It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:59 PM
It wouldn't make the tempurature to melt through steel. Thermite as a specific explosive has a very high temperature that it needs to get to in order to actually ignite.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by JenovaMM]

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:05 PM
Hi all, I just registered to give you guys a little bit of information regarding the thermite reaction. First of all, JenovaMM mentioned that thermite needed an oxygen rich environment. This absolutely false, and im quite dissapointed in the fact that no one noticed this, its even on wikipedia for god's sake The thermite reaction uses two reactants which are iron "OXIDE!" and aluminum. Now what do you think that oxide represents? ... yes oxygen. What this means is that thermite has its own supply of oxygen and does not require an external air supply, and can even burn underwater. Now I dont undertstand why you "JenovaMM" would post this, when you oubviously dont know much about thermite.

And about the black smoke, my theory is that it was caused by the burning jet fuel in a low oxygen environment.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:07 PM
EDIT: I submit, your mental prowess exceeds my own.
Good job on that!

[edit on 25-10-2006 by JenovaMM]

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:18 PM
Im sorry JenovaMM but I fail to see where its mentioned that thermite needs an oxygen rich environment to burn. But I think I know where lies your mistake. In the second paragraph of the article it is mentioned that in order to produce iron oxide you have to heat up iron in and oxygen rich environment. But once that "Rust" is created you dont need the oxygen rich environment for the thermite reaction. "Rust" + aluminum -> molten iron + aluminum oxide, simple right. Now I dont mean to insult you JenovaMM but please read properly.

Edit: Oh ok you changed your reply.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by Information]

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:29 PM
All you conspiracy fanatics concerning the towers need to just accept the fact that a 747 hit one of the towers fact is ive seen the video which clearly shows a plane crashing in to the towers

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:33 PM
I dont think the conspiracy theorists disagree with the fact that planes crashed in the WTC buildings, they just disagree with the theory that planes brought them down. And why am I saying "they"? I should say "we".

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:36 PM
Ooooh you didn't, that one post will insure that this thread will last forever now. Common sense will not do, not on this subject anyway! Millions of people saw the planes , but no that isn't what brought down the buildings.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:36 PM
I personally think the US government had involvment in this so they have a reason to go to war, which by the way is for oil. Think about it they said they had prior knowledge about this event happening, OK let see if you knew it about it then why wouldnt you prevent it... The U.S. government is very corrupt in such a way are society is controlled in a secret way. Like keeping secrets from people like us and they wonder why there is so much violence its the government everybody pissed at them so therefore there is going to be problems

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:41 PM
well ok i do think there is a possibilty there couldve been a type of bomb because it would be pretty hard to have one plane make 2 towers just collapse so there would have to be some reason for that.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:41 PM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
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?

You have voted LeftBehind for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

well summed up.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:44 PM
Is there no more arguments against thermite being used??? You have to ask yourself, what was that pouring out from the building's side???

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by TheOne1989
All you conspiracy fanatics concerning the towers need to just accept the fact that a 747


hit one of the towers fact is ive seen the video which clearly shows a plane crashing in to the towers

Actually I think both of them were hit with 767s

You'll notice that neither of them immediately collapsed from these impacts, either, so there seems to be some problem in your logic there buddy.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:10 PM
Uh... no BSbray11 my logic is clear and uses sense unlike alot of people i havent really been caught up on the whole 911 situation from where you guys started..buddy

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:36 PM
I think its funny when someone says that an idea has been debunked on ATS threads. Sure, alot of ATSers are good researchers and are good at analysis. But to assume someone is unbiased in their debunking of an idea, or even support of an idea, on boards like this is just naive. So take any "proven" or "debunked" ideas with a grain of salt. Because you may just find, that the idea that was "debunked" turned out to be true. To quote a line from sin city, "when you have someone agreeing to something deep down they know just ain't true, then you've got them by the balls."

This certainly looks like thermite to me. Based on my own experiences with it on my highschool football field with my chemistry class, and what it looks like according to the thermite used in the video presented.

You want proof that its thermite? Can't give it to you, because it's only a possibility that it's thermite. Prove to me that it isnt. You'll find the same dilemma.

