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.

 

WTC Molten Metal: Fact or Fiction?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
thanks for the informative post, CB. i use space beams as an ad absurdum argument, even if it's not THAT absurd. the point i like to concentrate on is "UNKNOWABLES" and the relative irrelevance of knowing or proving them.

like, if a house blows up and you see it, and a guy who was filming the event says, "yeah, i planted an explosive energy source", would you need to know what colour the bomb was? or how much it weighed? or, what it's fuel source was? or, could we concentrate on the fact that a guy just blew up a house and filmed it.




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
thanks for the informative post, CB. i use space beams as an ad absurdum argument, even if it's not THAT absurd. the point i like to concentrate on is "UNKNOWABLES" and the relative irrelevance of knowing or proving them.

like, if a house blows up and you see it, and a guy who was filming the event says, "yeah, i planted an explosive energy source", would you need to know what colour the bomb was? or how much it weighed? or, what it's fuel source was? or, could we concentrate on the fact that a guy just blew up a house and filmed it.



I agree:-) And Dr Wood has said that too: we don't need to know the serial number of the device that did it.

Steven Jones / Greg Jenkins constantly write "hit pieces" trying to discredit Wood. i.e. They calculate the energy needed to vaporize steel, and conclude that Dr Wood is wrong because the amount of energy needed is 5 times (or something) more than all the energy on the earth. But that's not scientific!

One must look at the data.... if the data shows that it was vaporized, then the energy source MUST exist! However.... Dr Wood NEVER said the WTC was vaporized, she calls it dustified, and I'll bet it required a lot less energy!


[edit on 9-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
And how exactly would one turn almost the hardest substance on earth to dust?

That I would like to know..



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
And how exactly would one turn almost the hardest substance on earth to dust?

That I would like to know..




Go to youtube, search for "hutchison effect" and watch the first video (about 10 minutes). You can bypass the first few minutes.

Hutchison will describe metal turning to dust, stainless steel "falling apart", etc.

That video is a clip from Race to Zero Point (available on google)


After watching the "hutchison effect" clip, watch this one of the WTC steel core:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I have come to a conclusion, and by taking the lessons learned from 9-11, I have worked out a company business plan.

The going rate for imploding buildings for demolition starts in the low millions of dollars.
Following this outline, you could lower your demolition costs, and charge high rates at the same time.

1. Dont use explosives.
2. Buy 50,000 gallons of jet fuel, ignite near the top, and the building will fall down neatly into its own footprint.
3. If there are 3 buildings to implode, just light fires in the 3rd building, and walk away.


Presto, time for cleanup, with all the steel in a neat pile for shipment, and all of the concrete and contents pulverized to dust.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by weatherguru

I have come to a conclusion, and by taking the lessons learned from 9-11, I have worked out a company business plan.

The going rate for imploding buildings for demolition starts in the low millions of dollars.
Following this outline, you could lower your demolition costs, and charge high rates at the same time.

1. Dont use explosives.
2. Buy 50,000 gallons of jet fuel, ignite near the top, and the building will fall down neatly into its own footprint.
3. If there are 3 buildings to implode, just light fires in the 3rd building, and walk away.


Presto, time for cleanup, with all the steel in a neat pile for shipment, and all of the concrete and contents pulverized to dust.




All the steel was not in a neat pile. Most of it turned to dust.

Look at the video in my last post, and here:




posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Video didn't show.
Do you have another link?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by weatherguru
Video didn't show.
Do you have another link?



Try it again. Here's the link:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Ah Brooklyn, more silly disinformation.

First of all, have you seen the rubble from WTC7? wtc7.net...

thewebfairy.com...

How high is it? Most people reasonably agree that THIS was a controlled demolition (maybe not CB; maybe he thinks it was destroyed by a "space beam"), and yet look at where the building went--into a small pile. Not surprising since buildings have a lot of space for air in them, and is EXACTLY characteristic of controlled demolition since the interior columns are cut into many small pieces, allowing the structure to fall into a small pile.

The fact is, photographs of the debris at ground zero do not reveal the debris UNDERNEATH the top. Nor do they reveal the fact that tons of debris was moved by trucks. It takes 10 seconds on a Google search to figure out how many trucks were needed to move the debris from ground zero (which took months of course), and how much debris there was.

These arguments that the debris at ground zero is "missing" are all classic, misleading, disinformation arguments. Of course all these arguments have been debunked and yet you continue to promote them.

"Second, Arabesque is asking the reader to take the "scientific findings" of Steven Jones as fact. "

Jones' findings are corroborated by other official studies. You can read his paper for your self and go to the sources he quotes to see that his research is supported by other INDEPENDENT studies. Don't think for yourself... indeed Brooklyn. Stop telling people what to think about Dr. Jones for starters!

