PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by jthomas


By whom?

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by jthomas

 

By whom?

See my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by jthomas

 

By whom?

See my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can you highlight exactly where they looked for explosives or accelerants. Just seeing what might be in the dust and actively searching for explosives residue would be two very different things, no?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by jthomas

 

By whom?

See my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can you highlight exactly where they looked for explosives or accelerants. Just seeing what might be in the dust and actively searching for explosives residue would be two very different things, no?

The study was done to determine the chemical components present in the settled dust. Even Steven Jones did that in his own tests.

Explosives are made of different chemical components, each type of explosive unique in what and how much chemicals make them up.

The dust study identified the chemical components. They are listed by name and proportions in the study. No one, including those who believe the towers could not have fallen except by explosives have pointed to any chemical signatures of explosives in the dust.

Even Steven Jones knows that no chemical signatures of explosives were found in the study or in his own study which is why he went to the Thermate hypothesis and claimed that the red paint was the culprit. It turned out he couldn't prove that either.

One poster in the other thread insisted that testing for the chemical components of the dust could not identify chemical signatures of explosives but never demonstrated that claim. To date, no one has invalidated the dust study methodology or shown that some other methodology had to be used instead.

reply to post by jthomas


So after all of those pointless words, the answer is NO - They did not look for explosives residue. They did not test the steal nor search the rubble for explosives. They did not specifically seek out explosives anywhere. All they did was see what was in the settled dust.

The only reason you go on and on and on and on and on and on each time this comes up is because you cannot just accept the fact that they did not look for explosives residue but you hate to admit that.

Trying to say it 9 different ways in order to make it look more substantial not only does not fool people, it makes the attempt look weak.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


They did also not specifically look for Reptilians, bicycles, hologram generators, submarines, or '57 Chevys. They didn't find any because they weren't looking for them. There must be a conspiracy. THere should be a new investigation where we demand that these and everything else we can think of wll be specifically sought. This should be done by a group that we will select and if we don't find what we want, we can always keep looking.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by jthomas

 

So after all of those pointless words, the answer is NO - They did not look for explosives residue.

Feel free to demonstrate your claim anytime. No one has been able to do so to date. I explained to you in careful detail the methodology and you have made no effort to show that it is wrong.

How do you think you'll convince anyone for the need for a new investigation with your strategy?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

They did also not specifically look for Reptilians, bicycles, hologram generators, submarines, or '57 Chevys. They didn't find any because they weren't looking for them. There must be a conspiracy. THere should be a new investigation where we demand that these and everything else we can think of wll be specifically sought. This should be done by a group that we will select and if we don't find what we want, we can always keep looking.

Exactly.

What's even more interesting is that one poster has claimed he wants a "new" investigation to look for explosive residues after explicitly saying that it is "far too late" to find explosive residues.

9/11 Truth logic never ceases to amaze...

reply to post by pteridine


Thermite and reptilians are two different things. You need to check yourself.

Get off this forum, those of you that are still here. It's useless.

reply to post by jthomas


This example you've given is not NIST and it is not FEMA. NIST admits that they did not look for thermite, which is literally against the law.

Who are you trying to fool? All of you? What are you doing here?

reply to post by jthomas

Anyway, you already agreed with me above that the methodology of determining the chemical components of the dust to find explosive residue is valid. And no explosive residue has been found.

This is untrue. I did not agree with you and had I, you would have posted it.

I don't have to prove anything. You do. The burden of proof remains on your shoulders to prove your claims that explosives were found and refute the NIST investigation. We see you still haven't.

That is untrue, and you do have to support your claims. The OS is already a proven fallacy.
You are ignoring the facts, the sources, which have been posted to you, by most people on here.
Experts in A&E and scientist have already proved NIST is a fraud. Why support it?
As for 911 Commission report, it has been proven a fraud by the writers themselves who have admitted they lied. Why support it?

What we see is groups like Architects and Engineers resort to posting a dishonest account of the fires in WTC 2 (see: www.abovetopsecret.com...) as a fund raising event, and resort to pleading for anybody to sign a petition.

You are twisting the facts here. I have confronted camronfox over this fallacy and it was camron who posted this nonsense. pleading, I don’t think so.

The only problem is that Jones found red paint chips, which turn out to be only red paint chips

That is untrue. You obviously didn’t read professor Steven Jones report.
Where is your science that proves that the nano Thermite & nano Thermate are only red paint chips?

So determining what chemical compounds were in the dust is a proper methodology for looking for the signatures of explosives. That's what I am saying. And all the dust studies showed no chemical signatures of explosives.

Again, this is all untrue. Scientist have found chemical compounds that belong ONLY to explosives ingredients that are used in our military into making highly explosive weapons.

I have not seen any scientist or Scholar refute professor Steven Jones Thermite report.
The only people, who make the “claims” as red paint chips, are people who have given only their opinions about Jones report.

You show me a team of scientist who stand behind “only red paint chips” and have proved that Jones Thermite report is a lie.



[edit on 17-4-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by jthomas

 

So after all of those pointless words, the answer is NO - They did not look for explosives residue. They did not test the steal nor search the rubble for explosives. They did not specifically seek out explosives anywhere. All they did was see what was in the settled dust.

The only reason you go on and on and on and on and on and on each time this comes up is because you cannot just accept the fact that they did not look for explosives residue but you hate to admit that.

Trying to say it 9 different ways in order to make it look more substantial not only does not fool people, it makes the attempt look weak.

