Finally there is an independent investigation, and not a word about it on ATS?

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet

And yet not a word about it from the OS'ers
edit on 1-3-2012 by coyotepoet because: link


Actually almost all the discussion about this has come from non-TM sources. It's been an item of interest in left-leaning circles for years, and indeed I recall lengthy exchanges about it on various (non TM) blogs. You haven't heard about that because presumably all your discussion is either with other Truthers or "debunkers" - who naturally largely discuss aspects brought up by the "Truth Movement".




posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
well interesting stuff in the paper....and a lovely report....but i would like people to campare the reports both side by side....I am looking and finding that they both say the same things...and show similar chemical components..


They do show very similar things, as we would expect. From Harrits paper it is already pretty clear that Al is bonded with Si. Millette confirmed it beyond any reasonable doubt.


but i will say i am not a chemist....but now what we need is for someone the clocted the same samples...the samples from harit.....and the samples from the Millette papers and do the exact same tests indepently on all 8 samples....and it should be a blind study.

Millette paper

Harit paper

now as for all the bashing about the harit study...here they are side by side....if Harit et al was such a disasterous study then look at them side by and see which one seems the better documented study.

But besides that i hope someone with more skills than i will check them both out thoroughly and show the differences in the papers.....but like many online are saying this does not prove anything either way....as there will be it would seem even more questions than answers.



Harrits work is mainly bashed because his conclusions in no way follow from the experiments he did. I don't think the experiments themselves are criticized that much, there is no obvious reason to think the results are wrong or forged. The problem is that the experiments are not conclusive for what Harrit wanted to achieve.

Some key issues you can make up from Harrits paper: there is a very high correlation between the location of Al and Si in figure 10 (c and e), very strongly suggesting that the two are bonded. Meaning no elemental Al and no thermite or thermitic reaction. Another give away that this is not thermite is the very small amount of Al, O and Fe (the elements that make up thermite) in figure 7. Mark Basile (a truther) showed that the combined amount of Al, O and Fe is less than 5%.

Millette pertty much confirms beyond any doubt that was already pretty obvious but inconclusive in Harrits paper that the chips are not thermite or thermitic, and goes even further by identifying is as a type of paint.

You can also look from it from a different point of view, if the red chips are not paint, then where did all the paint go? Why hasn't there been a single red chip found that actually is paint, while the dust should be full of it? Answer is of course simple, all those red chips are the paint that would otherwise be missing from the dust.

Anyway, if this report isn't going to convince you that the red chips are not thermite, nothing will.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


for me i am just looking at two reports with different results objectively...i have alswys stated...I don't know what brought the buildings down.....i just believe from experience the building industry and design....that planes+kerosene+bad design brought down three steel structures id a CD look alike senario....

knowing that in blg seven there wasn#t a plane involved....knowing how other buildings in the vincinity took large debris hits and suffered far worse fire damage....yet still stand.....

Now in both these papers experiments were carried out...and they both appear on the surface to do a good job of analysis....so the question is does one just believe one and not the other....

IMHO this is not going to answer anything...i am very pleased that this initiative was under taken.....now it would be nice to see if more of this would could be done with various dust sample...and that instead of attacking each other a collaborative effort could be brought forward where all parties concerned could be brought to do a thorough analysis.

Not going to happen is it......but this also leads down another road.....why originally was not extensive tesing done....oh right because it was not within the scope of NIST.

you see i don't really side with either piece of work......and not knowing the actual formulation of the paint provided does not help but could easily be dealt with.....if the powers that be would let the scientific community have access to the evidence.....what would be so hard about that.....I could say from the perspective of the GOV......fear that someone might find out there is more to it.
edit on 063131p://f28Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





Actually almost all the discussion about this has come from non-TM sources. It's been an item of interest in left-leaning circles for years, and indeed I recall lengthy exchanges about it on various (non TM) blogs. You haven't heard about that because presumably all your discussion is either with other Truthers or "debunkers" - who naturally largely discuss aspects brought up by the "Truth Movement".


Makes sense.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Okay then why was metal spewing out of the building? I have no faith in the samples tested were actually from the same area in question. Sure they may be from the building itself but I doubt they used the correct area samples...

I could sell you some debris and say it's from the towers but if it were me, unless I was there to pick it up myself, or had a TRUSTED person do it for me, I can not trust the sample 100%...

