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 Griff
The smell of jet fuel in the air does jack diddly squat in pin-pointing the exact cause of fires.
Hmm. A real fire investigation would have answered your questions here.
Did I say anything about thermite?
Lots of pyrotechnics burn green and could also have been used for arson.
Again. A real investigation would have answered these questions.
See my response to Griff regarding Nicole Brown Simpson's murder.
I assume you didn't read any of the link I provided.
Speaking of “RED HERRINGS”! Your entire post is a RED HERRING and here is the “proof”, what dose anything you have quoted have to do with, NIST Investigation Violated National Fire Code?
Please refer to my first point on this post.
Really! With what little sources you have given I have found most of them “not” creditable. You are still trying to prove a “lie”.
Really! Care to prove that? Furthermore, “you” were ask the questions, and as always You imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources.
Do you really want me to go through your posts and point out your errors and your handwaving of evidence?
That NIST lied.
You will not be able to provide any evidence of this, so I won't even bother to ask for it.
9/11 CONSPIRACY: NIST CHIEF ENGINEER LIES ABOUT MOLTEN METAL
Proof NIST lies; WTC1 did not damage WTC7
Kevin Ryan: The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak
NIST begins with a few little white lies, and never looks back
NIST unveiled its WTC 7 report by making a new diversionary claim that it worked only three years on the investigation. But, to the contrary, we know that NIST began its work in August 2002 and decoupled its WTC 7 report in June 2004, after creating hundreds of pages of detailed reports for WTC 7.(3) The investigation ostensibly began anew in September 2005, after the report for the towers was sputtered out. Since then — other than for several “responses to FAQs” on the report for the towers — NIST has focused entirely on WTC 7. This means that, in full, NIST worked on its final explanation for the destruction of WTC 7 for at least five years, not three.
However, as the reader will see, NIST did learn from its experience in deceiving the public about the towers. One way in which NIST learned to avoid criticism was to pretend that it had considered alternative theories. In its presentation on the draft WTC 7 report, NIST claimed, “We were very open to alternative theories.” But that claim could be seen as true only if one turned a blind eye to many facts indicating the exact opposite was true, including the following:
• NIST ignored all invitations from independent investigators to discuss or debate its findings or the alternative theory.
Molten metal? What molten metal?
NIST, in its final report on WTC 7, ignored all of the evidence relating to molten metal, even though numerous reliable witnesses spoke of the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero. These witnesses included Richard Garlock, a structural engineer at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, an engineering firm involved in the design of the towers and the clean up of the site, who said “Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running. The witnesses to molten metal also included University of California, Berkeley engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who was the first scientist given access to the steel at ground zero. Dr. Astaneh-Asl referred to the WTC steel he found as “kind of melted.”(11) Years later, when asked again about his experience he clarified, “I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center
Explosive thermite? What explosive thermite?
An actual explanation for the sulfidation and extreme thinning of steel has been offered by independent investigators, and is fully consistent with the alternative theory that NIST has avoided all these years. The thermite reaction, available in several useful variations for the purposes of cutting steel, can explain this thinning and sulfidation quite readily.
The thermite hypothesis for the WTC was first detailed by Derrick Grimmer of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE).(17) This hypothesis was later expanded into an experimentally supported theory by Professor Steven Jones.(18)
When asked about thermite in the WTC 7 press conference, Sunder pretended that NIST was not aware of the explosive forms of this chemical mixture, called super-thermite or nano-thermite. Instead, Sunder claimed that thermite could not be applied adequately in order to serve the purpose of a deceptive demolition. Sunder’s answer, apart from being vague and unsupported, is also in direct contradiction to the fact that a number of the NIST WTC investigation leaders had expert knowledge of nano-thermites, and that such materials can be sprayed onto surfaces like steel.(19)
NIST’s new report ignores many other important pieces of evidence that support the alternative theory. This evidence includes the many witnesses to explosions, the many people who were warned that the building was coming down, and the prediction, by several major media outlets, that the building was coming down well before it actually did.
My opinion is, because the Bush administration who was behind putting the 911 commission together and the 911 commission hired NIST to do their part of the Government story using Pseudoscience to hide the truth. (The reasoned the national standard was not applied) is because it would have “revealed” the truth.
Maybe so, however, I was only given an “opinion” not a fact. Would you care to talk about the rest of my “opinion” that I also made. ( I didn’t think so)
Not "maybe," it is a fact. You are basing an opinion on false information. You information that you gathered to form your opinion is not accurate.
Ashamedamerican, you are right however, NIST was hoping that we where[sic] all too stupid to reliesed[sic] it, hoping we where diluted in Brittney Spears and all the media spoon-fed lies. Nothing new Government is always playing on our intelligent[sic] by using the propaganda machines the Media.
You do not have the right to add (sick quotes in my post!)
NIST was hoping that we where[sic]
all too stupid to reliesed[sic] it,
Nothing new Government is always playing on our intelligent[sic]
CameronFox, You added these sick [sic] quotes to my “post”! (shame on you.)
