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.

 

World Trade Center + Explosives

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Hi Pepper:


Pepper >> Sorry guys for sounding like a jerk can you guys read the post and make comments on my idea.


Sure. I agree with you that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were inside jobs carried out by DoD Contractors who wired the buildings to blow weeks before the 9/11 attack. However, what the other members here are advising you to do is support your statements with some research. The result of that research represents the evidence that should appear in your Opening Post under the thesis statement above your conclusion.

I want to start the same kind of thread, but must spend time researching the topic from what has already been presented by other ATS members. If your idea does not have an original ‘twist,’ then these guys are not going to be impressed at all. Since this is obviously an inside job and a cover up has been taking place from the beginning, then your task includes a very steep uphill battle littered with disinformation. You should expect resistance at every turn. : 0 )

GL,

Terral




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Notice the concrete blocks are still there, thermite is bouncing off it, and notice how the plant pot container lasts pretty well considering how much thermite it contains.


So you would have us believe that thermite can cut through steel beams but bounces off concrete?

As far as I know thermite reactions cut through just about anything and I believe they also give off quite a bit of light IIRC.

I do not think that fits what we see in the video.

Nor does that video footage prove that whatever is dripping there is thermite.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Can you give us a theory on what it could be then? It's not melted aluminum because melted aluminum has been shown time and time again that it doesn't glow orange in daylight. Unless the aluminum somehow got to the extreme temperatures of melting steel. If it was that hot, then it could have been melted steel...but we all know that it didn't get that hot. So, what is your theory on what it was?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Notice the concrete blocks are still there, thermite is bouncing off it, and notice how the plant pot container lasts pretty well considering how much thermite it contains.


So you would have us believe that thermite can cut through steel beams but bounces off concrete?

As far as I know thermite reactions cut through just about anything and I believe they also give off quite a bit of light IIRC.

I do not think that fits what we see in the video.

Nor does that video footage prove that whatever is dripping there is thermite.

Yes thermite cuts through anything pretty much including concrete it just takes time depending on its density. Did you even watch the second video?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

So you would have us believe that thermite can cut through steel beams but bounces off concrete?



Brainiac's Thermite Video

Pay attention to this video, don't watch the termite, watch the container it is in.

Have a good day now..

It is possible the termite didn't go thru the concrete.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
It's not melted aluminum because melted aluminum has been shown time and time again that it doesn't glow orange in daylight. Unless the aluminum somehow got to the extreme temperatures of melting steel. If it was that hot, then it could have been melted steel...but we all know that it didn't get that hot. So, what is your theory on what it was?


Well it certainly makes more sense that it was molten aluminum, or a mix of materials that were known to be present, than a theory that requires someone planting a material that would not normally be present and something that no evidence suggests was there.

It also looks like a number of things, to pick thermite because it fits a demolition theory is cherry picking evidence to fit your case.

Does anyone have video of other large buildings burning in the daytime?

Is anything like what some are calling thermite observable in other fires?

Or could it be as NIST proposes, a blend of molten material including aluminum spilling out?

Video of seemingly molten material falling out of a burning building is certainly not conclusive proof of thermite by any reasonable standards.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Does anyone have video of other large buildings burning in the daytime?


Windsor Tower Spain. Look it up.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Is anything like what some are calling thermite observable in other fires?

I would seriously doubt it cause if anything like that did happen, you know NIST and FEMA would be all on it saying "See its not termite SEEE SEEE!!!"


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Or could it be as NIST proposes, a blend of molten material including aluminum spilling out?

Video of seemingly molten material falling out of a burning building is certainly not conclusive proof of thermite by any reasonable standards.


This is complete bs and you know it, The area wasn't even that hot for this to happen. Why even fight this..



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Aircraft aluminum alloys have melting points between 600 and 700 C, well within the temprature range for a typical fire.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
But they don't glow orange except in very dim rooms.

Molten aluminum is silvery in daylight.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Video of seemingly molten material falling out of a burning building is certainly not conclusive proof of thermite by any reasonable standards.


I agree. But then again, why wasn't the steel tested for thermite? Or even tested to see what type of slag it was? I know it was probably hard to do with all the molten steel but they could have tried. BTW, how did the steel become molten for weeks after the collapses? Why wasn't that investigated? Even if it was a natural occuring thermite, wouldn't it be of interest to find out what actually happened instead of smelting the evidence? And I don't mean all steel was smelted. Just doesn't seam like a very thorough investigation to me when they let mysterious things like this slip by.