If anyone wants to flame me, go for it, I won't respond. I think its thermite, or somehow liquid MAGMA (Dr. Evil Voice) started to shoot out of the building.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Beer_Guy

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

I melt aluminum on a regular basis in my garage. I pour ingots to save up because they take up less space than trashbags full of cans. Normally I wait for the aluminum to glow orange before pouring. That's just to make sure that most of the other ingredients are burnt off so I have "better" quality aluminum.
So, Yes, in my experience aluminum can glow orange if heated enough.
But here is a theory if anyone cares to ponder it....
The aluminum gets heated to a very high heat in an oxygen deprived area, maybe superheated.
It won't burn because there isn't enough oxygen. The molten aluminum pools and then builds up enough to run out the window,,,,, wouldn't it burn at this point as it reaches the air with plenty of oxygen?
Wouldn't it also resemble thermite as it falls from the window bursting into flames and probably glowing bright orange?

I "feel" that our own government was responsible for this tragedy, but I "know" very little about the facts. The rest is just speculation....

Didn't someone else here say something about melting aluminum in their garage and getting it orange all the time? I'm really having a hard time with all this. I'm currently reading through this forum about the subject.. Check it out:

Aluminum has a melting point of 660.37C and a boiling point of 2467.0C.

Now according to this.. in order for aluminum to glow the color of the 'metal' coming out the WTC tower it had to have been around 1000C+ degrees: (Even more to allow for cooling differential)

SOOO.... The 'melted aluminum pouring out of the tower managed to melt and somehow get around 500-800 degrees C hotter (conveniently) BEFORE pouring out of the tower. What I'm saying is that the aluminum would not have had the chance to get to the temperature that it would have needed to glow bright red because it would have melted WAY ahead of the time and gravity would have pulled it out of the way before 'whatever' it was heating it had the chance to heat it up to glowing temperature. That metal coming out of the tower was BRIGHT red.. (1000 ++ C degrees..

In contrast.. Iron melts at 1535C WELL after it starts to glow.. 1500C is very much in line with what we saw pouring out of the tower.

My point it and my biggest problem.. If that was aluminum pouring out of the tower then what 'mechanism' allowed it to get that hot before pouring out?

And I do stand corrected.. I said earlier that aluminum can't be melted and glow orange at the same time, surprised someone didn't beat me over the head over that one.

One thing I know for sure.. Aluminum does not glow bright red at it's melting point. If you want it to glow this color you have to HOLD it in place and continue heating it to get it to glow.

So again I ask, how in the world was that metal pouring out of the tower aluminum?

[edit on 26-10-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:45 PM
Fact is they used this BS physics to explain the complete collapse of the tower, then some more BS physics to explain why the tower collapse started. Even if the physics for the complete collapse were possible, that still doesnt mean the initial BS physics is right. Even if the reason the tower completely collapsed was right, it wouldn't point to either side any more. The only thing it would mean is this "you only need to take out a couple floors and the rest will collapse into its footprint."

Thats ALL it means. So if your going by the official story, it makes more sense that explosives brought down the towers then fires because its more physically feasible. If a couple stories of fires can bring the building down, it must not take much explosives to bring a tower down. A fire can bent some metal beams, where as explosives can take out a support for the floor. Take out a couple supports and you probably get the same effect of collapse. That doesn't explain the complete collapse, but Im not debating that.

Im debating whether or not thermite could have been used, and I say it could. The only difference is how much is needed. If we go by the official stories physics of pancake collapse or whatever, you need SIGNIFICANTLY less explosives for obvious reasons, which only makes the whole scenario more feasable. If the pancake collapse were physically correct, they only need to rig up maybe 2 or 3 floors. Not nearly as fact very possible.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 06:35 PM


So if your going by the official story, it makes more sense that explosives brought down the towers then fires because its more physically feasible.

I don't know Grim.. I'm definitely on board as far as some sort of 'assistance' in bringing down the towers but lately I've been leaning away from actual explosives. I honestly believe that well placed thermite was sufficient for the task. Although I think it's still possible explosives were used, I think the booms that were heard before the buildings collapsed were, like I said earlier, 'explosive' failures of box collumns as they were being cut. Thermite just makes sense and explains ALOT. (Including the hot spots that stayed hot for an impossible amount of time)

But back to the main topic of this thread.. Is it possible that what we see coming out of the side of the building in the video that's posted at the beginning of this thread, is it indeed aluminum? I don't see how that's possible but that's what this thread is all about.

Unfortunately, because of the 'lack of evidence' we are pretty much left with what we can get and the self evident. As far as the official story versus self evident? I think you all know what side I'M on.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 06:47 PM
VFTS sorry I meant thermite, said explosives. Honest mistake there.

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:43 PM
Just ran across this:

Learn something new every day.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in