It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 93
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:40 PM

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

What REAL science? A&E has none. They only have "opinions." It is your opinion that any noise is a demolition. Do you think all explosions are demolitions?

You need to
A&E has a lot of science stop lying.

You are the one that is lying about the demolition and the 500 creditable eyewitness that went on record STATING they heard EXPLOSIONS, they SAW explosions and some were in the explosions.

You can call everyone a lair all you want. The truth does not lie.

the red paint was not thermite and Jones' paper proved that.

Where did I ever say the red paint was thermite? You are now twisting my word and Jones paper just as you did years ago.

Now it is back to 'lies.' Can being called a 'liar' be far behind. You are sounding desperate.

I have NEVER lied in any of my post to you or anyone else in any ATS forums and that is a fact.

However for one to support the OS like you do, you are the one that is telling out right lies and deliberately twisting what I have stated.

Now who's the one lying now? The TRUTH does not need LIES to support it. Only the OS.

Thermite: Jones did DSC on the red paint chips found in the WTC dust that he claimed were thermitic. He did it in a stream of air, so he can't tell the difference between combustion of the binder and thermite. He measured more energy than was possible if the sample was all thermite. Thermite reacts in the absence of oxygen so his test should have been done under argon to determine how much was from combustion and how much was from thermite. He said that he was preparing a second paper that would use XRD and IR and would be peer reviewed. It never appeared. I can guess why.

I don't support the 'OS'; I only follow the evidence.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:42 PM
a reply to: Informer1958

You can sit behind your keyboard and laugh, and call all 500 eyewitness lairs and spit in the faces of the surviving families who are demanding a new investigation into what happened to the WTC.

Where's the demo evidence from your 500 witnesses that proves demo explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings? Explosions heard hours and minutes before, and after the collapse of the WTC buildings collapsed, just won't work.

If the sound of explosions is all you have, then I will counter your post with facts about the 2100 explosions that occur in New York City each year, explosions that have nothing to do with explosives. Now, let's take a look here.

No Thermite Found

The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn't find thermitic material. Other sampling of the pulverized dust by United States Geological Survey and RJ Lee did not report any evidence of thermite or explosives. It has been theorized the "thermite material" found was primer paint.

No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges and there are no recordings of a series of very loud explosions that would have been expected with controlled demolition. Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint. It's calculated 1,200,000 tonnes of building materials were pulverised at the World Trade Center and most minerals are present in the dust (not necessarily in a large quantity).

More extensive sampling of the dust has not found any evidence of thermite or explosives, says a report from the US Geological Survey and another from RJ Lee.

edit on 10-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:44 PM
a reply to: skyeagle409

Richard Gage and the folks at "AE911 Truth" are well-known for lying. I am sure you saw this video before, but just in case you haven't, here it is.

A&E has NEVER lied about anything. That video is nothing more than a government shill trying his best to sway the viewers that his "opinions" are correct.

If anyone has been lying it is you.
with the lies, everyone on here can see what you are doing.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:45 PM
a reply to: Informer1958

&E has NEVER lied about anything.

That won't fly. Even hardcore truthers have slammed Richard Gage and "AE911 Truth" for lying and I have posted references as well.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:01 PM
a reply to: Informer1958

If anyone has been lying it is you.

In that case, I will refer you to the manufacturer so you can write to them and call them liars, but first, what ingredient of thermite do you see in this imagery?


What can be expected from a structural primer?

Nucor offers our steel coated with both red and gray primer, galvanized, or unpainted. Unpainted steel is usually used when special paint or cementous coatings are specified. The contractor or owner usually subcontracts the finish painting or application of the more aggressive primer systems.

Nucor offers primers in either red or gray. The gray primers usually cost slightly more and often come with a schedule impact. Some miscellaneous clips will be provided in red primer even on the gray orders.

Aluminum & Gray Epoxy-Mastic Primer

* Coating Section Dry Film Thickness mils
* Aluminum Epoxy-Mastic Primer 1045.8 5.0 min.
* Gray Epoxy-Mastic Primer 1045.9 5.0 m

Corothane I - MIO Aluminum

COROTHANE I MIO-ALUMINUM is a single component, VOC compliant, moisture curing, aluminum and Micaceous Iron Oxide (MIO) filled, urethane primer, intermediate coating, or finish. It has excellent surface wetting properties and provides extended recoatability.

