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.

 

FOUR Napalm bombs were attached to the fuselage

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


I don't know about hollywood effects but I've seen the real thing live in person and fairly close (long time ago now). I saw nothing like napalm in the WTC strikes and why would any additional incendiary devices be needed when you're delivering 10000 gallons of kerosene at 500mph?




posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I saw nothing like napalm in the WTC strikes and why would any additional incendiary devices be needed when you're delivering 10000 gallons of kerosene at 500mph?


Too bad a large quanity of the fuel was burned off in the intail explosion OUTSIDE the building, and what was left burned off in a few minutes.

So you basically had a normal office fire, not hot enough to cause all the molten metal and steel found.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I guess I never realized that fires caused by planes flying into buildings was considered part of a normal office fire. I'll have to remember that. Plus all the people jumping to their deaths, they were all just jumping because it was fun and not because of the intense heat and fires?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 



...I saw nothing like napalm in the WTC strikes...

This is something I never see discussed. It might take a little looking-at to figure out what this is a picture of.
Look for the yellow bow-tie towards the middle left of the space between the two towers.
It is some kind of device throwing out flames, in two directions.

I made a youtube video based on the video I got this frame from.
www.youtube.com...
Watch this video and you will see why I subscribe to this napalm theory 100%. (read the full description, on youtube)


[edit on 10-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Too bad a large quanity of the fuel was burned off in the intail explosion OUTSIDE the building, and what was left burned off in a few minutes.

So you basically had a normal office fire, not hot enough to cause all the molten metal and steel found.


Yes it ended up being an office fire but hardly a normal one. How often do 3 or more floors worth of office material get smashed up in a pile, doused with 1000s of gallons of accelerant and ignited in a period of less than 1 second?

It's been proven that office fires can achieve temperatures approaching in excess of 1000C which is not hot enough to melt steel but hot enough to melt other common metals. How many kg of steel melted prior to the buildings collapsing?

Napalm would be totally redundant in a situation like a loaded 767 hitting a building at full speed IE it would serve no purpose whatsoever nor would it make any difference to the outcome.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It's been proven that office fires can achieve temperatures approaching in excess of 1000C


www.tms.org...

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


How much strength does steel lose at 1000C which is some 50% hotter than the 650C mentioned in your quote?

Let's say 100 gallons of napalm is mixed with 10000 gallons of kerosene IE 1:100 mix - would it make any difference?

I don't know why windload even gets a mention as 9/11 was a very calm day weatherwise and it wouldn't amount to even 10% (probably less than 5%) of the design rating.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I don't know why windload even gets a mention as 9/11 was a very calm day weatherwise and it wouldn't amount to even 10% (probably less than 5%) of the design rating.



Now you are beginning to see the facts. Because even the plane impacts and the fires would not have much effect on the building due to the design of the building to take a high windload.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Now you are beginning to see the facts. Because even the plane impacts and the fires would not have much effect on the building due to the design of the building to take a high windload.


I've seen the facts all along and I also see you've avoided answering my questions.

A wind load of 200MPa and 100000kg planes at >200m/s are not comparable.

Just answer this one:
What possible difference would



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What possible difference would



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have never stated anything about napalm, so why are you asking me?


I'll save you a seat in the napalm non-believers camp then


In short: no visible characteristics of napalm recorded, no logical reason to use napalm and it wouldn't have made any difference anyway.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
In short: no visible characteristics of napalm recorded, no logical reason to use napalm and it wouldn't have made any difference anyway.


So thats 1 theory down, but you still have to explain all the molten metal and steel found in the WTC buildings and in the debris field.

We know the fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel and were burning out before the buildings collapsed.



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Yeah. You really need to look at the other kidns of attacks to actually state anything. we wil never know anything unless we were there or who ever did it comes out with it verbally.



Email me reptarkoto@hotmail.com

i would Love to read evidence and claims and defensive evidence against the government.



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
How much strength does steel lose at 1000C which is some 50% hotter than the 650C mentioned in your quote?


Maybe I jumped in on the wrong post, but you're not saying fires that can reach 1000 C are going to actually heat any of the steel to that temperature, are you? You distinguish between the temperatures around the flames, and the actual temperature of the steel, right?



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Yea, I believe i read a report about nephalm being used. well you see that fire ball went poof ... and nephalm goes Poof and burns everything due to the poof blew jello everywhere and everything like crispy critters ... and I dont see that.. I see Poof and jet fuel poof ... spectrum is hydrocarbon most likely fuel related ... I know whats in it.. more than likely the planes carried 2 mini nukes say hydrogen based (only because thats the method of demolition that was expected throughout the 80's tower propoganda we always knew they were a target... it was out in the open, people made movies about NYC being the target and they always showed the towers as NYC. Merlins wand was made of Hollywood ... America is hollywood



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
you are all forgetting the temerature at wich steel melts is ALOT higher than what "napalM or jet, fuel oil or kerosene burn at. and most definetly not after only, say, 45 minutes?



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JDN24
Did a search, nothing came up so here it is - Napalm

Napalm2

Interesting, never came across these pictures before.. What do you guys think? Anything is possible, the Napalm could explain why the buildings melted so quickly..also check link 1, and scroll down untill you get to the mysterious white jet "controlling drone aircraft" ... Interesting read.

Well thats all for now..


I've spent probably 500 hours looking over 9/11 photos and video. I would be a large sum of money that the circled artifacts are simply glare from the sun. What I don't understand is why the two videos with the right wing completely missing past the right engine aren't getting all the attention. Surely a missing wing in a video is very strange. Glare, not so much.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
i think the sun does play tricks with optical lenses. that may account for some of the missing parts, but im still waiting on the jury to give up the... oh wait



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


You mean a missing wing and engine from a poor quality, much compressed video? The only videos I've ever seen that show missing parts were so compressed that I'm not surprised they were missing things.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
Napalm been banned like 30 years.Napalm-Bombs are against the international law and are banned by the Geneva-Conventions.You would have better luck seeing a purple elf then napalm.


So is White Phospherous - tell that to the Iraqi's in Fallujah ... they will spit on your Geneva-Convention because it did not stop uncle same from using it... Whiskey Pete is the code word... if you want links just U2U me.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join