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.

 

The Twin Towers: The Proofs Of Demolition

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk

He asked for his so called "magma" pictures, i posted him pictures showing molten metal.

And guess what? He jumped ship and picked another topic.



BeZerK


And im still waiting for those pictures of molten steel. Show me proof those pictures you posted are molten steel. What part of proof do you not understand???
And no a witness is not proof. A witness is only evidence.




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
And im still waiting for those pictures of molten steel. Show me proof those pictures you posted are molten steel. What part of proof do you not understand???
And no a witness is not proof. A witness is only evidence.


I actually posted this earlier, but you must have gracefully missed it


So you want proof of molten metal. Ok here it is.




Molten Metal dripping



Molten Metal still dripping....



Do you see a difference?




Some people would say that, the flowing element is melted Aluminum but that is basically a lie.

Aluminum even when mixed with glass, wood, plastic would still look like this:



BeZerK



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   
bsbray11 even posted a brightness vs. temperature scale



www.abovetopsecret.com...

molten steel or not, the temperatures are what matters and if it glows it's far too hot to be reconciled witht he official fairytale.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Ok in the first pictures you cant prove that isnt just hot coals from a fire, I think we have all seen that in our lifetime. Once again do you know what proof is??
And nice try on the aluminum as you can see here aluminum can glow red also.




Molten aluminum pours out of a gas-powered furnace at Crestwood Metal to be shaped into blocks. Crestwood drivers deliver the recycled metal to manufacturers in a five-state area around New York.


link




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance


molten steel or not, the temperatures are what matters and if it glows it's far too hot to be reconciled witht he official fairytale.


The melting point of aluminum is 1218 degrees f
I dont know how hot it got in there and neither does anybody else because nobody had a insturment inside measuring the temp.
There could have been many different scenarios we may never know but you have to be open. As soon as you show me proof I will definetly back you up but not until there is proof.

edit:link

[edit on 29-6-2007 by earth2]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
I dont know how hot it got in there and neither does anybody else because nobody had a insturment inside measuring the temp.



What do you mean no one knows what the temps were inside? Are you actually reading anything, or just looking at the pictures...


The temps inside are known from analysis of the steel recovered. Read my last post, there is a quote in there about the analysis of the steel by the feds, I think you'll enjoy it...


And forget molten steel, so what if there was or not? It makes no difference to the overall picture mate. It's just another odd anomaly that shouldn't have happened and can't be answered. It makes no difference to the controlled demo theory whether it melted or not....The molten steel just makes it seem that much more likely that thermate was used along with conventional explosives.

You keep skipping the relevant stuff and focusing on irrelevant stuff. Do you realise that? You're attempt at de-bunking these select points, that make no real difference to the big picture, are quit funny...lol

[edit on 29/6/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I thought I'd post this before someone jumps in and tries to claim molten aluminum pouring on the steel caused thermite reactions (yes ppl do believe this lol)...

Molten aluminum poured on rusty steel

Edit; also how would the aluminum have got hot enough to glow bright yellow?
That is extremely hot, not just the 1200 melting temp, it's way past that bro.
Just because they can get it hot enough in a controlled environment, with very high temperatures, doesn't mean an office fire, where the aluminum is in contact with the air, is going to get hot enough to glow bright yellow. (run on baby lol)...

You are showing us extremes, and expecting that to happen in a uncontrolled cooling office fire is redicularse...

[edit on 29/6/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

What do you mean no one knows what the temps were inside? Are you actually reading anything, or just looking at the pictures...


The temps inside are known from analysis of the steel recovered. Read my last post, there is a quote in there about the analysis of the steel by the feds, I think you'll enjoy it...




Yeah well all the engineers can do is guestimate thats not proof of anything. Truth is we dont really know for sure. It got hot enough for some kind of metal to pour out the side of the building that I will admit because I cant think of anything that could cause that. However it could have been aluminum and aluminum melts around 1200 degrees f and I think it got at least thart hot didnt it?
All im saying and you wont admit is its possible no steel was molten.
And it dont take a brain surgeon to know steel will buckle when under pressure and heat. And we dont know whether the fire protective foam was on the columns correctly or not. We just dont know so all you can do is speculate. So dont try to cram it down my throat unless you got solid evidence and then I will believe differently.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I thought I'd post this before someone jumps in and tries to claim molten aluminum pouring on the steel caused thermite reactions (yes ppl do believe this lol)...

Molten aluminum poured on rusty steel


Maybe in those conditions however add the conditions of the trade towers.
All kinds of impurities had to be mixed with that molten stuff pouring out the building. So it could have been aluminum.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
It got hot enough for some kind of metal to pour out the side of the building that I will admit because I cant think of anything that could cause that.


You don't? Are you serious? I thought you'd done your research?

You've not heard of thermite/thermate debate?

You admit that you don't know what caused it? Consider what we are saying then, cause that's the only logical answer, isn't it?

But I guess you'll just ignore it and move on pretending it doesn't matter, just like the South Tower tilt and rotation problem that you all ignore...


I'm on to you de-bunkers you know, your tactics are so transparent...


[edit on 29/6/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Maybe in those conditions however add the conditions of the trade towers.
All kinds of impurities had to be mixed with that molten stuff pouring out the building. So it could have been aluminum.


What conditions? What impurities? And what does it have to do with the melting temps and colour of aluminum?

You are really trying so hard to convince yourself that the official story is true..ain't ya mate?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

What conditions? What impurities? And what does it have to do with the melting temps and colour of aluminum?

