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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
i can't think of any other materials off-hand that would be burning like that but then again i have no idea what was in that area of the building at that time. obviously the basic constructions materials are present but who can say with absolute certainty what other fuels were present.


having looked at the film a few times it appears that the source of the dripping is near the top of the window. to me that would seem to suggest its originiating from the cieling on that floor, or the floor above.




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
The amount of thermite needed to produce a reaction like that would require a HUGE amount of thermite. And as the previous poster reported - it seems to be coming from the roof.

How do you suppose the plane would hit so perfectly it would only slighly miss the pre-placed thermite devices? How would someone hide a huge lump of thermite on the roof without anyone noticing?

Logic people... please.

More so, a reaction that size would be redundand due to the effect it would have on the towers would be minimal.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
The amount of thermite needed to produce a reaction like that would require a HUGE amount of thermite.


Another repost of Slap Nuts:


Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Why the "thermite" mass requirement calculations are WRONG.

The NIST recently addressed the usage of "thermite" in the twin towers and wrote:


Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.


This is VERY misleading ON PURPOSE and they know it. Here is why...

1.

iron-thermite is typically not used alone as an incendiary mixture. It is used in multi-component thermite-incendiary compositions, in which another oxidizer and binder are included, together with thermite. Thermate-TH3, a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives, was found to be superior to thermites and was adapted for use in incendiary hand grenades. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulfur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and reduces the ignition temperature.
SO... #1 they would not have just used Iron thermite.

2. ThermAte burns minimally 2x-10x as hot and fast as thermIte (depends on formula)... Reduce their calculations by 1/2 minimally or 1/10th.

3. NANO-thermAte... typical aluminum particles have only 1/10th of 1% of their atoms exposed on the surface. Whereas, nano-particulates, have almost 50% of their surface exposed as atoms, increasing reaction rates by 1,000x.

So... you tell me... MINIMALLY Nano-thermate has reaction rates 1000x faster and 2x hotter than "thermite"... do you really need that much?

Then, we take our nano-thermate and put it in some aero-gel which allows us to shape it however we like to make perfect shaped charge cuts... This addresses the "inconspicuous and direct contact" arguments.

So, NIST... How many AERO-GEL, NANO-THERMATE SHAPED CHARGES would it take?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

References to Sol Gel directed here as an example.

It would only take loads of thermite if the most primitive version were used: coarse iron oxide + aluminum powders. Nano-tech and Sol Gel help solve these kinds of problems.


How would someone hide a huge lump of thermite on the roof without anyone noticing?

Logic people... please.


Here's one for you:

What's the difference between the roof of one floor, and the flooring of another?

Here's one to talk about people not using logic!

[edit on 24-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
What purpose does it serve to source a post with no source?

What evidence exists that some exotic form, or any form of thermite, were present that day at the WTC?

Video of something redhot dripping out of a window in a fire spanning acres of office space is not proof of the presence of any sort of thermite, nor is it proof that explosives were used at the WTC.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
NO, but if you cant explain what substance would drop like that,while super heated... it means something unusual.... was in the building.

Ive heard gas tanks n so forth had STRCIT guidelines for fire hazard.

so what makes you beleive material capable of doing this would be left lying about by 9-5 workers?

CAn the result of a blast produce this effect on left over thermite,
how about the result on linen or fiberglass etc etc...


IF you can show me how this material is POSSIBLE, when an explosive ordanace is present...

that would seem suspicous...



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Very little effort with Google brought me here: etd.lib.ttu.edu...

The site presents this study on nano-thermite: etd.lib.ttu.edu...


Studies have shown that the thermite reaction of nm-Al+MoO3 has a large theoretical energy density [19], increased ignition sensitivity [23][8], and near detonation flame propagation speeds [5][6] in comparison to traditional micron-particle thermites. This work will present macroscopic combustion behaviors (such as flame speed) along with experimental results focusing on the molecular reactions and thermal properties of nanocomposite Al+MoO3 thermite materials


Required ignition temps are lowered (not that it can't be insulated anyway), but in return, more heat, faster. And yes, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist, but more heat from the same mass or volume means LESS WOULD BE NEEDED.

Slap Nuts may have his own sources. Like I said, this took me very little effort to find.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
But it doesnt really mean that only a tiny amount would be needed.

A thermite reaction is not a chain reaction, without the presence of the thermite, the steel does not continue to melt itself forever. Once the thermite, or nanothermate finishes it's reaction only so much molten steel will be produced.

Haveing nanothermite act thousands of times faster, would not mean that thousands of times the amount of molten iron would be produced.

One pound of "nanothermate" will not melt a half ton of steel, which is what you are implying if you mean that this substance is 1000 times more effective.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
It didnt have to..
all it needed to do, was weaken the steel, so much so, in so many places in the one section... to cause an effect

Even so, the government says the fires from the PLANE melted it enough....



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Or weakened it, exactly.

If the planes could do it alone, which some of you must necessarily believe, or whatever else was in the Towers without explosives, then even ONE unit of an explosive could set off the collapse initiation, just a bit earlier.

