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 found in WTC dust

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 



This, I will agree with. But, only this.




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

............sporadic fires can do the same?


So what's the alternative?

Is the fire retardant industry an arm of the NWO?

Are all the standards put in codes that YOU design buildings to all a joke?

Is the drywall/spray-on fire retardant lobbyists so powerful that they could manipulate the fire tests to the point that YOU needlessly spec fire protection for steel structures?

C'mon dude........



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


reply to post by Griff
 


Thanks for your reply.

Yes, when the a-symmetrical damage is caused by two 110 ton aircraft traveling hundreds of miles an hour carrying thousands of gallons of fuel.

You guys sure love........talking. What point your making, you’re not sure but by-golly……you’re gonna make it!

See, we can do this for days. Or, we can talk about thermite not being used in the WTC collapses. Griff, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent guy(?). What I don’t get is posts like that one. Didn’t bring a thing into the discussion. Not one opinion, not one new of angle. No new suggestions. Just a rhetorical, argumentative technique that only highlights the fact that you didn’t really have anything to say.

My vote is for discussing the topic in the thread.

Which is to say if you want to spar, I'm not your guy. If you want to kick around various ideas, then I am your guy. I've done too much sparring and not enough discussing in the past. So, for me; ideas are in, cheap shots are out.


[edit on 5-5-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


I'm confused as what you are asking.

I am stating that people say it would take thousands of pounds of explosives to match what happened. While in the same breath saying the airplane damage and fire was sufficient.

Remember that the airplane damage and fire would still be present in BOTH scenarios.

So, why the need for thousands of pounds of explosives? When people believe ZERO was able to do it.

Am I making sense?



[edit on 5/5/2008 by Griff]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 




I've wondered that also. Why is it that the same people who say it was only planes and fires that took the buildings down, are also the same that say it would take so much explosive material that it wouldn't be possible?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


At least someone understands the illogistics of that argument. Thanks.




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Neon Haze
 


Totally incorrect. Sorry to be confrontational but, those pictures do not have any evidence of thermite being used.

Where is the slag that should be abundant?

Meaning, thermite does not make nice, clean cuts as demonstrated in your pictures.

However, iron workers using specialized torches certainly do. Which, ironically, are present in your pictures.

Iron Workers 1
Thermite 0




[edit on 5-5-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



Hmmm since you are skimming over the obvious evidence and attempting to debunk the smoking gun irrifutable evidence here I would call you out as either Dis -info agent or in direct employ of the US Govt...

Care to explain??








Review the Following...

Comparison of Thermite Reaction Demonstration


The evidence of the use of Thermite in the destruction of the WTC does seem to be supported by the following video clips. However, its authenticity has been questioned by some people. Additionally, because of total destruction of the towers, it has to be asked: Were other techniques used as well?


I'm calling your bluff...



NeoN HaZe



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



Okay, I think I do understand your point now. If I don't, please correct me. Believe it or not, I want to understand your position and talk with you about it.

Good point and I see it. Although, to make that work (reasonably) one would have to make certain assumptions about the kind of damage, where the plane would hit, which structural pieces would need to be taken out after the (initial) attack.

After thinking about your scenario for a few minutes I see that as creative but very, very unreliable with a very high risk of getting caught (literally) red-handed.

Under your assumption a reasonable person would have to plan for contingencies. Such as: what if the plane only 'half' hits the building and only half of the original, counted on, damage was done, thereby making the calculations we used in which to base the fewer charges around certain members redundant or useless? What if the plane just flat out missed one building, but hit the other? In the ensuing cordon and investigation (inot the still standing WTC) the devices (even if a few) would be found.

How could you plan for all the variables? I don't think you could, which means you would have to do what I did in the Army. Massively over plan. Don't hit the target once or twice. If you've got 20 rounds of 155 laying around, hit him 20 times. See what I mean?

Meaning: there would be an over abundance of thermite. With no way to control the variables, a surgical use of an explosive would be out, IMO.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Neon Haze
 



Hmmm since you are skimming over the obvious evidence and attempting to debunk the smoking gun irrifutable evidence here I would call you out as either Dis -info agent or in direct employ of the US Govt...

