Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl, page 35

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:36 AM

link

Originally posted by Exuberant1

We always uncover something new - such as the ability to electrically detonate thermate, and the various unconventional ways in which it can be applied to structures.

Then there is the confirmation of nano-thermate - this discovery of which, is what this thread is all about. It actually lead to us finding out about the unique properties in both application and detonation that are possessed by this form of incendiary.

Have you read that FEMA analysis yet?

Tell us when you do

Agreed, always something new.

Laboriously demonstrated NO evidence of therm*te. No demonstration how so many tons of it could be strategically placed in direct contact with the steel skeleton of buildings and yield split-second detonation.

And we have learned a bit about the behaviour of heated house paint.

Have you read the abundant technical data and analysis provided throughout this thread yet?

Tell us when you do.

M

[edit on 10-5-2009 by mmiichael]

Exuberant1

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 07:08 AM

link

Originally posted by mmiichael
Have you read the abundant technical data and analysis provided throughout this thread yet?

Indeed.

The exertion of intellectual rigour is not beneath me; especially when the topic is the greatest act of terror North America has ever been subjected to.

My research has even lead me to make some new discoveries with regards to the properties of nano-energetics, as is referenced in my postings here.

Where has your research lead you? (you admittedly have not even looked at the FEMA analysis.)

You did not even know about the documented Eutectic reactions until BSbray pointed it out. Even if you do not read the entire analysis, please take the time to research these extensively documented Eutectic reactions.

Do you deny that these Eutectic reactions occurred?

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Exuberant1]

spy66

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 07:40 AM

link

I had to >Edit my coment from this page. To much information.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

mmiichael

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:06 AM

link

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by mmiichael
Have you read the abundant technical data and analysis provided throughout this thread yet?

Indeed.

The exertion of intellectual rigour is not beneath me; especially when the topic is the greatest act of terror North America has ever been subjected to.

My research has even lead me to make some new discoveries with regards to the properties of nano-energetics, as is referenced in my postings here.

Where has your research lead you? (you admittedly have not even looked at the FEMA analysis.)

You did not even know about the documented Eutectic reactions until BSbray pointed it out. Even if you do not read the entire analysis, please take the time to research these extensively documented Eutectic reactions.

Do you deny that these Eutectic reactions occurred?

Look. I'll politely request that you do not tell me what I have read, not read, think, or know. I am neither obliged to supply my reading list or jump to any demand you want to make.

Have you ever heard of trolling?

You refuse to address the lack of evidence of any therm*te in the Jones paint tests. And other key issues in the claim for controlled demolition like the absence of any residue from the supposed tons of therm*te needed. Ditto the near impossibility of the buildings being unobtrusively torn apart to coat hundreds of steel beams. Ditto the impossibility of it all being detonated with split second precision.

You and BS are always free to discuss eutectic reactions to your hearts content. A published paper on it would be welcome. Bentham will consider it - for a fee.

From what I gather the qualitative steel corrosion is not unexpected. Along with the extremes temperatures the metal was in extended contact with high levels of sulfur from adjacent drywall detritus, in an intensely caustic environment.

Friendly but firm request, do not address any more of your insinuating messages to me again in this or any other threads I visit.

Mike

[edit on 10-5-2009 by mmiichael]

billybob

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:10 AM

link

reply to post by evil incarnate

who says it's for idiots?
it's actually a spreadsheet based simulation, and the data used for input is freely available. the author intends to work towards a version where anyone can input their own values to see what happens.
you may find it no more credible than any other source on the web, but people who know a little science will get it.

it's a work in progress. if you just want others to provide you with 'credible' answers, just trust the government.

billybob

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:17 AM

link

reply to post by evil incarnate

i see you do think for yourself.
AWESOME!

okay, i'll re-respond to the first question.

debunkers claim it would take thousands of tons to bring the towers, so that's impossible. yet, they also claim that the towers fell like a house of cards with no external energy input.
so, if the towers can fall all by themselves, why would you need thousands of tons of explosives to bring them down? seems like zero pounds are what they feel was used. why not three hundred pounds, then? or one pound? like, the straw that broke the camel's back.
i personally feel there was hundreds or even thousands of tons of explosives installed in the elevator shafts, and on the floor trusses and/or the (4) bolts at the ends of the floor trusses.
depending on where you put them, just a little bit could go a long way.

billybob

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:47 AM

link

Originally posted by mmiichael
If you use online conspiracy sites and videos as your sources these and many more leading questions exist.

