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.

 

Thermite or Explosives ?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent




You can't have both.



Why can't it be both with out being either one?




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: samkent




You can't have both.



Why can't it be both with out being either one?


In some sort of a nano thermobaric thermite Trinitrotoluene compound kind of way?

I propose it wasn't planted before hand, it was mixed in with the jet fuel by the Dick Cheney/ Mossad/ Illuminati cabal.

Somebody needs to get a hold of Dr. Judy Wood or Richard Gage with this new information ASAP.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: samkent




You can't have both.



Why can't it be both with out being either one?


Unless it's a specialized thermite like an anti-missile flare the whole point of thermite is to get really hot and melt steel all over something.

It wants to be in a wad because the less concentrated it is the more likely it will go out. Also it isn't making a lot of metal in a place if it's scattered all over. So I'm sort of puzzled what good it does you to start a thermite charge and then blow it everywhere.

If you just want a large volume incendiary you can get a bigger bang for your buck by duct taping a couple of WP grenades to a claymore.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

It would have to be something that would also account
for all the dust.



At 6:30s

Because of the intense dust created by the explosion
workers can't retrieve the clad from the explosion chamber
for more than eighteen hours.


edit on Ram81515v27201500000005 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Bedlam

It would have to be something that would also account
for all the dust



We call that...concrete.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Even after it was turned to dust?
You can't call it concrete unless it's
in that concrete state. Once it became
dust it was dust. There isn't anything
concrete about dust.
edit on Ram81515v55201500000048 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: Bedlamlol are you serious two one hundred plus storey buildings collapse into a pile of debri less than five stories high


Yes. Buildings are essentially hollow boxes. And when all that concrete falls that far, it tends to be pulverized, as seen.


You do realize each floor is only 14 feet or less above or below the next floor? Like free-falling the whole way down, huh?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Bedlam

Even after it was turned to dust?
You can't call it concrete unless it's
in that concrete state. Once it became
dust it was dust. There isn't anything
concrete about dust.


The question was-where did the dust come from? I replied concrete. Nice to know you agree.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: Bedlamlol are you serious two one hundred plus storey buildings collapse into a pile of debri less than five stories high


Yes. Buildings are essentially hollow boxes. And when all that concrete falls that far, it tends to be pulverized, as seen.


You do realize each floor is only 14 feet or less above or below the next floor? Like free-falling the whole way down, huh?


It doesn't fall 14 feet and stop, to fall no more. Each floor falls from whatever height it started at, with extra impacts along the way. Which only adds to the pulverization of the content.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam




The question was-where did the dust come from? I replied concrete. Nice to know you agree.


I didn't and I don't. If you want to play word games that would be a
different site, hombre.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Bedlam




The question was-where did the dust come from? I replied concrete. Nice to know you agree.


I didn't and I don't. If you want to play word games that would be a
different site, hombre.


ahem: "Once it became
dust it was dust. There isn't anything
concrete about dust."



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: Bedlamlol are you serious two one hundred plus storey buildings collapse into a pile of debri less than five stories high


Yes. Buildings are essentially hollow boxes. And when all that concrete falls that far, it tends to be pulverized, as seen.


You do realize each floor is only 14 feet or less above or below the next floor? Like free-falling the whole way down, huh?


It doesn't fall 14 feet and stop, to fall no more. Each floor falls from whatever height it started at, with extra impacts along the way. Which only adds to the pulverization of the content.
if you don't mind,

northridge

Why isn't the road underneath it pulverized?

My opinion is that expansion joints failed due to earthquake frequency. The whole section fell, but stayed in tact, just like the unpulverized roadway below. Much in the way that concrete is decided a viable construction material for a reason. compressive strength in psi.

You need a big brick to make them towers go splat, because gravity alone doesn't break rivets/welds.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy

Why isn't the road underneath it pulverized?


You can't tell from that shot. But then, the road didn't fall from 1000 feet at the top, either.