USGS for example corroborates Jones observations of molten spheres. They reported a very high amount of iron rich spheres (they are "frequently seen"), which means that yes, there was molten metal.

www.journalof911studies.com...

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Arabesque]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
So I have thought a bit about this today and this is the conclusion that I came to.



To be perfectly honest, this picture does kinda look fake to me.
Does anybody know the source and history of said picture.
You know what, never mind.

The conclusion I came to was that it doesnt really matter what brought down the towers.
What does matter is that they shouldnt have fallen in the first place.

All this speculation about exactly HOW it was done is pointless and a waste of time IMO.
Sure it may be fun to speculate and theorize, but it really doesnt matter what the mechanism was that brought about the collapse of the three buildings.
We know it wasnt fire and plane damage, that much is evident to most rational thinking individuals.



[edit on 10-8-2007 by 11Bravo]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
So I have thought a bit about this today and this is the conclusion that I came to.



To be perfectly honest, this picture does kinda look fake to me.
Does anybody know the source and history of said picture.
You know what, never mind.

The conclusion I came to was that it doesnt really matter what brought down the towers.
What does matter is that they shouldnt have fallen in the first place.

All this speculation about exactly HOW it was done is pointless and a waste of time IMO.
Sure it may be fun to speculate and theorize, but it really doesnt matter what the mechanism was that brought about the collapse of the three buildings.
We know it wasnt fire and plane damage, that much is evident to most rational thinking individuals.
[edit on 10-8-2007 by 11Bravo]



I disagree. It is very important for the public to know how the towers were destroyed, for the following two general reasons:

1. The world needs to know the military has powerful directed energy weapons. (Go to google video and watch "Star Wars in Iraq".)

2. The 9/11 "truth movement" has numerous individuals with ties to Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched, and those very people try to discredit Dr Wood and the directed energy weapon (DEW) evidence. Here's some examples:

**Steven Jones worked at Los Alamos. He spends a lot of time trying to discredit DEWs instead of advancing his own theories, and he recruited many hit pieces against Dr Wood.

**Greg Jenkins has ties to Los Alamos and the NSA. He conducted this ambush interview of Dr Wood. Why did Jenkins publicize such a video? Was he trying to make the truth movement "look good"? One must wonder his objective.

**Bob Bowman is former director of the Star Wars program. What is this guy doing in the truth movement? He certainly doesn't speak of DEW evidence at the WTC, instead he talks about irrelevancies such as NORAD standing down and how long it takes to scramble jets. Let's not forget he has a PhD in Nuclear Engineering.


As can be seen, the three people above have ties to the very technology they fight against.

You must ask yourself, "why"?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Why do I get these kinds of responses when I ask how the beam actually failed the columns,


Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Dr Wood has said that too: we don't need to know the serial number of the device that did it.


when CB just now said this?


Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
It is very important for the public to know how the towers were destroyed


Does anyone know how energy beams cut the columns, so that the core columns had horizontal slices and the perimeter columns failed at the bolts?

It's not asking for the serial number, which I think we all agree, would be trivial. I want to know, "how the towers were destroyed". I want to know how an energy beam from space cuts core columns horizontally and fails perimeter columns at the bolts.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arabesque
Ah Brooklyn, more silly disinformation.

First of all, have you seen the rubble from WTC7? wtc7.net...

thewebfairy.com...

How high is it? Most people reasonably agree that THIS was a controlled demolition (maybe not CB; maybe he thinks it was destroyed by a "space beam"), and yet look at where the building went--into a small pile. Not surprising since buildings have a lot of space for air in them, and is EXACTLY characteristic of controlled demolition since the interior columns are cut into many small pieces, allowing the structure to fall into a small pile.

The fact is, photographs of the debris at ground zero do not reveal the debris UNDERNEATH the top. Nor do they reveal the fact that tons of debris was moved by trucks. It takes 10 seconds on a Google search to figure out how many trucks were needed to move the debris from ground zero (which took months of course), and how much debris there was.



Why does Arabesque call my posts disinfo? Sounds like he's trying to discourage people from looking at the evidence for themselves! Why does he do this? What's his real objective?

I do not think a "space beam" destroyed the towers. Why is Arabesque making things up? Why is he lying to you?

A directed energy weapon does not have to come from space. So why is Arabesque promoting the "space beam" term? What's his objective? Take a look at the documented information here.

Notice how he derails the topic away from the towers and onto WTC 7.. a red herring designed to distract people from the towers. Let's not forget Jones promotes both WTC 7 & molten metal.

Debris UNDERNEATH Ground Zero? This shows how truly unknowing he is to the facts. The photos here show the mall (1st subbasement) intact and not crushed. So where is all the debris Arabesque is talking about? It's certainly not in the following pictures:



Note how Arabesque calls my posts disinfo when my information is confirmed by the evidence. Why does he do this?