If you read literature on the subject from not only governmental agencies but engineers and professionals who've reviewed the evidence you get a completely different picture. Add the testimony of multiple eyewitness, firemen, on site medical teams, etc.

actually, i get the exact same picture whether i read government reports, or conspiracy websites. something is rotten in denmark.
the NIST report contradicts itself, the 911 commission report doesn't even mention wtc7, there has never been any resolution on the anthrax (HUGE) issue, the FBI doesn't connect osama bin laden to 911, those who profited from bizarre trading on the two airlines were never identified to the public, george bush said he saw the first strike on television when it was never shown because there was no footage, rumsfeld said missiles were used at the pentagon and flight 93 was shot down, the witnesses at the pentagon all claim a north of citgo path, impossible physics are used to explain the 5 downed light poles, the black box recorder has the plane flying far too high to have hit the pentagon, the patriot act was passed while most of the politicians were away dueto the anthrax scare, NIST admits that wtc7 was in freefall for over 2 seconds, there were explosions in the sublevels of the tower, all the eyewitnesses at the towers reported explosions, and all the television reports claimed there were secondary explosions, and feared more explosions would bring the towers down, the ground beneath the towers in the aftermath was hotter (for MONTHS!) than the fires that supposedly cause the collapse, the EPA said it was safe to breathe 100 times the 'safe' amount of asbestos so that the cover-up, er, clean-up could begin, no photography was allowed at ground zero (other than one officially sanctioned photographer), john o'neill was stymied from investigating these terrorists, and then died in the towers on 911 ("coincidentally"), ......etc,etc,etc....

and, then there's people like you that type themselves blue trying to STATE with AUTHORITY that there is 'nothing to see here, move along'. that's not suspicious at all, either. THESE ARE NOT THE DROIDS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR

jedi mind tricks don't work on conspiracy RESEARCHERS.

Originally posted by mmiichaelThen there are a number of online sites from interested non-affiliated professionals worldwide who address the Truther issues with documentation and photographic evidence. No one should make claims about what did and did not happen on 9/11 until they've at least looked at these thoroughly.

yeah. websites like architects and engineers for 911 truth, pilots for 911 truth, veterans for 911 truth, scholars for 911 truth.....

Originally posted by mmiichaelA plane hit the Pentagon. There has never been any question.

actually, there's ALWAYS been a question. you don't see anyone debating things eight years later that there's 'never been a question' about. nice AUTHORITATIVE voice you have, though, even if it's wrong.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Hundreds of ordinary people watched it happen, some took pictures. The destroyed plane with it's dead passengers and crew were removed. Hundreds were involved in the horrific clean up. Some of them you can send an email to right now and ask them about it. They are more reliable than a guy peddling his video.

Mike

show me a picture of a plane hitting the pentagon. i can show you hundreds of the planes hitting the towers. an inordinate number of the most published pentagon witnesses either worked for USA today and affiliate media, or the military.
the witnesses interviewed by the 'citizen investigation team' say the official story comletely contradicts what they saw.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by billybob]

evil incarnate

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:11 PM

link

Originally posted by billybob

who says it's for idiots?
it's actually a spreadsheet based simulation, and the data used for input is freely available. the author intends to work towards a version where anyone can input their own values to see what happens.
you may find it no more credible than any other source on the web, but people who know a little science will get it.

it's a work in progress. if you just want others to provide you with 'credible' answers, just trust the government.

OK, I guess you do not have basic comprehension skills do you? Once again, you did not actually address what I said in my post, you just replied to it and then just said anything you wanted.