BTW, I heard Monica Lewinski cost the taxpayers more money than the investigation of the biggest terror attack to the U.S. Goes to show what we Americans put as more important.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
NIST's new suggestion of molten aluminum mixed with burning organics is counter-intuitive, and also totally unsupported. Where do they cite sources for this phenomenon? Where do they explain this in anything even half scientific? Where do they show molten aluminum with organics mixed in?

Professor Jones did just that, and the aluminum is still silvery, and the organics simply burn. They don't even mix. It's like oil and water, as Jones puts it. Shouldn't be surprising considering hydrocarbons need oxygen to burn and molten aluminum on such hydrocarbons would block oxygen exposure below the surface. Hydrocarbons wouldn't continue burning in the first place even if they were somehow mixed in so perfectly into molten aluminum.

But the biggest complaint I have is that NIST can say something totally unsupported and people will still take to it as if it's well-established, let alone shown to even be possible.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Not only was there aluminum from the plane but a vast majority of office supplies are made with aluminum........desks, chairs, lighting fixtures, file cabinets etc.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Not only was there aluminum from the plane but a vast majority of office supplies are made with aluminum........desks, chairs, lighting fixtures, file cabinets etc.


No, not really. I've never seen an aluminum file cabinet.

The column covers were aluminum, and I'm sure that a few were blown into the building by the imact.

But the majority of the plane was aluminum.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Windsor Tower Spain. Look it up.


Why the attitude? Do you have video of the Windsor Tower burning during the day? All the pictures I have seen have shown it at night. I haven't even seen comparable videos of the Madrid fire, so why don't you post these videos instead of being rude.


Originally posted by ThichHeaded

This is complete bs and you know it, The area wasn't even that hot for this to happen. Why even fight this..


Please prove that this is BS, I am not claiming it is neccesarily the answer I was merely stating that it is possible. Aluminum could easily melt in the temperatures produced by those fires, I'm not exactly clear on how this is BS, nor will agree with it just off your opinion.

Even if it is not melted aluminum, that still does not make it thermite.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


I agree. But then again, why wasn't the steel tested for thermite? Or even tested to see what type of slag it was? I know it was probably hard to do with all the molten steel but they could have tried.


Why test for something that there is no evidence for? Should they test for magic perhaps, or maybe leprechaun involvement, after all there is just as much evidence for the towers being brought down by magical leprechauns.

All kidding aside, I don't know why they didn't test for thermite, nor does it prove that thermite was there. Positive evidence, please folks.



BTW, how did the steel become molten for weeks after the collapses? Why wasn't that investigated?


Again, there is no actual proof of steel being molten for weeks after the collapses, and perhaps molten material is not that strange in underground fires that burn for weeks, and the investigators didn't think it was mysterious.

The real question to me would be, why would they use so much thermite that it burned for weeks? Why the overkill?

And once again, something not being investigated is not proof that thermite was there.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
LeftBehind: Actually them not examining for Thermite is suspicious. If they wanted to shut all of the conspiracy people up. They could easily disproove any of our thing and tell us exactly what happened. If the "real" story is so true why not disproove us and shut us up??

Ps: Wow this topic can popular



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
And again, aluminum appears silvery, not bright orange/yellow/white, in daylight.

I don't know why this is so hard for some of you to understand. There is no evidence whatsoever that aluminum can glow those colors in daylight for any reason.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And again, aluminum appears silvery, not bright orange/yellow/white, in daylight.

I don't know why this is so hard for some of you to understand. There is no evidence whatsoever that aluminum can glow those colors in daylight for any reason.


upload.wikimedia.org...

That is Aluminum btw just for those who do not know



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepperslappy
LeftBehind: Actually them not examining for Thermite is suspicious.


No, it's not. Why would they even think to test for something they had no reason to believe was there.

I could be wrong, but I believe the thermite theories came well after the event, so I don't see why it's suspicious that they didn't test a theory that hadn't even been thought up yet.

I don't think they ever found any proof of explosives, and the geophysicists said that the seismic waves actually prove that bombs were not used.


www.globalsecurity.org...

Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers — but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires — that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11".


[edit on 19-10-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Pepperslappy
LeftBehind: Actually them not examining for Thermite is suspicious.


No, it's not. Why would they even think to test for something they had no reason to believe was there.

I could be wrong, but I believe the thermite theories came well after the event, so I don't see why it's suspicious that they didn't test a theory that hadn't even been thought up yet.

I don't think they ever found any proof of explosives, and the geophysicists said that the seismic waves actually prove that bombs were not used.


www.globalsecurity.org...

Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers — but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires — that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11".


[edit on 19-10-2006 by LeftBehind]


The airplane and fires could NOT take down a building. Esepcially not in an hour.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join