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: 12
35
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


"My' video had nothing to do with WTC7 (which was not a 'Tower' anyway).

Don't know what you mean by disproving a 'telescoping' theory...first I've heard of that one, and I've never mentioned it.

'Hinge' theory is someone else's....but, really....this is about thermitic residue.

As to your assertion that it 'miraculously' all mixed together....again, you are making stuff up and by inference attributing it to something I may have said, which I mostly certainly did not.

It is the "Active Thermitic Material" that was 'discovered' that has brought up this current debate. Please stay focused.

Any random number of samples taken in an unscientific way will produce whatever you wish to claim, depending on the results you wish.

It has been shown repeatedly that various advocates of the "THEY Did It" cavalcade of conflicting theories will twist and even discount any evidence that disproves their pet theory.

Really, the sheer nonsense amount of competing ideas get so wrapped up in their convolutions that the simplest reason for the Towers' collapse is over-looked. Structural failure after a fatal impact and subsequent collapse. Building 7 was collaterally damaged by falling debris.

As I HAVE mentioned in another post, wouldn't it make a lot more sense for the 'perps' to have caused more horrific events by crashing the airplanes down lower? That way, they'd need to wire fewer floors for "demolition", and the horror would be easier to maximize.

Really....a little bit of physics 101 would be a great help.




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Re. our irrelevant detour into the effect of the ignited jet fuel on WTC 1 and 2, (which the structural engineer did consider when designing the buildings), NIST admitted with regard to their computer simulation:

...the simulations were insensitive to both the amount and distribution of the jet fuel. Sensitivity studies showed that the amount of fuel spilled in the simulation only influenced the results of the first few minutes; the long-term behavior of the simulated fires was unaffected.


In other words, NIST found that increasing the quantity and/or distribution of the fuel in their simulations made no difference. Jet fuel had no effect on the structure - it simply ignited materials within.

Furthermore, the quantity of fuel was inconsequential relative to the scale of the buildings as graphically illustrated in the following video. Quantities from NIST's data.





[edit on 19-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

'Hinge' theory is someone else's....but, really....this is about thermitic residue.


hinge theory...telescoping theory...pancaking theory...


How many guesses...I mean theories do you guys have to cover up the
lies of the government?

By the way, I wasn't quoting you specifically in my last reply. It was just
picking up where your buddy GenRadek dropped the ball.

Maybe you can explain how the top section of the tower blew apart before
the support structure descended?

You wanna talk physics 101. Let's do it.

Explain the miracle as shown in the videos and still frame shots.


Any random number of samples taken in an unscientific way will produce whatever you wish to claim, depending on the results you wish.


Right...a controlled test of several samples of the chips that produce higher
energy release than a known thermite comparison.

Would you like to explain how that happens in physics 101? Maybe I can
grind up some drywall, aluminum, iron and throw it all over the ground...
then sweep up the mess and magically produce a ratio in a 100 nm particle
which outperforms super-thermite!!!


Take your best shot a developing a theory that explains the top section
of the South towering tearing itself apart from the bottom up.

Please use original media videos and photos to back up your theory
whenever possible.

Hopefully some of you will start to realize how you've been lied to.
Maybe GenRadek is smart enough to think about it.


P.S. Great video about the amount of fuel on one floor of the tower.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan


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.


First off all, I am not seeing ANY explosive activity at all in any of these videos. Second, everything you ask is adressed in the video explaining the tilting over section. Third, I have yet to see a single demolition of a building that creates so much dust and debris in the initial detonation of the charges. The WTCs dust cloud would require hundreds of tons of explosives packed solid on each floor. Impossible.



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




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.

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.

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.


As I do not have the video editing software to do so, I cannot point out a perfect time marker. However, in the video you can see the hinge last for a very short time. Hell you can use a stop watch if youd like to get a rough estimate. As I said, the video itself answers your question on the hinge and how the topple over theory is horribly wrong.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



Feel free to repost with any On Topic Material



[edit on 4/20/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

hinge theory...telescoping theory...pancaking theory...


How many guesses...I mean theories do you guys have to cover up the
lies of the government?


Heh, gee, how many guesses... er I mean, theories do you have to go through to desperately prove inside job? Let see: thermite, thermate, special therm*te, nano-thermite, explosive therm*te, explosives, death rays, energy rays, remote controlled planes, no planes, some planes, drones, missiles, nukes.




Maybe you can explain how the top section of the tower blew apart before
the support structure descended?


Where did it blow apart? How much explosive whatever (now is it thermite, thermate, nanothermate, nanothermite, explosive thermite) created his effect? I thought it was explosives. or is it magic therm*te? Pick one and stick with it. Explosives? If so, what kind? Magic Therm*te? Where and how? I thought you were convineed it was therm*te, now its bombs? Well if its bombs, then what kind? How much to create this blow apart you claim? Oh and fyi: thermite does not explode like a bomb! Oops! Did you know that?



