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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

page: 55
135
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: PublicOpinion


Well... The abundance of “spherical particles of iron and silicates” could've added proof to his theory but that was never the intention. It's pretty simple: the Toldya (lol) has to remain invisible evidence-wise to match the Nist-report equivalently.


The spherical particles are the result of welding operations during construction and during the clean-up process as crews used high temp wands and torches to cut steel columns.

The silicates you are speaking of are common and can also be found in fly ash at power stations.


Ha! And now I caught a liar in his cave.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

On Jul, 30 2015 @ 09:11 AM (the reply to my posting in the other thread) you decided to stick to your story, that's fine:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But a few days later you even denied one of the key findings from the study we were discussing:


it is worth noting that fly ash and partially combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust.

911research.wtc7.net...

You know... disingenuous people are the ones I couldn't care less about, why should I?

RJ LeeGroup, Inc. denied? They must be some lousy truthers then? No, just a lazy OT-believer with a hammer who sees nails everywhere. Thermite was never the point, I don't care how they did it. But if you ignore scientific proof for the sake of your story, you just do what you claim to fight against: adding misinformation or disinfo to the mix. And I don't want to be part of that, thanks a lot.


Obey a nice day now!




posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Fly ash is a common part of lightweight high strength concrete along with vermiculite and pumice. Might be worth looking into the concrete used in the floors (lightweight would be highly desirable in that situation).

The floors were largely smashed into dust in the collapses weren't they.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Ha! And now I caught a liar in his cave.


False. I am right on the money. I guess you missed it when Steven Jone and Richard Gage got caught lying about thermite and molten steel.



RJ LeeGroup, Inc. denied? They must be some lousy truthers then?


The Truth Movenment has made a mockery of itself over the years and to prove my point, I posted a hoaxed video of WTC 7 and what happened next proved my case that Truthers don't bother to do homework and that they are in the habit of posting hoaxed videos and photos and pass disinformation and lies.

What happened next is that a Truther reposted my hoaxed video in order to prove his point that the video depicted demolition explosions. He didn't even bother to notice to that image of WTC 7 was a reverse-imagery.

As it was, faked demolition explosions and even a flying saucer was added to prove that the video was hoaxed and he didn't notice the small lettering admitting to the hoaxed video. The video was doctored by Eddy Current.

That is one example of many as to how the Truth Movement has made itself a laughing stock in the eyes of the world over the years.
edit on 4-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

From the many videos and picture you have posted here, how can we tell the difference between a "hoaxed" one and a real one? That is, how can we tell when you are deceiving and when you are being honest?



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

We are not talking about fly ash here, even if you might have a solid point. We are talking about high concentrations of particles which could not be explained by fly ash.


• Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust.

911research.wtc7.net...

Take a look into this study, one could even find thin layers of vaporized lead on the dust...
Star for you anyway, thanks for the reply!


a reply to: skyeagle409

Who on Ceres would be concerned about your anti-truther-rant anyway?
Another niscientist ignored the facts while chewing on dust until it morphes to fly ash, I love it!

The RJ LeeGroup did this study for the DB. They didn't examine how the buildings came down and studied the dust to find high concentrations of said particles, which could not be explained with commonly found fly ash (significantly lower concentrations) in high-rises.


In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components. These types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust.


I just can't take your rants full of lies serious if you keep ignoring straight facts. Period. And then we have this:


For example, lead peaks from the surface of mineral wool were identified by XPS. The high-resolution, narrow-range XPS scan (Figure 25) led to the identification of two lead peaks representing lead oxide or lead sulfate. The presence of lead oxides on the surface of mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the surface of mineral wool.


Must have been the first office fire with temperatures at roughly 1700°C then.
Another novelty, again! Awesome, innit?

Now, please show me how and why Dr. Richard J. Lee should be connected to this "truth-movement" you keep mocking constantly. You are far from discussing this topic and just keep spitting lies, but thanks for adding more proof to my point.




posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I'm so disappointed in the mods for allowing this trolling to go on. It's a disgrace.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Who on Ceres would be concerned about your anti-truther-rant anyway?


It should be no mystery as to why, expesially since I have been catching Truthers posting hoaxed and bogus videos and photos while posting disinformation on a regular basis.

Over the years, I have compiled a long list of Truther claims that have since been debunked with facts and evidence. Truther complain about the lack of videos at the Pentagon as proof of a cover-up, yet they ignored one video that does in fact, show American 77 in the background.

The video issue shows the weakness of their arguments because videos are not required to determine the crash of an aircraft, which is evident by the fact that the majority of solved aircraft accidents did not have videos available. Radar, FDRs, communication tapes and radar data are just some of the methods used to solve aircraft accidents.

