National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Special 8/31/09

reply to post by Seventh


Because you keep on using bad information in your posts? Or bringing up side issues that arent really in play?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Seventh

 

Because you keep on using bad information in your posts? Or bringing up side issues that arent really in play?

Not really sure what you mean by this?, bad information as in what?, and side issues, my reply was based on documentaries won`t really prove anything at all if they do not address the questions that need answering and all the anomalies.

posted by Seventh
Excellent stuff, there`s nothing like a documentary to find out all those hard to acquire answers....

posted by CameronFox

I suggest you update your cut and paste job. (and do a little research while your at it)

Can you imagine that?

CameronFox of all people telling somebody else to do research.

That is rich.

reply to post by bsbray11


bsbray, I already gave you a whole list of information as to what was a very likely candidate for the eutectic mix found on the surfaces of the steel. You ignored it for some reason.

You do recall that the eutectic mix was a result of lower then melting temps? But therm*te burns over 3,000F even to 4,000F. How can someone claim therm*te and then in the same breath mention the eutectic liquid on the surface which was created at a temperature much lower than the melting point of steel? Adding sulfur to thermite INCREASES the temperature, not decreases.

reply to post by SPreston


Hey SPreston, its been almost 8 years. Any luck finding any real eyewitness accounts to the magic fly-over fantasy? Not accounts that were twisted, cut, manipulated or misread. I mean by now SOMEBODY should have seen it as clear as day a huge 757 with engines full throttle over the Pentagon and stepped forward. I, along with many members here at ATS have been waiting patiently (although with grins on our faces and giggles all around) awaiting ANY solid proof of a fly-over, or even a shred of evidence of a magic flyover. We are still waiting SPreston. tick-tock.

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by CameronFox
This looks like it is going to be rather informative:

At the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center in New Mexico, the remains a steel column in an open field after of a thermite test.:

Oh wow, you are just going to swallow this info up without raising any questions?

Did you happen to see the youtube video of some thermite eating through
and engine block which is much more dense than that piece of steel in
your photo?

I'll be watching this 'documentary'...

Hey turbo, refer to the MYthbusters episode of thermite. Why couldnt 1,000lbs of thermite cut through a pickup truck?

Originally posted by Seventh
Regarding?, and whenever I do a long post I nearly always write it first in a text document, research on what exactly?.

Allow me to hit a couple. There are many threads here at ATS addressing each and everyone of them.

1). Why was national security protocols not adhered to.

You will have to be more specific. What ones were not?

2). How did Bush see on T.V the 1st plane crash as it happened.

He didn't, he was in a class room in Florida.

3). Why did he mention explosives in his live speech.

What speech? What was it in reference to?

4). Why were 503 first responders and Rodriquez not asked to attend the `omission.

Really? I read Rodriquez's statement to the 911 commission. Question is... Why haven't you? How many first responders WERE in the 911 report? How many would you have like there to been?


5). Why was WTC7 not deemed important enough to mention at the `omission.

The 911 report was not an engineering paper. NIST was hired for that.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by CameronFox]

Yeah but is the documentary going to get into the renovation work done by Turner Construction which is very close to the floors that were impacted and 'failed?'

I mean who would have thought? 3 planes, 3 different buildings(Pentagon-Wtc-1 & 2) all hit near or close to or right on recently renovated sections!

I find it unbelievable that any investigation would have left out investigating renovation of this sort, since it could be that future buildings of this sort that catch fire might be in danger! It is not believable to believe the investigation was really after answers for this fact alone. I doubt the documentary will explore this.

For those interested in the Turner Construction Company and their involvement with the Towers go here:
www.911blogger.com...


Also see:
911review.com...

Top Ten Connections Between NIST AND NANO-THERMITES





[edit on 22-8-2009 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
I mean who would have thought? 3 planes, 3 different buildings(Pentagon-Wtc-1 & 2) all hit near or close to or right on recently renovated sections!