You wanna talk physics 101. Let's do it.

Explain the miracle as shown in the videos and still frame shots.

Its called gravity. Newton came up with it.



Right...a controlled test of several samples of the chips that produce higher
energy release than a known thermite comparison.


If you blow oxygen over a flame, it will burn hotter! Thermite can burn without oxygen. If JOnesy is so smart, and so convinced its therm*te, why didnt he test it in zero-oxygen?


Would you like to explain how that happens in physics 101? Maybe I can
grind up some drywall, aluminum, iron and throw it all over the ground...
then sweep up the mess and magically produce a ratio in a 100 nm particle
which outperforms super-thermite!!!


Take your best shot a developing a theory that explains the top section
of the South towering tearing itself apart from the bottom up.

Please use original media videos and photos to back up your theory
whenever possible.

Hopefully some of you will start to realize how you've been lied to.
Maybe GenRadek is smart enough to think about it.


Heh, and yet, Jonesy lied and bungled his "scienic experiment" and yet you cling to it as if it is immaculate. Hmm maybe you wer elied to by the very hypocrites that call them selves the "truth" movement. Geeze, I mean all the mistakes, all the bungled sample taking, and "testing" which would make a high school chemist blush, and you think that the THOUSANDS of engineers, scientists, professionals, that studied the WTCs and added to the NIST are all wrong wrong wrong?
boy oh boy.

You know, if there was such magical painted on therm*te on any beams, then uh, why didnt anyone find columns that were cut through in that fashion? What we have is bent beams, corroded beams, and some snapped in half. But no, no magically melted beams anywhere. Do you even know how thermite works? Especially thermate? The high temps? Why didnt a single beam show a sign of a temperature above 2,000F? Regular thermite burns over 2,000C! Thats CELSIUS, not Fahrenheit. On not a single beam were temps ever seen of over 1800F. Can you explain this little inconsistancy? Also explain why the steel in the pile could NOT have been corroded by natural chemical reactions (non-therm*te) that would be expected in such an environment (ie hot steel, sulfur, acids, carbon, fuel, water, sulfides, time, etc etc). steel can be destroyed "melted", through other means besides using therm*te, that are far more common and just require basic chemistry understanding.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis
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.


As I stated...TWICE...the Titanic analogy wasn't meant to support the pancaking scenario. It was meant to refute the absurd idea that an event couldn't have happened simply because it hasn't happened before. I continuously bring it up becuase you continuously ignore your own supposed rule of logic by claiming an occupied skyscraper could be secretly rigged with explosives despite no other occupied skyscraper having ever been secretly rigged with explosives.

But, you are right- this is really neither here nor there.. The moment you rushed headlong to post that photo of the mangled support girder, you effectively torpedoed any claim you could possibly make concerning thermite from here on in, and that is the ultimate point of this thread. Silly analogies involving burning hollow trees and sunken ships become frivolous in comparison to having real, hard facts on hand.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan



I'm not surprised as I can't even get you to answer simple questions after
four posts (and counting). Maybe if I back you into another corner you
will be forced to answer? Hmmm...let's see.


nice try making yourself feeling high and mighty, while handwaving away answers I gave you about four posts ago. You asked for pictures of floors stacked, I gave them. You waved them away. I answered how the telescoping worked, you ignored it and waved it away. I posted a video which explains it, you ignore it and continue to ask the same answered question, and feel pretty smug that you think you are "backing me into a corner". Gee if only you were so vigilant with taking apart Jonesy's "analysis" in such a manner. ahh well. One can wish.



I'm not asking the pretty video questions; I'm asking YOU. What's the
matter, are you not able to engage in a debate and need to defer me
to a video which I used to disprove your theory?


I have already explained it , not my fault you dont understand it. So I thoguht maybe a pretty video will make it easier. I guess not. Oh but a video of the WTC collapsing, and you automatically tout it as proof of explosives! Where? How? When?
All you have is dust from the collapse obscurring the top section as it plummits straight down after a minor tilt, this somehow translates into explosives.



Please produce your explosives license as you have made it clear several
times in this thread that you KNOW how explosives work. Also give me
one reason why each floor would require a "solid packing of explosives".


Ahh yes, ask me for my "License" because I know a little more about explosives than you do. Please. Enough childish antics. Allow me to give you a basic education of explosives and how they behave.
Here is a video taken from Fort Worth, Texas of the Landmark Tower. Now pay very close attention to the sound and video. Its very important.





