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.

 

WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
No mention in that site of pools of "molten steel found at the WTC for 5 weeks"....

This reminds me of another hoax which was debunked in here months ago...when another person claimed he was an astronomer, who actually exists and an interview was done of him where he said those statements were not his and someone had used his name, the hoaxer claimed that three asteroids were going to hit the world last year......

The statements in that site do not stand to scrutiny, those theories have already been debunked several times. If anyone does not want to listen to reason it is you I fear.

BTW, don't listen to me if you don't want to...go to any site where they explain the thermite reaction and you will see what is it that thermite melts, it melts the iron from the iron rust, it does not melt steel.


[edit on 20-6-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
................
I wish our governments were not responsible for 9/11 and other attrocities as well.
..............


Say what?...

Now you are claiming that England was also in on 9/11?....

Any evidence for this subz?.....


SMR

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
You crack me up

Point I was just making was that you said you didnt even think the guys were real.I just proved you wrong.

Now you say they dont have anything there saying anything about 'molten steel'
It's a company site, do you think they are going to have 9/11 articles and whatnot? Get real


Tell you what.If I were to email these guys and get lucky enough to have them answer these issues, would you take that?
If I ask them if they saw actual molten steel pools and I posted the email here, would you then be satisfied? I really doubt it, but it's worth a try.


SMR

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Your not paying attention Muaddib.....
The Thermite Reaction is very exothermic; temperatures above 2,500°C (4,500°F) are often reached.
The way I see it, at that temperature, it very well can melt steel since steel melts at 1500°C (2700°F)

Get it?
Thermite Reaction causes temperatures as high as 2,500°C (4,500°F) +
Steel melts at 1500°C (2700°F) =
Molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction)

If you cant put 2 and 2 together, well Im sorry.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
They actually talk about 9/11 in that site....DUDE....perhaps you should read a site before you give a link to it...btw you can put the words "molten steel" into their search engine and "0" results come up....



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Your not paying attention Muaddib.....
The Thermite Reaction is very exothermic; temperatures above 2,500°C (4,500°F) are often reached.
The way I see it, at that temperature, it very well can melt steel since steel melts at 1500°C (2700°F)

Get it?
Thermite Reaction causes temperatures as high as 2,500°C (4,500°F) +
Steel melts at 1500°C (2700°F) =
Molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction)

If you cant put 2 and 2 together, well Im sorry.


Ok...let me put it this way, since the ingredients needed can be found anywhere, here is what you need to make a thermite reaction.

Iron oxide, Aluminum, potassium permanganate, and glycerine.

To see what kind of reaction such a mixture would produce here is a picture...



Can you tell us in what quantity those ingredients would be needed to make such a reaction and to melt beams of steel?

Can you tell us why we don't see the reaction from the picture above when the WTC towers exploded and collapsed?....

Can you tell us why no firefighter, or anyone else for that matter reports any traces of glycerine or from any of the other ingredients?

If a thermite reaction would have been used everyone would have seen a bright flash of light...not flames from jet fuel exploding as the aircraft crashed into the building.


[edit on 20-6-2005 by Muaddib]


SMR

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Are you dense? What the hell do you think I gave you a direct link for...
I am fully aware of what is on that page I linked you to.
They dont TALK ABOUT 9/11 on that site. They talk about what they were contracted to do.You know, sometimes they call it a PORTFOLLIO !

Perhaps thats why it is titled 'World Trade Center Recovery & Clean Up'

Whats with the 'DUDE' talk ?
Dont try and treat me like some kid who has no idea what Im talking about.
I can supply much more backing up my claims than you will ever be able to.
You can only use the term 'reasonable explanation' so much before there isnt anymore left.


SMR

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by SMR
Your not paying attention Muaddib.....
The Thermite Reaction is very exothermic; temperatures above 2,500°C (4,500°F) are often reached.
The way I see it, at that temperature, it very well can melt steel since steel melts at 1500°C (2700°F)

Get it?
Thermite Reaction causes temperatures as high as 2,500°C (4,500°F) +
Steel melts at 1500°C (2700°F) =
Molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction)

If you cant put 2 and 2 together, well Im sorry.


Ok...let me put it this way, since the ingredients needed can be found anywhere, here is what you need to make a thermite reaction.

Iron oxide, Aluminum, potassium permanganate, and glycerine.

To see what kind of reaction such a mixture would produce here is a picture...



Can you tell us in what quantity those ingredients would be needed to make such a reaction and to melt beams of steel?

Can you tell us why we don't see the reaction from the picture above when the WTC towers exploded and collapsed?....

Can you tell us why no firefighter, or anyone else for that matter reports any traces of glycerine or from any of the other ingredients?

If a thermite reaction would have been used everyone would have seen a bright flash of light...not flames from jet fuel exploding as the aircraft crashed into the building.


[edit on 20-6-2005 by Muaddib]


Who says the stuff was on the plane? I sure didnt.
Use common sense and realize that it may have been placed inside at certain areas of the buildings.The ingrediants arent going to just be sitting around for people to see.

Can I tell you in what quantity those ingredients would be needed to make such a reaction and to melt beams of steel?
Yeah sure, I have it all listed on a piece of paper in my back pocket


Can I tell you why no firefighter, or anyone else for that matter reports any traces of glycerine or from any of the other ingredients?
Is that question for real? Ok, lets see.Perhaps during all this mayhem they werent really looking for this? Perhaps there was no reason to suspect this?
What about after they fell....gee, I wonder if anything would be left to see?

Again, I have never said that bombs or otherwise were on the planes.
If a Thermite Reaction did indeed happen, what makes you think it would have been seen?
It's not like they wired the whole damn building.
If you watch videos, you can see small charges going off in certain areas.
Plus, as they fell they could have been going off and with all that dust, who was able to see anything? Again, watch video and you can see that you couldnt see 2 inches in front of you.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Are you dense? What the hell do you think I gave you a direct link for...
I am fully aware of what is on that page I linked you to.


I am afraid the only person around here dense is you...


Originally posted by SMR
They dont TALK ABOUT 9/11 on that site. They talk about what they were contracted to do.You know, sometimes they call it a PORTFOLLIO !

Perhaps thats why it is titled 'World Trade Center Recovery & Clean Up'


So, if it is called "World TRade Center Recovery & Clean Up" and they talk about what they "cleaned up" don't you think they would have said what they did when they found "molten pools of steel"?..... Don't you think they would have mentioned the "molten pools of steel"?.....


Originally posted by SMR
Whats with the 'DUDE' talk ?
Dont try and treat me like some kid who has no idea what Im talking about.
I can supply much more backing up my claims than you will ever be able to.
You can only use the term 'reasonable explanation' so much before there isnt anymore left.


Is dude now an insult for you?......DUDE...


[edit on 20-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
This is my new favorite theory on WTC #7.

As 767 number two is inbound for South Tower, a high speed (1400kts)
fighter bomber is inbound for same site, but in the radar grass below
500 feet.

A specific office at WTC 7 has been illuminated with a targeting laser
designator.

On cue, the fighter bomber institutes a perfect pup up manuever and
pickles his ordinance. The ordinance is a laser guided bunker buster
with radio activated detonator.

Bomber dives after release and exits at mach 2, still under the radar.

We next see fleeting glimpse of ordinace at it falls still at mach two
towards WTC 7 from behind Tower 1.

Bomb smashes into WTC 7 penetrating to basement level. As Tower One
starts to collapse, bomb is detonated destroying WTC 7 and whatever was
inside that someone needed hidden forever. This explains why we see a
cloud of debris coming up from WTC 7 just as the top of Tower One starts
to go.

I can give you two great reasons why this would never work....if a bomber were travelling at mach 2 and opened the bomb bay doors, they would rip off or cause massive structural damage to the aircraft. Bomb bay doors were not meant to be open at even close to supersonic speeds. If it was external ordanance the bomber wouldn't be going mach 2, as there would be too much drag caused by the external weapons pylons. If they WERE able to even GET supersonic, the pylons would probably rip off, again causing massive structural damage to the aircraft.

The second reason being that if it WERE travelling at mach 2 everyone within about 100 miles would know it from the sonic boom. A sonic boom is not just a one time event when the plane goes supersonic the boom travels with it. We had an incident here were they kept recording 2.0-3.0 seismic events, that when they were tracked, it was caused by F-4s going supersonic 100 miles out to sea on training flights. Here's a little from an article on the web

"For steady supersonic flight, the boom is described as a carpet boom since it moves with the aircraft as it maintains supersonic speed and altitude. Some maneuvers, diving, acceleration or turning, can cause focusing of the boom. Other maneuvers, such as deceleration and climbing, can reduce the strength of the shock. In some instances weather conditions can distort sonic booms."

If the plane was travelling at mach 2 as he claims, SOMEONE outside of NY would have noticed it, and heard the sonic booms.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
An interesting video

www.webct.com...

Note the reaction when the two balls are banged together.

Now imagine what would happen if you slammed an airplane into an aluminum and steel building.


Oh, and what happened to the molten aluminum?



[edit on 20-6-2005 by HowardRoark]


SMR

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Muaddib,
It seems all you do here is make funny jokes or not gather any info to debunk mine.You argue the least of the issue at hand because you cant find any proof otherwise to go against mine.
You can just go and believe what you will.Preach your inconclusive babbling or whatever.I for one wont be bothered by it any longer.It seems your kind shows up once in a while when these new subjects arise.Funny how that works.

Howard,
I get no sound on that video( damn real player crap ).
I think I can see what they are doing though and with that in mind, as I have said before, no doubt there would be a large flash.That doesnt mean we would see it though.It could have been placed in such an area as not to see.I mean why would they want to blow their cover right


Just so it is known, I do not think only we see evidence of a Thremite Reaction.I also believe other explosives were involved.They had to be.
There are many video and images showing small explosions as the building(s) fall.
You may say that those anomalies were from the building falling, but why were they 'streams' shooting out in specific areas?
Plenty of videos show this.Plus, I like this video a lot.
Can anyone explain why there is shaking before the North Towers falls?
Video of complete still shot except for a few seconds of shaking, then still again as tower falls
Link to many more



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
www.popularmechanics.com...

Don't have time to go into detail, but this was a short rather interesting page about the seismic events, and WTC 7.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   
nice link

best one that I just saw [ didn't clik but 3 ] was the squibs shot , of them sequencing vertically as the blg went down

that's no bloody accident, or natural occurrence of a collapse

busted !...but who set the charges ? [ I think I know...]

next question, why did we need to get into the ME , wtf is there ?



so ,we know, it's a contrivance...
...now what ?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Say what?...

Now you are claiming that England was also in on 9/11?....

Any evidence for this subz?.....



Originally posted by subz
I wish our governments were not responsible for 9/11 and other attrocities as well.

I see you can include illiterate on your CV right next to belligerent.

Can I ask you a straightforward question Muaddib? Why are you on ATS? You dont prescribe to ANY conspiracy theory that Ive seen. Do you believe any conspiracy theory or are you primarily here to debunk?

Also I guess we will never know if thermite or any other explosive was used in the WTC. Why? Because the law was broken when all the rubble from the WTC was sold off before investigators had a chance to examine it. Funny that isnt it, if the government didnt have anything to hide and wanted to nip conspiracy theorists in the bud they should of left all the evidence to debunk everything. But no, they sell off all the metal for scrap, good work genius.


The city of New York has decided to sell 175,000 tons of steel scrap from the World Trade Center, despite emotional appeals from relatives of some of the more than 2,800 people killed there on Sept. 11. Some of it is going to U.S. cities, but about 60,000 tons has been sold overseas, to companies in India, China and South Korea, where it will be turned into everything from appliances and bridges to car parts and even new skyscrapers. China's largest steel company, Shanghai Baosteel, has denied reports it plans to make souvenirs from the metal.

Toxic Trade News


"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire?...That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."

Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe

We'll never know for sure will we. Not due to lack of evidence but because the evidence was destroyed before unrefutable and verifed proof could be established. That places the onnus of the government to prove they did not do it, rather than that we prove they did it. They destroyed the evidence, not us.

[edit on 21/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
this one blew me away

members.surfeu.fi...

I'd like to first say that , alot of this seems to be percieved as a RED vs BLUE thing

I say it's a LIE vs the TRUTH thing , and altho some things appear to be explainable. some things linger , like footprints in, once wet, but now dry, cement .

for now , these two;

1. the slo-motion sequencing video of the squibs going off

2. the incredible heat in the basement of the towers , for many many weeks !

nothing I've heard , explains those away...



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Muaddib,

You argue the least of the issue at hand...


It's called "distract and redirect," or sometimes, "red herring." But don't take it personally or blame Maudib, it's just a job...



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
It's called "distract and redirect," or sometimes, "red herring." But don't take it personally or blame Maudib, it's just a job...

Glad im not the only one that suspects Muaddib of being a professional debunker. One that is on the payroll of the government.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
perhaps u r correct about the thermite

how about a modern mini- hydrogen-device ?

enuf to vaporize the metal

enuf to pool the steel

enuf heat to keep it hot for weeks

+ more...just look at the advances in technology we have...it would not surprise me

eh ?


ummm, did you read this ? [ thx to SMC ]

I believe this is the most plausible theory to date...

members.surfeu.fi...



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
anila, see this post.



Originally posted by anila
Nobody has given me a satisfactory answer for the cause of the explosion at this link, www.cyberspaceorbit.com...
notice a tower still standing?


That has been completley debunked as a photoshoped hoax. Notice the break in the roofline of the near "tower" It is an obvious fake. The dust is from the collapse of the south tower.

This doesn't make any sense to me. The link you provide seems to suggest you think the explosion is from WTC7, yet reports would have it that the building came down after the towers collapsed, could you please clarify your point?
The plume of smoke is not from the collapsed tower or it would not be so low and contained, it is clearly separate and apart from the towers. The break in the roofline of the near tower, if it can even be called a break, looks like simple digital distortion to me. Digital distortion will contain fairly well with a quality high resolution camera, such as one used by news media, but resolution isn't high enough to hide bright spots. Anyone who has experienced digital distortion when white writing comes on a screen or tried to photograph a candle with a cheap digital camera will understand how unforgiving digital distortion can be. Perhaps we are not looking at the same thing.
It does not make sense to suggest this is fake based upon the top of the 1st tower. While it is possible the film is fake, this was one of the first independent pieces of film (meaning someone caught it with their VCR and coded it) to make it onto the net after 9/11. For it to have been faked means someone had to be on the job immediately (now there's a conspiracy theory!). Furthermore, there has been ample opportunity for the network to claim the video is a fake, and since Tom Clancy was allegedly on air at the time, perhaps he might have something to say as well. Maybe he doesn't know this is floating around...? The pixel distribution shows me no obvious signs of fakery, unlike the Zapruder film with its glaring edits. Of course, we have better technology now and someone with real skills can fake almost any picture.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join