Now Turner Constructions is "in on it?" The list just grows more and more.

(edit: I found what I was looking for)

[edit on 22-8-2009 by CameronFox]

reply to post by CameronFox



Lets analyze your response.:"Turner was in on it?" Implied there, is the idea that such companies couldn't or wouldn't be involved in such things. Granted, I wasn't saying "the whole company" but let us look at the premise of this objection.

I will draw another example for my response.

The Human Radiation Experiments:
www.whale.to...

Some of the classified government experiments included: * Exposing more than 100 Alaskan villagers to radioactive iodine during the 1960s. * Feeding 49 retarded and institutionalised teenagers radioactive iron and calcium in their cereal during the years 1946-1954. * Exposing about 800 pregnant women in the late 1940s to radioactive iron to determine the effect on the fetus. * Injecting 7 newborns (six were Black) with radioactive iodine. * Exposing the testicles of more than 100 prisoners to cancer-causing doses of radiation. This experimentation continued into the early 1970s. * Exposing almost 200 cancer patients to high levels of radiation from cesium and cobalt. The AEC finally stopped this experiment in 1974. * Administering radioactive material to psychiatric patients in San Francisco and to prisoners in San Quentin. * Administering massive doses of full body radiation to cancer patients hospitalised at the General Hospital in Cincinnati, Baylor College in Houston, Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City, and the US Naval Hospital in Bethesda, during the 1950s and 1960s. The experiment provided data to the military concerning how a nuclear attack might affect its troops. * Exposing 29 patients, some with rheumatoid arthritis, to total body irradiation (100-300 rad dose) to obtain data for the military. This was conducted at the University of California Hospital in San Francisco.

And.....

Amazingly, these clandestine studies were conducted at the most prestigious medical institutions and colleges, including the University of Chicago, the University of Washington, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and the previously mentioned universities.

Some of this was done "in secret" for more then 30 years. Now, this is one example and we have "prestigious medical institutions" involved in something that should shock and amaze those reading.

Yes, people can be involved in great evil. Universities/Medical Instituitions and Companies like Blackwater, the list goes on.

That evil can be committed by such should not be doubted.

Also see John Stockwell The Highest Ranking CIA OFFICIAL EVER TO SPILL THE BEANS, talk about what he estimates as the 6 million dead at the hands of the CIA:
www.youtube.com...

Now the next thing we should remember is this. That We All Agree that Someone Did 9/11. There can be no doubt there. Someone Did 9/11. Someone is that Evil.

Now, you may feel it is believable that Bin Laden who's family JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE friendly with the Bush's or it could be that this just seems to unbelievable.


Now here is the Important thing.

Let me FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT accept what your saying. This in no way answers my question or even comes close to answering a key question here.

IF TURNER DID WORK ON KEY AREA's(0r close to) INVOLVED IN THE COLLAPSE......then why wasn't this looked into by NIST or others? What if Turner is using something in their renovations that would put other tall-buildings in jeopardy in case of large fires?



[edit on 22-8-2009 by talisman]

reply to post by talisman


Usual incohert rant about something which may have happened in past
as "proof" of massive conspiracy.....

Now here is the Important thing.

Let me FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT accept what your saying. This in no way answers my question or even comes close to answering a key question here.

IF TURNER DID WORK ON KEY AREA's(0r close to) INVOLVED IN THE COLLAPSE......then why wasn't this looked into by NIST or others? What if Turner is using something in their renovations that would put other tall-buildings in jeopardy in case of large fires?