Look Cash, you have been hounding be regarding my posting of sources. You know I do a great job of this. I take it kind of personal when you accuse me of not being honest regarding my posts. Therefore, you put me in a position to point out to you that if you are going to speak about the intelligence of someone, you should at least use spell check. I do apologize if this upset you and I will refrain from it in the future.
Captain in charge of the Passaic County New Jersey
Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories
Multiple Explosions
The oral histories contain numerous testimonies with reports of more than one explosion. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski, for example, said: "I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down."27
Gregg Brady, an emergency medical technician, reported the same thing about the north tower, saying: "I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now."28
Somewhat more explosions were reported by firefighter Thomas Turilli, who said, referring to the south tower, that "it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight."29
Even more explosions were reported by Craig Carlsen, who said that while he and other firefighters were looking up at the towers, they "heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down."30
He reqularly lectures to ours and other fire departments concerning bombs and explosive devices
According to him there was no evidence of explosives /bombs /minnukes /Star Wars Death rays or whatever lunatic conspiracy theory.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
Official response to NIST's Final Report on WTC 7
by sixteen scientists, architects, engineers, and others
15 Sept. 2008
9/11/2001: Forbidden Questions, Explosive Answers
By Dr. Steven E. Jones
Seminar at Utah Valley University
10 Sept. 2008
RADIO INTERVIEW
Radio Interview with Richard Gage, AIA & Angie Coiro
960 AM KKGN
San Francisco, CA
Thursday, September 11, 2008, 3:00 PM
PAPER
Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials
by Kevin R. Ryan,
James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones
August 4th, 2008
Published in The Environmentalist
PAPER
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites
by Kevin R. Ryan
July 2nd, 2008
PRESENTATION
Analysis of the Collapse of the South Tower
of the World Trade Center
Slide Presentation by Dr. Crockett Grabbe
at the
American Physical Society Meeting
St. Louis, Missouri, April 15, 2008.
Prof. Jones, who conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, has analyised materials from WTC and has detected the existence of thermate , used for “cutting” the steel support columns, as evident in the photo below.
A thermal lance or thermic lance or burning bar is a tool which burns iron in an oxygen rich environment (n.b., not thermite) to create very high temperatures for cutting. It consists of a long iron tube packed with iron rods, which are sometimes mixed with aluminum or magnesium rods which increase the heat output. One end of the tube is placed in a holder and oxygen is fed through the tube.
Originally posted by thedman
My friends in the bomb squad spent several weeks crawling through the
rubble - they are experts in spotting evidence of explosives. They found
no wiring, shock tubes, det cord, blasting caps, metal banding to attach
carges to columns or unexploded charges,
Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by CameronFox
CameronFox that is a wonderful idea! That will make my day thank you!
you have a nice day!
Why is it only you and jthomas having such a problem with the truth!
When no one else is.
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Your English may not be the best but overall your posts are very informative and always interesting to read. The problem here is that debunkers are getting backed into that corner where they just cannot answer all the questions they should without somehow contradicting themselves. You have a couple fans that want to prove you wrong soooooo badly and yet have not been able to. Kudos to you.
Originally posted by CameronFox
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Your English may not be the best but overall your posts are very informative and always interesting to read. The problem here is that debunkers are getting backed into that corner where they just cannot answer all the questions they should without somehow contradicting themselves. You have a couple fans that want to prove you wrong soooooo badly and yet have not been able to. Kudos to you.
Cash has not been able to corner anyone with any of his cut and paste jobs from his favorite truther sites. He offers the opinions of other truthers and cries "Inside Job!" or "Liars" without EVER backing it up with facts.
What SOP's are thrown around? What are you talking about?
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by jthomas
So much for your claims that the "government" was trying to suppress dust studies when they've been there all along just for you.
1. Copyright 2008 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved
2. October 27-30 2002. 13 Months later
3. Volume 43 Issue 3 2009
4. 2005, vol. 919, pp. 190-237 [48 page(s) (article)]
5. 2007 Impact Factor: 2.106 (© Thomson Reuters, Journal Citation Reports®, 2008)
6. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology (2004) 14, 164–172. doi:10.1038/sj.jea.7500310
7. The only thing I saw pertaining to sample reporting as I perused this site was an OSHA study in October 2002 13 months later.
8. 2005, vol. 919, pp. 238-276 [39 page(s) (article)]
9. October 27-30 2002 13 months later.
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Well, you must be in a corner to resort to posts that are nothing but tearing down other posters. Nice info you provided in this post, sure sheds some light on things don't it? Idiot!
Originally posted by CameronFox
I don't tear down posts sir. I will however, show the poster where they may be in error. As I have done countless times with Mr. Cashlink.
As I have stated in the past, I will offer sources with posts unless they are my opinion. I have not been hostile to Cash at all. In a previous post I told him that I decided not to argue with him. It's not my fault he doesn't get what I post.
You also have been reported for your personal attack. Being a skeptic here, I have to abide by the rules. So should you.
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
OK, I have no desire to debate this with you as your ill mannered attacks are littered everywhere.
Which attack? Asking you a question?
Originally posted by jthomas
I didn't realize you did not understand the difference between publication dates and when the samples were collected.
Now I understand your confusion.