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.

 

9/11: Where the evidence has led me so far

page: 10
50
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Another10Pin

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by petrus4
 



The WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition using thermite. I am completely, 100% convinced of it at this point.


I always get a good chuckle out of that one. Thermite. Ever seen thermite used for real? In the real world, not on some video. Its amazing stuff, seen quite a bit myself. Know what one of the hallmarks of thermite use is? I'll tell you - blinding bright light. Literally blinding. Can cause serious damage. And thats with just a small amount of thermite, let alone the tons and tons that would have been necessary to cut through all that steel on the towers. You would have been able to see it for miles even on a bright sunny day.


I don't know anything about thermite. But I am curious, since the beams are an internal part of the structure, would people still have been able to see it?


You might be interested in this recent report by Dr James Millette, member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He investigated 4 samples of WTC dust but found no thermite :-

dl.dropbox.com...





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


What does this mean? It's from the report that you linked?




posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another10Pin


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


What does this mean? It's from the report that you linked?


I'm no expert, but it simply means that they identified what the red and gray chips were (as resin with rust and kaolin pigments), but they're not entirely certain what put them there. One theory was that the chips were part of the primer paint (anti-rust coating) for the steel members in the tower, but their analysis seems to not match the particular formula of paint used in the towers. It could be from any number of paints or materials.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Another10Pin
 


Dr Millette thinks it's paint but he hasn't identified a specific paint. It's not thermite.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Going back to read that again.


edit on 2012/4/23 by Another10Pin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Thanks for that pdf. Informative, though I must say, 4 samples isn't exactly a large sample size, and considering they were each gathered from various blocks of the city as opposed to ground-zero... well, it's just a shame the steel was snatched up so quickly and destroyed. Would've been a much more reliable testing source.

Epoxy and kaolin.... hmmm... I can't help but think of how much more practical an epoxy resin would have been to apply a thermitic "box-cutter"[see video] as opposed to bolting it on...

I reference an article on strengthening epoxy with kaolin, coincidentally published a month before 9/11...

Epoxy resin modification with kaolin as toughener - Journal of Applied Polymer Science

Stretch of a suggestion, I admit.

As far as thermite being seen miles away, it could have very well been applied inside the box steel, applied to bolt heads or what have you, and never really seen from outside.
edit on 23-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Thanks for that pdf. Informative, though I must say, 4 samples isn't exactly a large sample size, and considering they were each gathered from various blocks of the city as opposed to ground-zero... well, it's just a shame the steel was snatched up so quickly and destroyed. Would've been a much more reliable testing source.

Epoxy and kaolin.... hmmm... I can't help but think of how much more practical an epoxy resin would have been to apply a thermitic "box-cutter"[see video] as opposed to bolting it on...

I reference an article on strengthening epoxy with kaolin, coincidentally published a month before 9/11...

Epoxy resin modification with kaolin as toughener - Journal of Applied Polymer Science

Stretch of a suggestion, I admit.

As far as thermite being seen miles away, it could have very well been applied inside the box steel, applied to bolt heads or what have you, and never really seen from outside.
edit on 23-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)


You say 4 WTC dust samples "isn't exactly a large sample size". Care to tell me of anyone who has used more, including Steven Jones ?

Care to tell me where Steven Jones samples were supposedly taken from.

So far as WTC steel is concerned there is plenty at hangar 17, JFK airport :-

www.911memorial.org...



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Why are you bringing up Jones? I didn't say a word of him. As for the steel, has it been tested for trace evidence?

ETA: he was the one referenced in the video, though, correct? or was he the one who produced it?
edit on 23-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)


ETA: and 4 is a rather small number, regardless of any comparison. It's a sample, though, and I respect that.
I wasn't knocking the motivation, only the sample size.
edit on 23-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Here's the specific 9/11 video from Ryan Dawson with major updates from War by Deception. It covers the reports of secondary explosions, witnesses from the basement, lobby, and even the subway, along with the maintenance on the elevator and sprinkler systems performed shortly before the attacks and the related companies.

