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.

 

University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

page: 16
44
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
The premise of this thread is scientific proof alone.


Yet you are the one making the false claim "it fell into its own footprint"....


All the educated Professors stand against you.


Actually, most are against the atomic bomb, explosives, nanoo thermite and other silly stories pushed by truthers!


According to your kind this also wasn't controlled demolition


What on earth are you babbling about?


never realizing you had been duped.


Actually, the truthers are the ones being duped, believing non peer reviewed papers published in a "You pay, we publish any crap" journal!
edit on 13-5-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
Strange the number of other models that don't agree with the NIST model but never mentioned by truthers because it shows the consensus explosives / thermite was not used. The nuke thing is ridiculous. They all conclude fire lead to collapse.


I just want to attempt to help you out of your hole. Bruce is a lost cause.

Anyone who doesn't believe the official story could be called a truther. Their is no agreement on how it was done. Many theories, some far out, like nukes and advanced beam weapons from space, holograms etc. I don't really believe in those.

Plenty of evidence that nano thermate was partially used. I witness testimonies of explosions. Filmed fall of building 7 at implosion free fall speed. CIA asset Susan Lindauer testimony. Endless evidence.

Sibel Edmonds—the most classified woman in U.S. history—takes us on a surreal journey that begins with the secretive FBI and down the dark halls of a feckless Congress to a stonewalling judiciary and finally, to the national security whistleblowers movement she spearheaded.


edit on 15-5-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Sorry it's been debunked over and over again. The buildings fell slower than free fall speed. Video and credible witness accounts show the buildings structures where failing before ever falling. Physical evedance never found in the collapsed buildings of thermite. Sorry you don't like the models other than NIST that try to truly understand why the buildings collapsed for the sake of making better buildings because it shows it was a result of fire. Sry you can't tell when people tell lies and half truths for there own benift. Sorry you piss on those that use the real facts of the WTC collapses to make buildings safer. Kinda shows how you are blinded by hate or ignorance. Kina of shows what is in you heart.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Why would there be explosion with thermite and why are there no records of explosive sounds or broken windows indivative of explosives. You even keep changing you thermite narrative. Simple car bomb can blow out windows up and down a street for blocks.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Plenty of evidence that nano thermate was partially used. I witness testimonies of explosions.


You really are very confused! Nanoo nanoo thermate is NOT a explosive, yet you claimed evidence of explosions!



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Yes, many were made sick, and others have died from radiation poisoning. Matt Tartaglia from Perkasie PA was but one of them. By 2005 his teeth were falling out and he eventually died.

According to footnotes in Prager's book, US cancer deaths work out to about 5.7 per 100,000

Amongst those working at Ground Zero, the rate is 86 per 100,000



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

How do you know this Sam? Are you a nuclear scientist, or a physician specializing in radiation sickness?

What kind of radiation was present at WTC that day?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




How do you know this Sam? Are you a nuclear scientist, or a physician specializing in radiation sickness?

All you have to do is Google nuclear explosion radiation and read a few pages.

It's clear you just want to believe in some grand conspiracy.
But you don't want to read up on the finer points of the conspiracy claims.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: samkent

Yes, many were made sick, and others have died from radiation poisoning. Matt Tartaglia from Perkasie PA was but one of them. By 2005 his teeth were falling out and he eventually died.

According to footnotes in Prager's book, US cancer deaths work out to about 5.7 per 100,000

Amongst those working at Ground Zero, the rate is 86 per 100,000





The cancer rste at has nothing to do with all the toxic dust and smoke? Died 4 years later. Sad, but WTC in the only possible exposer. Did he have cancer and have his teeth fall out from chemo radiation treatment. I think vitiemun (scurvy) deficeancy can make your teeth fall out. I guess radiation is the only possible cause. No other illiness causes that. Finally there was no contamination greater than background at the WTC. Other place would have been contame too. Home and restaurants for example.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

There WAS a conspiracy Sam, unless you are claiming Osama did this all by himself, which I doubt is the case.

There was a conspiracy, but the question for the intelligent analyst is "who were the conspirators?"