On another note, we have videos of American 11 and United 175 slamming into WTC 1 and WTC 2, and yet there are Truthers claiming that no aircraft struck those buildings, while others claim that missiles were used despite the fact that not one single piece of a missile was ever recovered. However, B-767 wreckage was recovered at ground zero debunking the missile theory.



Must have been the first office fire with temperatures at roughly 1700°C then. Another novelty, again! Awesome, innit?


At no time did temperatures reach the melting point of steel. This is what Truthers claimed was evidence of thermite at ground zero.

Photo of Molten Steel

Now, for the rest of the story.

What Generated Molten Steel at Ground Zero?


Now, please show me how and why Dr. Richard J. Lee should be connected to this "truth-movement" you keep mocking constantly. You are far from discussing this topic and just keep spitting lies, but thanks for adding more proof to my point.


Better yet, he should visit his local welding shop and let them explain the facts to him, especially since welding operations were conducted during the construction of the WTC buildings and high temp wands and torches were used during the clean-up process.
edit on 6-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander



From the many videos and picture you have posted here, how can we tell the difference between a "hoaxed" one and a real one? That is, how can we tell when you are deceiving and when you are being honest?


You can do a lot of research that backup what I say. In my case, I know from many years of experience and from hours of research, when to 'hold 'em and when to throw 'em. For an example, I caught a person posting this doctored image of American 77 in an effort to deceive people

Doctored Image of American 77

From my many years of experience in the world of aviation, I knew from the photo that the dimension of the B-757 was not consistent with reality in regard to the size of the aircraft and the Pentagon in the photo. Someone didn't take into an account the aircraft was too large in comparison to the height of the Pentagon. In other words, someone tried to push that doctored photo in an effort to deceive people.

Vertical Stabilizer Height of the B-757 = 44 ft 6 in

Roof Height of the Pentagon = 77 feet 3.5 inches

That picture depicts the height of the tail about the same the height of the Pentagon, which I noticed right away. I also knew that tampering with the transponder will not render an aircraft invisible to radar, it just makes it difficult to track, and remember, the B-767 and the B-757 are not stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar and yet many people were led to believe that the 9/11 aircraft were totally invisible to radar after their transponders were tampered with.

I have confronted Rob Balsamo years ago when I caught him posting disinformation, which I knew from personal experience as a pilot (46 years) and airframe technician, (48 years) were forms of disinformation, misinformation and in some cases, outright lies.

I am here to bring real evidence to the table and it has been 14 years since the 9/11 attack and still no evidence of a 9/11 inside job, and in a nation full of investigative reporters who found no evidence either.
edit on 6-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




It should be no mystery as to why, expesially since I have been catching Truthers posting hoaxed and bogus videos and photos while posting disinformation on a regular basis.


Not on my watch but good for you. And again: who on Ceres cares?



At no time did temperatures reach the melting point of steel. This is what Truthers claimed was evidence of thermite at ground zero.


Yet, who... ach forget about it. You don't care about science or how should I take this? A thin layer of vaporised and condensed lead doesn't imply temperatures above 1700°C? Wrong, period. Thermite is just another theory until we have some evidence to support it, but that could explain those high temperatures. Indeed. And all the hate with regards to that theory is noteworthy as well.

Yeah I know... I like the Toldya as well, how can we spin this right again? Hmm... Dr. Richard J. Lee and his team were dumb enough to search for probes in the midst of the deconstruction site and New York was covered with fly ash that day, probably due to pre-collapse fires. That should do it.

Found some irony iron? Keep it, that one was weakened by fire anyway.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Thermite is just another theory until we have some evidence to support it, but that could explain those high temperatures. Indeed. And all the hate with regards to that theory is noteworthy as well.


Just to let you know, it was found that the thermite theory was made up and not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings, which is no mystery considering that during an experience, 1000 pounts of thermite was unable to cut a vehicle in two. Another experiment packed 175 pounds of thermite around a steel box bean, and in that case, thermite failed to burn through that steel beam.

Those experiments were televised.




edit on 6-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Pilgrum

We are not talking about fly ash here, even if you might have a solid point. We are talking about high concentrations of particles which could not be explained by fly ash.


• Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust.

911research.wtc7.net...

Take a look into this study, one could even find thin layers of vaporized lead on the dust...


That depends on the source of the fly ash. There's a large smelter here that produces specialised iron alloys like manganese and silicon types for transformer cores and the waste byproduct is fly ash with exactly those ''uncommon' components. It's widely used in concrete primarily because of its cheapness as well as the superior strength and lightweight characteristics.