9/11 and the cover-up
edit on 23-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


Don't stop now, 912. You have him on the ropes with your rebutle post . Finish with this sentence from his OWN report ... FROM the CONCLUSION.

"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 nanothermite."



SO....Red is not nano thermite ( but is some kind of fancy unrecognizable paint) but what about the GREY ? Are we looking for truth suposed to forget about the GREY layer ?

So sad that this is the level of evidence presented . I want to thank alfie for this pdf. If this is all that the OS can produce then i hope one world one peace is the way to be .



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by onlnpkr
reply to post by jlm912
 


Don't stop now, 912. You have him on the ropes with your rebutle post . Finish with this sentence from his OWN report ... FROM the CONCLUSION.


I prefer to be kind to Alfie. He might be a member of the proverbial OpFor, but he seems well-intentioned. As such, while refutation is good, I'm not going to draw analogies with physical violence...in his specific case.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by onlnpkr
reply to post by jlm912
 


Don't stop now, 912. You have him on the ropes with your rebutle post . Finish with this sentence from his OWN report ... FROM the CONCLUSION.

"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 nanothermite."



SO....Red is not nano thermite ( but is some kind of fancy unrecognizable paint) but what about the GREY ? Are we looking for truth suposed to forget about the GREY layer ?

So sad that this is the level of evidence presented . I want to thank alfie for this pdf. If this is all that the OS can produce then i hope one world one peace is the way to be .


You just didn't understand the report did you ? Dr Millette says that "analysis of the cross sections of the gray layer in the red/gray chips showed it to be primarily iron consistent with a carbon steel." In other words the red layer had been painted on steel and there is no evidence of thermite anywhere.

So far as " the level of evidence " is concerned; the report is by a Ph.D member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences so it is about as good as it gets.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
To be clear, my statement wasn't a rebuttal, rather more of a clarification, but I'm positive Alfie's aware of that.

In fact, I'd like to offer a suggestion in favor of the theory he stated. Kaolin is used as an extension for titanium dioxide in paints for gloss-effect, yet this is not covered in the report. Titanium dioxide was found in the samples [see figure 16, p.17 of the report] and with gloss in mind, I don't think this stuff was on the structural steel at all, which would explain why it doesn't match up with known primers/paints. I actually think these particles may be from the aircraft... Someone should look into paints used in related planes.

That being said, I will say this in defense of the thermitics theory: the absence of evidence thus far does not disprove it's validity. The theory practically required it being directly on the structural steel, and that's where I believe evidence should be sought out.
edit on 24-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912
That being said, I will say this in defense of the thermitics theory: the absence of evidence thus far does not disprove it's validity. The theory practically required it being directly on the structural steel, and that's where I believe evidence should be sought out.


Agreed. The evidence, as far as I am concerned, is not absent. In the case of the report mentioned by Alfie, it is simply being sought in the wrong place.

As you say, jlm, thermite is a material which requires direct contact with the metal it cuts. As such, evidence for the presence of thermite should not be sought in a remote location, but within the most immediate possible proximity of the World Trade Center.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Oh yeah...another 9/11 killing spree...

I'd would like to just add one bit of funny info...

Apparently, during the London 2005 terrorist bombing, they were also running a terrorist drill, dealing with the exact same scenario, exact same location. What a wonderful world of coincidences we are living in...

London Bombing coincidence

Also...more on the coincidences on 9/11


Hang in there OP...



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Oh yeah...another 9/11 killing spree...

I'd would like to just add one bit of funny info...

Apparently, during the London 2005 terrorist bombing, they were also running a terrorist drill, dealing with the exact same scenario, exact same location. What a wonderful world of coincidences we are living in...

London Bombing coincidence

Also...more on the coincidences on 9/11

Hang in there OP...


Thanks, Mario.


