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.

 

"Paper Fires" Brought The Buildings Down !

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: recapitulated
heating structural steel is like
pouring hot syrup on a pancake.
it dissipates and bleeds off.


No syrup soaks into a pancake ?




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
If a paper fire can bring down a big building
why are they still using exspolsive?

they could save time and money
by just seting a fire 1/5 down from the top.
but they will Never do this as it would show it to be dangerus.
the top would slide off.

please some one try it on a smaller building that is not near any thing.

why was this deleted the last time I said this?



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   


451 degrees Fahrenheit. However plastic . However plastic
and other hydrocarbons burn at 9-1100 Fahrenheit.
a reply to: recapitulated

451 F IS THE IGNITION POINT OF PAPER !

This is the temperature at paper will begin to burn - not the actual temperature created when its burns



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

Thanks for the link! The fact that no thermite was found indicates that Steven Jones was not telling the truth.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: waypastvne

Thanks for the link! The fact that no thermite was found indicates that Steven Jones was not telling the truth.



Oh, but it was.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short



WikiLeaks Dump Vindicated Bush and WMD's in Iraq


The report was specific that no thermite was found and in fact, Steven Jones was found to have lied. In fact, colleagues of Steven Jones have distanced themselves from him.

Let's take a look here.



Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com...



edit on 26-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Who PAID for this study?

Were the submitted samples really what they were purported to be?

Would the thermite residue still be non-degraded after 14 years?

Was the scientist of record, whose name appears at the top of the report, really unbiased, and without government connections?

We live in an age when we just can't bow to the opinion of an authority, even when it is couched in the format of a scientific paper. We well remember the Schweppes caper, in which IIRC, Schweppes made a big contribution to a diabetes foundation, and that foundation's resident scientists duly opined that there was no connection between sugary drinks and diabetes. The system works.

The waters will continue to be muddied, but one thing is still very clear: 911 was an inside job, thermite or no thermite.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short

Well....since there was not any thermite in 2001, not sure why you would wonder about its condition 14 years later...... And, what makes you think "inside" job?



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short




Who PAID for this study?

Were the submitted samples really what they were purported to be?

Would the thermite residue still be non-degraded after 14 years?

Was the scientist of record, whose name appears at the top of the report, really unbiased, and without government connections?

You seem very distrustful of the scientific study of the dust/chips.
Are you just as distrustful of conspiracy sites where they make their money solely on the back of said conspiracies?



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short



The waters will continue to be muddied, but one thing is still very clear: 911 was an inside job, thermite or no thermite.


Prove it with evidence. If you are unable to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, then your claim can be effectively dismissed as another unfounded conspiracy theory with no supportable evidence.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Lazarus Short

Well....since there was not any thermite in 2001, not sure why you would wonder about its condition 14 years later...... And, what makes you think "inside" job?



It was an inside job because you can see the cutting charges going off just ahead of the collapse. Such things take weeks to set up, must be set up by people who know what they are doing, and the work is done INSIDE. If you disagree, see the vids again, until you learn to see what you are looking at, even those things which are quick and brief.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent


You seem very distrustful of the scientific study of the dust/chips.
Are you just as distrustful of conspiracy sites where they make their money solely on the back of said conspiracies?


I am a healthy skeptic, but mostly distrustful of those who are connected to events they bend to their own purposes. I am also skeptical of shills and trolls, and I sense a few on this thread.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short



It was an inside job because you can see the cutting charges going off just ahead of the collapse.


That is false. No such charges are evident in any video and cutter charges make a lot of noise, yet that is not a peep of an explosion as the WTC buildings collapse. Verdict: No explosives responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Check it out.




Such things take weeks to set up,...


How about close to a year to prepare at which time the buildings would have had to be gutted and that is not going to happen in an occupied building. After all, it took many months just to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christ, Texas for explosive demolition and that was nothing compared to what it would have taken to demolish each of the WTC buildings.

Apparently, demolition experts in the area during the collapse and during clean-up operations, did not see evidence of explosives nor thermite cuts on structural steel. In addition, there was no way to transport and place over 10 full truckloads of thermite above the 70th floor and not attact a lot of attention. After all, it took 1500 pounts of thermite just to burn just two support legs on one side of a tower in order to drop the tower on its side and that is nothing compare to what it would have taken to drop the WTC buildings.

Take a look how much work it took to wrap those two legs, an operation that could not have gone unnoticed in occupied buildings.