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

As far as I'm concerned there is a 100% chance that there were more people involved than is commonly believed.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

And the University of Edinburgh model shows fire caused the collapsed buildings at WTC. What's your point.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I'm no expert on this (zaphod where are you when you're needed ha) but isn't magnesium one of the main components used in aircraft alloys and construction? Once magnesium is ignited it will burn hot enough to do a real number on steel girders. It will produce that white smoke that we seen and guess what? It goes bang when it reacts with water. Another point I'd like to make is one of the components used in thermobaric weapons is a fine aluminium dust or powder. When it's spread through a confined space and ignited it is absolutely devastating. An aircraft comprises of mainly aluminium.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Aircraft components are commonly made from aluminium alloys - 2024 and 7075 are two of the most

2024




Aluminium alloy 2024 has a density of 2.78 g/cm³ (0.1 lb/in³), electrical conductivity of 30% IACS, Young's Modulus of 73 GPa (10.6 Msi) across all tempers, and begins to melt at 500 °C (932 °F).[4]

2024 aluminium alloy's composition roughly includes 4.3-4.5% copper, 0.5-0.6% manganese, 1.3-1.5% magnesium and less than a half a percent of silicon, zinc, nickel, chromium, lead and bismuth.


7075



Aluminium alloy 7075 is an aluminium alloy, with zinc as the primary alloying element. It is strong, with a strength comparable to many steels, and has good fatigue strength and average machinability, but has less resistance to corrosion than many other Al alloys. Its relatively high cost limits its use to applications where cheaper alloys are not suitable.

7075 aluminum alloy's composition roughly includes 5.6–6.1% zinc, 2.1–2.5% magnesium, 1.2–1.6% copper, and less than a half percent of silicon, iron, manganese, titanium, chromium, and other metals. It is produced in many tempers, some of which are 7075-0, 7075-T6, 7075-T651.


Magnesium is present only in small amounts in these alloys

Magnesium is used in some automobile engines and components, especially in Volkswagen/Porsche/Audi models and some
other high end models

Been to several vehicle fires where magnesium was involved. Makes it very interesting.......



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




You really are very confused! Nanoo nanoo thermate is NOT a explosive, yet you claimed evidence of explosions!


Just to clarify, what exactly is nanoo nanoo thermate? Is it anything like the nano-thermite developed by LLNL?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

It may be a small percentage of the alloy but when you take into account the overall amount used in an aircraft i presume it would be quite a large amount? Enough to cause considerable temperature and volatility I mean?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
I'm no expert on this (zaphod where are you when you're needed ha) but isn't magnesium one of the main components used in aircraft alloys and construction? Once magnesium is ignited it will burn hot enough to do a real number on steel girders. It will produce that white smoke that we seen and guess what? It goes bang when it reacts with water. Another point I'd like to make is one of the components used in thermobaric weapons is a fine aluminium dust or powder. When it's spread through a confined space and ignited it is absolutely devastating. An aircraft comprises of mainly aluminium.


The aluminum used in aircraft is very stable for obvious reasons.

Aluminum is silver when molten. Experiments were done and it never glows red like iron. Even when adding materials to it the color remained silver.




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I take it you are referring to the metal pouring from the building? Aluminium when heated enough will glow red regardless of what you read on the internet. That still doesn't have much to do with what was in my post. I was pointing out that there would have been magnesium to add to the equation. One thing I have wondered though is how the molten metal can be explained as aluminium from the aircraft because if that was the case we would have seen the aluminium cladding literally melting down the sides of the building due to the fire would we not?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Pure aluminium melts at 660 C, 2024 start to melt at around 500 C becoming fully molten at 640 C . 7075 starts melting at
477 C

The section of building (South Tower) where molten metal was seen to be pouring out was where the majority of the
aircraft came to rest inside the building .

It was the hottest part of the fires because of the fuel soaked debris bulldozed into the corner .

Alternate explanation is molten lead (which melts at 327 C) from large UPS (UnInterruptile Power Supply) battery room
for Fuji bank on the floor

Fuji Bank rented 4 floors (79-82) in South Tower



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Magnesium burns with intense white light and generates temperatures of up to 4000 F - it is almost impossible
to extinguish with most common fire fighting agents - water, CO2, Halon as reacts with the substances and continues
to burn

Special extinguishing agents (Class D) are required

ABC Dry Chemical (ammonium phosphate) will work but takes 4-5 pounds per pound of burning magnesium

We used 10 large extinguishers to put out fire in magnesium engine block .......

Did not see anything resemble a magnesium or other flammable metal fire at WTC




top topics



 
44
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join