Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

Originally posted by pteridine
Oxygen's presence is apparent by continued combustion. These locales will induce drafts through a chimney effect. The fires, like mine fires, are difficult to extinguish. These would have many pathways for air to infiltrate as the collapsed structure would be porous and could also be fed air, from beneath, by the subway system. Slow burning fires buried in the rubble get hot and stay hot because they cannot readily dissipate heat.

One thing about your comparison with mine fires. Mine fires are hard to put out because we can't get to the coal seam to extinguish it. Not even water can penetrate the rock or coal to extinguish. Now, can the same be said of the rubble fires? While we couldn't actually get to them until they were uncovered, the water could. As described by you above.

So, your comparison of coal seam fires is null and void as they are totally different.

Originally posted by Fremd
So there was a river of molten steel for 3 months burning...but nobody ever thought, even once, to take a picture of it?

Wow...you mean there's another gap in the "911 truth" theory?

Cameras were illegal on-site for some reason.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Steven Jones did not undergo scientific peer review. He subjected his papers to a 911 conspiracy buff peer review. Given the limited technical skills and lack of objectivity by the reviewers, it cannot be considered a "peer review."

And who exactly peer reviewed NIST's report?

Sorry about that, it should have been a u2u...

[edit on 9-4-2009 by esdad71]

Originally posted by pteridine
What you call "evidence" isn't evidence, it is heresay based on feelings.

The evidence of conspiracy is not undeniable; it is non-existent.

Heresay?

Well I have no idea what you're rambling about but I'm talking about scientific evidence that rests on fundamental aspects of physics and chemistry.

Again, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such a ridiculous statement claiming the evidence doesn't even exist?

You would make a very clever defense attorney.

"Umm that bloody knife doesn't exist...umm...those eye witnesses don't exist....umm all that forensic and dna evidence doesn't exist...case closed."



[edit on 9-4-2009 by Jezus]

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Well, that's enough for me to think that something is very, very strange about 911 and that coupled with the funky official report and the governments terrible record of telling the American taxpayers the truth about much of anything.

Show me the tapes of the [surveillance cameras everywhere] Pentagon and perhaps I will change my mind but until then; call me a "Conspiracy theorist wacko" if you want. All the phony, poorly contrived, scientific BS of the OS can't trump common sense.

Thank you. I agree about seeing a video or photo of whatever hit the Pentagon. FBI agents confiscated every CCTV security tape from adjacent businesses just minutes after the impact. What's on those tapes that they don't want us to see?

The term "conspiracy theorist" has been cleverly and effectively programmed into our consciousness as a synonym for insane. But the government has no problem filing conspiracy charges against anyone who they suspect of colluding with others to commit a crime. It's a very common charge. And truth be told, when you start digging in the rabbit hole, you soon discover that the history of this planet is one giant conspiracy.

Here's an amusing video that asks, "Are You a Coincidence Theorist?"




[edit on 9-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by pteridine

Some of the beams in WTC7 were 50 feet long and, at 500C they would have lengthened by 5".

Funny you bring that up.

There were 47 massive central steel support beams holding the twin towers vertically up.

How does the asymmetrical collapse of the material attached to those beams account for those beams being sliced into neat 25 and 30 foot sections, collapsing straight down into nice neat piles of rubble in the buildings' own footprint?

Coincidentally, 25-30ft is JUST the right length for the beams to fit on the flat bed trucks who removed the central I-beams from Ground Zero and shipped them off to China for scrap.

I suppose jet fuel-induced fires have some kind of implied intelligence that allows them to consume the materials they burn at equal intervals does it?

Refer to this photo to help visualise my point:


Look at the huge sections of neatly cut steel beams being hurtled laterally in front of the lighter dust particles of concrete, a scenario only possible through some kind of explosive event.

Sections weighing several tons, that were in the MIDDLE of the building being ejected almost in a horizontal trajectory, at speeds surpassing the movement of lighter debris and dust weighing kilograms, not tons?

If you sliced the top of a massive tree off near its peak, you would not expect the entire tree underneath it to explode into dust and splinters. The tree has vertical integrity. So, too, did these buildings, and something tore them down.


[edit on 9/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by Solomons

 

So why exactly isn't this being shown to the courts or start a legal battle which if this report is true proves conclusively that 9/11 was an inside job?

It doesn't. It simply proves thermite was present in the rubble of WTC, which most of us knew back since 2004.

Thermite being present in the rubble is a far cry from proving actual demolitions charges took down the towers; as much as I would like to see that proven.

You can't exactly build a case against the United States government for deliberating killing it's own civilians on circumstantial evidence.

[edit on 5/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

No, but couple this evidence, with all the rest, such as the terrorist being trained in the US, NORAD standing down, etc, and you have an obvious case... What's pussling me more about this, is why you got 4 stars for saying this... THAT is more puzzling than 911, HA HA!!!


