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.

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 12
160
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TWILITE22




The quality of your work you have put into your threads here on ats is by far the best I've seen ,the evidence you have amassed should be pick up by mainstream media

Too bad his conclusions are incorrect.

Like I have said before.
Labtop is NOT a seismologist.
He should take his evidence and conclusions to a real seismologist not a bunch of web warriors.




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Wasn't the molten steel not only seen by firemen but also seen on camera AND the (I think it was NASA) thermo image of the devastated towers showed incredible heat from underneath the rubble, ie that of the heat molten steel would make.

Just annoys me that when the people who believe or are there to peddle the official story get involved it turns into a 'look at all those nut jobs' threads. The entire 9/11 story is so riddled with holes in the official story that it beggars belief anyone takes it totally seriously.

Where are the terrorists at the airport etc etc...

I don't want to hear about holographic planes, alien weapons, that is just a cheap shot to derail the thread, none of us who have the semblance of a brain believe in these crack pot theories, we just want to know why the NIST data is classified, why there's STILL no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, how come the black boxes are classified, you know, the weird stuff that should be standard practice..

Not some stupid alien beam nonsense..



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Stored iron? Are you seriously claiming that stored iron had anything to do with the molten iron at WTC?

I know that some people are chronically misinformed about what happened there that day, but stored iron?




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Excellent collection, much appreciated!
Keep up with the good work!

Stars on the Flag for every post you made, mate.


Cheers!



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I'm curious, is there any explanation of how it could have fallen 2 seconds faster than freefall? That would seem to defy pyisics, no matter what side of the issue one believes.
Not attacking your statement or anything, just wondering if you have any further information about that.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Just a small point about your post. Not trying to start an argument, but modern HE does not produce black soot-filled smoke. And usually doesn't start much of a fire if used in a cutting charge application. It seems more likely that the cloud was from extant fires, rather than the detonation of high explosives. Now, as to whether there were explosives used, I'm not going to argue that point either way. Just saying that the black soot cloud was most likely not a result of HE.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander



Stored iron?


No, but shows that such metal can generate temperatures high enough to start fires.



Are you seriously claiming that stored iron had anything to do with the molten iron at WTC?



First of all, there was no molten steel nor iron at ground zero. Recorded temperatures were much too low to melt steel and thermite reaction is short-lived and does not last hours, days, much less weeks. However, recorded temperatures were far above the melting point of aluminum, which was in abundance from the aircraft and the facade of the WTC Towers.

Secondly, heat is generated by a processl known as exothermic reaction. Exothermic reaction occurs when a piece of steel rusts and rust is iron oxide, which generates heat and there was a lot of steel buried within the ground zero rubble.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

First of all: there was molten steel all over the place.


...The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
...
The temperatures required for the observed spherule-formation and evaporation of materials observed in the WTC dust (table 1) are significantly higher than temperatures reachable by the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings (table 2). The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C). We wish to call attention to this discrepancy: the official view implicating fires as the main cause for the ultimate collapses of the WTC Towers and WTC 7 (FEMA[13], NIST [15]) is inadequate to explain this temperature gap and is therefore incomplete at best. The formation of numerous metal-rich spherules is also remarkable, for it implies formation of high-temperature droplets of the molten metals, dispersed in the air where they cool to form spherules. As displayed in figures 3 and 4, we observe spherules with high iron and aluminum contents, a chemical signature which is not consistent with formation from melted steel.

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

(Pages 8 to 10)

edit on 29-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Ok, yes, oxidation is an an exothermic reaction.
And rust is indeed iron oxide. But if you would clarify yourpoint a bit further, are you saying the sustained heat in the rubble in the days following the collapse of the towers is due to iron oxidation? Or that it was at least a large contributing factor?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Is the temperature given for vaporizing lead the temperature at which it is entirely a vapor, or at which is begins to vaporize?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: pfishy




Boiling point 2022 K ​(1749 °C, ​3180 °F)

en.wikipedia.org...

It begins to vaporize at it's boiling point, doesn't it?
Why do you ask?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Mclaneinc



Wasn't the molten steel not only seen by firemen but also seen on camera AND the (I think it was NASA) thermo image of the devastated towers showed incredible heat from underneath the rubble, ie that of the heat molten steel would make.


The NASA images recorded temperatures that were far too low to melt steel.

NASA Thermal Images


Just annoys me that when the people who believe or are there to peddle the official story get involved it turns into a 'look at all those nut jobs' threads. The entire 9/11 story is so riddled with holes in the official story that it beggars belief anyone takes it totally seriously.


Full of holes?! We you aware that over years disinformation has been planted and reposted by those truthers websites whose supporter then reposted them in forums? Disinformation was planted in order to discredit the Truther Movement.

