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.

 

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

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Dissappointed about your misleading title. It is an investigation of 1 aspect of it and proves nothing.
Now, if there were a real independent investigation including the dancing Israeli's, Bldg 7, the testimony of people saying bombs went off in the basement, etc-that would be something to talk about. As it is all I see from this is that it's far from case closed



OIL TANKS went off in the basement. Not bombs. OIL TANKS

thats what caused the collapse.




posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
In answer to the OP question:
It's not burning up the ATS website because ATS truthers never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

To the last poster: It does put to rest the thermite debate. But no it's not an entire 911 reinvestigation.

And believers in the 9/11 OS just love to generalise, don't they?, thereby missing the mark as usual with their criticisms. What you fail to realise is that many 9/11 truthers never believed in the first place in the findings by Steve Jones et al. It was dodgy science that was defending a hypothesis that always seemed irrelevant as a significant cause of the destruction of the towers, for the US government could always explain the presence of thermate, if they were forced to admit it in any new official investigation or court case, by suggesting that it had been secretly sprayed on the columns years ago in order to facilitate the eventual controlled demolition of the towers. The thermate hypothesis was kept alive by the unwillingness of Jones' followers to lose face by admitting the scientific evidence was a matter of interpretation at best and poor in quality at worst.

As others have pointed out, this new finding is totally irrelevant to the main issue of 9/11 being an inside job and merely discredits the work of a Pied Piper scientist and his band of acolytes, whom many of us have felt was discredited long ago when Jones was caught in his first scientific paper on 9/11 changing the colour of a photo that showed fire fighters peering down a hole so that he could create the illusion that they were looking at a pool of molten steel that needed thermate to create it.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


What is "the main issue of 9/11"?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by micpsi
 


What is "the main issue of 9/11"?


making money off of it anyway one can obviously.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I think we all just need to realize that the size and complexity of this event is to the point where any investigation is going to lead in different directions, plus emotions play a huge role in human nature and you never know who is being totally honest in any scenario.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 

source forums.randi.org...

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Results

In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1

Conclusions
Notes on the Source of the Red/Gray Chips
[/hilite]
At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some
small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) contain some information about product materials. According to the MSDS currently listed on the Tnemec website,17 55 out of the 177 different Tnemec coating products contain one or two of the three major components in the red layer: epoxy resin, iron oxide and/or kaolin (aluminum silicate) pigments. However, none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study.

Excuse my ignorance, but what good are unidentified chips? What does it prove?" Please enlighten me, so I can understand the significance of this study. Thank you.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hypattia
Excuse my ignorance, but what good are unidentified chips? What does it prove?" Please enlighten me, so I can understand the significance of this study. Thank you.


The significance was in the part of the conclusion that you didn't post (and I'm curious as to why you didn't)



There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.



edit on 3-3-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


I admit I am not expert, I just want to understand, and am willing to listen. This is the sentence I was referring to in the conclusion, is in the discussion of the conclusion.

"DOES NOT MATCH"

The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) DOES NOT MATCH the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hypattia
 


Here is an analogy: The drink was found to be a type of beer, and not a type of wine. The beer type did not match the characteristics of Heineken.

(beer = paint, wine = thermite, Tnemec = Heineken)

Harrit and his team claimed they found thermite. Millette showed, beyond any reasonable doubt, they were wrong, and concluded it was a type of paint that is not of the Tnemec brand. This of course all does not come as a shock as it was already pretty obvious from Harrits work itself. It is only "news" in the truth movement, as only members within the truth movement believed Harrit was right, of which a percentage will reject the conclusions of Millette anyway. The only thing that changes for them is that they can no longer use the argument that it has never been scientifically refuted in a peer reviewed paper.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz

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...


The same 'logic' can be used to say that if you don't test every part for every possibility then you might miss something. Search "logical fallacies" on your favorite search engine. Use that same engine to see workers cutting the pillars at the WTC site.
Thermite could be used cut a beam to initiate collapse but can't cut fast enough to clear every floor on the way down at only 200 milliseconds per floor. That was gravity. There is no evidence for any pre-planned demolition and I have so stated in many posts. The point is that thermite can't cut fast enough for a controlled demolition.
The person who only proved that he doesn't understand science was Jones, the would-be chemist. He is out of his depth and should stick to muons.
The "professionals" who said that this was a controlled demolition have no experience with uncontrolled demolitions or collapses on buidings of this size and design. In this case, their opinions are no more valid than anyone else's.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Master_007
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.