Afterward, you can write to the R.J. Lee Company and call them liars as well.

No Thermite Found

The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn't find thermitic material.

edit on 10-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:07 PM
Pteridine, many of your remarks I also took into consideration, and have for a long time already, contemplated on.
We also seem to partly share the same education.
That's why I starred your post, since it is quite refreshing when held in the light, against the stubborn posting style of skyeagle409, who doesn't consider gray areas, he's a black & white thinker.
I'll try to ad my remarks in a logical manner into your post now :

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: LaBTop

Many of the links are 404. The AE video on this link doesn't exist anymore.

In the past, I calculated that the thermal expansion of the cantilevered main beam of WTC7 was sufficient to shear connections and fail.

I did too, and concluded that only when a full complete steel beam length heating, up to unrealistic temperatures (fire insulation everywhere), over far longer periods than the circa 30 minutes that every WTC-7 office fire lasted to burn out, would have resulted in sufficient thermal expansion to push the beam off its seat at ONE side of that beam, within the PARAMETERS set out by NIST.
Heating was never possible over the full long beam length, that's an unrealistic proposal.
It now turns out, that NIST cheated with those parameters and "underestimated" them. See my Consensus Panel links.

While others claim that stiffeners would prevent this, that opinion, like mine, is debatable. There is no certainty other than evidence of demolitions have never been found. Sounds, seismographs, gut feelings, and dust analysis are all open to interpretation.

Tony Szamboti would easily debate you on that stiffeners subject.
Of course evidence of demolition was not sought after, as NIST explained in such unscientific manner.
And the White House did everything in its might to prevent that. For ex., they forbid the USGS teams to enter the Ground Zero site.! Which startled those early arrived USGS researchers to no end. As should that easily verifiable fact startle you too (just note their positional data). As a chemist, you must know how ridiculous such a research goal butchery is.

I strongly object to your remark that seismograms are open to interpretation. They are the best evidence we have at hand. Especially since we have atomic clocked videos and photos to compare atomic clocked seismogram times to them.!

Some claim that underground fires that burned for weeks are proof that thermite was present. These claimants have no understanding of thermite and misinterpret combustion of the contents of the towers as being evidence of thermite. The molten steel claims show only that the fires burned hot and that the overburden had some insulating value. The large amount of drywall provides sulfate which, in the heat and reducing conditions of the underground fires is converted to sulfide which can lower the melting point of steel. Other metals present may also have been molten in those fires but all these claims were cast into doubt when a photo of supposedly molten metal was shown to be the result of lights and not heated metal. If the fires were hot enough to melt eutectics, what would it matter? They were after the collapse and prove only that underground fires, fueled by contents of buildings, burned long and hot. There is no link from the underground fires to how the buildings collapsed.

I mostly agree with you on that subject, I did never SEE any evidence of REALLY molten STEEL, only compressed clumps of debris. Our main problem is, that the many witnesses used phraseology that is subject to a wide scale of interpretation, without accompanying photo material. We both know how charcoal is made in clay pits, and this is in my opinion also what happened in the debris heaps. Air with oxygen was supplied to the compressed debris by the train tunnels. And that caused those long lived elevated temperatures, certainly not any thermitic effects, those are very short lived, as we both know. The only problem I had were the copious amounts of rain water and later on firefighting water. Until I learned of the installed pumping capacities of the FDNY.
I also agree of course with your remark about all those effects occurring after the collapses.
I am only interested in the collapse initiations, as is Charles M. Beck with his solid math.
He proved conclusively to me that those buildings could not have collapsed from gravitation alone.

As there is no evidence of conventional demolitions, the conspiracy theorists, moved on to thermite as a possible demolition material. Conventional demolition of WTC7 would have blown out windows before the collapse started and conventional demolition of 1 & 2 would have been obvious starting from the top down. 1 & 2 were obviously gravitational collapses and the only question would be in the initiation, as once started there was no way to stop the pancaking of the internals.

