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.

 

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

page: 11
35
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


So you are saying that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were uniquely constructed to be the only self-supporting structures in the history of the world that were susceptible to gravity driven progressive global collapse?

The Progressive Collapse Challenge


[edit on 17-4-2009 by EvilAxis]




posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


From what I've seen, based on SOME architects and engineers (I know, there are disputes...) it boils down to the design.


I have to disagree, in my own opinion it has nothing to do with the building design, and remember WTC7 was build differently yet it came down under seven seconds, and it was not hit by an airplane.


It would have been great if the structure had been designed differently and had stayed standing. I wonder if, say....other skyscrapers enduring the same circumstances would have faired better....


A lot of us on ATS believe some sort of demolition was used to take all those buildings down. In our minds it would not have mattered of how the buildings were designed, they all come down the same, when using explosives, very fast and in its own footprint.


Seems to me that the Saudis were hoping to cause the Towers to topple over.


That has yet to be proven.


Obviously, that strategy didn't work (fortunately).


Yeah it is amazing what demolition does to standing buildings when airplanes cant knock them over on impact. Fact is, you could have flown several Boeings 767 full of fuel in the WTC and they would have still stood. By the way, that comment was from the WTC designers.


Ironically, if they had hit down lower (depending on the other buildings in the way of their approach) the devastation would have been a lot worse, and the collapses would have occurred more quickly.


I agree the devastation would have been a lot worst, but I doubt it would have brought the WTC down, I believe they would have a huge fire maybe the entire WTC may have gone up in flames, but I seriously doubt the trade center would have falling down.
It so funny people really don’t relies how big and how wide those massive towers were compared to a boeing 767 it would have only punch a hole though the tower “not” knock them over.


AND, just think: IF the buildings were rigged for demo....it would have been a lot easier....fewer floors to rig up.


I agree


So -- somebody who planned this was pretty darn stupid.


No I think they were very smart I think for the gov insiders who may have been behind this false flag operation were going to have a problem trying to explain how terrorist snuck in the WTC and planted high explosives and tested each and every one of the detonators to make sure everything was time exactly. No one would have bought it because there was too much security there, and everyone who worked at the trade centers knew that.

Therefore, I believe several things may have happened; it is possible since there was already a demolition Co in WTC 1, who already had access to the towers. With the lacks of security, which we all knew that Marvin Bush sat on the board, of that particular security company. I have to believe Larry Silversteen had a hand in this as well.
All these people all had something to gain if those towers were to come down. Silversteen makes a fortune, and G Bush get his war. These are the culprits who had to have help the insiders plane the demise of the WTC.

They knew those planes could not take those building down, They were used as part of a bigger plan, and that was to convince the world that OBL used 19 hijackers to overtake four airplanes and crash them into the WTC. In addition, the plan was sure to incite shock, fear, and anger across the world. It was intended to convince everyone, both here and around the world, that those planes knocked down the WTC.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

So you didnt. No surprise. It was of the south tower.


The same video I posted. So how do the results differ? Your video
contradicts your theory, and you don't even know it. As I figured,
you conveniently forgot to describe the force, and the origin of the
force that opposes the continued tiliting of the upper block. No surprise.

Now we'll see how well you observe your own video evidence as it
relates to your theory.



You see, the hinge itself is what was allowing the tower to tilt into itself, not over the side.


OK, that parts fits your theory to a certain extent. But you'll soon see
another hit to this guess you have fabricated.


If the hinge were to remain in one piece through the entire revolution, it may have fallen more over.


OK, that's reasonable...so long as you imply that "Fallen" means "tilted".

This also requires the length of the hinged side to remain equal until
it 'snaps' apart. Remember this for the following question.


However it will not continue to keep tilting over since it is no longer attached.


Here's your first contradiction. At what point in your video do the columns
snap (hinge)? Please post the time marker where you believe the hinge
broke. This is very important.


The hinge connection severs only after a second and then it just falls down.


Show me a one second window that supports the columns hinging the tilt
and the point you believe the hinge effect no longer provided support for
the tilting and the upper block falls "down" according to your quote.

Here is your video link, show me the time marker. Also notice the
begining of this video is the same source that I took the screen captures
for the still frame shot analysis:



Once you have replied with a time marker, we'll get to the error in your
observation.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 18-4-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


impress, sorry I still have to disagree.

But, I ask you: Are you a structural engineer or architect? Because if not, my suppositions are just as valid as yours.

