|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
25th September 2009, 12:50 AM | #1 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 315
|
No Explosives Here?
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/n.../site1085c.jpg greetings, I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here? http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html shorts vids u'v seen im sure. (just wanna be sure) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toUdpeI04pM **This bottom one was shot while the cameraman was running.. It has been stabilized by holding the building steady and moving the frame. The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman) The debris field: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...gzaerial4.html Read through the work of dozens of serious scientists who have investigated and are currently investigating 9/11 without prejudice. Look at the images and facts of these events without prejudice or personal incredulity. Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years. The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones. Scientific papers, and scientific bullying aside, I don't need any authority to explain the obvious to me! Take a few FACTS: -Missing Bodies/DNA Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately 2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people? Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how) In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand. Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for. -No discernible trace was found! The fact is that many people were identified by test tube size pieces (from tens of thousands of body parts recovered) In the case of one family all they got the man's femur which had been located '2.5 blocks away' 200 of the DNA tests matched a single individual. 70 of 343 NYFD personnel located. Gravity did that? Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete. There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower. We have to imagine, whatever so systematically pulveruized all that concrete will do much worse to people -The concrete of WTC 1&2 : -WTC 7's textbook implosion -The residual heat The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out. My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?) -May 2002 FEMA Reports Evaporated Construction Grade Steel (?huh?) (through intense high heat corrosion) (?huh?) *images from FEMA BPAT (may 2002) Appendix C: A limited Metallurgical Examination[/i] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...WTC_apndxC.htm Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." “A one-inch column has been reduced to Half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes --some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.” -WPI -Witness testimony to molten metal: Firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the Twin Towers, said: “You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." [31] Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel.” [32] Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers. [34] Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health. [35] Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [36] Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37] *references please see: DR Griffin's article posted at: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13528.html NIST: "Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?" . . ."NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006 In follow-up to this response NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives? NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that. ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first? NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….and the taxpayers money." This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust. NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says: High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27] That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite. *last bit from, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com...de-center-dust just for a start. |
25th September 2009, 12:53 AM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
|
|
25th September 2009, 12:53 AM | #3 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
NIST did look for signs of explosives, and found none. Take a look at NCSTAR1-3.
It isn't "scientific bullying." You're just wrong. |
25th September 2009, 01:00 AM | #4 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
|
|
25th September 2009, 01:09 AM | #5 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
|
so wait, I think you're telling us you think that this was an inside job?
|
__________________
***My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.*** -Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda -I sooo have a blog. -The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find! |
|
25th September 2009, 01:23 AM | #6 |
Student
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 34
|
Wow. What a load of nonsense.
First of all the Niels Bohr Institute is the department of Physics and Astromony, and has nothing to do with the department of chemistry. B: He is just an assistant professor at the department of chemistry and has no doctorate, the institute leader is called Mikael Bols. III: The dean of natural science at KU is called Nils Andersen, and he resigned after the article had been published. |
25th September 2009, 01:25 AM | #7 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
|
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
25th September 2009, 01:25 AM | #8 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
|
I'm shocked.Why hasn't this been brought up before?
Loads of macroscopic concrete here if you're game to lookhttp://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/ |
25th September 2009, 01:45 AM | #9 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
|
How does the sputter of nanothermite burning cause debris to be thrown hundreds of feet?
I don't expect a sensible answer. I'm just asking for them: |
25th September 2009, 01:48 AM | #10 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
|
Quote:
Also, let me ask you: do you disagree with the findings described in this quote by a 911 researcher who investigated the WTC collapses?
Quote:
|
__________________
***My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.*** -Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda -I sooo have a blog. -The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find! |
|
25th September 2009, 02:02 AM | #11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
|
25th September 2009, 02:09 AM | #12 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
Originally Posted by atavisms
Check Brent Blanchards paper about the investigation of the steel from the WTC. http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE...d%208-8-06.pdf Page 8, assertion 6. If you have a problem with these claims, then you can contact the personnel mentioned. You will be the fist member of the 911TM on here to have done so AFAIK |
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
25th September 2009, 02:15 AM | #13 |
Student
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 34
|
|
25th September 2009, 02:16 AM | #14 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
NFPA921 is guidelines on fire investigation.
I am sure trifiorcharity will school you on this one.
Quote:
AFAIK it is not a legal directive or standard. |
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
25th September 2009, 02:21 AM | #15 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
|
I believe Popular Mechanics handles the explosives claim best:
Quote:
There were no explosives in the Twin Towers. It is just not possible in this universe, sorry. |
25th September 2009, 02:28 AM | #16 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
25th September 2009, 02:29 AM | #17 |
AI-EE-YAH!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
|
Its funny when people post crap that was debunked years ago.
|
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken |
|
25th September 2009, 02:30 AM | #18 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
|
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
25th September 2009, 02:46 AM | #19 |
This space for rent.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
|
Now sonny. First, google is your friend. Put in each of the twoof claims, and then for giggles put the word DEBUNKED after them. Now read what comes up.
