Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: Informer1958

You can sense the spirit of a movement by their behavior. By which they try to hide. If they are willing to open up to impartial third parties, or stick with their own faithful. What they choose to use out of context. Choosing to work in the vacuum of their own yes men.

The paper Jones help cowrite, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe', was not even properly peer reviewed. It was published in a hack pay to play publication, bypassing the papers editor who was the referee for the peer review process. Another example of academic dishonesty.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

In April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[48] The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,[49][50] resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.[51][52] According to Pileni, the article was published without her authorization. Subsequently, numerous concerns arose regarding the reliability of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishing. This included the publishing an allegedly peer reviewed article generated by SCIgen [53] (although this program has also successfully submitted papers to IEEE and Springer [54]), the resignation of multiple people at the administrative level,[55][56] and soliciting article submissions from researchers in unrelated fields through spam.[57] With regard to the peer review process of the research conducted by Jones in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Dr. David Griscom identified himself as one of the reviewers.

People striving for transparency, honesty, and truth do not need tricks and slight of hand. Jones, and his crew, are only concerned with the illusion of legitimacy due to the fact their following is based on faith, not tangible evidence.

More links:
www.google.com...
www.metabunk.org...
www.internationalskeptics.com...

I thought it was concluded by Jones the thermite was only a fuse? Or was it in the million ceilings tiles. How does this work with Richard Gague's fizzle no flash demolitions.

Oh, that's only an opinion person? When was the last time you cited or referenced a source??



cheers.....

originally posted by: LittleFire
a reply to: wmd_2008

1000 ton floor falling 12 feet , no i honsestly dont believe it would vaporize the floor under it. That saying if it even weighed that much. Not to mention no one ever looks at the fact that a steel structure, if your going from top to bottom gradually gets bigger. So not only did roughly the top 10% vaporize the bottom 90% but it also had to go against a gradually growing bigger mass all the way down. Which it did literally without having one hang up, no resistant at all. Thousands and thousands of huge I Beams instantly gave way.

Cite from the NIST investigation that the falling floors broke I beams. The falling floors sheared floor connections. Huge difference. The standing and unsupported vertical columns would then collapse. This is proven by large segments of vertical columns which remained standing for a few seconds after the total collapse of the towers floors.

a reply to: Informer1958

Do you have a rebuttal or not?

If demolitions were used, where was the sounds of detention? If you watch demolition videos, the sound of detonation is more distinct than the rumbling of building collapse. Seems the sound of detonation is actually more discernible as you increase distance from the collapsing building. Should be able to filter out sound of detonation from audio of video footage.

How does a ground charge soften a building for a floor by floor top down controlled demolition.

The components of CD argue each floor of each tower needed explosives to obtained the witnessed collapse speed. Just four charges per floor would be a total of 440 charges for one tower.

One of the biggest proponents of CD is Richard Gage, who is quoted as saying the charges were designed to fizzle with no flash and no bang? Who heard demolition explosives again?

On the seismic data. Please go into detail of the time scaling and range of seismic waves. If you hide time and magnitude scaling, you can zoom in on data to make the insignificant look significant.

So firefighters were near an explosion in the false narrative of the ground level demolitions that was picked up by seismograph 30 miles away, yet did not go totally death nor injured by shrapnel from a detonating device.

No shrapnel from demolitions hit near by buildings, not recovered from 9/11 victims.

Hand searching WTC debris by conveyor belt recovered something like 400 wrist watches, 19,000 remains. 6000 of the remains could fit in a test tube. Yet no steel drilled for demolition prep work. No steel worked on by cutting charges or demolitions. No shrapnel from demolitions recovered. No evidence of shape charge fragments, blasting cap fragments, no wiring system for detonation, nor remote detonators.

How did an ignition system requiring utmost reliability, every precisely placed charge to carry out a never achieved top down CD survive the jet impacts and extensive fires. How did deranged demolition systems carry out flawlessly two CDs On 110 story buildings? Especially since a CD has never been used on a building over 50 floors, nor never on a building by top down.