However, I also pay attention to reputable sources that are knowledgeable about the engineering and structural specifics of how the Towers were constructed. In your summation, up above, your contradicted yourself...you said that explosives could not be planted because of the security...then you said that explosives WERE planted because of the lack of security.

Another factual error was your statement that four airplanes were hijacked and flown into the WTC Towers.

I'm sorry, I consider myself a pragmatist -- there is no reason for the 'spectacle' of a CD...the horror of the airplanes impacting and killing would have sufficed, IF it was an 'inside job'...(which I thoroughly discount). Not even Dick Cheney is THAT evil....

If you wish to follow the reasoning of the 'let it happen' crowd, then the pre-planned 'CD' notion falls apart (pun) because the LIH idea could not be precisely predicted.

Of course, you may wish to subscribe to the John Lear *ahem* assertion that some super-secret space-based Directed Energy Weapon shot a de-molecularizing beam and pulverized the buildings. In fact, he was heard as recently as two months ago saying that they STILL can't build there because of residual 'energy' of some sort (although people walk around Ground Zero just fine).

So, we have: Fatal structural failure and gravity-induced collapse; CD planted on purpose by the US Government as some sort of 'False Flag'; Let It Happen, a variation of the Goverment 'False Flag'; and, the magic space weapon....another 'False Flag'. I see a recurring theme here.....

As to the OP -?? So far it seems inconclusive as to whether or not "Active Thermitic Material" was actually found in the dust....this raises all sorts of red flags. Why now??? After more than seven years?

A more cynical person (like me) might begin to wonder if there are people out there willing to do or say anything, with the ready availibility of the Internet, in order to sow the seeds of doubt and somehow profit from this tragedy.

Not, of course, referring to any ATS members. No, it is highly likely that unprincipled characters are using and expanding on the gullibility and naivete' of some, because the Internet blazes and virals so quickly...exaggeration is inevitable.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis

If you believe 10.000 gallons of aviation fuel could not incinerate a hollow tree but would cause it to progressively collapse from top to bottom into a pile of sawdust and sticks, I think I'm wasting my time arguing with you.


Bait and switch. YOU are the one comparing skyscrapers with trees as an analogy, and you cannot offer even one example to prove why it even is an analogy. For one thing, if the towers were built the same way as trees, the outer walls would have been windowless and ten feet thick.



I understand what you are saying - that fire and plane damage (minus plane damage in WTC 7) initiated the collapse and gravity did all the rest.
You're just restating your position, which I've proved untenable, that floor collapse caused floor collapse which for an unspecified reason destroyed the massive steel core and other support structures of all three towers.


Ahem in case you've forgotten, it was YOU who posted the photo of the support girders bend at ghastly angles. Since we've seen no evidence of Godzilla showing up and bending the girders on 9/11, the bending necessarily had to have been come from forces above overcoming its ability to withstand.



If you don't wish to acknowledge that I refuted it in every detail - that's your prerogative. .


You've done no such thing. All you did is attempt to refute it by comparing it to dominoes falling. Dominoes fall horizontally, not vertically, and when objects fall vertically they accellerate by 32 feet persecond per second, minus applicable resistance. Your own photo showed the support girders weren't able to withstand the exponential weight and offered insufficient resistance.


Are you seriously offering the Titanic as your analogy for the imploding towers?


No I am offering the Titanic to refute the claim the towers could never have fallen becuase no OTHER towers fell this way, which is ImpressMe's entire rebuttal, as well as one of yours.


It sustained localized damage causing it to sink and strike the sea floor, but the structure did not undergo any kind of pancaking or progressive global collapse, as evidenced by the pictures taken in 1985.



This is besides the point, but yes it did, actually. At ot near the surface, it broke in half, and the stern section collapsed like an accordian when it hit the sea floor. There's a theory that since the stern sank last, trapped air caused the stern section to explode and weaken its cross structures before it reached the bottom.

Hmmm, now that I think of it, the Titanic really IS a good analogy to the WTC. I thank you again for making my task easier for me.


My opinion doesn't differ. I said it was impossible for quite different reasons, but pointed out that a thesis based on something which has previously never happened occurring three times in the same place on the same day and never again, has a strong prima facie case against it.



...and thus the reason for the Titanic analogy. Following the laws of your logic, you are able to prove subsequent iceberg sinkings becuase it has happened before, but you have not been able to prove the Titanic sinking becuase you have not shown any examples of steel ships being sunk by icebergs before then.

Therefore, again, following your own laws of logic, it would likewise be impossible to secretly rig any occupied skyscrapers with secret controlled demilitions becuase no other occupied skyscraper has ever been rigged with secret controlled demolitions before.