The idea that some company just shows up at WTC and starts whacking away at the building is laughable

To do any kind of work would require permits, lots of permits and paperwork

In WTC the Engineering Department of which Frank De Martini was head
would have to review all plans for construction and alterations to
make sure conform to codes. The project would have been supervised
and inspected at all points in the process

On Sept 11 Frank De Martini was on 86th floor with his wife, who worked
for another firm in the south Tower went plant hit. De Martini
evacuated his floor and with several of his staff stayed behind to
evaluate damage and rescue those trapped. He and his co-workers
rescued some 50 people. Demartini stayed behind to asses structure
and was killed in collapse of North Tower

Until yesterday, when the Port Authority released its raw historical records from Sept. 11, the two men were remembered from glimpses as the north tower of the World Trade Center was heaving toward collapse. One was short, the other tall. They carried a crowbar, a flashlight and walkie talkies. Beyond that, say some who survived that day, the smoke had blurred their faces and hair and clothes into gray.

With their tools, the two men ? Frank De Martini, an architect, and Pablo Ortiz, a construction inspector ? attacked the lethal web of obstacles that trapped people who had survived the impact of the plane but could not get to an exit.

At least 50 people stuck on the 88th and 89th floors of the north tower were able to walk out of the building because Mr. De Martini, Mr. Ortiz and others tore away rubble, broke down doors and answered calls for help. Everyone above the 91st floor died.

www.nytimes.com...

books.google.com... AgkX-_U02HE&hl=en&ei=HC2QStPuEsjrlAfUreG2DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

Maybe should read up on them -rather tahn your paranoid little fantasies

reply to post by thedman

The idea that some company just shows up at WTC and starts whacking away at the building is laughable To do any kind of work would require permits, lots of permits and paperwork

Are you saying they didnt' do the work and there is no (or was no) paper work?

btw, the running theory (speculation at this point) is that some of this "material"-nano-thermite would be in the "paint" (fireproofing) without the knoweldge of the people involved who are applying it and overseeing the work.


Do you also consider it a "coincidence" that 3 different planes hit 3 different buildings where recent renovations of some sort occured in either in or near-by? We are talking about WTC-1 & 2 and then of course the Pentagon.








[edit on 22-8-2009 by talisman]

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bsbray11

 

bsbray, I already gave you a whole list of information as to what was a very likely candidate for the eutectic mix found on the surfaces of the steel. You ignored it for some reason.

For "some reason"? Maybe it was because you never prove what you were suggesting, and a lot of it doesn't even make any sense to me and you can't respond to my questions? Like why are you so confident nano-sized particles of sulfur are going to come out of crushed-up drywall?, etc. For *SOME REASON* you ignore my questions or pretend that not knowing a lot of this stuff is inconsequential and your theory is legitimate anyway. I already told you I don't care if you speculate, but why in the hell do you expect me to take your speculation as fact? Maybe you should start taking the things I speculate about as fact, too? It's only fair, you know. Sound like a deal? Or maybe we can just go back to the problems with the theory you are espousing again? Or a way for you to test it by throwing all this junk together and setting it on fire?

You do recall that the eutectic mix was a result of lower then melting temps?

No, the sulfidation component of the reaction described in FEMA appendix C lowered the melting point of the steel. Ie the mixture itself lowered the melting point, it was not a "result" of an already-lowered (somehow else?) melting point.

Adding sulfur to thermite INCREASES the temperature, not decreases.

Temperatures within the reaction itself could have reached that temperature for all we know, and remember the difference between temp. and heat (ie heat still could have been relatively low). A lesser heat/temperature could have been transferred to the steel, ie ~1000 C, all that was then required to melt it since the tiny particles of sulfur had already penetrated the grain boundaries of the steel and opened them up. If you've had much hands-on experience with things that suffer thermodynamic losses, you would understand why a slight overkill is more reliable. The temperatures you are talking about do not necessarily have much heat to go with them and there is no guarantee the steel itself will ever be heated to the same temperature; in fact thermodynamic laws will tell you it would be physically impossible for the same temperature to be transferred without loss, automatically, no other considerations taken into account except the pure movement of energy.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by CameronFox

You will have to be more specific. What ones were not?

I am just going to go with the basic one now, search, intercept, warn to land, destroy if ignored.

He didn't, he was in a class room in Florida.