Jones does not know the difference between red paint and thermite. He started with a conclusion that thermite was present and tried to show that it was correct. He failed miserably and the data that shows his failure is present in his own paper. We can start discussing the thermodynamic inconsistencies and the failed analytical protocols of the Jones team or we can just discuss how any paint-on thermite wouldn't even warm the beam vey much if it could be ignited.
I hate to break it to you but not everything is a "false flag" operation or a "conspiracy"...outside of Hollywood, of course.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





We can start discussing the thermodynamic inconsistencies and the failed analytical protocols of the Jones team or we can just discuss how any paint-on thermite wouldn't even warm the beam vey much if it could be ignited.



Yes, lets do discuss thermodynamic inconsistencies, like the puddles of molten steel that were found. Not saying that it was thermite, but it was certainly something more than airplane fuel that melted the steel.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Seeing a few problems with this new analysis:

The sizes of particles varies between Milette's Methods Section and his Results sections.

Methods section indicates very small particles 10-20 nm, which is WAY smaller than what paint is when on a wall (per my previous posts and research into paint properties)

yet in his Results section he indicates "an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick."

100-200 IS typical of primer and paint on a wall.

WHY the change??

****

Also, as seen many times over the years the particles in the samples (from many studies including Millette's) show the particles lined up in uniform nano-particle order... this DOES NOT happen naturally, especially at the time the Twin Towers were originally painted.

****

Finally, Millette compares the red/grey samples and says they're indicative of "epoxy resin" and carbon steel. He obviously used a Scientific technique comparing one thing to another without openness to what the original is. This indicates his Ho was to disprove the nanothermite rather than have openness to any possibility. Doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong but DOES indicate his motive was not for truth but to disprove the nanothermite theory.

I don't buy it was a truly independant investigation because of the anomalous data changes between the Methods and Results sections as well as his poor Scientific process as mentioned above.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
and just one more MAJOR indicator this was not a truly independent open-expectation experiment:

This was added a s a "NOTE" at the end but actually discounts his alleged Result!!


Notes on the Source of the Red/Gray Chips

At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some
small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) contain some information about product materials. According to the MSDS currently listed on the Tnemec website,17 55 out of the 177 different Tnemec coating products contain one or two of the three major components in the red layer: epoxy resin, iron oxide and/or kaolin (aluminum silicate) pigments. However, none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study.


* No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips.

* none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study.


So he looked at the MSDS chemical info for 177 types of paint and NOT ONE matches the red layer of the red/grey chips... yet he postulates it was paint?

Maybe that's why this isn't making much news... nothing new here, just another person positing their preconceived (and incorrect) belief on the science.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Seeing a few problems with this new analysis:

The sizes of particles varies between Milette's Methods Section and his Results sections.

Methods section indicates very small particles 10-20 nm, which is WAY smaller than what paint is when on a wall (per my previous posts and research into paint properties)

yet in his Results section he indicates "an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick."

100-200 IS typical of primer and paint on a wall.

WHY the change??


Where in the method section is there an indication of 10-20 nm particles?


Also, as seen many times over the years the particles in the samples (from many studies including Millette's) show the particles lined up in uniform nano-particle order... this DOES NOT happen naturally, especially at the time the Twin Towers were originally painted.


What do you mean by line up? Which image shows this? And on what do you base that this does not happen "naturally"? (not sure if applied paint can be called natural).


Finally, Millette compares the red/grey samples and says they're indicative of "epoxy resin" and carbon steel. He obviously used a Scientific technique comparing one thing to another without openness to what the original is. This indicates his Ho was to disprove the nanothermite rather than have openness to any possibility. Doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong but DOES indicate his motive was not for truth but to disprove the nanothermite theory.


When you are going to identify something, you will first look at the most obvious possibilities. If you find a match, you are done. How should he have proceeded according to you? Compare it to a randomly picked material until a match is found? Don't you think that would be a time wasting silly method?

Besides, you can't make up from the report what materials he has compared it to besides an epoxy resin and kaolin. And its not really interesting to know either.