It took 1500 pounds of thermite just to burn two legs of a tower

That article proves just how absurd the thermite claim is in regard to the WTC buildings. Add to the fact the collapse of each WTC tower began only at their impact points and nowhere else, which is further proof that explosives and thermite were not planted at those locations because the impacts would have rendered them useless, and yet, there were no secondaries after the aircraft slammed into the buildings. In other words, claims of thermite and explosives were fabricated.

Now, let's read an interview with one of the world's top demolition expert.



Brent Blanchard: Demolition Expert

Undicisettembre: Since you already mentioned thermite, let's proceed with this topic. What do you think of thermite? Is it even vaguely possible to demolish the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center with thermite?

Brent Blanchard: No. In explosive demolitions thermite is never used.

The thermite assertion first came out three or four years after the event; there was no talk of thermite until 2004 or 2005. All of a sudden this new theory came out because all other theories were very easily proved impractical or impossible.

There was a professor over here in States that decided back then that thermite was his new theory, but the more you look into thermite the more you understand that the way it causes the metal to fail is not consistent with what happened. Then he changed his theory into nano-thermite and now he might even come out with double-nano-thermite. There are always variations that pop up about how thermite might have been used.

In order for thermite to work you have to have a release of the chemical and the chemical has to actually cause the steel to deteriorate. I don't how they think it can be done to an H-beam, or to any very thick steel beam. Thermite doesn't work horizontally, it works vertically. You can't cause thermite to cut horizontally through steel. You can't attach thermite to a bunch of columns, dozens and dozens of columns, and expect it to start cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined time or especially finish at the same time. I don't understand how it can even theoretically occur. And it's never been articulately explained by the theorists.

Thermite folks just tend to assert that a bunch of guys went in there, put thermite on columns that happened to already be exposed, them somehow triggered it all, and the thermite somehow cut horizontally through a bunch of columns at the same time and caused the building to fail. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Thermite also burns very hot but very slow and it's uncontrolled. When you see tests for thermite you often see it burning on a steel plate, it creates a lot of fire and reaction, but none of these reactions were seen in the Twin Towers. And again, it doesn't burn horizontally through columns that are load bearers. I don't know how it can happen.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...


Now, let's review this video because 175 pounds of thermite failed to burn through a steel beam.



edit on 28-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short



Oh, but it was.


No it wasn't because the thermite claim was fabricated. This is truther evidence for thermite.

CT Evidence of Thermite at Ground Zero

The steel columns were cut by torches, not by thermite.


edit on 28-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: waypastvne

Thanks for the link! The fact that no thermite was found indicates that Steven Jones was not telling the truth.



I'm beginning to think that with every post you make, you are not telling the truth.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

I have evidence and demolition experts, structural and civil engineers, architects and firefighters to back me up, whereas, Steven Jones was caught lying about thermite and I might add that even BYU has distanced itself from Steven Jones.

Let's not forget that light reflection photo where Steven Jones claimed the reflection was molten steel. How many truthers had spread that photo before it was determined that the light reflection was not molten steel?



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
a reply to: skyeagle409

Who PAID for this study?



The money was collected from both truthers and osers. The lab, scientist and experiments were chosen and agreed upon before the money was collected. Chris Mohr handled the arrangements. I can give you a link if you want.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Kevin Ryan, How To Debunk WTC Thermite at Ground Zero - A respectable article on globalresearch.ca

Whatever annihilated the WTC was definitely not paper/office fires.


edit on 8/29/2015 by Blaine91555 because: Snipped link promoting book.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: 911conspiracytv



Whatever annihilated the WTC was definitely not paper/office fires.


Apparently, demolition experts, structural and civil engineers, architects and firefighters agree that fire, along with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

The aircraft impacts dislodged fire protection from the steel columns which exposed the steel structures to the direct effects to the fires. It is no secret that fire will weaken unprotected steel to the point of failure, which is why three steel frame buildings in Thailand collapsed in 2 hours due to fire.

I have often warned the CT tolks that what they have been posting was fabricated. Case in point, let's take a look at page 7 from your link and you will notice a photo of one of the WTC Towers collapsing. Why does that photo prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the WTC building is not falling at free fall speed?

Answer: You will notice that debris and dust plumes in free fall have reached the ground while the collapse is still in progress many stories above the ground.

It would be prudent for you to do a background check on Kevin Ryan before you think of using him as a reference again.
edit on 29-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short

Virtually all the facts and evidence show it was an inside job.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join