Even if thermite was not used it does not mean something else wasn't and does not explain the cut pillars... among a long, long, LONG list of others...



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz
Okay then why was metal spewing out of the building? I have no faith in the samples tested were actually from the same area in question. Sure they may be from the building itself but I doubt they used the correct area samples...

I could sell you some debris and say it's from the towers but if it were me, unless I was there to pick it up myself, or had a TRUSTED person do it for me, I can not trust the sample 100%...

Even if thermite was not used it does not mean something else wasn't and does not explain the cut pillars... among a long, long, LONG list of others...


What was the area in question? The UPS floor spewing molten lead or some other place? The cut pillars were cut during the cleanup.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz
Okay then why was metal spewing out of the building? I have no faith in the samples tested were actually from the same area in question. Sure they may be from the building itself but I doubt they used the correct area samples...

I could sell you some debris and say it's from the towers but if it were me, unless I was there to pick it up myself, or had a TRUSTED person do it for me, I can not trust the sample 100%...

Even if thermite was not used it does not mean something else wasn't and does not explain the cut pillars... among a long, long, LONG list of others...


What was the area in question? The UPS floor spewing molten lead or some other place? The cut pillars were cut during the cleanup.


Really? Do you have proof? I'm asking because I have never seen a quote that says they had to cut the pillars. Interesting for sure. The area would be more then just one sample. There was a ton of debris so does that mean "if" thermite was used it would be on every inch of it? I wouldn't think so. I am not type of scientist so I leave this up to others to explain to me so I do understand better.

I'm getting educated... great to learn something new each day... or I feel it was wasted...



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Why is this on James Randi's forum? By the sheer association I have to consider they're out to debunk this not set forth an independent investigation.
That's like asking Larry Silverstein to lead the team!

James Randi is to paranormal as Phage is to ATS
edit on 2-3-2012 by Human_Alien because: sentence structure



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Okay okay, I'll bite. Forget the James Randi connection. Maybe irrelevant but of ALL forums, I find that one to be interesting.

First I have to ask, was that dust-piece authenticated as dust from WTC buildings? If so, how? Many buildings were in ruins afterward, how can they tell WTC dust from Holiday Inn dust?

Now, where does it say that every single molecule of dust would contain traces of thermite? Is every single piece of dust, inflicted? What if for argument sake, denotations were set off: In basement. 10th, 20th, 30th, 40th, 50th, 60th and 70th floor. Would dust.....from the 110th story, show signs of thermite from the floors below?

Is kerosene compound stronger than thermite?

Could 3 months of fire extinguishing and fire-hose water, saturate and dissipate traces of thermite? Or is thermite everywhere, at all times, forever and ever?



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz

Really? Do you have proof? I'm asking because I have never seen a quote that says they had to cut the pillars. Interesting for sure. The area would be more then just one sample. There was a ton of debris so does that mean "if" thermite was used it would be on every inch of it? I wouldn't think so. I am not type of scientist so I leave this up to others to explain to me so I do understand better.

I'm getting educated... great to learn something new each day... or I feel it was wasted...


The pillar cuts are a well discussed topic. Photos of workers cutting the pillars at angles are in many threads. The search function will lead you to it.
Thermite effects are not timable for demolitions. This means that you could start a collapse with thermite but that after than, gravity would have to do the job.
As was pointed out on many occasions, the towers were covered in red paint. That is what Jones found, analyzed, and misinterpreted, not thermite.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz

Really? Do you have proof? I'm asking because I have never seen a quote that says they had to cut the pillars. Interesting for sure. The area would be more then just one sample. There was a ton of debris so does that mean "if" thermite was used it would be on every inch of it? I wouldn't think so. I am not type of scientist so I leave this up to others to explain to me so I do understand better.

I'm getting educated... great to learn something new each day... or I feel it was wasted...


The pillar cuts are a well discussed topic. Photos of workers cutting the pillars at angles are in many threads. The search function will lead you to it.
Thermite effects are not timable for demolitions. This means that you could start a collapse with thermite but that after than, gravity would have to do the job.
As was pointed out on many occasions, the towers were covered in red paint. That is what Jones found, analyzed, and misinterpreted, not thermite.


Okay but back to my question...

