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.

 

Thermite and explosives

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by squidbones

Originally posted by Brand403
This is soley speculation.
Wouldn't it be possible to have the thermite charges set in the fireproofing (which would hide it) and have select charges set off electronically? Say the guy on the button waited untill the planes hit and distinguished which floors were hit untill he/she hits which floors to implode. Multiple videos shows only the floors below the plane crash collapsed first. I say thermite because it is an old technlogy and could have been instaled at time of build, just charges not ignighters. I mean it could have been lasers for all I know.


Why would the explosave be built in to the buildng at the time of construction? They weren't planning the attack that far in the future. Besides most of the fire proofing was blown off by the impact.


Thats what I am saying; that the explosives were there since time of build. I mean there was some really important stuff in those buildings. Couldn't the explosives been used as like a fail safe if something were to happen. If the fire proofing was blown off then the button pusher just did not ignight the floors above the impact. That would explain why the piolets tried to hit so high. There was really no need for piolets anyways, if what is speculated is true that there was no commercial airliners. Could have been remote control.




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Does that mean every office buldling in America has explosaves inside as a fail safe? I highly doubt that even if there were explosivaes in the building they were new



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
NIST although a government agency, had around over 200 investigators working on the collapse. Of the over 200, 125 were leading experts from the private sector and academia.

As I have stated in previous posts, not ONE credible Engineer has come forward publicly to discredit the NIST investigation. If you do some research, you will find that all of the Engineers that DO comment on the NIST report, all agree with its findings.

This thermite and thermate hypothisis is unfounded. There is ZERO evidence that there was thermite or thermate invloved. (Yes I know NIST didn't test the beams.)

wtc.nist.gov...

This is a picture of some of the beams that were examined.

Again... How long must we sing this song? The evidence does NOT support a controlled demolition. Was NIST perfect? NO...but thats does not however mean that there is evidence that supports CD. CD theory is 100% speculation with 0% proof.


Yeah, let us all believe the government "recruits" on this one. Listen, this is one of the single largest cover-ups in recorded history. The government has their tentacles spread everywhere....trust me. So the NIST didn't test the beams, and you can say for a fact that there wasn't thermite involved. What about fused elements of molten steel and concrete? Guess, some jet fuel or just plain ole intense sheetrock fire caused that...hmmmm.

Just look at this site for about 10 minutes........
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Maybe, since you know for sure that this is the same old song, you care to answer a few questions?
1. What about the pre-collapse, sub-basement explosions (sub-structure)?
2. " " " pre-collapse, interior blasts (precise cutting of core colums)?
3. " " " pre-collapse, ground level explosions (basement/lower supports)?
4. What about the top level collapse (cracking at the top/sinking in middle)?
5. What about the mid-collapse squibs blowing up all the way down as the tower is falling, in perfect tandem?
6. What about the time delayed pile (exoskeleton/pulverization)?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Hey Tex...Let me see if I can answer your questions.
You said:

"Maybe, since you know for sure that this is the same old song, you care to answer a few questions?
1. What about the pre-collapse, sub-basement explosions (sub-structure)?
2. " " " pre-collapse, interior blasts (precise cutting of core colums)?
3. " " " pre-collapse, ground level explosions (basement/lower supports)?
4. What about the top level collapse (cracking at the top/sinking in middle)?
5. What about the mid-collapse squibs blowing up all the way down as the tower is falling, in perfect tandem?
6. What about the time delayed pile (exoskeleton/pulverization)? "

Here is my response:

1. Sub-basement explosions?
a. seismic evidence does not support this
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
b. "the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. “We smelled kerosene,” Mike recalled, “I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs”...These are quotes from Mike Pecoraro. The man who claimed to have heard the explosions. This quote is often left out of the 911 Truth websites. Obviously that’s not conclusive proof, but leaving certain parts of conversations could sometimes completely alter a conversation.

2. " pre-collapse, interior blasts (precise cutting of core colums)?
a. Thermite makes nasty holes with molten metal drips. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a chemical reaction. If you are talking about the pictures with the cut columns, i'm guessing they were cut at an angle so just the column fell in a certain direction during cleanup.
hereisnewyork.org...
(Picture 5100)
hereisnewyork.org...
(Picture 5102)

3. pre-collapse, ground level explosions (basement/lower supports)?
Please see #1
4. What about the top level collapse (cracking at the top/sinking in middle)?
a. Cracking? I'm not sure what your talking about. Please follow up with some photos...video. Thanks

5. Squibs? I though everyone agreed on this?
a. A squib is an explosive charge. If you care to look at ANY website that shows the collapse of the WTC, you will see the so called "sqibs". An explosive charge starts of with a blast...then disipates. The "sqibs" you see in ALL the videos show an INCREASE of power as the collapse gets closer to the floor that has the "squib". The most logical explination I feel is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors. There were also SEVERAL survivors of the collapse that support this hypothisis. ie:
Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”

www.acfd.com...