It is a work in progress. It is also nothing useful. That was a whole page ago. please go on ranting for no reason about nothing in particular while trying to pidgeon hole me so you feel like you actually answered me and came out on top.

evil incarnate

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:14 PM

link

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by evil incarnate

I asked pretty simple basic questions. I would think if you were so educated on the subject you could have just answered them instead of trying so hard to fit a tinfoil hat on me. No save your rants for people that ask about whatever you want to rant about. You did not address even one of the very simple questions that I asked you.

I asked some basic questions too, that remain unanswered. We all have.
I don't claim to have every piece of evidence, every video, every picture, every first hand report, at my fingertips. No one does.

So why do so many of you make posts claiming that there IS forensic evidence, photographs, and video to cover everything? That is what I was addressing.

evil incarnate

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:16 PM

link

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by evil incarnate

i see you do think for yourself.
AWESOME!

okay, i'll re-respond to the first question.

debunkers claim it would take thousands of tons to bring the towers, so that's impossible. yet, they also claim that the towers fell like a house of cards with no external energy input.
so, if the towers can fall all by themselves, why would you need thousands of tons of explosives to bring them down? seems like zero pounds are what they feel was used. why not three hundred pounds, then? or one pound? like, the straw that broke the camel's back.
i personally feel there was hundreds or even thousands of tons of explosives installed in the elevator shafts, and on the floor trusses and/or the (4) bolts at the ends of the floor trusses.
depending on where you put them, just a little bit could go a long way.

I have not got one clue what you are even responding to anymore. Sorry but either you are confused or have me confused with someone else or you just ramble on, arguing with anything that posts. I am not sure which but you go ahead and argue with me about. The best thing for Bush/Cheney's empire would be to get as many people who do not trust the government to then argue amongst each other over nothing as possible. I am not interested in helping out.

trueforger

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:46 PM

link

Delete post,wrong thread!HaHA

[edit on 10-5-2009 by trueforger]

mmiichael

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:15 PM

link

Apparently the US military and intelligence withheld photographic material on the Pentagon crash feeling it could potentially assist those who might consider another direct attack on it.

But at least one picture got leaked. It is on the page below. Other concerns of unsatisfactory information and evidence are also addressed.
This is just a random example of what's available online for those who have such issues.

I'm not inclined to play the adversarial Truthers vs Debunkers game here.
It's been done elsewhere and more effectively. Everything from the rate of collapse to the claims of explosions have been knowledgeably addressed by people all over the world.

Absurdities like the No Plane Theory, mini-nukes, space platform beams, repainted missiles, and I'll add thermite, pretty much take care of themselves.

Truthers are on their own to find their smoking guns. We're all waiting.

M

www.theblackvault.com...-0

"The preponderance of eye-witness testimony at the scene reported an aircraft fitting the description of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the side of the building."

"Most of the photographic evidence of the plane was taken inside the building by search teams and investigators."

CNN released [a] frame of the explosion at the Pentagon as captured by a surveillance camera."

"The resolution of the image is less than desirable to determine with any degree of accuracy what caused the explosion and the images were not released officially, but were leaked."

bsbray11

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm not inclined to play the adversarial Truthers vs Debunkers game here.

You mean a debate as to what there is evidence of, and what there is not evidence of?

Everything from the rate of collapse to the claims of explosions have been knowledgeably addressed by people all over the world.

Yet we still have tons of unanswered questions that are potentially very relevant to the collapses, no one ever analyzed how the global collapses propagated (including NIST and FEMA), etc.

Your opinion that "everything" has been covered is not supported by facts.

Truthers are on their own to find their smoking guns. We're all waiting.

I was actually waiting for someone to provide evidence that they came down from fires and impacts only.

1) Private citizens are not responsible for forensically investigating the causes of the WTC collapses. Federal entities were and they used our tax money to do it.

2) Even if we did find a "smoking gun" (and I feel there are already plenty of them), there is the problem that you actually have to think for yourself, and have the knowledge to realize that you are looking at a smoking gun. You naturally tend to believe what you think "everyone else" does because you are "thinking" based almost solely on social terms and not in logical ones, and the best argument you have repeatedly offered so far is simply to refer to what other people believe.