So many people get this completely wrong, when Andrew Card entered the classroom and whispered to Bush and it`s in his own statement he told Bush of the second plane, not the 1st. add http:// to this link

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/09/11/MN911voice03.DTL

What speech? What was it in reference to?

www.youtube.com...

You tell me, but as in the context of my post a documentary should be asking these questions.

Really? I read Rodriquez's statement to the 911 commission. Question is... Why haven't you? How many first responders WERE in the 911 report? How many would you have like there to been?

The commission refused to hear the testimonies of 503 First Responders, my apologies regarding Rodriquez I should have added - His story wasn't included in the 9/11 Commission Report, and his information was sealed in the National Archives for 50 years so the public wouldn't learn what happened on 9/11. In answer as many should be heard until the truth emerges.

The 911 report was not an engineering paper. NIST was hired for that.

The commission was set up to find out the truth, how is omitting 33% of collapses that day anyway attached to this purpose?.

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by guitarhero4rox
I doubt the governemnt will let NG tell the truth. But im gonna watch this just to see what ridiculous things the people say to debunk the Theories

As I predicted in my OP.

Typical.

As typicial as that popular mechanics hatchet job? I had to stop trusting that magazing on anything electronic or popular after that. Even die hard official story defenders like you, TY, should be willing to admit how bad that was. Why would anyone believe this has any more credibility?

reply to post by bsbray11


Ah so I have to PROVE that chemical reactions and corrosion was taking place in the pile with all the said corrosive agents that would have been in place? I see, and yet you swallow hook line and sinker the garbage claim of magic pixy thermites with zero proof or even a hint of evidence.

What nano-sized particles of sulfur are you talking about? I suppose the fact that the breakdown of drywall's gypsum would release sulfur is beyond your understanding? Or all the fuel and other debris buried and burning could be potential sources of sulfur? What happens when you mix sulfur dioxide with water?

I see your lack of chemistry understanding is beginning to show through. It is a known FACT that the pile was extremely corrosive. FACT: It is known that many many samples of steel showed severe corrosion. FACT: sulfidation of steel can be contributed to the decomposition of the gypsum in the drywall, releasing sulfur onto the hot steel. FACT: gypsum breaks down when exposed to water and also heat. FACT: sulfates would have easily formed in the pile, exposing steel to more corrosion. FACT: heated steel will oxidize faster AND create its own heat.

Rather than ignore what I posted, how about stepping out of the conspiracy world bubble and researching into just how corrosion works, what the materials are that cause it, and how it all fits with what was seen at the Ground Zero clean up.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ah so I have to PROVE that chemical reactions and corrosion was taking place in the pile with all the said corrosive agents that would have been in place?

No, that's a really bad representation of what I was saying you should prove.

Why don't you recap your theory as to how all this stuff just happened to come together and do this, and I'll point out to you specifically what I want to see sources/references/evidence for. Okay?

Ie tell me your theory again, and I'll tell you what you need to validate it.

What nano-sized particles of sulfur are you talking about?

FEMA, app. C. They have images with scales on them.

I suppose the fact that the breakdown of drywall's gypsum would release sulfur is beyond your understanding?

Apparently so man, because I keep asking you how exactly this all happened and you can't tell me. Instead you start leaning on personal attacks, saying I don't understand chemistry, this, that, ho hum, I've heard it all before. Attack me with facts, please. Like the ones that would validate your theory.

Just because you smash something up with large debris doesn't mean you get nano-sized particles, there is too much difference between the size scales of chunks, crumbs, and dust, and nano-particles. That's why nano-tech labs don't use massive hammers. Just because there is sulfur in drywall doesn't mean it's the sulfur in the samples. You have not explained how the sulfur made it onto the columns, but not the other elements in the right proportions as drywall has. Or where the other parts of the eutectic mixture happened to come from. I could go on and on. THESE are the things to be proven, established, etc., else you are just speculated. Hope that makes sense to you friend. If not, just explain your theory one more time for me please, and try not to leave these details out this time.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by Seventh

Why was national security protocols not adhered to

For the most part they were.

