense...



I dont need to produce anything the witnesses Police firefighters and civilians are all out there for you to read and Mock if that is how you choose to take their testimony of the events...
and to call all of these firefighters demented is a sad play on your end, why the hate? these same demented firefighters give their lives every day for you show some respect.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
To me it seems like NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report are the written CNN, as in, CNN replayed endlessly video of planes hitting towers and NIST and the Report say like 'there was no evidence of explosives'.

Personally, I'm skeptical of Controlled Demolition because it just doesn't seem to fit.

Why is there so much care in being shown videos and what I call "staging", in writing reports and saying "there's no evidence of", removing all the steel and selling it to China and yet there were regular people involved in the search and rescue and initial clean up? If anyone found anything suspicious in all those piles of debris, well, you couldn't on the one hand be so careful selling an Official Story and removing all the "evidence" and on the other hand let a bunch of people all be digging around in there. If one person found one thing, just one tiny thing that looked suspicious, then the whole thing would be OVER. You wouldn't risk that. You couldn't.

Let me be simplistic for example sake. The Official Story is being sold, meanwhile over on the pile, someone from a volunteer fire department lifts a broken wall panel and finds an unexploded stick of dynamite! Hmmm.

Imagine that!

Yes a silly example but the point is, what, half a stick? A cap? Some wire? What? And how much of 'what' would it take to make a difference? Very very little. It's not worth the risk frankly. And it seems inconsistent with all the controlled planning on the other hand etc.

Now, other than this thermite nonsense has anyone got anything else? Any other teeny tiny shred of explosive PHYSICAL evidence? Anyone? Anything? Didn't think so.

"But it looks like a Controlled Demolition!" Yeah? Well I can show you a trick I know that looks like I just pulled a coin out of your ear. But did I really? No? But that's what it 'looks like'.

This whole "All the steel was sold to China" I suspect is being sold to you not because the remnants of steel beams show explosive residue but rather there just wasn't as much steel even left that should've realistically been there in the first place. ALL the steel sold to China was just all the steel left there after the dust settled which doesn't necessarily mean it was all the steel that was used to build the entire buildings.

'All of the steel sold to China' doesn't mean all of the steel, just all of the steel that was left... oh, they got rid of THAT but not because of explosives but because there was so little of it left.

Keep in mind they got rid of the steel, China didn't want all the dust, concrete and other office building stuff, why not dig around in all that for 'explosives'? Nobody cares if you do. Jones has even claimed to have found something in the dust - SO WHAT?!! Is it true? Is anybody doing anything about it?

Ha, I bet if someone found sticks of dynamite it wouldn't make the tv or newspapers! Or any difference at all.

Like, how totally controlled was it? Evidence is being destroyed for what reason? You sure you're on the right track?


Cheers



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 





Yes a silly example but the point is, what, half a stick? A cap? Some wire? What? And how much of 'what' would it take to make a difference? Very very little. It's not worth the risk frankly. And it seems inconsistent with all the controlled planning on the other hand etc.



Or maybe some thermite residue?

How much is enough then?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by TupacShakur
On the other hand, we have what scientists, researchers, architects, and engineers are telling us, which is that there is evidence that shows that the official story cannot be true.


I've pointed this out before, but the architects and structural engineers that have signed the petition on 911truth are a very small minority. I calculated it on another thread and as I recall it was around 0.3% of registered professionals.


From Wikipedia:-

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by -W1LL
 


No severe damage to WTC 7

Richard Rotanz of New York City OEM made an assessment of the building around noon

Here is what he found


Around 1230 Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7. On the exterior he sees the upper 10-15 floors of Tower 7 on fire. "The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out, he says. "You see columns gone. You see floors damaged and you see heavy black smoke and fire."

He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.

"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."

Around 1400 According to Nist: "Around 2pm fires were observed in photographic and videographic records to be burning across floors 11 and 12 on the east face, from the south to the north." (Nist interim report on WTC 7, Chapter 1. Page 18 )


Columns gone, holes ripped in floors, elevators thrown from their shafts, creaking noises and debris falling .....

Is that severe enough for you

You said you dont beleive the reports of the Firefighters or police because "not experts"

So who is an expert in your opinion?

Clowns like Richard Gage, or Steven Jones who were nowhere near WTC 7 that day

People in mommys basement posting nonsense ?

While maybe not having a sheepskin firefighters are expert in building construction

Every FF is taught principles of building construction and how will react to fire They see everything "up close
and personal" from stripping buildings down to their studs looking for pockets of fire

In my town we conduct walkthroughs of new construction to familiarize ourselves with the building layout
and construction details in case have to respond there

Hardwon experience passed down the ages is what they base their decsions on



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
If anyone found anything suspicious in all those piles of debris, well, you couldn't on the one hand be so careful selling an Official Story and removing all the "evidence" and on the other hand let a bunch of people all be digging around in there.

