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.

 

Trying to resolve 9/11

page: 119
17
<< 116  117  118    120  121  122 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You



See the burned red/grey chips, that's Iron Molten spheres. You only get Iron Molten spheres when the temp over 1500c.


False statement by you.




Debunking 9/11 Microsphere Myths
Thread starterMick West Start dateOct 27, 2018 Tags

www.metabunk.org...

Video

m.youtube.com...


In something of an experiment, I've made a detailed video focussing on one small claim of evidence. The claim is that the presence of iron microspheres in the World Trade Center dust means that high temperature incendiaries were used to demolish it.

The video explains that you can make iron microsphere by making sparks with steel hitting or abrading things, or by burning some tiny bits of iron in a low temperature flame. I also discuss how some of the spheres found might also have been pre-existing from construction, or might have been created after the collapse during cleanup.



Just in case you missed it, “ or by burning some tiny bits of iron in a low temperature flame.”


You are silly now. Show me, Mick producing Iron molten spheres at a low temp. Where in the video (time) does he show it and highlight the temp?




posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What do you not understand if a piece of steel has sufficient surface area to mass, the steel will burn at temperatures below 1500C to make microspheres.



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Watch the video and listen to NIST. All you hear for 95 percent of time on video between 2 minutes and just after 4 minutes is NIST.

Listen to them explain the free fall question! Don't take my word for it, just listen. This all you need to come away believing the truthers are right about the demolitions,



Is the video the final published report no.

Quote what the actual published report states.


This what they declared after six years of investigation around the collapse.
Fix after three months is not trustworthy.
Definitely not, when Freefall is an essential part of truther case for controlled demolition.
Why did they layout that freefall was an impossibility? Debunkers of course never ask difficult questions. 



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What’s the melting point of steel? So how you making microspheres at 1500c?
edit on 3-2-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What do you not understand if a piece of steel has sufficient surface area to mass, the steel will burn at temperatures below 1500C to make microspheres.


It is impossible to create Iron Microspheres with a low flame. Show me a video, that shows this?



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What free fall? There was no free fall in the twin towers.

WTC 7 as a whole fell slower the rate of acceleration of gravity.

WTC 7 started with an internal East to West progressive collapse. The facade did not even start to move downward until the penthouse completely disappeared below the roof line. WTC 7 twisted and kinked before the facade moved. The facade collapse was in three stages. The first stage where it accelerated slower than the rate of gravity. WTC core was pretty much gutted by the second stage of the facade collapse. The second stage is where negligible resistance was offered by the facade. With strong evidence the was faster than the acceleration due to gravity. With no indication or evidence the facade columns were being actively cut. The third and final stage of the facade collapse was started when the rate of free fall slowed less that that of gravity.



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What do you not understand if a piece of steel has sufficient surface area to mass, the steel will burn at temperatures below 1500C to make microspheres.


It is impossible to create Iron Microspheres with a low flame. Show me a video, that shows this?


Then how was micro iron spheres created at the temperature of 1500C as claimed by you.



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again

Please start here.

You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?

Vs cooling and contracting floor trusses pulled in on the outer vertical columns to the point they bowed inward and buckled at the areas of jet impacts. Making it impossible planted charges initiated collapse. The stories above the bowing and buckling fell into the building below



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What free fall? There was no free fall in the twin towers.

WTC 7 as a whole fell slower the rate of acceleration of gravity.

WTC 7 started with an internal East to West progressive collapse. The facade did not even start to move downward until the penthouse completely disappeared below the roof line. WTC 7 twisted and kinked before the facade moved. The facade collapse was in three stages. The first stage where it accelerated slower than the rate of gravity. WTC core was pretty much gutted by the second stage of the facade collapse. The second stage is where negligible resistance was offered by the facade. With strong evidence the was faster than the acceleration due to gravity. With no indication or evidence the facade columns were being actively cut. The third and final stage of the facade collapse was started when the rate of free fall slowed less that that of gravity.