There was a particular film that mentioned the London bombing; I can't remember whether it was Zeitgeist 1 or 2, but I think it was one of them.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Another10Pin
 


yeah, let's just fo'getaboutit. why bother, eh? lol most of the people are retarded
and ignorant so why should anyone waste their precious time investigating 9/11
or merely discussing about it?

on a side note, 9/11 is actually pretty easy when it comes to "beliefs".
either you believe your eyes when you see tv footage depicting all of the
(three) collapses or... you don't.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by psyop911
 


That's oversimplifying it a bit...but that again...is your choice to make.

Perhaps when you come to know the depths of media deception and how it is done to us on everyday basis, you wouldn't be so quick to believe everything you see on the tube.

Somebody mentioned North Korea and how they are "crazy"...you know why 9/11 happened, because, there are in America, as in any other country, people that will cry if their president dies. People do that...they cry about somebody they've seen on TV. They are living proof that people are suckers. They worship those fanatics as if they are the second coming of Christ himself. They go to these rallies, cheering and dancing, as if they'd won some kind a prize. They are willing to kill for their candidate...kill another human being. They deem political candidates as some higher beings which need to be adored and celebrated.

This is why i'm not surprised that 9/11 succeeded...majority of people will believe the "higher" authority. That divine president. It is a romantic notion that people have that their political representative is working for their benefit...he wouldn't lie. No sir. He would never attack his own for money. No way.
That's just wild conspiratory blasfemy. Because you see...integrity, honor and truth are the values that a today's politician ranks pretty high on his list of must-have personality traits. In a capitalist society, you need to be honest and truthful if you are to succeed.

This is why i declare that all this conspiracy crap must stop. Mr. Bush and Mr. Dick are honest god fearing individuals, who only have their country's best in their interest.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Oh yeah...another 9/11 killing spree...

I'd would like to just add one bit of funny info...

Apparently, during the London 2005 terrorist bombing, they were also running a terrorist drill, dealing with the exact same scenario, exact same location. What a wonderful world of coincidences we are living in...

London Bombing coincidence

Also...more on the coincidences on 9/11


Hang in there OP...


Dont forget the madrid bombings too, the terrorists made a very large effort to leave traces, muslim tapes and everything...



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Juanxlink
 


Hey man...that's just....a big coincidence...

Anyway...if you are planning a terrorist attack, it makes perfect sense to leave as many clues pointing to you as you can. You don't want investigators to crack their heads about who did this act. We know this is the way to do it, because all the cool therrorists are using this MO. It's the latest craze...

Also, if some explosive action is planned, be sure to notify the local authorities, so they can monitor the success of the act right there on the spot, so that nothing goes terribly wrong.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by jlm912
That being said, I will say this in defense of the thermitics theory: the absence of evidence thus far does not disprove it's validity. The theory practically required it being directly on the structural steel, and that's where I believe evidence should be sought out.


Agreed. The evidence, as far as I am concerned, is not absent. In the case of the report mentioned by Alfie, it is simply being sought in the wrong place.

As you say, jlm, thermite is a material which requires direct contact with the metal it cuts. As such, evidence for the presence of thermite should not be sought in a remote location, but within the most immediate possible proximity of the World Trade Center.


If you look at the locations from which the samples came in Dr Millette's report you will see that they are in close proximity to the WTC site but not from ground zero itself.

The only information that I have on the Jones/Harrit samples is that one came from the Brooklyn Bridge and one from an apartment about 5 blocks from the WTC site. The other two samples I don't know but were not from ground zero.

In fact all the samples show the same characteristics so I am quite happy to accept all are genuine. We have all seen footage of voluminous clouds of dust chasing people down streets and the spread of dust must have been considerable.

But anyway, if you want to dismiss Dr Millette's report on the basis that the samples did not come from ground zero itself you must also dismiss Jones/Harrit even more emphatically. In the which case there is still zero evidence for thermite at the WTC site.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join