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 impressme
reply to post by okbmd
The author of this thread has even told another poster , in the past , that it is okay to post false and misleading information on the subject of 9/11 . ( That only applies if you are a truther though ., all others must meet 'proof' requirements ) .
Please post the source to this information. Show the thread to were I made such a statement?
If I had ever made such an appalling statement as to what you claimed, you would have eagerly posted the source to back your statement.
Here are a few of the many failings of the paper: DSC done in air and not valid to prove thermitic reaction. Energy output inconsistent and shows simple combustion. "
NIST's investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. And, in contrast to the Report's voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize or explain the demolition-like features of the collapses -- such as their explosiveness, pulverization, verticality and nearly free-fall rapidity -- except for two sentences in a half-page section added to the Final Report to address criticisms of the Draft.
NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."
Originally posted by davidmann
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by impressme
Why doesn't the good professor go collect some paint chips from some metal structures from in and around Manhattan and put them to the same "rigorous" lab tests?
No control group - no science.
That's right. There is simply NO EVIDENCE! We all saw the real deal on our telescreens that day, and besides all the scientific journals explaining how kerosene melts huge steel beams, there are countless eyewitnesses, true patriots, supporting the official story. THESE ARE THE REAL AMERICANS!!!
The conclusion is that thermite was not proven to be present. Jones must do the experiment correctly, if he can, to show what the red chips really are.
If you'd like to debate the points of the paper, rather than make repeated demands about "evidences", let me know.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by impressme
Why doesn't the good professor go collect some paint chips from some metal structures from in and around Manhattan and put them to the same "rigorous" lab tests?
No control group - no science.
I love America Dave because even garbage like you have freedom of speech.
"Towers could not fall from demos alone"
but a plane? Definably with an explosion and some jet fuel.
"Definably"?
Originally posted by Doctor Smith
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by impressme
Why doesn't the good professor go collect some paint chips from some metal structures from in and around Manhattan and put them to the same "rigorous" lab tests?
No control group - no science.
He did get paint samples from the trade center debris. The paints signature was way off from known nano thermite. Jone's chips are an exact match.
On the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as expected since MEK is a paint solvent.