Two different viewpoints, one outside, one from inside a building. Now, the amount of explosives used was 364lbs of charges. The charges used were 196lbs of 60% nitroglycerin-based gel in 1 1/4" sticks, and 166lbs of RDX. 369 linear shaped armor-piercing charges were used to cut the steel beams. Now here comes the lesson. Did you just hear how loud those blasts were? How unmistakable the blasts were? The sequence of detonations which occur BEFORE collapse? now I don't know why you never bothered or noticed or whatever, that the WTC buildings collapse before any visible or audible "explosions" take place. Here at the Landmark Tower, there is a whole series of detonations prior to any visual movement of the tower. And this was only 364lbs of explosives going off! Eevryone within a two mile radius of the WTCs would have heard them going off. However, since the WTCs are much much much bigger, a hell of a lot more explosives would have been required. (but again, I am confused, I thought it was magic painted on therm*te that did all this. Therm*te does not explode and since when does therm*te crush concrete?). but back to explosives. Now then, those explosives at the Forth Worth demo were spaced out of course, with very little in the terms of dust and debris from the detonations. Its only after the detonations when the building collapses do we have dust flying out. Now, at the WTCs we do not hear a single audible detonation or even a series of detonations anywhere prior to the visible movement of the top section of the South Tower. There should have been a whole series of detonations prior to INITIATION of collapse. Note: hearing random explosions in the burning floors of the WTC is not evidence of any demolitions. Again, therm*te does not explode either.

now here is the closest video taken at the base of the WTC when the South Tower came down:


Now, nobody heard or looked up and heard any series of detonations which would be unmistakable. what we see is the buildign starts coming down, and people THEN look up and go "Oh crap!"



Now here in this video, where are the series of detonations "tearing apart" the base of the top section of the tower? All I hear is the roar of thousands of tons of steel falling, but no distinct sounds of detonations of any "high powered" explosives. Why is that? There is a big difference between a roar and a kaboom. Again, since when does therm*te explode like this? also notice that the ejections of debris are massive! That would mean that there were large amounts of explosives packed on each floor to tear it up in such a manner. are you suggesting that the top 30 floors were all rigged with tons of explosives and set to explode during the collapse? how? What about the fires or heat setting them off prematurely? What about the collapse itself? Werent they worried about having the firing lines severed during the collapse, resulting in a misfire, or none?



You don't need video editing software to figure this out. I certainly do not.
What you're telling me is you can't and/or not able to analyze the video, yet you believe what
you are told.
(everyone else please keep a running total of how many times GenRadek
has been asked to provide support for his theory)


Also, can everyone else keep track of how many times I have and turbofan ignored it or waved it away?

Here:

Hinge lasts from 0:04-0:06.
we then see that part where the hinge is begin to go downwards.
The tower still tilts a little bit over as is seen through a break in the dust, but that is it. Oh and look! you can see a part of the exterior columns stand for a second! Where are the floors? Oh yes! they've already collapsed! and then it too falls over.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


*Snip*
Board Business is not discussed In Thread

In any case, back to the 'hinge/telescopic' theory:

Since GenRadek has not given a time stamp, let's help the fellow along.

GenRadek, would you agree in the previous close up video that you
posted the hinge breaks at 1:11?

ETA: video link www.youtube.com...
Would you also agree that the moment of collapse (tilt) begins at 1:10?

Is this your, "one second" window?

[edit on 20-4-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 4/20/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I have clarifed it with my last post. Its the last thing i said. I gave you the video and my time in the video of when we see the hinge from first movement till the moment it no longer tilts over and is already going down. Did you miss it?
The total time I believe one can see from the last video I posted is roughly 2 seconds. Follow the timer at the bottom of the screen. about two seconds total.

Now. As to Jones' "analysis" and "scientific method" even Dr. Judy Wood does a better job of demonstrating Jones' flaws with his "methods". Note i do not believe it was anything with space weapons, but I enjoy her analysis of Jones' flawed process.
drjudywood.com...
I mean if she can see it, then I mean you guys and your magic therm*te are in deep trouble.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Now we're getting somewhere. YOu say the hinge lasts from :04 to :06
in your last post.

What would you say the angle of the top sections is with respect to the
bottom section at this time?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
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?


Neither does burning, hollow trees, for that matter. That's why it's called an ANALOGY.

That said, I do owe Evilaxis my apology for posting incorrect information before concerning the laws of momentum doubling the force of a moving object on a stationary object. That was adolescent and uninformed of me, and I retract it.

What I *should* have said was the law of kinetic energy, which is F=MA, with force equalling the mass of an object times the acceleration (speed I.E. 32 fps^fps times distance) of that object. An eight pound weight falling four feet will strike a stationary surface with the force of 400 pounds becuase an object free falling four feet will be travelling about 12.5 fps. Force will be 8 * (4 * 12.5) = 400. We know that becuase that's one of the standard ANSI tests they use to test impacts on windshields.