This whole "All the steel was sold to China" I suspect is being sold to you not because the remnants of steel beams show explosive residue but rather there just wasn't as much steel even left that should've realistically been there in the first place.

Keep in mind they got rid of the steel, China didn't want all the dust, concrete and other office building stuff, why not dig around in all that for 'explosives'? Nobody cares if you do. Jones has even claimed to have found something in the dust - SO WHAT?!! Is it true? Is anybody doing anything about it?


The nature of the debris is the suspicious evidence. The way the 'investigation' was run at the Fresh Kills Landfill and at the WTC site encouraged people to see it as a search for evidence among the debris rather than regarding the debris itself as evidence.

A British bomb disposal technician said "Well where's all the steel? I've worked on loads of car bombs and things like that. There's always a lot of wreckage. Where's all the steel?" It's only a visual assessment made as he sat in front of the television, but I'd be more inclined to take him seriously than someone lacking practical experience. This particular man socialises mainly with British special forces. I take some comfort in the knowledge that some British special forces are aware of the missing steel issue. They aren't saying much, talking isn't their speciality. I haven't seen any evidence to support the 'sold to China' story. Just assertions that this happened.

A genuine investigation into the nature of the 40 acres of debris on the Fresh Kills Landfill will give us some indication of what happened.

I'm of the opinion that the old, degraded explosives built in to the reinforced concrete infill panels and other locations at the time of construction were encouraged to detonate by a DEW, possibly making use of the substation under building 7 for power. I also think the missing steel can be seen in the dust cloud that was visible with the naked eye from the space station. So far I've sold two T shirts. One customer returned his and demanded a refund. The other uses his to clean his car windows. It isn't a very popular opinion. But it is mine.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 




You said you dont beleive the reports of the Firefighters or police because "not experts"

So who is an expert in your opinion?

Clowns like Richard Gage, or Steven Jones who were nowhere near WTC 7 that day

People in mommys basement posting nonsense ?

While maybe not having a sheepskin firefighters are expert in building construction


And when the firefighters say they heard explosions you will say that they are not experts in demolition or blasting.

This is all so terribly tedious.

Speak to the fact themselves.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Originally posted by huh2142
In the gif you used to compare 7WTC to a controlled demo you left out the portion where the penthouses collapsed at the beginning.

A portion of the building falling off isn't a total building collapse. The total collapse started at the beginning of that .gif.


BoneZ, you must be aware that that gif is blatantly dishonest. You can't pick a time that suits you and pretend that is where the collapse of WTC 7 starts.

You talk of a "portion of the building falling off" but nothing fell off did it ? The penthouse fell IN because its supports were obviously failing and it was the first visible sign of the total collapse.

I think this video shows the position pretty clearly and people can make up their own minds how long the collapse took, without being suckered by deliberately misleading gifs.

www.youtube.com...












posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur

Appendix C of the FEMA report also described sulfur residues on the WTC steel. Sulfur slightly lowers the melting point of iron. Thermite mixed with sulfur is an incendiary called thermate, and produces a lower melting point and accelerated results. While it is not explosive, it can cut through steel, and also produces molten iron during it's reaction.

In the dust that was collected after the towers collapse, there were iron microspheres found, indiciating that the iron was previously molten, allowing the surface tension to pull it into a sphere. These spheres contained iron, with smaller portions of aluminum, sulfur, and trace portions of manganese and potassium. These spheres were found in all of the dust regardless of where the sample was taken from in Manhattan. A chemical reaction had to have taken place in order to provide the extreme temperatures needed to turn steel molten, and thermite would do the trick.

Not only was evidence of thermitic reactions in the form of by-products found, but partially and totally unreacted nanothermite chips were found in the dust as well.
The extremely small particle size it what qualifies it as "nanothermite" as opposed to regular thermite. Remember that thermite can be used to slice through and destroy steel. These nanothermite chips are explored in detail in the paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


Based on your erroneous post, I feel obligated to point out the inconsistencies in the claim of "nano-thermite" and the implication that thermate was present. Sulfur found on the chips was said, in the paper, to be contamination from the tons of drywall [CaSO4.2H2O] that lined the buildings. There were no nitrogenous compounds in the chips meaning no nitrates were present. The red chips are not Thermate.