Care to explain??


Can you explain your massive post count? How do you have so much time on your hands to post so much? Are you on 'the company' dime?

As someone clearly posting doctored, altered and unverifiable "evidence" I charge you with being a paid dis-information agent!

See what I did there?

Making crazy claims like that is (one of) the oldest book in the trick. Second place? The fabled TOS violation post. I'm guessing that's coming next as my response to your personal assertion about my employment will be seen as either derailing or a personal attack. (which is the third oldest trick: throw a stone then get one thrown back and claim foul).

Let me offer you some honest advice: that kind of nonsense is why the truth movement is punch line of jokes. The movement knows no limits.

If you want to be taken seriously by those who haven't yet learned the 'truth' your doing it wrong.


Edit for gross spelling mistakes - SAP
Edit number 2: Thermite punches holes in things and leaves puddles of molten slag. It does not "cut" like a laser beam. It (literally) burns through creating a massive (relative to the amount used, IMO) amount of slag.




[edit on 5-5-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

[edit on 5-5-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I'm confused as what you are asking.

I am stating that people say it would take thousands of pounds of explosives to match what happened. While in the same breath saying the airplane damage and fire was sufficient.

Remember that the airplane damage and fire would still be present in BOTH scenarios.

So, why the need for thousands of pounds of explosives? When people believe ZERO was able to do it.

Am I making sense?



You're indeed making sense.

But in my case, you're also constructing a strawman, since I've never said that thousands of lbs of explosives would be needed. The tousands of lbs of explosives retort is for the hopeless fantasizers that claim that ALL the concrete was turned to dust. Because they ignore the fact that not all of the concrete was turned to dust. Dust has a definition. Very little of the concrete fits this definition. Most was found in chunks at the bases.

IMHO, only a small amount would be needed to start the collapse. (unfortunately, these would also be heard)Then the rest of the collapse would be "energized" by gravity. I believe that you've also stated essentially the same when you postulate that thermxte would be needed to cut only a few key horizontal beams right below the impact points.

Which of course makes me question why you seemingly express doubts about how the building could collapse from assymetric damage when you've yet to explain how the collapse would proceed under your thermxte theory and not follow the path that NIST took and agree that global collpase would be inevitable. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, could we get your estimate what a building suffering from assymetric damage would look like if it WERE to fail globally?

So what about the fire industry q's?

Do you have an explanation why it is that YOU help design buildings, and spec fire passive protection for those buildings if the common fantasy movement belief is that buildings can't fail due to fire? Maybe you could put this common misconseption to rest for them............

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 



I can understand to a point.

But, my point is that people believe just ONE floor's worth of support can globally fail those buildings. From plane damage and fire. Causing the top to obliterate the rest of the building.

Now, why can't we extrapolate this and say that if just ONE floor's worth of support fails due to explosives/thermate/thermobarics etc., wouldn't be enough? Causing the top to obliterate the rest of the building.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Also, could we get your estimate what a building suffering from assymetric damage would look like if it WERE to fail globally?


I'd say, it wouldn't fail globally but partially.


Do you have an explanation why it is that YOU help design buildings, and spec fire passive protection for those buildings if the common fantasy movement belief is that buildings can't fail due to fire? Maybe you could put this common misconseption to rest for them............


It's so that the flimsy steel roof/floor trusses don't collapse and can give people time to get out. Not that the columns will just buckle under their design load when fire is put to them.

Now, if we talk about 110 story columns, it's a different story alltogether. Heat sinking and all.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Which of course makes me question why you seemingly express doubts about how the building could collapse from assymetric damage when you've yet to explain how the collapse would proceed under your thermxte theory and not follow the path that NIST took and agree that global collpase would be inevitable. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Actually, I believe it would take more than one floor's worth of support for a global collapse. Say, like the two levels of mechanical floors. Severing the building into three distinct sections.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I would agree with that completely. No argument there.