MGH. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy
You need a big brick to make them towers go splat, because gravity alone doesn't break rivets/welds.


Gravity and loss of tensile strength does, though.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: samkent

They can't offer proof, because there is none for either.
This has been debunked over and over again.

For Thermite/Thermate (they like to interchange the two) -
The one man who claimed to have found "evidence" actually didn't, his paper was trashed by every scientist in the field and although it was published on a pretty rubbish "science" website he claimed it was "peer reviewed", the person who owns that website then removed it and openly stated that it was trash.

The material he claimed was evidence of Thermite was actually nothing more than rust and pain chips, the same as you would find in billions of samples taken from all kinds of places around the world. When asked to supply the samples he used, he refused to.

The claim that evidence of Thermite being used in the buildings with "molten steel" flowing out is also false. There were tonnes upon tonnes of Aluminium used in the construction of both the plane and the building, which is orange when molten at the temperatures proven to have been in existence in that building, and anyone who tells you it doesn't glow orange is a flat out liar.

The supposed "glow" seen from beneath the rubble which "truthers" claim is evidence of Thermite having molten the steel was actually nothing more than the reflection of the camera mans flashlight when looking through that gap.

All tests after the fact have consistently shown that to melt steel to the degree they would have needed would have taken tonnes of Thermite, and there was frankly not enough physical space in those areas for such an amount to have been applied.

The image of cut beams they claim was evidence of Thermite melting the columns at an angle was a blatant fabrication, the image was taken AFTER the rescue effort was underway and was done by crews removing the debris.

As for Explosives, again there is absolutely no evidence for this.

They would need tonnes of explosives to be able to take out those columns, and I'm not talking lbs of it, I am literally talking TONNES of it. These people seem to imagine all it would take is a Hollywood style chunk of Plastic Explosive on a column, but that would not do it.

You would also need so much of the stuff it would be impossible to rig a building like those towers with enough to take them down.

All of the above is the reason the "truthers" then start to invent their own magical mystery formula for brand new explosives the world has never seen. When these people finally have their beliefs debunked through science, they start to become increasingly irrational in their weaving of the fairytale to rebuild their belief.

It's like the fanatical religious person ending up saying "the Lord works in mysterious ways" because they no longer have an argument to debate you with.

I can guarantee that most of the "truthers" answering to this thread will completely ignore the fact that whatever they claim is evidence has been debunked plenty of times. They refuse to accept that their conspiracy is not real and no matter how much you try to show them the real evidence and the actual reality of that day they will utterly reject it all - and ironically while claiming YOU are narrow minded and refuse to consider an alternative story.

The fact is, unless they can provide evidence for what they claim (and a YouTube video IS NOT evidence) then they should be repeatedly laughed out of the room.
what would you sugest caused the molten metal described in the rubble pile? I'm not claiming you are wrong I'm just curious.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642



what would you sugest caused the molten metal described in the rubble pile?


Fire, because molten aluminum can be seen flowing from the Northeast corner of WTC 2, which is where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest and the fire seen inside the building at that location generated temperatures far above the melting point of aluminum, but far too low to melt steel.
edit on 17-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: sg1642



what would you sugest caused the molten metal described in the rubble pile?


Fire, because molten aluminum can be seen flowing from the Northeast corner of WTC 2, which is where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest and the fire seen inside the building at that location generated temperatures far above the melting point of aluminum, but far too low to melt steel.
it is entirely possible the fires in the rubble were over 100°c the melting point of aluminium weeks after the fire. What I don't understand is why John gross the nist engineer would go on record denying the molten metal was ever there.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642




What I don't understand is why John gross the nist engineer would go on record denying the molten metal was ever there.

Did he deny molten metal?
Or did he deny molten steel?



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent



What I don't understand is why John gross the nist engineer would go on record denying the molten metal was ever there.


He denied molten steel. We can take a look at this video.




posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ecapsretuo
Don't foret "The Meteorite."
www.youtube.com...




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join