The seismic records are the real evidence for demolitions. And they can't be tampered with, anymore.
I rejected thermite as a MAIN demolition material, I supposed thermobaric bombs to free the way for a progressive collapse. They leave no obvious traces to be found by clean up teams who could have stumbled over conventional materials, even as they were forbidden to actively search for them.
Thermite could have been used however to compromise the outer core column rows, which must have been the collapse initiator origins. I find thermite a too slow and too unrealistic choice for that. Cutter charges, be they conventional or advanced thermobarics are a better option for the initiating charges.
As Beck and me too argue, after a demo initiation, the gravitational collapse was inevitable, just a few TB's were enough to keep the pace of the collapses for the Twin Towers.

WTC-7 is a totally different case, here they opted for the blunt method, after they removed all bystanders with cameras for a few blocks around it. They must have used a huge TB, to obliterate the 5th to 7th floor, which are not visible in any news or private video. After that, its a standard gravity driven collapse by the pure weight of the upper 42 floors.


posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:08 PM
a reply to: pteridine

I don't support the 'OS'; I only follow the evidence.

You are lying again.

edit on 10-10-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:09 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

Just to let you know that demolition experts have debunked your seismic claim. If you don't believe me, just download your seismic data and send it to any demolition company for examination then, report back to us their findings.

You might want to check out the ingredients used in structural primers. Were there thermite reactions indicating preposition thermite during the impacts on the facades of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7?
edit on 10-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:13 PM
a reply to: Informer1958

Both of you are a dam disgrace and if you both are American, both of you should be in prison for the treason you have committed against your own people and your country.

That won't fly either because after 14 years no one found evidence of explosives or thermite.

Ever wondered why you were unable to post demo time lines on the WTC videos?
edit on 10-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:26 PM
In this case, thermite could only initiate a gravitational collapse of 1 and 2 by disrupting structure just above the impact area. Thermite structural failures are not able to be timed for sequential collapse; in fact collapses of WTC1 and 2 occurred at less than 200 milliseconds per floor which says it was all gravity after initiation. Likewise, for 7, it was all gravity after initiation.

I partially agree. However, thermite could have been a slow disruptor of core columns, and when the inward bowing of the facade columns started, easily checkable by onlookers, they ignited the TB's that blew those rings of smoke out all windows at one to three floors simultaneously. That's when your 200 milliseconds per floor collapses occurred.

WTC-7 was a bottom up demolition, no doubt about that, see my seismic articles all over ATS.
And of course my OP in this thread.

Jones' claims regarding thermite/thermitic materials in the dust are unsubstantiated. The dust was collected after the collapse[s] of 1 & 2 and its analysis was flawed. Desperation to find anything showing the predetermined conclusions caused the authors to produce a paper that was internally inconsistent with the conclusion. Jones, et al., are poor chemists and produced a paper that destroyed any credibility that they had.

I've kept myself away from the thermite debate, for some of these reasons too. I am however interested in the Lee paper, since I did not read that one.

We are now down to two collapse initiation options unless we consider cutting torches, power saws, or socket sets. One is that internal fires from the impacts caused the steel at the impact area to weaken

Charles M. Beck proved fires as initiators utterly wrong. Search ATS : LaBTop Beck.

and the other is that a cleverly planned operation ignited thermite charges at the same place to weaken the structure and initiate collapse. Why would the conspirators wait? They could have collapsed the building anytime after impact and claimed that the aircraft did it. One could claim that they waited to make it look like the fires weakened the steel to avoid detection. They even calculated that the tower with the greatest load above the impact area should collapse first.
One questions the conspirators motivations for such a complicated plot. If they were so good at conspiring and planting demolitions wouldn't they know that two planes laden with fuel would damage the towers beyond repair? Why would they risk detection at all? All they have to do is to let the planes hit and wait for results.

Beck's math combined with the WTC steel strength data from NIST proved that the plane impacts did not by far inflict enough damage to the inner nor outer massive steel columns to ever have been able to result in a gravity driven collapse.
Thus, there is just one option open left :

And that's all opinion, except the seismic records ! Firm evidence for explosions, when compared to radar, photo and video time stamps.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:58 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

Thus, there is just one option open left :

False! No one found evidence of explosives at ground zero, which explains why there is no evidence of demo explosions within the seismic data and that is backed by the fact that demo explosions are not heard in the WTC videos.