How is it again? Was thermite just a fuse as outline by Jones? If it was Gauges fizzle no flash demolitions, how can he claim lateral ejection. What was Harrit's estimate of needed explosives?

a reply to: Informer1958

No mate my understanding comes from my education all physics & engineering science based, my work in a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK design/drawing office and practical work on site testing structral components and giving information and recommendations to STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS.

The trouble with the internet is that someone who's most technical question of the day is "do you want fries with that" can start a web page or make video containing BS gathered from other idiots around the web and it's claimed as true.

Just look how many posts on on this thread from YOUR side say only fire brought the buildings down they IGNORE the damage attention to DETAIL is missing from the truther camp if you want more examples I will post later when not on mobile

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

I used thermodynamics and Jones' own data to prove he was a fraud or an incompetent, or both. You didn't understand it then and don't understand it now, so any thought of "busting" me in the past is merely your ego talking. You don't want to understand it because it would mean that you have been promoting a fantasy for many years. I understand your position and wish you no ill will.

Fact you were busted by me and other member twisting the science of Steven Jones repeatedly, no ego talking here just plain honesty here.

At this point it doesnt matter what I think or believe this topic is not about me. I understand Jones science very well I studied it for a long time before I ever posted about it. I am not one to come on ATS talking about "crap" that I don't understand just to make a fool of myself.

Fantasy?

Your condescending remarks are well noted.

Jones is still milking the gullible with his frauds. If you understand Steven Jones science so well, perhaps you can explain why he did the DSC in a stream of air instead of under an inert atmosphere and how this invalidated his results. You didn't answer this before and I don't expect you to answer it now even though I explained it many times. You dodged and weaved and then made up some pompous excuse and ran.

Then, when you see the error of Jones' ways with the DSC, we can discuss heats of combustion using the data in Jones paper and how such an energetic substance left ten tons of itself, unreacted, in the dust from the collapse.

Get out your thermo books, Informer. Show the world how you can bust me or admit defeat on the Jones theory.

a reply to: neutronflux

Thank You for being polite enough to ask if You could interject into My conversation with Dimensional Change03.
Who cares what kind of metal it was? I didn't even mention that in My post, if you had actually read it. The fact that that molten steel was EVEN THERE should be a red flag to you and anyone else with common sense!

WHERE did that metal come from. Are You trying to say it came from what, at least 75 floors above ground? Are You serious? (I know they tell You to say other things for distractions, so thanks for asking what kind of metal it was.)

That molten Steel was created where it lay in pools, or very near that. Simple common sense tells ME, and I would hope YOU that. I have Metallurgy Certificates. Have been a Certified Welder Who can weld for Government contracts. Ten Years experience and hands on Machinist, Welder, Fabricator. Yes plenty of real Science in all that. I know melting temperatures for the metals You listed, and more. SO besides just common sense, I have all that to back ME up. Thank You and have a good day. I'm Done here. Syx...

a reply to: face23785

www.abovetopsecret.com...



a reply to: Informer1958

Hear, hear!

The fact is, the only thing I read from the debunkers on that thread was ridicule against LaBTop well research technical thesis which was excelent work I might add.

Same old tactics in this thread and the others, I'll add that part of PR-management to the growing pile of circumstancial evidence. The lack of factual debunks is pretty compelling on it's own, innit?

a reply to: pteridine

SO for now; I worked in Metal Maching/Welding shops for over 10 years, qualified at the Federal level to weld for Government projects. I have Mettalurgy Certificates.
Yes there is a LOT of Science in all that. I had to go through Mettalurgy tests, Weld tests with x-rayed welds, etc. (You are smart enough to know WHY they had to be x-rayed right?)