To answer your question. Were explosives used? No they were not. NIST did an analysis stating that if CD charges were used it would have deafened anyone within a half mile. It would be unmistakable. Please find any video (that has original audio, not doctored sound) of the collapse and point out the explosions which would be clearly audible. There are none. Gravy has a great video explaining it, and showing you the difference between CD including what just 60 lbs of HE sound like. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...11926#12m50s** so you would be able to hear CD charges going off.. where are they? There are NONE. it is rather amazing don'tcha think? now lets move on to the molten metal claim. Do a simple search for melting pionts of metals. You will find that there are 10 metals which melt under 1000C which are commonly used in office buildings. 10 of them. Can you eliminate any of them from the molten metal seen? yes or no? No you can't. So you can't claim it is molten steel. Now, what CD process has ever had molten steel/molten metal? Can you point out one CD of a building anywhere in the world where there is molten steel/molten metal? I'll wait. |
25th September 2009, 02:51 AM | #20 |
Nasty Brutish and Tall
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,691
|
Thanks for bringing this brand new research to our attention Mr Atavisms. Now tell us what you are going to do about this Earth shattering news.
Will there be front page stories in the New York Times? Criminal prosecutions? Huge crowds of protesters marching on Washington demanding President Bush's impeachment? Who do you think will be elected President in 2008? |
25th September 2009, 03:33 AM | #21 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 79
|
Do you know how to use the search function here? Each and every one of your claims has been answered extensively. You’re not bothering to take the step to do a search does not bring any greater validity to these claims.
You have the chance to "learn all your life", but you have to make the effort yourself, nobody can do it for you. Press the search button. Woof! |
25th September 2009, 04:04 AM | #22 | |||
This space for rent.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
|
and in all of those videos do you have the sounds of rapid fire explosions right before the collapse in any of the buildings? no. why not? Explosives make noise. Lots of them.
That is 1,000 lbs of TNT at over a MILE away. Notice how they jump. please show me a video of anyone nearby right before the buildings collapse wehre they jump. Any video (and don't try passing off the firemen at the phone booth which is AFTER the first tower collapsed)
Quote:
Quote:
of course you will say well it was EXPLOSIVES which threw the debris that distance, but you then have the problem from above. Where is the sound on the dozens of recordings of the collapses? And to top that off, where is the schrapnel and the debris being thrown around. Again watch the mythbusters clip I posted. At over a MILE you can hear the schrapnel of the cement truck. Anyone nearby would have been ripped to shreds and debris would have been thrown miles.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'll let others rip this part apart.
Quote:
How is a building which has an asymetrical collapse, which damages buildings that are adjacent to it, that has an 18 second collapse with NO SOUNDS OF CD CHARGES going off a "textbook implosion?"
Quote:
Since there were several subways under the WTC complex they fed the fires. Look up underground fires... try again.
Quote:
and I'm done with it... I have kids to go and play with. ta ta sparky. try to do at least 10 minutes of REAL research... use the SEARCH function, all of these claims have been completely demolished. They pulled it. |
|||
25th September 2009, 04:18 AM | #23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
Just another shill for the truth movement.
Here, go read, http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page http://wtc.nist.gov/ Of course I know you will not go and read them, but I am required to provide you with something outside of scorn and disgust, so there you go. TAM |
25th September 2009, 04:54 AM | #24 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,008
|
|
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate |
|
25th September 2009, 05:18 AM | #25 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
Other than the explosion of the fuel in/from the tanks, no!
But, I will happily defer to your degree in explosives technology from an accredited University/College. |
25th September 2009, 05:36 AM | #26 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 399
|
|
25th September 2009, 05:39 AM | #27 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
|
This thread just goes to show how insulated the hardcore truthers are from the outside world.
Here we have atavisms wandering onto this forum with talking points from 2006 which he honestly thinks are rock solid.
Quote:
|
25th September 2009, 05:40 AM | #28 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
|
__________________
Vive la liberté! |
|
25th September 2009, 05:44 AM | #29 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
|
How can you say things like that are evidence of controlled demolition if these things don't happen in controlled demolition?
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...rch_type=&aq=f Did you see any piece ejected blocks away? |
25th September 2009, 05:52 AM | #30 |
This space for rent.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
|
|
25th September 2009, 05:53 AM | #31 |
This space for rent.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
|
|
25th September 2009, 05:57 AM | #32 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 399
|
|
25th September 2009, 06:00 AM | #33 |
Wicked Lovely
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
|
Might wanna use that time machine and join us in 2009.
Every single one of those claims was debunked by 2006. Check out http://www.911myths.com for more information please. |
25th September 2009, 06:00 AM | #34 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
NFPA921 is not a legal directive. Once the initial investigation is done by the locaal law enforcement, then and only then does the NFPA or fire department start THEIR investigation. And it is typically to figure out if anything could have been prevented or done differently. It COULD possibly be used as evidence in court, but it typically would only be used in a Civil trial if the fire department was negligent.
Here are some reports that would be common. http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/LakeWorth.PDF http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/FIphoenixsum.pdf The author is using conclusions he found on the Firefighters for 9/11 BS page. It is absolutely wrong, and is used in the wrong context. |
25th September 2009, 06:01 AM | #35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
Oh. Another seagull OP. What a surprise.
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
25th September 2009, 06:06 AM | #36 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 664
|
|
25th September 2009, 06:10 AM | #37 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 399
|
He does run a secret school in NY, after all. And they were best friends.
|
25th September 2009, 06:10 AM | #38 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
No big concrete?? Right. And that is NOT a car I see in there.
|
25th September 2009, 06:15 AM | #39 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 203
|
|
25th September 2009, 06:17 AM | #40 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 203
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|