6. What about the time delayed pile (exoskeleton/pulverization)?
Please elaborate on what you mean here.

Not sure if this helps at all.



[edit on 22-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
b. "the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. “We smelled kerosene,” Mike recalled, “I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs”...These are quotes from Mike Pecoraro. The man who claimed to have heard the explosions. This quote is often left out of the 911 Truth websites. Obviously that’s not conclusive proof, but leaving certain parts of conversations could sometimes completely alter a conversation.


Cars were parked underground. Why wouldn't he smell kerosene if the floors above him had just suffered massive explosions, as he also reported?

Btw, liquid kerosene will not make an efficient FAE. The FAE's at the impacted floors didn't even remove the aluminum cladding. Just blew out windows, and not even all of those.



5. Squibs? I though everyone agreed on this?
a. A squib is an explosive charge. If you care to look at ANY website that shows the collapse of the WTC, you will see the so called "sqibs". An explosive charge starts of with a blast...then disipates. The "sqibs" you see in ALL the videos show an INCREASE of power as the collapse gets closer to the floor that has the "squib". The most logical explination I feel is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors.


The problem with this is that any air would have to be channeled through the core. The floors were completely separated by trusses covered with 4" thick concrete slabs, in addition to the carpet and etc.

For air to be compressed and forced DOWN the building (which would not reasonably occur since the building was being gutted floor-by-floor, allowing air to escape up and out into the vacuum created by the falling building), it would have to be channeled down a core shaft, and then exit OUT of the core shaft, and literally jet across about half a floor's whole width to blow out a very specific area of perimeter.


What really kills the air theory, if the above doesn't do it, is the fact that there was at least one observed ~50 floors below a collapse, and some were observed well-below free-falling material! That means air would have to be forced down the building faster than the collapse wave itself, before pulling the same impossible stunt of rocketing out across so many offices without decompressing (pressure equalizing with the surrounding air on each floor), to blow out of the building.

And, air theory also does not explain where all the fine dust material was coming from, especially so far BELOW the collapse waves.


I agree that the things are not caused by conventional high explosives as typically used in a demolition, for the reason you give above, of them seeming to pick up strength. But air compression doesn't work either. The buildings weren't air tight, there was no reason for the air to go down rather than up, there is no reasonable way for the air to have escaped the core and made it across a floor without decompressing, and there is no explanation for how these things blasted out fine dust so far ahead of the collapse wave.

Steven Jones (before his dismissal) was investigating thermites created with nanotechnology, and their explosive properties, as they're a lot more readily reactive and energetic than typical thermites because of the greatly increased surface area of the particles. I'm not sure that was the case, but there are other alternative explosive devices that explain the observed behavior. It just doesn't seem to fit typical HE blasts, though their use seems to have been the exact same as in a controlled demolition.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
If it was compressed air you would have seen an equal amount of air/squibs around the whole floor, not in specific spots. When two objects come together the air is displaced equaly in all directions.

If you note in this pic you can see squibs on different floors in a vertical single line, not in an horizontal line around each floor. Compressed air it could not do this.



AS bsbray explained the compressed air theory is just not possible.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
ANOK,

The Squib hypothisis has been discredited now for months. Even if you want to believe that they are NOT compressed air. The "Squibs" do not exist. The photo you attached only showed one side of WTC7. A little reasearch and you can find a clear picture taken from the other side. Heck I'm such a nice guy I saved you the trouble.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

This will explain the so called squibs. They are actually broken windows and other debris of some sort. And, what purpose would it serve in setting off charges in that corner of the building anyway?

[edit on 22-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Here is my opinion of what happned to the towers and it is from information gathered from some government and professional research sites.

The 9/11 attacks used unconventional high explosives (commercial jet fuel), unconventional delivery (aluminum aircraft, associated metals and oxides) to create high explosive blasts, exteme temperatures and thermite reactions that caused the collapse of the towers.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
^ How does that pic prove it isn't squibs?

Watch the video...

www.youtube.com...

And watch this one while you're at it...

www.youtube.com...

And this one...

www.youtube.com...