I don't buy it was a truly independant investigation because of the anomalous data changes between the Methods and Results sections as well as his poor Scientific process as mentioned above.

And what do you think about Harrits investigation?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
* No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips.


What are diatoms? Wiki says is a group of algae.


* none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study.


So he looked at the MSDS chemical info for 177 types of paint and NOT ONE matches the red layer of the red/grey chips... yet he postulates it was paint?


The car was compared with all Mercedes models, and no match was found. Still we are sure it is a car, as it shows all characteristics of one.


Maybe that's why this isn't making much news... nothing new here, just another person positing their preconceived (and incorrect) belief on the science.


And of course the reaction on ATS is also nothing new. Hand waving and personal attacks.
edit on 3-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by pteridine
 





We can start discussing the thermodynamic inconsistencies and the failed analytical protocols of the Jones team or we can just discuss how any paint-on thermite wouldn't even warm the beam vey much if it could be ignited.



Yes, lets do discuss thermodynamic inconsistencies, like the puddles of molten steel that were found. Not saying that it was thermite, but it was certainly something more than airplane fuel that melted the steel.


We are here referring to Jones' Bentham paper, not underground fires. Jones claimed thermite but his protocol was faulty and he provided the data in the same paper that show that his analyses were inconclusive, at best, and his conclusins were unsupported.
Get a copy of the paper [The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31] and look at Figure 30 "Energy release for monomolecular explosives HMX, TNT and TATB, for energetic composite Al/Fe2O3, [21] and energy release by mass for four red/gray chips found in the WTC dust as measured in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter."

As soon as you have this, let me know and we will begin the discussion.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





We are here referring to Jones' Bentham paper, not underground fires. Jones claimed thermite but his protocol was faulty and he provided the data in the same paper that show that his analyses were inconclusive, at best, and his conclusins were unsupported. Get a copy of the paper [The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31] and look at Figure 30 "Energy release for monomolecular explosives HMX, TNT and TATB, for energetic composite Al/Fe2O3, [21] and energy release by mass for four red/gray chips found in the WTC dust as measured in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter." As soon as you have this, let me know and we will begin the discussion.


Frankly I really don't care what "we" are referring to, I believe puddles of molten steel are relevant to the discussion as they certainly didn't get that way by airplane fuel as I said. If it's not thermite its certainly not the plane and if its not the plane then the OS is BS whether or not somebody did or didn't find thermite (or actually thermate) in paint chips.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by pteridine
 





We are here referring to Jones' Bentham paper, not underground fires. Jones claimed thermite but his protocol was faulty and he provided the data in the same paper that show that his analyses were inconclusive, at best, and his conclusins were unsupported. Get a copy of the paper [The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31] and look at Figure 30 "Energy release for monomolecular explosives HMX, TNT and TATB, for energetic composite Al/Fe2O3, [21] and energy release by mass for four red/gray chips found in the WTC dust as measured in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter." As soon as you have this, let me know and we will begin the discussion.



Frankly I really don't care what "we" are referring to, I believe puddles of molten steel are relevant to the discussion as they certainly didn't get that way by airplane fuel as I said. If it's not thermite its certainly not the plane and if its not the plane then the OS is BS whether or not somebody did or didn't find thermite (or actually thermate) in paint chips.


So you are unprepared to defend Jones' paper and concede that thermite was not found in the dust. That is a good first step on the path to reality. Now all you have to show is the puddles of molten steel that you claim to be present.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





So you are unprepared to defend Jones' paper and concede that thermite was not found in the dust. That is a good first step on the path to reality. Now all you have to show is the puddles of molten steel that you claim to be present.


Actually, I don't really give a s**t about Jones paper. Or this current one for that matter. It's the bigger picture that really matters and things like this and the more silly claims of the hardcore truthers are just cul de sacs meant to obfuscate and disinform. Personally I am neither a hardcore truther nor an OS tool. Regardless of what really happened, there has been enough evidence from many, many sources, including eyewitnesses and video that indicate that it did not happen the way the OS says it did. There are many unanswered questions but just because they are currently unanswered does not automatically make the OS true. I don't know what exactly happened but I know that the OS is a lie.

What is the legal standard? If there is doubt you can't convict. In this case there is boatloads of doubt but the OS'ers have convicted regardless.
edit on 4-3-2012 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join