The smelters take a mix of basic ores which do contain varying amounts of trace metals beside the primary ones and blast it into a liquid with high power electric arcs (40MW or more) in furnaces which creates a lot of vaporised metallic material in the fly ash, exactly like the material creating so much controversy here.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

And why do you think they didn't take that already into account?


2.5 Summary
The differences within the WTC Dust and typical background dusts include the fineness and evidence of heat, the size and concentration of the chrysotile, and the length and concentration of the mineral wool and other Damage Assessment WTC Dust Signature Study: Composition and Morphology 130 Liberty Street Property December 2003 Confidential 20 fibers, as well as the frequency of occurrence of spherical particles produced by fire and heat, char and soot, and other building products. (page 19/20)

4.0 Statistical Analysis
[...]
Class A particles are common WTC Dust Markers and Class C particles are common Background Building dust particles. The statistical analysis indicates that the dust in the below ceiling space in the gash is different from that observed in Background Buildings. The material collected in the gash is consistent with building materials derived from the destruction of the WTC; the carbon-rich particulate is abundant in typical office buildings. The data clearly shows statistically significant differences with the mean values in the two classes of particles, hence the WTC Dust can be distinguished from Background Building dust. (page 23)

911research.wtc7.net...

Now take a short look at page 24 and explain to me how your point not refers to "Background Buildings"? We are talking about different classes of particles, about different concentrations and even about different sizes, hence those from the WTC are easily distinguishable from other offices (likely from high rises and probably with similar concrete). I think those folks were professional enough about it, yes. If you have other suggestions: go ahead, please!



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Those experiments were televised.


Hmm...



Did somebody already debunk that one? Just curious, it showed up in a quick search.
And thanks for the reply, star for you.





posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Now, for a dose of reality. 175 pounds of thermite fails to destroy steel beam.



1000 pounds of thermite fails to cut vehicle in two.



Furthermore, Richard Gage's theory was debunked by experts and Steven Jones was caught lying in regards to his thermite claim. Check it out.



ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.


Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

breakfornews.com...




Now, about Steven Jones.





Steven Jones Debunked

Letter to the Editor
April 09, 2006

I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

www.debunking911.com...

edit on 7-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

So, you didn't actually watch the video in the post above yours ,did you? It makes Nat Geo and Mythbusters look like idiots at best.....



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

Do you deny that 175 pounds of thermite failed to destroy that steel beam? The thermite story was made up.
edit on 7-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Flatcoat

Do youi deny that 175 pounds of thermite failed to destroy that steel beam?


Do you deny that Jonathan Cole cut a steel beam in half with 1.5 pounds of thermate?



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

You can cut small portions of steel, but not the huge steel columns of the WTC buildings. Ever wondered why demolition companies do not use thermite to demolish tall steel frame buildings?

This video was used as a references by Truthers who claimed the cut steel beams was evidence of thermite shaped charges at ground zero.



Now, for the rest of the story as to how those cuts were made.



Worker Cutting Steel Structrure at Ground Zero


edit on 7-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Lesson time!!






edit on 7-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Yet, who... ach forget about it. You don't care about science or how should I take this? A thin layer of vaporised and condensed lead doesn't imply temperatures above 1700°C? Wrong, period. Thermite is just another theory until we have some evidence to support it, but that could explain those high temperatures. Indeed. And all the hate with regards to that theory is noteworthy as well.


Temperatures at ground zero never reached the melting point of steel. However, temperatures were far above the melting point of aluminum, which is evident in the molten aluminum flow from the corner of WTC 2. Amazingly, there were people claiming that the molten flow was steel, so I had to whip out the aluminum color temperature chart and the location where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest, which was in the corner of where the molten aluminum was seen flowing.


Yeah I know... I like the Toldya as well, how can we spin this right again? Hmm... Dr. Richard J. Lee and his team were dumb enough to search for probes in the midst of the deconstruction site and New York was covered with fly ash that day, probably due to pre-collapse fires. That should do it.

Found some irony iron? Keep it, that one was weakened by fire anyway.


Speaking of



Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. …

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"

The answer to the mystery of the microspheres - "Iron melts only at temperatures far higher than possible in normal fires, so how could microspheres have possibly been formed on 9/11?" – is simply that very small metal particles have much lower melting points than their bulk material counterparts (around 900 o C for iron nanoparticles, as opposed to 1535 o C for bulk iron). This is called the "thermodynamic size effect."

The towers contained thousands of computers and electric gadgets. Wires and filaments and meshes from electronics, as well as thin rust flakes and other small iron particles, could all have easily been made into microspheres during the WTC conflagration. To see a vivid demonstration of this phenomenon, watch the video on NMSR's YouTube channel, 'theNMSR', in which a BIC lighter is used to burn steel wool, creating numerous iron microspheres without any Thermite at all!

www.metabunk.org...



edit on 7-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join