No Explosives Here?

atavisms

Critical Thinker
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
315

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/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/evidence/photos/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
cmatrix, I asked you some questions. You didn't answer. Twice..

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/evidence/metallurgy/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.co...ts-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust

just for a start.
 
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.
 
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!
Misleading. The reality is that Shaler (the man behind the identification project) has access to many remains that he can't identify because of the condition they were in:

But in many cases DNA was also damaged or destroyed. In initial tests, researchers found that fire and water damage rendered the DNA unusable in about sixty-one percent of the remains recovered from the wreckage. "The problem with the World Trade Center samples is that they were exposed to extremes of heat for about three months as those buildings burned," explains Shaler. "In addition to that, they were spraying water on it to keep it cool so the workers could get in there and find the people, and the warm, moist environment is very bad for DNA, it's very bad for tissues, which decompose rapidly under those circumstances."
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392053

The remains are there, there's just no way to tell who's who. :(
 
so wait, I think you're telling us you think that this was an inside job?
 
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.

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.
 
[Batcraptastic rambling deleted]

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.

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:
 

Attachments

  • Doitforthem.jpg
    Doitforthem.jpg
    89.9 KB · Views: 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.

Is this a part of a textbook implosion?

Also, let me ask you: do you disagree with the findings described in this quote by a 911 researcher who investigated the WTC collapses?

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder

And I'm not sure if this has been said but, welcome to the forums! :)
 
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?

Your understanding is correct, and shows, quite conclusively, it wasn't thermite.

McHrozni
 
atavisms said:
(*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)

That is a lie

Check Brent Blanchards paper about the investigation of the steel from the WTC.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%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
 
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.

NFPA921 is guidelines on fire investigation.

I am sure trifiorcharity will school you on this one.

NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2008 Edition

http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/product.asp?pid=92108&order%5Fsrc=A292

AFAIK it is not a legal directive or standard.
 
Last edited:
I believe Popular Mechanics handles the explosives claim best:

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

This is basic physics. Any two objects in direct physical contact will transfer energy to eachother. Your imaginary demo charges are in contact with the steel girders, which are in turn in contact with the girders below them and are in turn in contact with the girders below them. Eventually, you reach the pilings in the foundation which are driven into the bedrock. The detonation of the hallucinatory bombs would have sent the energy of their vibrations into the buildings frame, down through the foundation and into the bedrock and would have come through as loud and clear on LDEOs siesmographs as a Twisted Sister Concert in Carnegie Hall.

There were no explosives in the Twin Towers. It is just not possible in this universe, sorry.
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17614

Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

Hoffman was wrong, either deliberately or through sheer stupidity. He took his figures from a study into the makeup of the drifting dust plume which, by definition, could contain no macroscopic debris. See how easily you were fooled, atavisms?
 
blah blah blah

just for a start.

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?docid=2873871255585611926#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.
 
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?
 

Back
Top Bottom