I feel that all that I had to do just to prepare for the tests is enough for you to know that I know where I am coming from here. Besides just common sense here, I had Plenty of real Science that had to be learned.

So Yes I am qualified to say this: I KNOW that those pools of Molten Steel, boiling Metals, would NOT be THERE, underground, from fires all the way up at the fire points of the buildings.(Remember? That was what My Post was about.)

First of all. If they were common fires, like from wood desks, paper, and building materials, the fires were not hot enough to have caused that steel, WAY up where the planes hit, to get weak enough for failure, (and also what? Drain liquid metal all the way down the towers to the basement?!), or to become "Plastic". Simple facts, easily checked with some research. What about ALL the rest of the verticle AND horizontal structure beams? They were nowhere near any fires. If You look top down on a square, criss crossed with beams, and take away one small part of one corner, what does the rest of it look like? ......That's what I thought.

Let's say You are right in that the fires caused problems. If the steel failed at those fire points, then above that, (and the whole rest of the floor of beams, for whatever reason as they were not even warmed up from fire failed), that part of the building would have fallen towards the weak spot, and continued to fall to the ground in that direction. Toppling off over the side of the rest of the structure. The whole building would not have collapsed under that point. Partial sections directly under the falling section may have been damaged. But not to the complete failure point. SIMPLE physics should tell You that! Science DOES say that. Even common sense should tell You that.

So just to make You happy, I left out the usual extra ! and ?'s.

Thank You for trying to make ME feel bad, for the way I use our language.(As a tactic to try to run Me into the ground.) Sorry but I am already grounded! I type the way I talk. Yes with real emotions and feelings. Thank You for trying to confuse the meaning of My post. That didn't work either. (Go to plan 'B' now...)

NONE of that worked!!!!!! Or did it?????? Like Just WOW!!!!!!
(Did I just see 666?)

Have a Grand Day. I'm done here. Syx...

a reply to: Informer1958

You are Very Welcome!! Thank YOU for the pat on the back with, "I am happy there are still ATS members on here that can actually logically and critically think. It is truly refreshing."

Made Me smile!

I know You mentioned to not reply to comments to Me here from 'Them'. But, I had a few things to say to them, and did. I don't care if they want to rip it all apart, for obfuscational purposes. Because that is mostly what they did, and will do again. I have seen plenty of their comments here.

One way debate is Right!!You hit that nail Square!

And You were right. One of them did'nt even answer My question or discuss what My post was about!! LOL!! I got a laugh from it!
SO there was THAT!!LMFAO!!

Have A good one! Syx...

So you guys simply have no response to how the noise from the building coming down could drown out the noise from the explosions if the explosions had to start before the building started coming down? Informer pretended to address it but basically said nothing and deflected to other topics, and PublicOpinion posted a link to this thread as a response. If that's the best you guys have it's pretty sad.

a reply to: face23785

Here's a quick one. The main steel verticle beams needed to be the ones that were destroyed, so the rest of each floor can come down. Those detonations would be deep inside towards the center of the building. SO wouldn't what is on each floor, the walls in between the inside and outside, the furniture, the carpeted floors etc., be enough to muffle the detonation sounds enough that they would be barely heard from the street level when they started at near the top of the buildings? Because if You were standing on the ground, all the floors above You would act as mufflers. Enough noise would then have been created by the "pancake Theory", starting at the top, that small explosions would not be heard by You on the ground. There were in fact Squibs caught and recorded on 'official' videos. Just a couple thoughts... Syx...

a reply to: SyxPak

It takes 55 gallon drums of water and / piles of sand bags.

If you don't cut a column by an incendiary device, which would take almost a minute to cut a large column, you physically attach a device that creates a pressure wave that fragments the column. No cut columns. No columns worked on by demolitions. There would be distinctions found using metallurgy at the grain boundaries of the district broken ends of columns. You don't need to find explosives, just check the crystalline structure of broken steel.

www.popularmechanics.com...


Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

It would have taken hundreds of thermite charges to bring down the towers. The slow burn time makes it impossible to use. If you cutting vertically, the weight of the building will push the molten metal together, creating cold welds. Too many factors, then thrown the uncertainty of jet impact and wide spread fires.

If you don't create a pressure wave with explosives, no fracturing of steel. You have to have the pressure wave, thus the noise, to break steel.

There was not thermite cut columns in the debris. No steel worked on by demolitions. No shrapnel, no shape charge fragments. No Blasting cap fragments. No steel prepped for blasting.

The movement will not put forth the extensive searh by Han of debris for remains, personal items, and evidence. In fact, they will deny the efforts took place and avoid the subject. Then act as if it's never came up in threads. Very tiring and childish. Especially after debating the same thing for at least 10 years.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: face23785

www.abovetopsecret.com...

 

a reply to: Informer1958

Hear, hear!

The fact is, the only thing I read from the debunkers on that thread was ridicule against LaBTop well research technical thesis which was excelent work I might add.

Same old tactics in this thread and the others, I'll add that part of PR-management to the growing pile of circumstancial evidence. The lack of factual debunks is pretty compelling on it's own, innit?

Going to ever answer the question what the time scale and amplitude scale are ranged to for the cherry picked seismic data.

A group taking seismic readings nearby did not pick up waves from blasts during 9/11.

Is it LEDO? Scientists did not see seismic activity and indicative waves from blasts. You need r waves and s waves? Then they should trail or lead one another?

The 1000 pound van full of explosives in 1993 did not create detecatable seismic activity.

The explanation of the loud "explosions" in the lobby were the crashing elevators from having their cables sheared by the jet impacts.

a reply to: SyxPak

Also, if the puffs of dry wall and insulation where really from "Squibs" by explosives:

One, explosives close enough to the outter wall to see the effects of the pressure waves in dust would also be accompanied with the sound energy of a blast.

Two, if the pressure wave was interacting with dust outside the towers, each instance would be accompanied with the associated shrapnel of fragmented columns. Rain of forcefully exploding steel.

a reply to: neutronflux

From You just now: "There was not thermite cut columns in the debris."
Well gee.
What do Ya suppose cause these cuts across these beams?

That's what I thought too...

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: pteridine

So Yes I am qualified to say this: I KNOW that those pools of Molten Steel, boiling Metals, would NOT be THERE, underground, from fires all the way up at the fire points of the buildings.(Remember? That was what My Post was about.)

There is not a remote chance it was steel.

One, the WTC fire was not hot enough to liquify iron.

Two, there was tons of material that has lower melting points. The glowing material was by reality a collection of any combination of molten slag from plastic and sulfur from the drywall, aluminum from the jets and building cladding, molten material from the lead, copper, solder, and circuit boards of computers and power systems, and anything else liquified by heat.

Three, thermite would have left iron splatter and slag on cut columns. All three were not present in the pile.

a reply to: SyxPak

Exactly.

Plus we had state-of-the-art first gen mobile crap and not smart toys with great mics everywhere, just to mention that little detail as well.



a reply to: face23785

It was a specific post, here we go again:

...
So not only did roughly the top 10% vaporize the bottom 90% but it also had to go against a gradually growing bigger mass all the way down. Which it did literally without having one hang up, no resistant at all. Thousands and thousands of huge I Beams instantly gave way.

If that didn't answer your question the problem may sit on your end of the keyboard. I see you've already decided to lable your fellow ATSliens in the follow-up regarding the talking-point you reduced the whole topic with. Yes I see what you did there, giggle away!

a reply to: SyxPak

That picture was the result of iron workers cutting columns to clear debris. Very sad example of picture out of context. Please give the data and true context of the picture taken during debris removal.

a reply to: SyxPak


Going to debate with facts or just use photos with no context/out context........

a reply to: neutronflux

Look right above the post you just put here for Me! and this...