I came to that conclusion when I noticed the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" posting disinformation on its website. Truthers who were debating with me were using that website as reference, so I decided to take a look and eventually got into the founder of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" when I challenged him for posting disinformation on his website, which was used against me by truthers and skeptics. What Rob Balsamo didn't know was that I am pilot.

I began flight training in 1969 and entered training as an airframe technician in 1967, and noticed that tons of disinformation was flooding out of truther websites and there were people who were being duped and unknowingly posting what I knew, was disinformation and in some cases, outright lies and knew it from my own experience in the world of aviation.



Where are the terrorists at the airport etc etc...


We can take a look here.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3


I don't want to hear about holographic planes, alien weapons, that is just a cheap shot to derail the thread, none of us who have the semblance of a brain believe in these crack pot theories,...


Apparently, there are truthers who have been mislead into believing the stories are true because disinformation has been spreading on the Internet. I have debated with truthers who have claimed that mini-nukes were used to demolish the WTC buildings.


we just want to know why the NIST data is classified,...


On the contrary, much of the information is open for anyone to review.


... why there's STILL no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon,


There is footage. Review the following links.

American 77 Pentagon Footage

911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77


... how come the black boxes are classified,


Let's take a look here.



Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.

journalof911s...ltimeter..._92.pdf


American 77 Radar Tracking Data

Experts ID 184 Pentagon Fatalities

Many of the Pentagon casualties were badly burned and difficult to identify, an official said. Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77.

From the January 2002 Mercury, an Army Medical Department publication

Passenger List Image 1

American 77 Passenger List Image 2

American Airlines Fleet

American 77 Information

American 77 Wreckage

American 77 Wreckage II

American 77 Wreckage III

American77 Wreckage IV

American 77 Wreckage V


We can take a look at these announcements.

9/11 Hijacker Body Found In Cockpit FOX Sept 13 2001


9/11: American Airlines CONFIRMS that ITS Aircraft were hijacked and crashed on 9/11

No one saw a missile strike the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Just curious. I know that Mercury, for instance, can evaporate at far lower temperatures than its boiling point. I just wasn't sure about lead.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




The NASA images recorded temperatures that were far too low to melt steel.



I don't use satellites to measure the temperature in my basement, do you? Besides from that - I'm amazed that you can see anything on this crappy picture at all, the quality is miserable.

And the numerous metal-rich spherules (found in the dust) are just good enough to ignore them completely?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Informer1958

I'm curious, is there any explanation of how it could have fallen 2 seconds faster than freefall? That would seem to defy pyisics, no matter what side of the issue one believes.
Not attacking your statement or anything, just wondering if you have any further information about that.

Controlled demolitions can collapse faster than freefall. The explosive charges apparently create a blast wave overpressure vacuum, and the thermite uses all the oxygen - creating, in essence, a double vacuum which allows the building being imploded to defy the laws of physics by falling 2x faster than freefall.
Basically it is sucked down!
edit on 29-7-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Amazing how explosives did not even bring down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and it was only nine stories. But office fires pancaked WTC 1, 2, & 7.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

One more question, if you will bear with me. What was the source of the Molybdenum? It just kind of jumped out at me from the quoted text you posted. Wasn't an element I was expecting to see, I guess.

If you don't have a reference, don't sweat it. Just me feeding my curiosity again.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy



k, yes, oxidation is an an exothermic reaction.
And rust is indeed iron oxide. But if you would clarify yourpoint a bit further, are you saying the sustained heat in the rubble in the days following the collapse of the towers is due to iron oxidation? Or that it was at least a large contributing factor?


Not only that, but from other contents as well. Fires that smolder for weeks and months are nothing new. We can take a look here.



Burned buildings in Hinton could smolder for days

HINTON, W.Va. -- Hinton Fire Chief Ray Pivont says five apartment buildings destroyed by a fire could smolder for days.

www.dailymail...fs...


Packing shed fire will continue to smolder for next few days

The fire that broke out earlier this week at the Bruce Church produce packing sheds will continue to smolder for the next couple of days and produce some light smoke, but there are no longer any flames coming from the site.

Read more: www.yumasun.c...l...


Centralia, Pennsylvania Fire Still Burns Underneath Town, 50 Years On

www.huffingto......_n_1546552.html


Fire Smolders Underground for 9 Months

www.wilx.com...


Long smoldering fires

www.krem.com...

www.wbir.com...

edit on 29-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

None of your links are working. Not for me anyway.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

The overpressure vacuum I can understand, but the oxygen consumption I think you may be a bit off about. It does indeed bond the oxygen to other elements, but this generally produces gaseous byproducts which wouldn't significantly decrease the volume of the air in a structure. In fact, it tends to generate more gasses than were present in the given volume prior to the explosion.
Again, not trying to 'debunk' your statement. Just pointing out that you may have been incorrect about one aspect of it.



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join