How did Bush see on T.V the 1st plane crash as it happened.

He didnt. He mentioned he had seen the news report of the first crash.

Why was WTC7 not deemed important enough to mention at the `omission.

A sterling example of a irrelevant statement. As mentioned by another poster, the Commission wasnt created to study the engineering issues.

The C.I.A. are trained to notice adverse movement on the stock exchange that could involve terrorism, terrorists favourite weapons are vehicles used as or carrying explosives, airports and planes yield fantastic results.....

Not sure where you got this load of manure.

This was a major crime scene, why was it not treated at as such, again a complete disregard of normal protocols.

Completely inaccurate. The debris WAS treated as a crime scene.

Why if this is a war against terrorism and by all accounts very much Saudi Arabian related, has war not been declared on Saudi also, has this anything to do with John O`neil being told to back off (whole can of worms to be opened here tbh).

Again, an inaccurate statement. The Saudi Arabian government wasnt connected to the attack. Has nothing to do with John O'Neill.

Why was war declared on Afghanistan after America could not offer evidence that Bin laden was behind it.

They were told to hand him over and they chose not to....after the President had made it clear that if you supported terrorists, we were going to come knocking.

Why was everyone of importance at the respective targets not there that day ie Bush, Silverstein, are the main two but if this side had the investigation it warrants there would be alarming similarities.

George Bush was supposed to be at the WTC that day?? This statement makes no sense.

Why has Khalid Sheik Mohammad never been brought to justice

He is currently in prison, awaiting the completion of the court proceedings.

Why was President Bush allowed to continue reading to a grade school class in Florida while the nation was under attack.

Because the Secret Service wasnt ready to move him. They were making alternate plans about where to take him and resweeping the area around the school.

In depth interviews with patriots for truth.

Umm....why?


Are you getting the picture yet?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

For the most part they were.

If there was a certain protocol for every single aspect of 9/11 it was not adhered to, first reason to have interviews with all the ex or still working counter terrorist officials associated with Patriots for truth, they know a whole heap more than us and have formed for a specific reason.

He didnt. He mentioned he had seen the news report of the first crash.

Getting really bored having to show this, if someone actually watches/listens/understands, I won`t have to keep explaining it...
Okay read and watch video carefully, as stated by Andrew Card the moment he walks into the classroom and whispers to Bush, he is telling him about the second plane, now what he is stating on the video 3 months after has key pointers........

1). Outside the classroom (he was inside).
2). Watching T.V. (there was/is no T.V. at the part of the school I gave proof earlier).
3). He was told by Andrew Card.
4). He even made comments about it - `I thought to myself what a terrible pilot`.
5). There was no video of the North Tower WTC1 impact until the Naudet brothers one was shown the next day. so no matter wether he saw the first impact at the school, in the hotel, or in his limo en route to the school, where did the T.V. footage come from?.

www.youtube.com...

A sterling example of a irrelevant statement. As mentioned by another poster, the Commission wasnt created to study the engineering issues.

Then why do they employ structural engineers, they were there to do a job which was to prove the official story correct, they manipulated all evidence of the three collapses until it suited their results, a complete opposite of how such an in depth investigation should work, a random NIST quote.....

“NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.”

Does that sound like an agency not dealing with engineering aspects?.

Not sure where you got this load of manure.

Pick anyone of these sites, I think at least two of them even go into detail regarding the software the C.I.A. uses for monitoring stock market activities. Just in case i`m going to remove http:// from first two links as it normally bugs out the links, just copy paste 1 or 2 and add it...

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP112A.html = number 22.

www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00359.html

premendra.sulekha.com...

Completely inaccurate. The debris WAS treated as a crime scene.