Originally posted by Arabesque
These arguments that the debris at ground zero is "missing" are all classic, misleading, disinformation arguments. Of course all these arguments have been debunked and yet you continue to promote them.

"Second, Arabesque is asking the reader to take the "scientific findings" of Steven Jones as fact. "

Jones' findings are corroborated by other official studies. You can read his paper for your self and go to the sources he quotes to see that his research is supported by other INDEPENDENT studies. Don't think for yourself... indeed Brooklyn. Stop telling people what to think about Dr. Jones for starters!

USGS for example corroborates Jones observations of molten spheres. They reported a very high amount of iron rich spheres (they are "frequently seen"), which means that yes, there was molten metal.

www.journalof911studies.com...

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Arabesque]



Arabesque must be joking if he thinks a report from a government source (USGS) proves molten metal. One must look at the evidence. The evidence in my OP shows the molten metal evidence to be fabricated. So why trust a government report?

If there was molten metal at Ground Zero, where were all the steam explosions after the FDNY sprayed water?

It rained the week after 9/11. Where were the multiple steam explosions, and the burned rescue workers? Did this happen?

Why does Arabesque link to a paper written by Jones when it's already been proven that Jones tries to deceive us with doctored photos? Why does Arabesque trust Jones?

[edit on 11-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
It is very important for the public to know how the towers were destroyed


Does anyone know how energy beams cut the columns, so that the core columns had horizontal slices and the perimeter columns failed at the bolts?

It's not asking for the serial number, which I think we all agree, would be trivial. I want to know, "how the towers were destroyed". I want to know how an energy beam from space cuts core columns horizontally and fails perimeter columns at the bolts.



Why do you (continue to) say from "space"? What's your objective in doing this?


Those beams were probably cut by another mechanism. (i.e. thermite, explosives, or something of that type.) The purpose would be to provide "evidence" of thermite/explosives.

But those select beams are unimportant. The important issue is directed energy weapons and that the vast majority of the towers' beams turned to dust. That's what the perps want kept secret.


The perps are planning to blame Al Qadea for planting explosives in the towers.

Here's a video of George W Bush doing exactly this:
www.liveleak.com...

Promoting explosives, thermite, etc helps Bush!


Let's not forget.... thermite can be gotten on Ebay. But directed energy weapons ties 9/11 ***directly*** to entities such as the Military Industrial Complex and the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

DEPS, founded in 1999, put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11.
An excerpt from this newsletter is as follows:

"Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers
on and over the battlefield - we're at the
beginning of an evolutionary new wave of
weaponry."


www.deps.org...

[edit on 10-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn


Why do you (continue to) say from "space"? What's your objective in doing this?



Where do these beams come from?

Walmart???

Let me guess, it was that guy wit the missle on the Wolworth building??



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Where do these beams come from?

Walmart???

Let me guess, it was that guy wit the missle on the Wolworth building??







How about from HAARP, and reflected by an orbiting mirror?

How about from an airplane, as suggested in Dr Wood's site?

DEW Sponsors and Department of Defense Contractors




NOTE: The above image and the info on Dr Wood's site are only examples and not necessarily the weapon that was used. Whatever weapon that was is most probably 100% top secret, meaning no documentation in the public domain.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Why do you (continue to) say from "space"? What's your objective in doing this?


Well, where did they come from? You tell me.



Those beams were probably cut by another mechanism. (i.e. thermite, explosives, or something of that type.) The purpose would be to provide "evidence" of thermite/explosives.



There you have it. No space beams required. Perfect slices can be quietly made through huge steel box columns without them, and that's all you need. Perimeter columns mostly failed on their own, at the bolts, from deflections there that tried to force the bolts to stretch.

The only problem CB has is, when s/he looks at the debris pile, s/he can't understand that the building's were only small steel skeletons and not solid, 1400-foot tall blocks of metal. It's never been proven that most of the steel was missing, because almost all of it was there, picked up, and shipped out. They kept tab on how much they shipped out. There were missing very little of the buildings' total masses, and more steel has actually been found since.


The idea that any large amount of steel was vaporized out of existence, is only an assertion made over and over and over... never backed up... just like saying that everyone is lying...









This is just sensationalism.

[edit on 11-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
fact




posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   





Fiction.

If you took the time to read my article instead of jumping to conclusions you'd learn that the above picture is fake.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   






bsbray11's problem is that he's a practitioner of pathological science. He only looks at the information that will justify his predetermined conclusion. The photos he shows does not provide the perspective necessary to determine the amount of steel missing. But the photo at the bottom of this post does. Any rationally thinking person can see from that photo that the vast majority of the towers was gone.

This type of research is obviously not bsbray11's cup of tea. It has been pointed out to that person numerous times that no one is saying the towers were "vaporized". Yet he constantly uses that term. One must wonder his objective or agenda.





top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join