So there we are.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
The Twin Towers were the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I also pay attention to reputable sources that are knowledgeable about the engineering and structural specifics of how the Towers were constructed.


You are right to pay attention to them.
There is nobody more knowledgeable on that subject than those who designed and built the towers.

Frank A. DeMartini, the on-site Construction and Project Manager explained in January 2001 how the towers would withstand multiple hits from aircraft.
He died inside the WTC on 9/11 trying to assist rescue efforts, thereby staking his life on the towers not collapsing.



John Skilling, the towers' lead engineer was interviewed in the wake of the WTC bombing in 1993:


"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer...

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision Seattle Times, February 27, 1993

He may be referring to the analysis of a three-page white paper dated February 3, 1964 produced during the design phase of the towers:


The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.


Also in the wake of the bombing, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers said there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”

Richard Humenn, Senior Project Engineer-Electrical who worked on the construction of the WTC has petitioned for a new investigation. Recalling the robust cage structure of the core columns, exterior columns and hefty girders, he said, "I couldn't visualize the core columns coming down with the floors... I was compelled to want to see some further investigation." WTC Electrical Engineer supports AE911Truth

Structural engineer Charles Thornton produced a "progressive collapse" verdict for both the Oklahoma Bombing and WTC "investigations", but in 1988 he explained how a plane could not destroy the WTC.




posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


Evil, don't you hate it when you (I) hit the wrong key when nearly finished typing? (Aaarrrgh!)

Starting over:

Good info, but a few things jumped out at me as I began to skim.

Firstly, the notion that the structure could withstand an impact from a B-707 or DC-8 (common largest jetliners of the time) traveling at 600MPH.

Isn't it a contention that the B-767s we saw hit were at about 500MPH, which is largely derided as 'impossible' (it is not...a shallow power-on dive could easily reach those speeds).

Secondly, even if the designer and engineers were confident that the building would sustain the damage, but remain intact...did they stop to consider the additional influence of the hot fires???

Seems their focus was merely on the Kinetic energy of a 250,000 pound airplane at 600MPH....AND, may I point out, in the day they considered that a 'worst case scenario' since A) the FAA-mandated speed limit below 10,000 MSL is 250Knots (or the minimum 'clean configuration' speed, as necessary). And, B) the incredibly minimal chance of an accidental impact by professional pilots following establish, legal procedures.

Are these same studies conducted for EVERY skyscraper? The Sears Tower, the TransAmerica Building, for instance? Or, was it due to the memory of the WWII-era crash of a B-25 (in the fog) into the Empire State Building???



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


If you're happy with the sinking Titanic as a credible analogy for progressive pancake collapse of the three WTC towers, I shall not attempt to interfere with your opinions further.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


However, I also pay attention to reputable sources that are knowledgeable about the engineering and structural specifics of how the Towers were constructed. In your summation, up above, your contradicted yourself...you said that explosives could not be planted because of the security...then you said that explosives WERE planted because of the lack of security.


You like to spin information


Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted

By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner | STAFF WRITERS
September 12, 2001
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.

www.newsday.com...

I think that sums up my theory with some proof.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


You've got to be kidding? How many more threads are you going to pollute, Dave, with your off-topic references to the Titanic?

Wow...

Read this thread title - it has NOTHING to do with the Titanic.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Thanks for the ad-hom, impress.

/sarcasm off/

I am reading your external source....it is dated 12 September, 2001.

It states that 'only days earlier' the heightened security had been lifted.

So, it only took a few days to rig thermite charges, unseen by anyone to blow the whistle?

Back to my earlier, question though....because I don't want to argue nit-picky little details such as this...

WHY did this 'alleged' trace of 'thermite' just now turn up, over seven years later???

*edit*....oh, and everyone should click and read the full linky. Especially the eyewitness statement from Diane Easton.

Please do not deflect again, nor accuse me of something I didn't do. It is disengenuous.

[edit on 4/18/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by EvilAxis
 

Firstly, the notion that the structure could withstand an impact from a B-707 or DC-8 (common largest jetliners of the time) traveling at 600MPH.

Isn't it a contention that the B-767s we saw hit were at about 500MPH, which is largely derided as 'impossible' (it is not...a shallow power-on dive could easily reach those speeds).


I've heard those debates but the documentation says "the buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour." You calculate the maximum forces the building is likely to encounter during its life, then you design it to withstand significantly greater forces.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Secondly, even if the designer and engineers were confident that the building would sustain the damage, but remain intact...did they stop to consider the additional influence of the hot fires???