Historically, "group think" is not unusual but it is definitely annoying as hell and has a long track history of convincing large amounts of people of very stupid things. You should keep this in mind from now on every time you support something you say by linking to what some "expert" has said that hasn't had access to any more evidence than any other private citizen, puts blind faith in NIST, etc. Logic has not had the same problem, historically, though it HAS had the problem of causing a lot of controversy when people don't want to realize that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or the USS Maine exploded on its own, etc.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by bsbray11]

billybob

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link

okay,'cause you're evil incarnate, i'll try one more time....

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by billybob
ah, ...
the old does not compute argument....

it would take tons of explosives to do the work that was done with no explosives.

Could you please qualify that statement somehow? I followed the link and it drives traffic to another thread of yours and not any credible sources.

do understand the law of conservation of energy? that energy can neither be created nor destroyed? energy can only be converted from one form to another. for any given energy input, the energy output will be equal.
potential energy is the energy available through something suspended in the air. gravity is a force acting on it, and while the object is prevented by another force from being moved by gravity, it has potential to do 'work'. rather than me going on about it, here is the wiki page explaining....
potential energy

now, 'why' i was 'driving traffic' (like i care about that?) to the thread is because those simulations are based on the science of plugging numbers into formulas. the formulas are LAWS, the numbers are partially 100 percent accurate (like the acceleration due to gravity), and partially educated guesswork (like the tower's mass, and the amount of concrete that was crushed, and to what degree it was crushed, and the amount of mass that fel to the sides no longer provided energy for crushing).

the simulations illustrate what happens to collapse when different parameters are added to the scenario. it shows how the potential energy cannot do as much work as quickly if there is more work to do. so, if every new pile of work that must be done when added to the simulations input slows the collapse as is seen in the sims (and as any scientist will tell you will happen), then it should be obvious that the faster the collapse, the more energy there is available to do the work.

now, when i said "does not compute', i was referring to the post by pteridine which says there were no explosives used because it would take thousands of pounds of explosives to do the work. and yet, he also claims that this work was done by gravity alone. so, if gravity can do the work alone, why would you need thousands of tons of explosives? it does not compute to claim thousands of tons are need and in the same breath say that there were none, but they 'just fell' (and as i am trying to illustrate in the other thread, there was no resistance to collapse other than momentum transfers between falling objects (upper floors)and objects which are just beginning to fall(the intact tower)).

Inside that thread, the links you claim sum it all up for idiots like me has a banner across the top stating "Free webhosting, set your site up in 10 minutes!"

That is not any more credible than ANY other free website on the web.

once again, who says it's for idiots?
and "paid for site" does not equal "credible", and "free site" doesn't equal "not credible". i was thinking of making a free 2 + 2 = 4 website just for you, but i think you get the point. the truth or the lie is what it is wherever it is. the content on the site is what it is. it is a good illustration of the science of energy conversation, and claims to be nothing more.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by billybob]

evil incarnate

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link

reply to post by billybob

Ok, you say a lot of things that all really say nothing. Either You do not understand what potential energy is or you are arguing with the wrong guy. Make a clear cogent point in one paragraph or less because, honestly. I simple asked someone to qualify credible to me.

mmiichael

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link

Originally posted by bsbray11

I was actually waiting for someone to provide evidence that they came down from fires and impacts only.

1) Private citizens are not responsible for forensically investigating the causes of the WTC collapses. Federal entities were and they used our tax money to do it.

2) Even if we did find a "smoking gun" (and I feel there are already plenty of them), there is the problem that you actually have to think for yourself, and have the knowledge to realize that you are looking at a smoking gun. You naturally tend to believe what you think "everyone else" does because you are "thinking" based almost solely on social terms and not in logical ones, and the best argument you have repeatedly offered so far is simply to refer to what other people believe.

Historically, "group think" is not unusual but it is definitely annoying as hell and has a long track history of convincing large amounts of people of very stupid things. You should keep this in mind from now on every time you support something you say by linking to what some "expert" has said that hasn't had access to any more evidence than any other private citizen, puts blind faith in NIST, etc. Logic has not had the same problem, historically, though it HAS had the problem of causing a lot of controversy when people don't want to realize that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or the USS Maine exploded on its own, etc.