False Twin Towers came down at free speeds also, in their report.

Quote
The structure below the level of collapse initiation provided minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” — p. 146, NIST NCSTAR 1


NIST revised report is nonsense. There no such thing as negligible support during a freefall collapse. There zero support. They added in so the could keep claiming the freefall was consistent with their findings. Freefall is not a feature of a progressive collapse, as there always buckling and crushing happening during the full collapse. NIST was exposed in 2008, but debunkers are too blind to notice.



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


See the burned red/grey chips, that's Iron Molten spheres. You only get Iron Molten spheres when the temp over 1500c.


Can you quote the Harriet paper where the chips burned at 1500c

What does the paper actually have for recorded temperatures?



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You



False Twin Towers came down at free speeds also, in their report.


Cannot sugar coat that one either. Blatant lie.

How. When long lengths of vertical columns were still standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor systems?









www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


There no such thing as negligible support during a freefall collapse.


Another falsehood by you. Quote from the final support where NIST made any claims of negligible support. When the facade columns buckled, they offered negligible resistance. Huge difference.



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


See the burned red/grey chips, that's Iron Molten spheres. You only get Iron Molten spheres when the temp over 1500c.


Can you quote the Harriet paper where the chips burned at 1500c

What does the paper actually have for recorded temperatures?


Harrit paper is about thermatic red/gray chips observed reaction. Thermatic reaction is ignition of Iron Oxide+ AI and other chemicals and the observed feature is a hot flame above 1500c and go as high as 3000c.

The difference between this material and thermite , the reaction took place at low temp. Only a super thermite called nanothermite can ignite nano Iron oxide and nano AI at low temps of 400c to 500c.

Nano AI and Nano Iron Oxide and Nano Silicon in 2001 was hard to come by if at all?



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again

Please start here.

You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?

Vs cooling and contracting floor trusses pulled in on the outer vertical columns to the point they bowed inward and buckled at the areas of jet impacts. Making it impossible planted charges initiated collapse. The stories above the bowing and buckling fell into the building below



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I just pointed out a blatant lie.

You



False Twin Towers came down at free speeds also, in their report.


Cannot sugar coat that one either. Blatant lie.

How. When long lengths of vertical columns were still standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor systems?









www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.


And your still posting unashamed?



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quote the recorded temperatures from the Harriet paper. There is no proof the reactions burnt hotter than the melting point of steel.



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


There no such thing as negligible support during a freefall collapse.


Another falsehood by you. Quote from the final support where NIST made any claims of negligible support. When the facade columns buckled, they offered negligible resistance. Huge difference.


There claiming negligible support in the revised report underneath. In the draft they said free fall was an impossibility due to structural resistance underneath. They knew they #ed up in Aug 2008, but they could not ignore freefall, so they found a way to add-in and have people not doubt their findings. Negligible is a good word because it leaves people guessing why they mean by that.
edit on 3-2-2020 by Hulseyreport because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


There claiming negligible support in the revised report underneath


If this is not another falsehood by you, then quote the final report where such a statement is made.

Again.

Another falsehood by you. Quote from the final support where NIST made any claims of negligible support. When the facade columns buckled, they offered negligible resistance. Huge difference.
edit on 3-2-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quote the recorded temperatures from the Harriet paper. There is no proof the reactions burnt hotter than the melting point of steel.


You can live in your make believe world. But the video is evidence. We can hear on video NIST denying freefall. Changes they made later are not believeable.



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What. You have made at least 4 to 5 blatantly false statements this evening. Then a blatant lie the twin towers fell at the acceleration of gravity.

Why would anyone find you credible?

And you will not answer

You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?

Vs cooling and contracting floor trusses pulled in on the outer vertical columns to the point they bowed inward and buckled at the areas of jet impacts. Making it impossible planted charges initiated collapse. The stories above the bowing and buckling fell into the building below



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 116  117  118    120  121  122 >>

log in

join