Charles M. Beck proved fires as initiators utterly wrong.

Apparently, that conflicts with what experts have said.

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

edit on 10-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 08:35 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

Thus, there is just one option open left :

Talked to members of local bomb squad (now retired) - spent some 3 weeks crawling over the debris pile

Nobody saw anything resembling controlled demolition or any remnant of a demolition device ......

posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 08:36 AM
a reply to: Informer1958
I found this amusing: "Both of you are a dam (sic) disgrace and if you both are American, both of you should be in prison for the treason you have committed against your own people and your country."

Treason? Really? Just for disagreeing with A&E? That means that the entire US population should be in prison, less the few who belong to A&E.

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:30 AM

originally posted by: LaBTop
These are the challenges to you, skyeagle409, from other members regarding your above post at page 71, ( I suppose you made a typo ) :

a reply to: skyeagle409
I want you to do so as well. Btw., did you ask RJ LeeGroup, Inc. for clarification regarding their dust-analysis or will you accept their work by now?

Appreciate your reply, think we'll have to wait for ages.

Never understood why he would need to contact them in the first place, as their findings are abundantly clear and the dust-features pretty compelling. Definitely worth a closer look.
I listed and commented on the things I found most astounding a while ago in this thread.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

1. Asbestos

Further, TEM analysis of dust in the Building also showed the asbestos concentration reaching over 70 million structures/cm2 (s/cm2) in TP-01 samples from the gash region, directly adjacent to the WTC site. An unprecedented level of 1 billion s/cm2 was also observed in the Building and 2 billion s/cm2 on the roof of the Building where debris was deposited from direct fallout as well as suspension, as the WTC Event occurred.

P. 12

We could explain this high amount of asbestos aka fireproofing with vanishing cores (due to explosions) whilst the building collapsed, which created this hazardous mixture of dust with highest concentrations of asbestos ever.

2. Dust Anomalies

Much of the organic or polymeric content of the WTC Dust has been heat hydrolyzed and partially consumed or burned. Therefore, a residual vesicular type of carbonaceous component persists in the WTC Dust. In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTCEvent, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).
Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust.
The presence of lead oxides on the surface of mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the surface of mineral wool. In addition to the trace amounts of lead, (Table 2) indicates the presence of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, silicon, sulfur, chlorine and calcium on the surface of the mineral wool.

P. 7, 17, 19 & 21

They can clearly see how the WTCEvent melted metal and formed spherical particles whilst condensing on the dust, mineral-wool most of the time. Which could've been fireproofing, probably. Nice mix, innit?

3. Composition

A Mineral Wool 13.70%
A Glass Fragments 0.50%
A Glass Fiber 1.27%
A Perlite 0.45%
A Vermiculite 2.36%
A Ca/Si 5.11%
A Fe Sphere 5.87%
A Vesicular Carbonaceous 1.23%
A Hi Temp Si/Al-rich 0.54%
A Vermiculite/Gypsum 2.72%
A Chrysotile 1.84%
C C fiber 1.02%
C C flake 1.14%

P. 24

Astonishing findings, 20% of the dust is composed of iron and fireproofing only! Fun-fact are those Si/Al-rich 0.54% I guess.

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:03 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

There is nothing there that even remotely suggest explosives and that is backed by the fact that no explosions were seen nor heard as the WTC buildings collapsed and there is no seismic evidence of demo explosions.

To sum it up, there is not a shred of evidence of explosives.

edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:23 PM
a reply to: skyeagle409

Agreed to disagree then. You never refuted anything properly, but please keep bumping this thread!

Any answer from the Lee Group by now?

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:31 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

There was nothing found in the rubble of the WTC buildings that indicated the use of explosives. What is Mineral Wool used for?
edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 01:51 PM
a reply to: skyeagle409

Nothing in your email in-box either? Whatever.

CAFCO BLAZE-SHIELD II is composed of a mineral wool aggregate and cement binders...

There you go.
edit on 13-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 03:39 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I was pointed to a reference of the company, so I took a look. Guess what?! Their report shows no evidence of explosives.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:44 AM
a reply to: skyeagle409

Care to share that response and elaborate on the details of said reference?

top topics

<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in