Personally, I can see where one floor failure could cause a collapse - under the right conditions. In my laymens opinion, those conditions were reasonably met. That is, the other damage caused by planes themselves.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


I myself am still up in the air as far what I believe. My theories are a work in progress.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I'd say, it wouldn't fail globally but partially.

It's so that the flimsy steel roof/floor trusses don't collapse and can give people time to get out. Not that the columns will just buckle under their design load when fire is put to them.

Now, if we talk about 110 story columns, it's a different story alltogether. Heat sinking and all.


a- So you generally agree with Gordon Ross then. Interesting.

b- But here, c'mon man........ Are you saying that the designers of the towers were incompetent and didn't know fire codes/standards and put the 2" of drywall and cementious planks because they didn't know squat? Or that they're simply incompetent and made a mistake? Cuz this is/was obviously fire code issues..

c- what are you referring to as a "heat sink"? Or are we repeating another common fantasy movement idea that steel is an efficent conductor of heat? Cuz it isn't. Aluminum is. But you can hold onto one end of a 2 foot long, 2"x2"x3/16" angle iron with a bare hand and have the other end red hot. Sorry, but steel just isn't a very good conductor of heat, regardless of what CTists believe......



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Neon Haze
 



Hmmm since you are skimming over the obvious evidence and attempting to debunk the smoking gun irrefutable evidence here I would call you out as either Dis -info agent or in direct employ of the US Govt...

Care to explain??


Can you explain your massive post count? How do you have so much time on your hands to post so much? Are you on 'the company' dime?



Actually it's not a massive post count you should be taking notice of... it's the ATS points and how long someone has been a member... The points are there by being Applauded from the ATS staff for quality posting in most cases and for some for posting threads that have massive post counts attached (Normally a sign of a quality Thread).

So far I have not seen a single bit of Evidence on your part, yet I fulfil your request for evidence.

Do you really think that a threat of TOS is likely to stop us from presenting evidence of the truth??

The truth is, you have not shown a shred of evidence to state the evidence I present is incorrect.

What's more is you obviously have ignored the expert testimony within the videos I have presented.

Here is more expert testimony... don't just take my word for it.. I just spent 7 years learning about how the Bush Admin did this..







So SlightlyAbovePar care to present your evidence??

NeoN HaZe

Edit: Because I like to edit and then write that I edited so that all can see that actually I edited this edit... Blah

Edit: More editing because I can't bothered to delete the fact that I edited the post once before....


[edit on 5-5-2008 by Neon Haze]


[edit on 5-5-2008 by Neon Haze]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Griff
 


I would agree with that completely. No argument there.

Personally, I can see where one floor failure could cause a collapse - under the right conditions. In my laymens opinion, those conditions were reasonably met. That is, the other damage caused by planes themselves.


The Towers fell at Freefall speed.... I might point you to a law of physics... Conservation of energy which states that if there is a resistance then there will be a slow down or transference of energy.. The three steel buildings that collapsed on 9/11 did so at free fall speed... no resistance!!


All the best...

NeoN HaZe



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Neon Haze
 


Neon, we are on the same team. That is, it's not me against you. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

If you think I haven't provided evidence to support what my beliefs are, then there is a serious disconnect.

I note your new posts with interest and would be happy to discuss them in a thread of their own.

I have responded to many "free-fall" claims and don't need to in this thread, about thermite.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Neon Haze
 


I note your new posts with interest and would be happy to discuss them in a thread of their own.

I have responded to many "free-fall" claims and don't need to in this thread, about thermite.


An acknowledgment is a start... Though you seem reluctant to discuss the core issues here.

I find that dismissive attitudes just rises the curiosity of enquiring minds even further.

All 3 building collapses on 9/11 were at Free-Fall speed it's a fact!! I might also add that it's a fact that is central to this thread, as it vindicates the idea of Thermite or Thermate use, due to the speed of reaction.

If I chose to, I could start a thread but only if there were not other threads about that same subject...

All the best,

NeoN HaZe

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Neon Haze]




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join