Yes, they did. Did you not read their quotes in my post? Given the remit to design a building to withstand jet collisions, you wouldn't be much of an engineer if you assumed they'd arrive without fuel.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Are these same studies conducted for EVERY skyscraper? The Sears Tower, the TransAmerica Building, for instance? Or, was it due to the memory of the WWII-era crash of a B-25 (in the fog) into the Empire State Building???


I don't know. Again, if you read the Seattle Times interview I posted, they talked about the recognized danger following the Empire State collision.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


Sorry, deMartini and Thornton don't convince me.

Where does Thornton get this '13,000 ton' figure, anyway?? The video is edited to the point that we really do not know fully what he's talking about.

the only reference in your 'evidence' to fuel fires is amost a throw-away line...."a lot of people will be killed". Was he referring to the passengers and the victims of the impact? Did he think the fuel would flow down the stair wells and elevator shafts and disperse and incinerate people on the lower floors? What is lacking is the analysis of the components of the interior of the building....so much flamable material, including a copious amount of plastics....and a long, sustained fire that showed no signs of putting itself out due to lack of comsumables.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush.

Marvin P Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

whatreallyhappened.com...

Please do not deflect again, nor accuse me of something I didn't do. It is disengenuous.

The only person who was deflecting was you. and you were being disingenuous.


/sarcasm off/


Yeah right!


So, it only took a few days to rig thermite charges, unseen by anyone to blow the whistle?


That is your opinion! I do not know what kind of explosives that were used I was only forming an opinion earlier.


Back to my earlier, question though....because I don't want to argue nit-picky little details such as this...


Why, you always do.


WHY did this 'alleged' trace of 'thermite' just now turn up, over seven years later???


Well, well, it goes to show you have done little research on Professor Steven Jones thermite reports if any at all.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, deMartini and Thornton don't convince me.

Where does Thornton get this '13,000 ton' figure, anyway??


So you "pay attention to reputable sources that are knowledgeable about the engineering and structural specifics of how the Towers were constructed" but disbelieve what they say if it contradicts your opinion?


Originally posted by weedwhackerthe only reference in your 'evidence' to fuel fires is amost a throw-away line...."a lot of people will be killed".


It's you that's throwing the lines away.

Skilling: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."




[edit on 18-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Oh.....well, well, well.....IF you mean THIS Steven Jones....



...then, yes. I've taken him for what he is 'worth'.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


Yes, Evil....what else would you expect the man to say?? DID he have a strong scientific background in fire propagation? Would you expect the guy to say, "Well, yeah, if an empty airplane hit the building it would be OK, but I don't know how fires would ultimately affect it. Sure, people would be killed."?

The man was not qualified to assess the subsequent effects of a raging fire...he was supposing only the ability of the design to withstand the impact forces.

As to the result of an inferno....he is apparently incorrect. IS this man Thornton still around?? That video interview was from 1988. Would be interesting to hear what he has to say now....



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Anyone who still buys the nonsensical official story after reviewing the mountins of evidence to the contrary will be held with great contempt by surviving future generations who will basically wonder 'what the f*** were you thinking?'

I'd chuckle at your blithe and willful ignorance if it weren't so detrimental to all of our precious remaining freedom.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well now that we've disproved the telescoping and hinge theory using video
evidence, let's knock down another poor example of duhbunking.

I see you've sourced an anonymous video claiming that all elements found
in the dust samples were contained in building materials found in the towers.

Did you forget that WTC7 was not hit by a plane? Your video is generic to
all three towers, yet all three towers did not suffer the same magical lie told
by the government.

Did you not see the report by the scientists? You know the page that shows
photos of the explosive chip samples?

Well, these chip samples have a signature containing all of the elements
listed. They are not individual items in the dust > BIG difference...unless
you believe gravity took perfect ratios of each substance and compacted
them into nano-sized chips?


Furthermore, when DSC tests are performed, your magical drywall and
paint dust particles give off more energy than a known control sample of
super-thermite!

Wow!!! How many miracles occurred on 9/11 in those few hours?

I guess nature took a break for just enough time to allow the 'terrorists'
to strike...



[edit on 19-4-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I put up the audio of a Dr. Niels H. Harrit radio interview. This is an edited version from the parts I felt were relevant to the subject. I left out parts I thought were distracting or annoying.
media.abovetopsecret.com...

Take a listen and you might find some of this interesting. He at least puts the whole thing into perspective, even if he does not answer all your questions.


[edit on 19-4-2009 by jmdewey60]



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join