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 SquirrelNutz
Hope you weren't basing your entire argument on the invovlement of such a small (by your account) set of engineers supporting this small piece of the overall puzzle.
You weren't were you?
But I object to the Kiddie Konspiracy level of discussion which deflects from the deep serious issues. The WTC buildings collapsed because their particular architectural design were not capable of withstanding the massive assault from planes and fires compromising their self-support capability. It's been demonstrated in detail by independent architects, structural engineers, demolition experts, forensic investigators, worldwide.
Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
what of WTC-7?
www.debunking911.com...
Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by mmiichael
Yeah, seen them.
Tell you what, I'll spend some time on your link, if you spend some time on mine
www.911research.com...
[This site is updated regularly - almost daily.]
11-settembre.blogspot.com...
But I object to the Kiddie Konspiracy level of discussion which deflects from the deep serious issues.
9/11 is complex in that the Bush admin had foreknowledge of a major attack and did not employ all possible means to stop it.
Suppressed was the known involvement of the Saudi royal family and Pakistan's ISI in funding and co-ordination.
Many other loose ends and perpetrators still at large.
But I object to the Kiddie Konspiracy level of discussion which deflects from the deep serious issues.
The WTC buildings collapsed because their particular architectural design were not capable of withstanding the massive assault from planes and fires compromising their self-support capability.
It's been demonstrated in detail by independent architects, structural engineers, demolition experts, forensic investigators, worldwide.
People like Gage dining out on bad science and ignorance pushing his wonky theories 8 years later only benefits his pocketbook and ego.
Jones paint chips, a millimeter thin, could not do much beyond warm steel a couple degrees even if they were thermite or some hypothesized magic-super-nano-thermite.
Even Jones has conceded that and feebly says maybe some actual explosive was used with the thermite as an igniting material.
As any chemist will tell you, peanut butter has more volatile force than thermite.
The thin red chips, of which there were tons, have been shown to actually be primer paint.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Global Research Editor's Note
The definition of thermitic material:
A trademark used for a welding and incendiary mixture of fine aluminum powder with a metallic oxide, usually iron, that when ignited yields an intense heat.
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. (Wikipedia)
What we are dealing with is the melting/ burning of metal structures.
“Metals are capable of burning under the right conditions, similarly to the combustion process of wood or gasoline. ... A thermite reaction is a process in which the correct mixture of metallic fuels are combined and ignited.
Ignition itself requires extremely high temperatures.”
Readers can reach their own conclusions as to the far-reaching implications of these findings.
Although the authors do not address the broader issue of the 9/11 attacks, their findings have a direct bearing on the likely causes of the collapse of the WTC buildings on September 11, 2001. The findings also question the validity of the official report of the 911 Commission.
Below are selected excerpts of the article. Readers can also link to the complete text, by clicking the link
Complete Article
www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
This is Jones's second attempt to cash in on a controversial scientific 'discovery' that turned out to be bogus.
to cash in on a controversial scientific 'discovery' that turned out to be bogus. His first was Cold Fusion.
This kind of wild speculation and pseudoscientific bafflegab was popular 5-6 years ago before the NIST and FEMA reports came out
Demolition experts and structural engineers worldwide have looked at all the data, photos, accounts, etc. Some disputes on certain points, but overall consensus.
1026 architectural and engineering professionals
and 6365 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.
The still uncharted waters of 9/11 research lie with the depth of complicity of the US admin and it's agencies and their covering for Saudi and Pakistani involvement.
But there really has been no real question for a long time now why and how the WTC buildings collapsed. Relegated to the conspiracy sub-culture where bad science and disproven looney theories have unusually long shelf lives.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Considering that the number of people with architectural and engineering degrees in the US alone is in the hundreds of thousands, and millions worldwide. Gage isn't exactly setting the professional communities on fire.
From accounts he has buttonholed a lot of retired pros, conned many into a lite version of his petition that just seems to request a reinvestigation of 9/11 circumstances, and had passersby sign on out of impulse sympathy.
Bottom line, it took him years to get .01% of the professionals to sign up, there is no movement in the peer review and among associations.
99.99% of architects and engineers believe the WTC buildings collapsed due to the planes acting like gigantic bombs and loss of structural integrity from the uncontrolled fires. All the hard evidence points to that. No solid evidence of controlled demolition.
Gage will continue trying and make a career out of claiming otherwise. His pseudoscience and agenda driven speculations will continue to be ignored.
Originally posted by impressme
Bogus, I have yet to see any sciences that has disproved Jones findings.
Perhaps, you could show me these scientific journals from scientist who have done peer review papers disputing Jones findings? (I didn’t think so)
That is utterly nonsense and disinformation that you are spreading into smearing Professor Steven Jones.
Jones published in Bentham, a phony vanity press publication out of Abu Dhabi. You pay $700 and they print anything. Two American college kids submitted a gobbledygook computer generated paper and submitted to Bentham. It was accepted - for the fee.
Originally posted by turbofan
Jones published in Bentham, a phony vanity press publication out of Abu Dhabi. You pay $700 and they print anything. Two American college kids submitted a gobbledygook computer generated paper and submitted to Bentham. It was accepted - for the fee.
The difference is: the computer entry was easily spotted and makes no sesne.
Nobody has been able to disprove the science...all they do is attack the
journal as a method to discredit the authors.
Let us know when you have a valid theory / argument for the science
presented in the paper.