The paper described using a magnet to separate samples and that the red chips tested were magnetic. Iron microspheres are also magnetic. Any microspheres in the dust of the buildings would be included with the chips. Iron microspheres would form where iron was melted. Do you think any welding was ever done when the building was constructed?
The picture in your post shows a red chip with a spherical particle attached. Note that the red chip is still there. The highly energetic material ignited and then just went out before it was done burning in the DSC oven. More paint-like than thermite-like. Then we have the 'iron sphere' comment. None of the spheres in the photo is 'iron.' There are other elements in them. Call them 'iron containing aluminosilicates.' Next we look at the comment that was made in the paper you referenced that there were 10 to 100 tons of such material in the dust. Unreacted. The unreacted material is in thin layers on oxidized steel, as though it was painted on the structure. It is red, matching the paint on the steel. Why is so much of it unreacted? How many tons reacted and what did those tons do?
Thermite works through heat transfer. Thermite acts much more slowly than explosives and is not as predictable a demolition agent. It's effects cannot be accurately timed and it is too slow to be used in a sequential collapse. As a paint-on layer, it would do little if it could be ignited at all.
The idea that thermite was used in a timed demolition sequence is easily rebutted. Jones' paper is inconclusive.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


That isn't an argumnet ad populum. He's pointing out that it's odd - and indeed detrimental to notions of conspiracy - that so many structural engineers and architects are satisfied with the "OS". Which isn't quite the same.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
I'm of the opinion that the old, degraded explosives built in to the reinforced concrete infill panels and other locations at the time of construction were encouraged to detonate by a DEW, possibly making use of the substation under building 7 for power. I also think the missing steel can be seen in the dust cloud that was visible with the naked eye from the space station. So far I've sold two T shirts. One customer returned his and demanded a refund. The other uses his to clean his car windows. It isn't a very popular opinion. But it is mine.


How does a DEW detonate explosives in concrete? How can it do sequential demolitions while moving overhead? What energies were necessary to initiate explosives through concrete? What acted as the antennae? How many charges were there and what size were they? If you have a theory, you should have a complete theory.
So far, the only explosive demolition theory that went further than "it was explosives what did it" said that it was magnetically attached C4 set by fake repairmen via access through elevator shafts. When asked about locations, charge size, and other details, that poster went away. Maybe he is calculating and will come back with a theory. None of the 'explosive experts' that 'spoke out' is able to postulate a detailed theory that can be tested for consistency.

Consider selling the remaining t-shirt as a rare example of 21st century humor.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by -W1LL

the fire dept. was told to evacuate because it was known by some that the bldg would be pulled.


You only need one additional piece of evidence to support this nonsense. Produce even one legitimate Firefighter not afflicted with dementia who supports this bull flop nonsense...



I dont need to produce anything the witnesses Police firefighters and civilians are all out there for you to read and Mock if that is how you choose to take their testimony of the events...
and to call all of these firefighters demented is a sad play on your end, why the hate? these same demented firefighters give their lives every day for you show some respect.


You don't read and comprehend very well, do you? All you've done is create a strawman.

The firemen were evacuated because the building was deemed unsafe, not because of some "truther" contrived twisting of the term "pull". There was also no water to fight the fire, so an evacuation of the building was very sensible.

Then you've directly distorted my question obviously regarding ANY firefighter advocating Controlled Demolition. There are NONE, so it's obvious why you attempt to distort the question and create a strawman. Also, I didn't say all firefighter were demented, you simply distorted my comment to further attempt to divert attention from the fact that you CAN NOT produce firemen who support the Controlled Demolition Bull Flop.
edit on 16-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

Around 1230 Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7. On the exterior he sees the upper 10-15 floors of Tower 7 on fire. "The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out, he says. "You see columns gone. You see floors damaged and you see heavy black smoke and fire."

He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.

"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."



Please provide a link or source for this information...


ETA:
From what I can find about Rotanz he also claimed the North Tower was "in danger of a near imminent collapse"... and he made this guess while standing in the LOBBY! So he either somehow was one of the few insiders who knew about the explosives or he miraculously guessed that because I ceiling panel in the Lobby fell that somehow 80 floors above him was about to implode.


edit on 16-1-2012 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 







Hi, my name is Niels Harrit,



"I have a Master and PhD in Chemistry and I'm Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen and I have been so for almost 40 years. I have published close to 60 peer-reviewed papers in the best journals and currently I'm involved with research in x-ray timed spectroscopy...
In the dust we found what we characterize as unreacted thermitic material in the shape of some very tiny red-grey chips which have different properties, most importantly is they're still react[ant] and in the reaction they produce molten iron which is the prime indication of a thermitic reaction and such a reaction can be used to destroy steel structures.
What we have found is the modern version of thermite, which we call nanothermite which is produced in a different way, it is not just two powders being mixed the material is actually built from the atom scale up."



Hi, I'm pteridine,



I use a lot of big words online... and I think it's paint.







* Source is the video from the OP at 1:35:00 to 1:40:00 or so

edit on 16-1-2012 by Thermo Klein because: typo in quote




top topics



 
137
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join