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 Astygia
A woman who he does not name sent him the samples he found the thermate in.
“One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": “1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said.”
We (3 physicists and a geologist) have conducted
Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS), also X-ray
Fluorescence (XRF) and Electron Microprobe analyses
on residue samples from the scene.
• We identify predominately iron, with very little
chromium (should be abundant), along with uncommon chemical elements
in abundance such as fluorine and manganese.
Aluminum and sulfur are present (expected from
thermate reactions).
• 1,3 Diphenylpropane was observed in dust, and
interesting bit of possibly corroborative evidence.
• The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene
such as the flowing yellow-hot liquid metal, provide
compelling evidence that thermite reaction
compounds (aluminothermics) were used, meaning
thermite was deliberately placed in both WTC Towers
and WTC 7.
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
More samples are coming in daily from what I am hearing so the chain-of-custody argument is about to go caput.
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
EVERY single thing you have posted regarding where the sampleS came from is unequovically WRONG. Gove me a place to host the PDF. HE explains briefly where THEY came from. I am 100% certain that the final report will include a COMPLETE chain iof custody for the third and following samples as this is the only objection the official line towers can come up with.
NONE of the samples were taken with a sponge as far as I have read.
One was from ground zero.
One was from a monument and was a "large quantitiy" not a "sponge wiping".
This is probably why the response is no longer available until next months Journal of 9/11 studies.
It is pretty sad that the official storys credibility now rests on the chain of custody for these samples. Talk about a house of cards.
Originally posted by Astygia
I don't need to read a PDF.
Originally posted by Astygia
EDIT: Our argument is getting out of hand, we disagree on a few details, but what we have in common is that neither of us believe the whole story. I'm editing this because I was just reading the remembering 9/11 thread, and SkepticOverlord mentioned that we (theorists) tend to dehumanize things as we bicker over the details. Let's not forget the victims; they are my motivation.
Agree to disagree, bro.
[edit on 7-9-2006 by Astygia]
"These findings are compelling to many, but one needs to be cautious until results are checked and published in a peer-reviewed journal....It is important scientifically to have an independent analyses performed, to verify the presence of thermite signature chemical elements. And to publish results in a peer reviewed journal. Realistically, both groups will probably need to submit simultaneously to be published in a major journal like Nature."
Originally posted by Astygia
Actually, was my attempt to say exactly what I said: agree to disagree. You've got no more expertise than I do in this matter, you just take what you read and apply it, same as I do.
Originally posted by Astygia
Quit trying to act so smug and superior about a guy that can't get his own facts straight. "There is steel, there is no steel...." I love how steel is "becoming available", they all said it was melted in Asia. Did they un-melt it? If this guy was at least consistant, I'd take him more seriously.
"These findings are compelling to many, but one needs to be cautious until results are checked and published in a peer-reviewed journal....It is important scientifically to have an independent analyses performed, to verify the presence of thermite signature chemical elements. And to publish results in a peer reviewed journal. Realistically, both groups will probably need to submit simultaneously to be published in a major journal like Nature."
Originally posted by Astygia
This guy's not a structural engineer. Stuctural engineers dismiss him.
Originally posted by Astygia Then why take a physics teacher seriously when he starts dictating engineering?
Originally posted by Astygia
This guy's not a structural engineer.
Stuctural engineers dismiss him.
Do philosophy teachers also instruct physics students?
Then why take a physics teacher seriously when he starts dictating engineering?
Originally posted by Astygia
This guy's not a structural engineer. Stuctural engineers dismiss him. Do philosophy teachers also instruct physics students? Then why take a physics teacher seriously when he starts dictating engineering?
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I have a BS in ME from U of M AA with a minor in Applied Mathematics... I do have some amount of expertise in the fields of Physics, Engineering and Mathematics. I have worked as an project lead at a Fortune 100 engineering firm for a decade.
I do not think anyone would EVER claim it ALL went to China... only YOU claim others claim this. The argument is that TOO MUCH went TOO FAST for a proper investigation and it REAKS of coverup and is stifiling research.
Not so fast my friend, there are now five SEs that are members of ST911.
Because engineering is based on Calc and Physics? Did you attend University? Engineers turn to physicists when they need answers ALL OF THE TIME.
Your arguments are weak. You cite nothing and just type "what you heard" on a show.
A debate would be nice, but you insist on arguing symantics and such. Grow up and either debat the evidence being presented or do not post.