So to hold that either it was no explosives or else TONS of them seems a little counter-intuitive, as if someone is more trying to discredit an idea than seriously consider it for a moment.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   
After a fast fact-finding mission I've found in a Wiki article here that thermite requires an oxygen rich environment. I for one remember a LOT of smoke coming out of both buildings. If there was all of that smoke then how would the thermite actually ignite? It's been stated in Loose Change (I think) that the black smoke indicated an oxygen-starved fire, if that were the case then, again, thermite would not be able to ignite. I'm not saying that nothing strange happened that day, after all, how many buildings that size have fallen before? All I'm saying is that thermite most likely couldn't be used.

Anyone see something wrong with these thoughts?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So to hold that either it was no explosives or else TONS of them seems a little counter-intuitive, as if someone is more trying to discredit an idea than seriously consider it for a moment.


Well then, we can agree that believing that the buildings falling on themselves did not have enough energy to produce "near free fall" collapse times, or "squibs" or micronized concrete, and also believing only a small amount of explosives would be needed is also counter-intuitive.

All the so-called evidence for demolition seems to hinge on huge explosive traits that are clear to anyone watching the numerous videos.

If all these anomalies are being caused by the collapse of the building only barely helped along by explosives, there's really no evidence at all of explosives.

If only a very small amount was needed, then how are "squibs" or "near free-fall collapse times" or "pyroclastic clouds" evidence of anything but a global collapse, with or without thermite or bombs to initiate it?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   
The part holding up the towers where in the centre of the structure. Thermite on the outside is pointless.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Well the colour is diffrent from the fires on the rest of the tower, it's a more vivid orange, almost white.It could never be fuel in the plane or anything that was kept in the building, last option to this explanation is that, that is thermite leaking.

Also the colour is very very similar to burning thermite,i'll have to say very good find and reinforces the theory of explosives inside the buildings.


I would like to add that never in the histroy of buildings has a building with a steel core colapsed, and other steel core buildings that were hit by planes did not colapse and even more stressing is the fact that on 9-11, 3 buildings did it and in a very strange way.Take a clue.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
The part holding up the towers where in the centre of the structure. Thermite on the outside is pointless.


The perimeter columns supported load as well, and the four corner box columns (around one of which we see the molten material in WTC2) were pretty important for the outer structure, I would imagine.

As Griff's stated before, anything you have set up like that, one thing sitting on top of another, whether you intend it to support load or not, it does and will. I'm sure the engineers being the Towers realized this, seeing as how they were structural engineers. Though the cores may have held the majority of the gravity loads, the trusses had to be suspended between them and the perimeter, and not just floating there extended from the core only.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
That material in the video is not glass or platsic, both materials can change from low viscocity to high with the application of heat but would not spark as the material did in the video. If you watched a cutters torch going through steel you have the same effect, molten metal sparking and bopuncing off what ever it hits. Thats what was in the video, it was molten metal, but what metal it was or the cause of its combustion one can only speculate.

When the remaining collums of the WTC were being removed you had the same effect when they were being cut. For the really keen out therer, I dont think it would be to difficult or costly to do a test burn with similar materials to establish what was burning and the source of the burn.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Think about the amount of aluminum in the office space. From lighting fixtures, desks, chairs, file cabinets, cieling tile supports, varoius cables and wires. There are many possible sources of the 'liquid metal' flow.

There is no evidence what-so-ever that has been presented that suggests a few tons of thermite/thermate/nano-thermite were used.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
It could be copper who knows how many tons of bus bars it took to get to the top. Thousands and thousands of amps I would guess to warm it up.

mikell



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Its about time everyone stooped arguing about 9/11 and admit that US government did it. Lot of things point to it. Why people still have doubt eludes me.

You should worry about the next attack that the US gov. is probably planning to continue global operation of world domination....err....*cough*....i mean war on terror.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Lets think about it in a statistical way. The probability that terrorists could pull something like this off is much slimmer than a government pulling it off. If the terrorists really wanted to attack America, I really think it would have been a whole lot worse.

I find in life there are few coincidences, if any. In all of my 24 years on this earth, heh. The government had more to gain from this than anyone else, that is undeniable to any patriot willing to scrutinize their government. Registered republican I may be, I do not adhire to the non-republican principles of this administration. I have been lied to my face over and over, why would this be any different. Bush says stay the course... over and over... FOR 3 YEARS. Then in an interview he said thats never been the plan. Osama dead or alive... oh Osama isn't a concern all of a sudden? Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.

Most administrations have had compulsive liars. However most administrations have had accountability when caught. This one does not. And it has been caught over and over again.

The probability is that they are lying to us about this.

Thermite? maybe. I certainly looks alot like it. In highschool we were lucky enough to do some experiments with the stuff. Why its on a non-load bearing structure, I don't know, however it is awfully close to the corner of the building. Does that mean something? However, it would take a lot to burn through the WTC support structure, and it may just be chance burn through.

Its just nuts that people saw the buildings fall straight down and think it was coincidental. Most things are NOT coincidental.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by Galvatron]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Galvatron......you have any proof?

Because none has been presented showing it to be a Government plot.

Many 'items' regarding the so-called government involvement have already been de-bunked in numerous threads on ATS.

I guess terrorists were not capable of ANY hijackings of airplanes which have taken placed over the years.

Or blown up the subway in London or the Trains in Spain or any of the other numerous terrorist attacks which have taken place of the years?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join