Completely inaccurate to the extent that people where searching a nearby rubbish tip for clues including human remains, mistakenly put onto trucks and dumped, also the bone fragments found on the bank roof years after, there was debris found all over the roofs, did no one see fit it may contain human remains? yep that is one thorough search, did I mention no traces whatsoever found of over 1700 dead?, to much of a hurry to get the scrap to it`s respective homes.

Again, an inaccurate statement. The Saudi Arabian government wasnt connected to the attack. Has nothing to do with John O'Neill.

Oh, we mention governments now, food for thought.....


Mid-July 2001: John O’Neill Rails Against White House and Saudi Obstructionism

FBI counter terrorism expert John O’Neill privately discusses White House obstruction in his bin Laden investigation. O’Neill says, “The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” He adds, “All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.” O’Neill also believes the White House is obstructing his investigation of bin Laden because they are still keeping the idea of a pipeline deal with the Taliban open (see July 21, 2001)

May want to spend time here looking at exactly what your precious government and terrorists get up to (again add http:// to link)....

www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=john_o_neill

They were told to hand him over and they chose not to....after the President had made it clear that if you supported terrorists, we were going to come knocking.

Even though there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever (F.B.I. 9/11 most wanted huge clue), at this time there were far more pointers aiming at Saudi but we`ve discussed this earlier.

George Bush was supposed to be at the WTC that day?? This statement makes no sense.

Dear oh dear Swampy read what I wrote, respective targets ie Pentagon and where was the Shanksville jet alleged to be heading?, that`s both Bush`s places of where there`s a good chance he`ll be - yes?.

He is currently in prison, awaiting the completion of the court proceedings.

Hands up I admit a mistake here, after 2 pages of proving my points, it had to happen, but, look how many you got wrong here in trying to debunk me .

Because the Secret Service wasnt ready to move him. They were making alternate plans about where to take him and resweeping the area around the school.

A 20 minute photo shoot is always way more important, than just getting out of that school, these guys drive anything loaded with explosives into wherever, not only was he putting himself at risk, but the children also.

Umm....why?

Because a documentary interviewing high ranking officials whom have vast experience regarding counter terrorism is somehow not counter productive?.

Are you getting the picture yet?

Yes, i`m being chastised for peoples inability to read correctly and not look intensely enough at evidence I provide, you went to all this trouble to prove me wrong on one point, whilst clearly exposing that you know very little about monitoring terrorism, it`s a well known fact that every major front runner, from all the countries involved respective secret services, monitor stock markets, to name but one example.

reply to post by Seventh

Dear oh dear Swampy read what I wrote, respective targets ie Pentagon and where was the Shanksville jet alleged to be heading?, that`s both Bush`s places of where there`s a good chance he`ll be - yes?.

Seventh, oh dear, oh dear!!

"respective targets"???

Well the Pentagon WAS hit....AND, it is EXTREMELY rare, in fact I cannot remember any time the sitting President actually visits the Pentagon....you see, HE makes THEM come to see HIM! (or, HER!, one day....)

UA93, that crashed NEAR Shanksville (not IN Shanksville...another clever ploy by CT's to confuse facts) MAY have been targeting the WH. Being ignorant of the President's itinerary, the perps may have assumed he'd be there. (GEE....this sorta blows the whole notion of an "inside Job", now, doesn't it? IF UA93 had impacted the WH??? Certainly, the PTB, the "evil ones" behind this whole thing, would have KNOWN the Prez's schedule...right???)

BUT, far more likely, just from the standpoint of being more prominent and easier to spot, aim at, and hit, AND for similar psychological reasons, the Capital Building is a more likely target for UA93. We won't ever knw for sure....the WH has an equally, maybe MORE psychological significance, but it is relatively smaller, and perceived to be better defended (!!!).

Hard to know the thinking of those jackals....thankfully, NEITHER building was attacked. EITHER would have been horrible, but the Capital would likely have had the greatest loss of life, and impact on the US Government continuity.
_____________________________________________________
(spelling, of course. 'SpellCheck' is AWOL!)






[edit on 22 August 2009 by weedwhacker]