Thank you.
Originally posted by Astygia
Not so fast my friend, there are now five SEs that are members of ST911.
And hundreds more that dismiss them, my friend.
Originally posted by Astygia
Define "proper investigation". Authorities investigated it; does "because they want to" mean everyone else gets a shot too?
Originally posted by Astygia
And hundreds more that dismiss them, my friend.
Originally posted by Astygia
Funny thing is, the star of that show is the same guy whose theory you are desperately clinging to.
Originally posted by Astygia
I see no evidence; only conjecture.
Originally posted by Astygia
When did I say I didn't looking at the document? Unless you're referring to the dead link you posted.
Originally posted by Astygia
I don't need to read a PDF.
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Even the NIST and 9/11 Comission COMPLAINED that FEMA, the first investigators on site got rid of too much evidence too fast... I will find the sources, but I feel as if it is a waste of time.
Please provide a source for your claim. Not, I will not accept the hundred super smart SEs that claimed the "steel melted" as they are dumber than a box of rocks.
I was addressing YOUR COMMENTARY on the show. You could at least provide direct and accurate quotations instead of your degraded memory paraphrasing.
Because you did not read the article which is the basis of this discussion. Electron scanning microscopes do not provide CONJECTURE... nor does x-ray flouresence testing.
I don't need to read a PDF.
I think that about sums it up.
Originally posted by Astygia
Please provide a source for your claim. Not, I will not accept the hundred super smart SEs that claimed the "steel melted" as they are dumber than a box of rocks.
The Popular Mechanics article, for one, claims to have used over 300 experts, although I admit they don't mention what field these people are "experts" in.
Originally posted by Astygia
Source me.
By the time NIST starts its investigation, much of the crucial steel debris from the WTC collapses has already been destroyed (see September 12-October 2001). They later refer to there being a “scarcity of physical evidence that is typically available in place for reconstruction of a disaster.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. xxxvi pdf file]
Originally posted by Astygia
The Popular Mechanics article, for one, claims to have used over 300 experts, although I admit they don't mention what field these people are "experts" in.
Originally posted by Astygia
And hundreds more that dismiss them, my friend.
Originally posted by Astygia
If I still had the video, I'd quote it. But paraphrasing or no, you obviously knew what I was talking about because you addressed it.
Originally posted by Astygia
They haven't provided anything yet, because it hasn't been published. This, you and me going back and forth quoting this and that, is conjecture. Welcome.
Originally posted by Astygia
Not attempting to derail the thread. You are basing so much on simple claims...if the official story was made up of this exact same scenario, you wouldn't accept it, and you know it.
In the month following 9/11, a significant amount of the steel debris from the WTC collapses is removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of the US. [US Congress, 3/6/2002] Each of the twin towers contained 78,000 tons of recyclable steel. Much of this is shipped to India, China, and other Asian countries, where it will be melted down and reprocessed into new steel products. Asian companies are able to purchase the steel for just $120 per ton, compared, for example, to a usual average price of $150 per ton in China. Industry officials estimate that selling off the steel and other metals from the WTC for recycling could net a few tens of million dollars. [New York Times, 10/9/2001; Reuters, 1/21/2002; Reuters, 1/22/2002; Eastday, 1/24/2002; CorpWatch, 2/6/2002] 9/11 victims’ families and some engineers are angered at the decision to quickly discard the steel, believing it should be examined to help determine how the towers collapsed. A respected fire fighting trade magazine comments, “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.” [Fire Engineering, 1/2002] Rep. Joseph Crowley (D) will later call the loss of this evidence “borderline criminal.” By March 2002, 150 pieces of steel from the WTC debris will have been identified by engineers for use in future investigations (see March 6, 2002). [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. D-13] A study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which commences in August 2002 [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 8/21/2002; Associated Press, 8/21/2002] , will have 236 pieces of recovered steel available to it. Of these, 229 pieces are from WTC 1 and 2, representing “roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 85 pdf file] New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg defends the decision to quickly get rid of the WTC steel, saying, “If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that’s in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn’t tell you anything.” Officials in the mayor’s office decline to reply to requests by the New York Times regarding who decided to have the steel recycled. [New York Times, 12/25/2001; Eastday, 1/24/2002]
Originally posted by WolfofWar
Unless he, personally, with witnesses, pulled it out of the wreckage, scientifically speaking, it has to be thrown out.