You are really trying so hard to convince yourself that the official story is true..ain't ya mate?


Did you not read your own link?


Its the impurities in the molten aluminum that give it the bright color.
Dont you think there were plenty of impurities added to the aluminum inside the towers?

Amd no you are trying to convince me of non-proved theories. Im just keeping an open mind. Im sounding like a parrot now so please show proof..later

And im not your mate.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter

So... A commerical airliner was flown into a PRECISE part of the building where explosives were rigged...?


Debunkers have no logical explanation for this phenomenon, mainly because they refuse to consider explosives as a hypothesis.

Someone else could say:

Conspiracy theorists have no logical explanation for this phenomen, mainly because they refuse to consider that it is completely illogical and stupid to think that an airliner was flown PRECISELY into a specific part of a building.

[edit on 28/6/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

[edit on 28/6/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]


Sorry, but there is an easy answer for this one.

If I wanted it to appear that a 'plane had brought down a skyscraper, I would pre-rig the building with explosives on every floor. I would pay particular attention to the core columns of the building, and have a device (some kind of transmitter) on board the 'plane that would cause detonation of any explosives within, say, 100ft.

This would blow out the core of the building in the impact zone the milli-second that the 'plane got within that distance, reducing the resistance of the core in that location whilst leaving a nice 'plane-shaped hole in the outer wall.

The whole subsequent collapse is triggered from a nearby location (WTC7). This could also explain the "nose-out" video still that the no-planers tried to capitalise on. It was the normal nose of a normal 'plane, but the core columns where it hit had already been destroyed, so the 'plane DID go right through the building, it's nose emerging from the other side before the jet-fuel exploded, destroying the already damaged nose.

It seems a far more plausible explanation to me than that suggesting a single 767 brought down such a building so completely.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by earth2

Originally posted by ANOK

What conditions? What impurities? And what does it have to do with the melting temps and colour of aluminum?

You are really trying so hard to convince yourself that the official story is true..ain't ya mate?


Did you not read your own link?


Its the impurities in the molten aluminum that give it the bright color.
Dont you think there were plenty of impurities added to the aluminum inside the towers?

Amd no you are trying to convince me of non-proved theories. Im just keeping an open mind. Im sounding like a parrot now so please show proof..later

And im not your mate.


When you mean impurities do mean Aluminum mixed with pieces of wood, plastic and other materials?

If so, that has been thoroughly debunked. You can actually watch a video that i have posted below which show those impurities being mixed with Aluminum and you will notice that the colour does not change.

Please view the following video for the debunking:

Rebuilding America's Senses

Please watch it before you post anymore disinfo.

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by An Urban Legend
Well, actually Sprark, they did, specifically I believe, Fema. Link:

Meallurgical Examination of Steel Suggest Explosives


Very interesting read for sure. Thx for the info UL I had not seen this report. I just want everyone to know im not trying to discredit any thing. Just trying to take it all in and make my own desicion here. I agree there is so much to go over here.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk

That is actually an amazing video, before the plane has even struck the building there is obvious signs of an explosion in the North Tower (Tower on thr right), before impact you can see a flame eject on the right hand corner of the impact hole and you can even see, if you look closely, some debri falling from the North Tower


BeZerK

[edit on 29-6-2007 by BeZerk]

[edit on 29-6-2007 by BeZerk]


From this video the tower on the right had already been hit, when the plane hits the left bldg it comes on through, im sure debris was thrown to the right bldg as well. Doesnt show any new evidence as well as the angle is not showing the second plane accually impact.

Just saying thats all.....



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

the search lasted all of 10 seconds. feel free to drop a few derogatory remarks while you dismiss everything thrown at you.
[edit on 29.6.2007 by Long Lance]


Good post and I have taken it in, starting to look deeper and seeing some things that i cant explain easily. i have to admit im thinking harder now and cant come up with the answers. Could very well be something in the fish bowl.

It does make you think, how can liquid steel be running after 21 days.hmmmmmmm keep the info coming im slideing off the fence a bit now.

I do still think that since this kind of destruction had not been seen before that we would see things we had not seen before with respect to the destruction and how it would have occured.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
i wonder why these people still try, by now everyone of us has got like 100 links bookmarked and several key images hosted or at least saved to disk. their work is an exercise in futility and could easily backfire.


LL this is my first attempt at finding the answers, please have some patience with me. Most of the data im seeing for the first time however, I dont just believe its true casue you all say its true. You have to prove it to me before ill take a side. Yes I think alot needs to be explained, and yes i think there are people who will say anything becasue they hate Bush and the Government. I dont like most of what they have done either, but I make my own mind up and you guys are giveing me the info i need to make a good desicion. But alot of the info comes from sources that have thier own agendas. I honestly feel that tampering with evidence has occured here by officials. I hope we do find out the total truth one day.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaxPineapple
I think the government *if it was staged* did this to spread our kind of government to other countries I mean our type of government is spreading as fast as communism did back then... Don't it seem kinda strange?


i would absolutly agree with you that nation building has become a top priority for the US government. And its just not the republicans its the democrates as well. Congress in whole has lost thier true responsibility, which is to take care of the american people. when was the last time anything remotly good has happened for the people? We are to busy trying to change some other countries way of life to fit our needs.

That i can see with my own eyes



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

You've not heard of thermite/thermate debate?

[edit on 29/6/2007 by ANOK]


I want to know , sorry if you have posted this before but i havent seen the debate on this. like i said I have an open mind please bare with me.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join