Compressed air? I don't think so...

[edit on 23/11/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
ANOK,

First of all Happy Thanksgiving.

Now...I looked at all three of those Videos. The first one, that is only 2 seconds is similar to the pictures I posted. If you look at the photos you will see that those are not sqibs OR compressed air at WTC7.

The 2nd video is the common one from Loose Change and does show several "squibs".

I think the third video you posted FURTHER supports the NON squib. Look at the squibs on the other building that was demolished. These are REAL squibs. Please compare the squibs to the ones from the loose change video. Watch how much more powerful the WTC squibs get as the building collapses.

I'm sorry, but if you can't see the difference, then...well I guess then you will have to see what oyu have to see.

Have a great day



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
It's funny you expect them to look exactly the same, so show me a conventional demolition the has the same compressed air phenomena that you claim we're seeing at the WTC.

In a conventional demolition there is no need to hide the explosive squibs. The way the towers were rigged they would try to minimize the visual aspects of a conventional demo by where they placed the explosives. What we are probably seeing is explosives going off out of sequence.

[edit on 23/11/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
ENOK....

Please tell me WHY the so called squibs increase in intensity as the collapse gets closer? (WTC 1, 2) And since thermite does not Explode...You would have to admit to a more conventional explosive. Do you realize how many TONS of explosives will have been needed??

Also I noticed on another one of your posts you said that there was a power down at both buildings. This is not true. There was only one power down that was reported. IT was by a Mr. Forbes who's story has several holes in it. I believe I already posted all the reasons why. If you would like, I will repost the facts about this so called power down.

When was the power down at WTC 7? When Controlled demolition Inc took down the Hudson tower, they had a HUGE crew doing weeks worth of work?



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
It's really senseless arguing how the explosives were planted, I don't know. In my other post I never said there were power downs in all the buildings, all I said was there were witnesses to workers in the building and power downs, I wasn't specific. Just trying to point out it's not as difficult as you make out. People on the inside, floors with offices spaces that were unoccupied, etc...Not that difficult.

And they could have used explosives along with the thermate, no? Black and white or shades of grey?...


You all claim that fires and a planes impact brought the towers down, so why does there need to be tons of explosives? Your contradiction.

More important and harder to answer points are the physics of the events.

How do a few floors manage to crush undamaged floors to the ground?
How do you get expulsion of steel, weighing tons, 600 ft. from the building?
How does the top of WTC 2 start to topple to one side and then suddenly create a vertical collapse of the undamaged floors? What caused it's sideways momentum to suddenly become a downward force powerful enough to overcome 4" thick steel columns and telescope them to the ground?
What turned all the concrete, office furniture, people, into a fine dust covering all of lower Manhattan?
What caused molten steel in the basement that stayed hot for weeks?
What was the white smoke it produced?
What caused the damage in the lobby and destroyed a maintenance room?

[edit on 23/11/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Arrgg! sry dam quote button instead of edit. Wish they weren't so close together.

[edit on 23/11/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Please tell me WHY the so called squibs increase in intensity as the collapse gets closer? (WTC 1, 2) And since thermite does not Explode...You would have to admit to a more conventional explosive.


The "squibs" could not have been air for reasons either detailed above or in another thread, that I think you've already come across. I don't think you're seeing conventional demo charges, either. But neither of the those negate the expulsions being caused by explosive devices, and demanding we give you full information on what types of explosives were used, etc., when we're just trying to show that the buildings fell as if there was additional energy, is a logical fallacy and a disinfo tactic along the lines of "demand complete answers". Neither "side" has them, or can be expected to.


Do you realize how many TONS of explosives will have been needed??


Why am I constantly reading this from people who think none were used?

You cannot logically entertain that it would either require "many TONS", or else none, at the same time. If you think it would have taken none, then just a single charge could have "broke the camel's back", so to say.


When was the power down at WTC 7? When Controlled demolition Inc took down the Hudson tower, they had a HUGE crew doing weeks worth of work?


So now we also know that it's impossible to plant explosives in a building without a power-down?



See if you can realize that all of the above rely on a lack of complete knowledge of how demolitions would be pulled off covertly in those buildings. They're all based around logistics that we don't know, or just information in general that we can't be expected to know. We weren't "in on it". It's a waste of time unless you're looking for our opinions.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
ANOK posted on 26-5-2006 at 07:05 PM (post id: 2231878) - single - this post

Man how many times do we have to re-hash all the stuff that's been debated to death on ATS? Go through some of the 9-11 thread here on ATS and all your questions will be answered in detail...
So in a nutshell....
There were power downs in the buildings the weeks prior to 9-11.
Bomb sniffing dogs were removed the week before 9-11.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This was your post. No you didnt say ALL the buildings. But I would assume you were implying that. Power downS and buildingS... both Plural. As far as I can see, there hasn't been any reports as to power downs at ANY towers that have been backed up. Scott Forbes is the only one that talks about it..