[edit on 9-4-2009 by Time=Now]

reply to post by Time=Now

No, but couple this evidence, with all the rest, such as the terrorist being trained in the US, NORAD standing down, etc, and you have an obvious case... What's pussling me more about this, is why you got 4 stars for saying this...

Because the conclusive presence of thermite at Ground Zero is not alone going to convict the Government of staging a false-flag attack. Duh.

Which is what we were actually arguing about (as per the THREAD TOPIC) before the floodgates opened up here and released a swarm of detractors that some very irritated, conservative person most likely informed via U2U.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira

Coincidentally, the beams were in sections and broke at the joints. Interestingly, the sections were of sizes that allowed trucks to bring them to the site for assembly during construction. Not surprisingly, the sections had not changed dimensions during the time they were part of the building.

I have heard this claim several times before, phrased almost identically, so I suspect that you are reading those someguys-for-911truth sites and repeating their claims without investigating further.

reply to post by Griff


The analogy with mine fires was to make the point that contained, slow burning, oxygen poor fires could become much hotter than many people expect. Water does not necessarily reach the fires unless one is directly spraying the flame front. Pouring water on top of the heap assumes that gravity will cause the water to reach the combustion zone. Bad assumption. Water does not flow uphill, so some sites will not be touched by the water or will be able to vaproize the small amount that actually reaches them.

[edit on 4/9/2009 by pteridine]

reply to post by Jezus


Where is your fundamental scientific evidence? You tube has none. Jones has none. The somebody-for-911truth sites have none.

I wonder...

If enough evidence to sink a battleship falls on pteridine in a forest, but he doesn't hear it, does it exist?

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Goldie,
So far you haven't come up with any credible evidence. Your play to incredulity is not working and battleship sinking definitely is not in your future.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by pteridine

 

Some of the beams in WTC7 were 50 feet long and, at 500C they would have lengthened by 5".

Funny you bring that up.

There were 47 massive central steel support beams holding the twin towers vertically up.

How does the asymmetrical collapse of the material attached to those beams account for those beams being sliced into neat 25 and 30 foot sections, collapsing straight down into nice neat piles of rubble in the buildings' own footprint?

Coincidentally, 25-30ft is JUST the right length for the beams to fit on the flat bed trucks who removed the central I-beams from Ground Zero and shipped them off to China for scrap.

I suppose jet fuel-induced fires have some kind of implied intelligence that allows them to consume the materials they burn at equal intervals does it?

Refer to this photo to help visualise my point:

Look at the huge sections of neatly cut steel beams being hurtled laterally in front of the lighter dust particles of concrete, a scenario only possible through some kind of explosive event.

Sections weighing several tons, that were in the MIDDLE of the building being ejected almost in a horizontal trajectory, at speeds surpassing the movement of lighter debris and dust weighing kilograms, not tons?

If you sliced the top of a massive tree off near its peak, you would not expect the entire tree underneath it to explode into dust and splinters. The tree has vertical integrity. So, too, did these buildings, and something tore them down.


[edit on 9/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

The only problem with your comparison is a tree is solid, the WTC was mostly air. When 20 floors fall on top of another, the result is catastrophic.

Once again, your proof that there was explosives is because it looked like the debris was responding to an explosion. That is not proof.

There was no controlled demolition because 1) you did not hear the suspected detonators go off 2) you did not see the suspected detonators go off. If you ever watch a controlled demolition two things are obvious, it is loud and you could see the the detonators in broad daylight.

This page:

www.debunking911.com...

does a very in-depth controlled demolition of Jones and his thermite claim.

Real science with photographic examples.

A must read for those seeking The Truth.


Mike

A team of nine scientists have unearthed startling data from dust gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on 9/11. They discovered that scattered throughout the dust samples were red and gray chips of 'active thermitic material', or an un-reacted pyrotechnic explosive.

So ...... how 'bout we put all the evidence in front of grand juries and let them decide the guilt or innocence of Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, et al?

I think a competent representation of the facts will indict these low class m^&*() f@$#(^$@.

reply to post by Griff


The NRC is the peer review for NIST.

www.nist.gov...

sites.nationalacademies.org...







[edit on 9-4-2009 by esdad71]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Goldie,
So far you haven't come up with any credible evidence. Your play to incredulity is not working and battleship sinking definitely is not in your future.

If you were on trial as a 9/11 conspirator, there's enough evidence in this thread alone to send you to the hoosegow for life. Except you probably wouldn't escape with your life.

And how much evidence is there against the so-called 19 Arab "hijackers?" I say we should round up all of them to make sure they don't escape justice!

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
BBC News
Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.

Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports.

He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver.

Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News.

The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says.

Meanwhile, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi.

He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.

And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive.

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.

Yeah, the "hijacker's" identities were in serious doubt all right, but it somehow wasn't important enough to find the real perpetraitors:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ea3d540cdf8.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Your BBC news article is from September of 2001. This is so old that it's coming around again and still has no basis other than commonality of names in mid-east countries.
This thread is really about highly engineered paint that Stevie thinks is thermite but that the OP calls 'explosive.'
The evidence is not there.