They did test the steal. But if you read carefully you will see that their test temperature was from 1100 to 1400 degrees celsius,On all simulations. Their goal was to identify how the steal would react to 600 degrees. In other words NIST only simulated Howe the seal would react if it was affected to temperatures around 600 degrees. But thy didn't take measures for if the steal ever was submitted to these temperatures. NIST only did a worst case simulation. NIST have no proof that building 7 was ever exposed to any of the temperature simulated in their tests.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by spy66


jthomas. Thank you very much for your time. I know now were you stand in all this. I am going to ignore your next replies unless you can give me anything useful. Because what you are doing now is a waste of my time and everyone else's time.

I have already. I have repeatedly. Let's review:

1. You do not get to choose which evidence you ignore. You must deal with, and refute, the multiple lines of evidence from all sources that converge on the conclusions of the NIST investigations.

2. If you believe there were explosives, or reasons to think so, the burden of proof is on you to refute the evidence that no explosives were needed and no evidence of them was found.

3. If you intend to give reasons for a new investigation, you will have to at least satisfy numbers 1 and 2 above.

If you have any questions, let me know.

That is my clue i dont ignore any of the evidence gathered by NIST or FEMA. My problem is. If i do the math, I dont get NIST or FEMAs equations to add up.

reply to post by jthomas

Even Steven Jones knows that no chemical signatures of explosives were found in the study or in his own study which is why he went to the Thermate hypothesis and claimed that the red paint was the culprit. It turned out he couldn't prove that either.

This is untrue. You need to read Steven Jones report.

[color=gold]The Open Chemical Physics Journal

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

And read this.

[color=gold]The Open Chemical Physics Journal
Volume 2

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Please show me what page and what paragraph that Pro Steven Jones said there were no chemical signatures of explosives found in the WTC dust samples?

Show me on what page and what paragraph that Jones make the statements that it was only red paint chips and nothing else?
Show me on what page and what paragraph Jones Thermate hypothesis was only red paint chips.

Steven Jones found the chemical make up of nano Thermite and nano Thermate just because he couldn’t match it to any known military application that is on file as a patented chemical paten, it doesn’t mean it does not exists. There is no doubt it is nano Thermite & nano Thermate, Jones said: “we are talking military science,” because this grade of nano Thermite is of a super high concentration of chemical ingredients that no civilian scientist have ever come across it before. Do you think our military are going to give up their secrets in making highly explosive weapons? It is of National Security.




[edit on 18-4-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

Thermite and reptilians are two different things. You need to check yourself.

Get off this forum, those of you that are still here. It's useless.

I see that you may have noticed the difference between reptilians and explosives. You may also have discovered that things that are not specifically sought may be found and things actively sought may not be found. The theory of demolition of WTC7 fails at many levels. The complete lack of evidence of demolition will argue against any new investigation. Jones has proved nothing. No physical evidence of CD was found.
The true believers will continue to grasp at anything.

reply to post by pteridine


Stop making statements of opinion. I know you're opinion. You people said that explosives were looked for. They were not.

That's all.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

They did also not specifically look for Reptilians, bicycles, hologram generators, submarines, or '57 Chevys. They didn't find any because they weren't looking for them. There must be a conspiracy. THere should be a new investigation where we demand that these and everything else we can think of wll be specifically sought. This should be done by a group that we will select and if we don't find what we want, we can always keep looking.

Come on now. Even you can be smarter than that.

Is it possible that reptilians, bicycles, hologram generators, submarines, or '57 Chevys brought those buildings down or would those all just be insanely stupid things to say?

Now, is it possible that explosives brought them down?

Your arguments do tend to become more and more weak when you are backed into a corner.

People suspect explosives for many good reasons. No one suspects bicycles.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by jthomas

 

So after all of those pointless words, the answer is NO - They did not look for explosives residue.

Feel free to demonstrate your claim anytime. No one has been able to do so to date. I explained to you in careful detail the methodology and you have made no effort to show that it is wrong.

No, you did not. I am still waiting for you to demonstrate your claim anywhere. The claim you made is that they did indeed look for explosives residue. Nothing you have shown so far shows that anyone did any looking for explosives residue. I asked you to show me where they tested the steel and NOTHING. I asked you for specific tests that would find explosives and NOTHING. All you have is a study of what might be in some of the dust and that is all.

How do you think you'll convince anyone for the need for a new investigation with your strategy?

How do you think anyone will take you seriously when you repeat the same empty, nonsense over and over again. You have never made a decent argument, backed up a real point, or expressed an intelligent thought of your own. All I see is you saying "yes they did, look!" and then reposting yet another bunch of nonsense about the dust.

Show me where they tested the steel for explosives residue. Show me what tests were done to look for explosives.

Next, get together with Pteridine and decide if they actually looked or not. He is defending the "fact" that they did not because they did not need to. You are insisting they did with no proof.

How is that working? How many people have you convinced of anything yet?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

They did also not specifically look for Reptilians, bicycles, hologram generators, submarines, or '57 Chevys. They didn't find any because they weren't looking for them. There must be a conspiracy. THere should be a new investigation where we demand that these and everything else we can think of wll be specifically sought. This should be done by a group that we will select and if we don't find what we want, we can always keep looking.

Exactly.

What's even more interesting is that one poster has claimed he wants a "new" investigation to look for explosive residues after explicitly saying that it is "far too late" to find explosive residues.

9/11 Truth logic never ceases to amaze...

It must be just as perplexing as the logic that allows you to insist that they did indeed look for explosives residue and insist you showed proof of that and then agree with someone who is arguing that they did NOT look for them because there was no need to. That makes sense.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by jthomas

 

This example you've given is not NIST and it is not FEMA.

I've already said that NIST did not have to do it because it had already been done.

NIST admits that they did not look for thermite, which is literally against the law.

Thermate is not an explosive and NIST broke no laws.