I don't need to be told how to think, thank you.

I'm not the encylopedia of 9/11. As stated many times, I personally read a substantial samplings of everything available on the topic, pro and con.

I also take in the synthesis of others who devote considerable time and effort to reviewing vast amounts of data and discussion. Many have focused considerably on the arguments against the government sanctioned analysis with no prejudice.

There always will be gaps in the record and unresolved questions. For me the primary outstanding questions are the degree of foreknowledge of the attacks and at what levels.

But I have seen no satisfactory substantiation of controlled demolition, which I'd say conflicts with reason as well as viability.

Most of what I've seen presented by those rejecting the supposed official story is based specially selected data, false premises and incorrect assumptions. If anything they reinforce the conclusion that what we have been told and shown happened actually did happen that way.

It's right to always question information and sources. But sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

Mike

Jezus

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link

Originally posted by mmiichael
Absurdities like the No Plane Theory, mini-nukes, space platform beams, repainted missiles, and I'll add thermite, pretty much take care of themselves.

Truthers are on their own to find their smoking guns. We're all waiting.

I agree that many theories are pushed around that have no evidence.

But the smoking gun for the truthers is the official story itself.

It only takes a basic understanding of the structure of those buildings and physics to realize that the official story is a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

I admit that proving the exact details of the conspiracy is difficult and maybe it can't be done, but the official story is what proves that their was some conspiracy.

Not only does it contradict itself internally and contradict observed characteristics but it is also completely impossible.

If what was observed was reality, something has been left out of the official report to explain the collapse of those three buildings.

bsbray11

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't need to be told how to think, thank you.

Are you sure? Are you denying the fact that social influence has on people, or are you trying to demonstrate to me that you always think for yourself, do your own fact-checking, etc.? I really doubt the latter because, like I said, you always just refer to other people or authorities rather than actual evidence.

This is a very real phenomenon, and being in denial about it doesn't help at all.

Millions of people used to think the Earth was the center of the universe. That is a crowning achievement in human stupidity. Of those millions, a small handful probably had the sense to realize that wasn't right, by watching the movements of the planets and Sun/Moon, but for everybody else, no thinking was involved because other people did the thinking for them.

There was another thread on ATS recently showing that, given "expert" advice, peoples' decision-making parts of their brain shut down and they just did what they were told by and large, even when the "advice" was obviously bad.

A few decades ago at Stanford they had students role play prison guards and inmates, and soon enough the roles had become so realistic that they had to call the experiment off before anyone was seriously rattled. Once again, a classic example of people thinking based on mass mentality based on personal reasoning with their own brains.

There is lots about this phenomenon. How much do you know about it? How do you know whether or not you are suffering from this unless you have actually looked to these sorts of things and actively avoid the same mentalities?

[edit on 10-5-2009 by bsbray11]

bsbray11

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Ok, you say a lot of things that all really say nothing. Either You do not understand what potential energy is or you are arguing with the wrong guy.

Why would you say that billybob doesn't understand PE? Can you tell us how you define it that would make a difference as far as what the OP shows?

mmiichael

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't need to be told how to think, thank you.

Are you sure? Are you denying the fact that social influence has on people, or are you trying to demonstrate to me that you always think for yourself, do your own fact-checking, etc.? I really doubt the latter because, like I said, you always just refer to other people or authorities rather than actual evidence.

I'm positive.

I didn't invent the wheel or need to reinvent it. I didn't discover or personally investigate the laws of physics. I defer to Mr Newton and his official story. That's how I, and most people deal with complex multi-disciplinary required information.

We are in a thread discussing a questionable paper on a conspiracy site.

What I am experiencing is an unremitting assault on my reasoning processes rather than on pointed weaknesses of certain arguments. That pretty much speaks volumes about the sources.

I tire of typing away at this as if I have reason to feel defensive.

The conspiracy loving hordes descend on threads to find strength in numbers. It doesn't strengthen the inherent weakness of their arguments.

And then comes the compulsive Last Word Reflex.

I won't be drawn in again.

So over and out for me here.

Mike

[edit on 10-5-2009 by mmiichael]