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.

 

Clear Video Evidence of Thermite Pouring Out of the Tower Just Before Collapse?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I was looking around on another forum where they were comparing most disturbing 9-11 videos. I found something in one of them that I swear is liquid iron and thermite pouring out of the side of the building just before the collapse.


Click here to see it
The suspected thermite is the fist 30 seconds or so and the cameraman zooms right in on it.

Compare it with this thermite video..
Thermite Video

If you combine this with the "hot spots" in the WTC debris days after the collapse, I think the evidence speaks for itself.

U.S. Gov Infa-red Photos of the site from Sep 16th

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Tiloke]

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Tiloke]




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
oops double post


[edit on 24-10-2006 by Tiloke]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
can't that just be melting synthetics?

i don't know how you could say red hot dripping stuff is one thing or another just based on a visual alone.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
What kind of synthetics? Because hydrocarbons (including plastics) burn, not melt, at least at those temperatures.

Thermite produces molten iron, which glows orange/yellow/white at the temperatures at which it's produced. The only metal in the building that could possibly be molten from hydrocarbon fires alone was aluminum, and aluminum is only silvery at those temperatures. To glow, it has to either be similarly superheated, or else in dim light, or etc.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I found another site that compares the 2 with great pictures.

www.gieis.uni.cc...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I was thinking that might have been jet fuel leaking out the window there, but they do look somewhat simliar. It kinda makes me think that the thermite in the WTC would have been a lot more noticeable unless that section was set off early.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Does this help any?




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Does this help any?



No.




Jones writes: "This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"

I think at a cooler temperature, he's right.


At a cooler temperature, he thinks Jones is right?

Maybe either of you could be the first to show us aluminum glowing like that in broad daylight.

It's the same problem.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
That is actually a good post to a well laid out explanation. What is not helpful about the article?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I made a thread on this video and there weren't really any debunkers on my thread www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
That is actually a good post to a well laid out explanation. What is not helpful about the article?


From now on I'm going to start calling this "the Esdad Effect".

You are the only person that posts, in which my immediately preceding posts actually serve as a response to your posts that follow them.

For example, "What is not helpful about the article?"

I stated this in the very post to which you are responding, as if you suffered amnesia while posting your response and forgot what I posted. I notice this all the time with you, which is why I'm going to start calling it the Esdad Effect.



Btw, notice objectively (if you can!) that that article provides absolutely nothing more conclusive than what is regularly posted on this board, and yet you refuse to consider anything here, but immediately take to that article. Ever considered yourself to be biased, Esdad? For example, I could link you to Charles Pegelow going over problems with pancake theory, and I doubt the same response would issue from you, despite you never really bothering to weigh in on the more technical debates at all.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Does this help any?





Does this help any?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Look up sol-jel and aerojel. It IS possible to shape nanothermate or superthermate onto the columns. You and your friend at debunking9/11 are being misleading when you say that thermite (in it's MANY forms) can't cut through a verticle column. For some reason, you ignored Slap Nuts' thread. Why? Nothing about it in debunking9/11 for you to parrot?

[edit on 10/24/2006 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Excellent work. I see the thermite bomb burning like crazy in that low corner of the impact and not long after the collapse begins. It still looks like controlled demo no matter how many angles I see this collapse from. A natural collapse would have happened in stages and not smooth and precise like we are seeing here yet again.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
what about melting glass?

that can take on a liguid like flow when it reaches hot enough temperatures.

External Link



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by amehrich
what about melting glass?

that can take on a liguid like flow when it reaches hot enough temperatures.

External Link


That requires extreme temperatures, well beyond what a hydrocarbon fire is capable of (source).

Molten glass would also implicate some exothermic incendiary or other device. I don't think that's what's in the video, though.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Molten glass would also implicate some exothermic incendiary or other device. I don't think that's what's in the video, though.

Let me get this straight: You "don't think" and yet, from reading your rebuttal(s) to those who say or indicate there was no thermite or that the video shows something else other than thermite, you are sure that thermite was used? :shk:

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I say things like "I think" or "I don't think" to be conservative and show that I'm still open to other explanations.

Don't be confused -- I have come across no good reason to believe that the material in the said video is not molten iron.

I'm also curious as to where I have ever stated that I know what that stuff was with 100% certainty. Maybe you can find it for me?

Either way, it's a moot point and you're knit-picking a non-issue.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I say things like "I think" or "I don't think" to be conservative and show that I'm still open to other explanations.

Ironic then that you are not "open to other explanations" when it comes to that proclaimed use of thermite though, huh?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Again, I ask for you to show me where I have stated that I know that the molten material was thermite with 100% certainty. If you're going to spam a thread with immature remarks then the least you can do is back them up.

All of your posts I have seen thus far on the 9/11 forum have been like this, Seekerof. It's all I know you for, which isn't saying much. Try to post some substance on the actual issues once in a while, instead of badgering people and confusing that for a quality discussion? Or at least, like I said, back up the claims you do make (ie personal attacks).



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by amehrich
what about melting glass?
External Link


I've seen people work with molten glass. First of all the temperatures are extremely high and secondly they do not glow white at any time. The color is red or variants of red and orange.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join