I think before you start to consider any hypothisis, "How can this be done?" Is the most important question. Planting charges would be VERY difficult. And yes you WOULD have to plant tons of explosives. I THINK if they were planning this, it would be in poor judgement to assume where, and how much damage the plane would do when striking the WTC. So, with that being said, you better have enough explosives to take down the building not knowing what damage the plane will do.
How could this be done? It's not as easy as you say

The bomb sniffing dogs were lifted only 5 days prior to 9-11. So, 5 days to plant all the necessary explosives and charges. AGAIN allow e to point to the Hudson building: “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
So, if you do soe rough math..you are looking at approx. 72 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives. That's just one building. Serioulsy its borderline idiotic to assume it would be possible.

Ok, lets look at the therimite..or Thermate.(or nano-thermite) Thermate is still in its reasearch and develpoment stages. And lets say..ok there IS TherMATE and it was used. Remember how it would have to be applied..The Thermite and the thermate must be placed together to make the cut. You would still need the canisters to hold all the materials all over the columns, how many columns? How much Thermate? How much thermite. Literally thousands of pounds.
There is no evidence that either chemical was used in the collapse.

I will answer your questions on my next post.

thanks



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
And yes you WOULD have to plant tons of explosives.


Why do you keep saying this? You think NONE were used.


I THINK if they were planning this, it would be in poor judgement to assume where, and how much damage the plane would do when striking the WTC.


Maybe for you, because you're not knowledgeable.

The engineers that designed the towers designed them to withstand plane impacts. And they did. They said before and after 9/11 that they were built to withstand the impacts, and we all saw them standing after the planes hit.

Fire, looked at outside of 9/11, has never brought skyscrapers down. It has never been a problem to massive steel structures, and never will be. You can look at any number of skyscraper fires and see this when there is any appreciable amount of steel. Outside of 9/11 theories, it has always taken HOURS and HOURS of intense fire just to fail small steel beams, like the ones on the exterior of the Windsor Tower.


You would still need the canisters to hold all the materials all over the columns, how many columns? How much Thermate? How much thermite. Literally thousands of pounds.


Or you could just set a couple floors on fire and wait about an hour, right?

There is nothing to justify your assertion that it would take thousands of pounds of thermite, and thermite wouldn't be used anyway. Superthermites developed with nanotech, and applied as a gel to columns would be much more likely, and those are still being researched by public institutions, though there is some info available online already. It wouldn't take long for a military research center to develop some effective superthermites, I would image, because all it is, is aluminum and iron oxide dust ground into extremely fine particles, and then stuck directly to a column like an adhesive.

Compared to a lot of commercial engineering projects, this is pretty damned low-tech. Blue-ray discs and players are much more advanced tech than grinding up aluminum and rust into smaller particles and finding a way to make them stick to and cut through steel beams, and we're talking potentially the most technologically advanced militaries in the world researching this if need be. Much more surface area, much more efficient exothermic reactions, more heat, and quicker, all come from grinding the substances into smaller particles before initiating the reaction.


If you'd like to keep asserting that it would take thousands of pounds of this stuff all over the building, then you should post some actual figures on the mass of this stuff, how much it would take per cut, and each column you feel should have been cut, so we can see where exactly you are pulling this "thousands of pounds" of superthermite from, and why an office fire can do the same thing in under an hour.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I was just watching that second video link and noticed the "squibs" start going off wel after the building starts to come down. Now it is quite difficult to figure out why they woukld set of explosaves after the building is coming down.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
The WTC were dropped from top-down in regular intervals, very rapidly. If they blew everything at once, we wouldn't be here arguing over whether or not there were secondary devices in the buildings.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by squidbones
I was just watching that second video link and noticed the "squibs" start going off wel after the building starts to come down. Now it is quite difficult to figure out why they woukld set of explosaves after the building is coming down.


To lesson the resistance of lower floors as the building came down? It was done backwards to a regular demo. Probably in an attempt to hide the placed explosives with the debris of the falling building. The explosives would go off ahead of the collapse as it came down, so yes you would see squibs after it started falling.

This was not done like a conventional demolition.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join