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.
Originally posted by smurfy
Something 'dave said doesn't seem right. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought any nuclear scientist is required to know about chemistry, it sort of goes with the territory.edit on 14-12-2010 by smurfy because: text error.
is right
no national security
What Fields of Study Use Chemistry?
You could use chemistry in most fields, but it's commonly seen in the sciences and in medicine. Chemists, physicists, biologists, and engineers study chemistry. Doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, physical therapists, and veterinarians all take chemistry courses. the list is extensive
How to become a Nuclear Engineer
Typical United States training necessitates college preparation for mathematics training in calculus, physics, and chemistry. Undergraduate work includes groundwork in the mechanics and dynamics of particle motion, thermodynamics, computer programming, college-level physics and chemistry, and differential training. Specialization study happens midway through undergraduate school. Fluid mechanics, reactor mechanics, quantum mechanics, thermal hydraulics, linear circuits, radiation effects, and neutron transport are just some classes one can expect in upper class work.
Originally posted by roboe
Originally posted by smurfy
Something 'dave said doesn't seem right. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought any nuclear scientist is required to know about chemistry, it sort of goes with the territory.edit on 14-12-2010 by smurfy because: text error.
They probably have a general knowledge of chemistry, but their expertise and all of their training is in the narrow field of nuclear physics.
It's the same as an electrical engineer having a general idea of how stuff works, but he wouldn't be hired for a job as a construction engineer.
Originally posted by hooper
Do you have any videos of actual explosives in the buildings exploding? Not flashes, or sudden noises or bright lights, or someone saying the word explosion. Real videos of actual explosives?
Question hooper: Did NIST do any testing to find explosive residue or not?
Originally posted by hooper
No. There was no reason to, there was nothing that would indicate the use of explosives, or thermite, or space beams or anything other than the plane impacting the building and the subsquent fire and damage. Nothing,
"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues. Support trusses, fireproofing fragments and even burnt out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever - even before an investigation was underway.
Loud explosions is not "nothing".
Originally posted by Danbones
untill hooper shows us his published peer reviewd opinion
it means NOTHING
by his own logic
and that goes for all the OS Beleivers
now that they have trounced on S. Jones and Nano thermite like they have
we get to apply the SAME Illogic to EVERYTHING they write
can you spell ooooopsiedit on 15-12-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hooper
The scene of the collapse was not treated immeadiately as a crime scene because there was an ongoing search for survivors, that trumps any forensic protocols anytime and anywhere.
"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues.
Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, hearing loud sudden noises before, during and after one of the worlds largest buildings collapses is nothing.
Be my guest. Find real peers of the persons who prepared the NIST report and have at it, page by page. Please tell me when you're done. Love to see the finished product. Mind you, peers - not just any Tom, Dick or Harry with an engineering or architecture degree. Peers, equals, persons who by education, training and experinece are qualified to speak on the many subjects in the report. And not some 3 paragraph essay about how they distrust the government, but a real review. Been waiting to see that for years. Still nothing - I wonder why?
The remains of the buildings were examined during the writing of the report. Saying otherwise is lying. The scene of the collapse was not treated immeadiately as a crime scene because there was an ongoing search for survivors, that trumps any forensic protocols anytime and anywhere.
No. There was no reason to, there was nothing that would indicate the use of explosives, or thermite, or space beams or anything other than the plane impacting the building and the subsquent fire and damage. Nothing,
Originally posted by backinblack
I would think the investigation would have looked at ALL possibilities, regardless of how probable..