Just because they did not find it on thatsample does not mean it is not on other debris if there are tons of it. The thermite could be on other pieces buried. In other words, it would not be detectable on every single piece. Yes I have seen pictures of workers cutting the pillars but they were examples and not actual pictures of the site. I know where and how to use the search function, thank you... neways... if thermite could be used to start it, as you stated, then I still do not see where your proof is. Between all the statements from professionals that say this was a controlled demolition, to your sample evidence that IMO proved nada, I'll stick with the pros on this one...



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
TURNER CONSTRUCTION
2nd



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Okay okay, I'll bite. Forget the James Randi connection. Maybe irrelevant but of ALL forums, I find that one to be interesting.

First I have to ask, was that dust-piece authenticated as dust from WTC buildings? If so, how? Many buildings were in ruins afterward, how can they tell WTC dust from Holiday Inn dust?

Now, where does it say that every single molecule of dust would contain traces of thermite? Is every single piece of dust, inflicted? What if for argument sake, denotations were set off: In basement. 10th, 20th, 30th, 40th, 50th, 60th and 70th floor. Would dust.....from the 110th story, show signs of thermite from the floors below?

Is kerosene compound stronger than thermite?

Could 3 months of fire extinguishing and fire-hose water, saturate and dissipate traces of thermite? Or is thermite everywhere, at all times, forever and ever?


This is what I asked pteridine but he answered it like a politician... No real answer... Is it really that hard to say "I don't know" and cut your losses?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   


As was pointed out on many occasions, the towers were covered in red paint. That is what Jones found, analyzed, and misinterpreted, not thermite.


I think Jones and others would know the difrence between red paint and thermite don't you.

Still some people will beleive just about anything like $2.3tr going missing the day before the buildings fell over and never being accounted for or the buildings being sold for the first time just months before they fell over but not before they were double insured and what about all the short options being put on airlines just before these buildings fell over that all turned to fairy dust as no one could trace the money.

Hate to break it to you but santa claus does not exists in the real world outside of hollywood and the earth is not flat.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SmArTbEaTz
 


We are also not certain there is no kryptonite in the WTC dust.

Point being, the burden of proof is with the person making a claim. Proving a negative is often impossible. This study was done to specifically to confirm the results of Harrit, with a negative result. The truth movement is back at square one with their thermite theory (although you can argue that square one was never even left).



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





The truth movement is back at square one with their thermite theory


Again that only answers one aspect if it even does that. I agree with others who have said that saying that James Randi is an independent investigator is a bit like saying that J Edgar Hoover was uncomprimised.

There are plenty of other questions to answer before this one can finally be put to bed.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by -PLB-
 





The truth movement is back at square one with their thermite theory


Again that only answers one aspect if it even does that. I agree with others who have said that saying that James Randi is an independent investigator is a bit like saying that J Edgar Hoover was uncomprimised.

There are plenty of other questions to answer before this one can finally be put to bed.


But the study wasn't carried out by James Randi was it. But by Dr James Millette, member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





But the study wasn't carried out by James Randi was it. But by Dr James Millette, member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.


Fine, but that is still only one aspect.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
For the life of me I don't know how on earth this so-called bombing theory ever even caught traction.

Its the most insane theory ever making those that question 9/11 look absolutely loony.

It would have taken round the clock teams of people to open walls, install bombs and wiring and close the walls back up.

This could never have been done without people seeing what was going on.

Common sense is all it takes to tell you that it was the way the actual structures were built and the impact of the planes coupled with fire and weight which brought them down.

WTC7 came down as a result of burning fuel tanks located under it which fueled the entire complex and then some.

Im not saying there isn't something wrong here. I firmly believe it was a set up involving our government and others to propagate this decade long war but cmon,,,,,enough of this nonsense.

Use some common sense otherwise it is pointless.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CalibratedZeus
reply to post by St Udio
 



They washed off the particles of interest so those particles could be put under a microscope. They did not, as I assume you were thinking, wash the particles off, discard them, and then look at the paint. And it was clean water to prevent any outside contamination....

The point of this was to see if traces of thermite were in the dust particles found on the red marking that many thought were thermite residue. It is now shown to just be red paint with dust on it.


Was it thermite or was it traces of chemicals known to "ALSO" exist in thermite.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum