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.

 

WTC Steel Analysis Reveals Thermite and Thermate By-Products

page: 15
1
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
They did not "submit" anything. The MEDIA (film, SDRAM, tapes) were confiscated.

Sorry for simplifying with "film" I should have said media.


And exactly how was that done?

Who went about and did that?

How come the French film makers media was not confiscated?




posted on May, 7 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
This photo was supposed to show the melted steel caused by thermite/thermate;

www.piratenews.org...

This video shows workers cutting the steel columns at two points, one at 1:15 and one at 26 seconds. The second one i think is a core column, considering the size of it!

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
They did not "submit" anything. The MEDIA (film, SDRAM, tapes) were confiscated.

Sorry for simplifying with "film" I should have said media.


And exactly how was that done?

Who went about and did that?

How come the French film makers media was not confiscated?



Military checkpoints... do a little research into what was NOT allowed at "Ground Zero"...

ITEM #1: CAMERAS

Research my friend.. research.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   


Original Post by Slap nuts

Dr. Steven Jones claims to have recieved a "certified sample" of WTC steel and that his analysis conclusively reveals the steel was subject to a thermite reaction. The samples also reveal the by products of thermate, a sulphur enhanced thermite mixture which reuces the melting point of steel.


To be precise Dr Steven Jones was quoted at rense.com saying the following:



Professor Jones points to Thermate, with 2 percent sulfur, as being the most likely culprit. The oxidation and sulfidation of the steel requires the oxygen and sulfur being "intimately in contact with the metal at high temperature," Jones said.


Well here's news boys and girls. 2% Sulphur is approximately the Sulphur content of jet fuel.

Mix about a 1,000kg of sulphur from 80,000kg of jet fuel with 60,000kg of oxidised aluminium from the aircraft, slap it against oxidised steel beams during a fuel fire and you have Thermite.

Burn some computer screens and suddenly, hey presto you have Barium present to make Thermate. You have your explanation why steel beams were weakened by Thermate or Thermite reactions.

No need for grand conspiracy theories about planting bombs.

Sulpher + Aluminium + Iron Oxide + Barium = Thermate

Trouble is 9/11 conspiracists aren't interested in the truth. They cling like religious zealots to absurd complicated plots as if it were a religious experience.





[edit on 14-9-2008 by sy.gunson]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Incidentally if you study video of the first tower to fall (south tower I think?) you notice it did not pancake at all but buckled and toppled over before dropping vertically. That indicates the structure failed at one corner or one side and not uniformly.

That is consistent with a fuel fed fire on one side of the building only and also explains why a woman was seen through a hole which an aircraft entered and why the fire did not totally consume the impacted floors.

The sulphur content of the fuel combined with the aircraft's aluminium would have concentrated on the side opposite the entry point to create a Thermite fire, or when combined with Barium from computer screens, would have formed Thermate to weaken steel beams in one side sufficiently to buckle the building under the load from above.

Conspiracy is not the only explanation for the presence of Thermite erroded Steel beams. It can be explained innocently.

Other aspects of human behaviour can simply be explained by confusion and human failings. There's no need to construct elaborate conspiracy theories to join the dots.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


But that doesn't explain why the lower structures of the building gave way when collapsing. the lower floors werent on fire in both buildings, and it still fell at freefall with no resistance.

why did those floors just pancake into each other?

that scenario doesn't fit.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


But that doesn't explain why the lower structures of the building gave way when collapsing. the lower floors werent on fire in both buildings, and it still fell at freefall with no resistance.

why did those floors just pancake into each other?

that scenario doesn't fit.


F=mv2
Force equals mass times the velocity squared.
Once those upper floors started moving it was like dropping a brick on a plastic cup.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

F=mv2
Force equals mass times the velocity squared.
Once those upper floors started moving it was like dropping a brick on a plastic cup.


The floors were designed to hold the weight above them.

None of the fire chiefs present believed the towers would collapse, thier only worry was the upper section above the impacts.

They were worried about the upper sections IF THE FIRES BURNED FOR SEVERAL HOURS, WHICH THEY DID NOT.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2
The floors were designed to hold the weight above them.

None of the fire chiefs present believed the towers would collapse, thier only worry was the upper section above the impacts.

They were worried about the upper sections IF THE FIRES BURNED FOR SEVERAL HOURS, WHICH THEY DID NOT.



The towers were designed for a primarily static load and a minimal dynamic load due to wind and other factors. Once the floors above the impact point started moving they became a dynamic load, which the towers were not designed for.

The fires were only one factor in the collapse. Everybody seems to ignore the force of the aircraft's impact and the structural damage to the towers. I believe that the towers could have survived any one of these, but not all three.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join