SO, what does this mean? A one ton (2000 lb) object falling 4 feet will strike a stationary object below it with the force of 50 tons (2000 * 4 *12.5), not two tons. Seeing that the floors weighted approx 4000 tons each, and that they fell some 12 feet, whatever force that calculates out to be is clearly way, way WAY beyond the ability of any of the subsequent floors to withstand. Each falling floor would have steamrolled through any subsequent floor like it wasn't even there, making these claims of thermite ridiculously extraneous.

Thank you for keeping me on my toes. I didn't realize just how massive the forces involved in the collapse actually were before now...but ti still doesn't help your scenarios of thermite.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
To better clarify matters..

ALL Posts that are directed at another poster, no matter how small the amount, will be summarily removed.

This has been stated before and is still in effect.

Semper



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Now we're getting somewhere. YOu say the hinge lasts from :04 to :06
in your last post.

What would you say the angle of the top sections is with respect to the
bottom section at this time?


Well I do not have a protractor with me so I cannot answer that yet. however, I want you to notice something as it is coming down. Pay very close attention to the side that sags and bends inwards. Did you notice how it pulls deeper into the tower? It does not tilt over like it is going to fall off as you sugegst it should have. That side is being pulled in, while the opposite side behaves as the hinge. Now watch how far the side goes into the tower before the entire section falls. That alone shows how the WTC could NOT have tilted and fallen off. Also, explosives or thermite could not create this effect. The top section tilts, however the hinge is not on the side where it is tilting over towards. Its on the other side, like a trap door swinging open. I hope you understand what I am saying. The top section is not tilting over the edge of the rest of the tower, it tilts but is pulled more inwards due to the hinge on the other side. That is why it collapsed into itself and that is why it telescoped down. Now it does appear that a small section of the top of the tower is far enough over the perimter columns, and that also helps destroy the columns on that side BUT it would not have tilted and fallen off.

I wish I had access to the software to recreate at least a basic animation of what i am saying, but if anyone out there does, please do!



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

You like to spin information


As do you. These bomb dogs being withdrawn were the ADDITIONAL bomb dogs assigned to temporarily supplement the Port Authority's own bomb dogs, which were withdrawn when security determined the coast was clear. The Port Authority's own dogs were never removed, and one of these dogs, named Sirius, was killed when the towers collapsed.



I think that sums up my theory with some proof.


Likewise. You posted information which is deliberately worded to falsely imply that all the bomb dogs had been removed, rather than the ones temporarily assigned there. It outright neglects to mention the Port Authority even had their own permanent staff of bomb dogs. The reason for this manipulation of the facts is clear- it's meant to incite innuendo of something sinister happening behind the scenes and instigate false public unrest in an otherwise open book of events.

I'm not saying that you yourself are trying to mislead people. I'm saying that that there is a gigantic amout of intentional deceit being passed around by the conspiracy's propaganda ministers that you're quoting, and looking at what has been artfully left out, there's no way it can be unintentional.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Ah, well, if you want an analogy, fine by me- in 1912 the Titanic was hit by an iceberg which caused it to sink and take 1,200 people with it.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Hmmm, now that I think of it, the Titanic really IS a good analogy to the WTC.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
As I stated...TWICE...the Titanic analogy wasn't meant to support the pancaking scenario.


GoodOlDave - I've already surrendered to your Titanic logic. It was the only steel ship sunk by an iceberg (apart from all the others you weren't aware of) - therefore we know that a process which occurs three times on the same day, but at no other time in history, is not impossible. Your premise was false but your conclusion is true. Nothing is impossible, not even the astronomically improbable.

Can anyone offer an example from the real world of gravity-driven progressive or pancake collapse of any self-supporting structure? An example they are prepared to stand by and defend as in some way analogous to the 9/11 implosions.

The Progressive Collapse Challenge

A logical analysis of the problem.



[edit on 20-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
As do you. These bomb dogs being withdrawn were the ADDITIONAL bomb dogs assigned to temporarily supplement the Port Authority's own bomb dogs, which were withdrawn when security determined the coast was clear. The Port Authority's own dogs were never removed, and one of these dogs, named Sirius, was killed when the towers collapsed.


At the risk of off topic discussion: What are the chances of Sirius being the only dog that was put in his cage after the plane strikes (remember, he is the only dog to have died on 9/11)? Meaning, could he have been one of only a few (two or three)? And then begs the question: Can three dogs smell an entire 110-story building? Just saying.

On topic: Has anyone found the data on dry combustion of paint/primer that is more energetic than a known "super-thermite" yet?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

That said, I do owe Evilaxis my apology for posting incorrect information before concerning the laws of momentum doubling the force of a moving object on a stationary object. That was adolescent and uninformed of me, and I retract it.

What I *should* have said was the law of kinetic energy, which is F=MA, with force equalling the mass of an object times the acceleration (speed I.E. 32 fps^fps times distance) of that object. An eight pound weight falling four feet will strike a stationary surface with the force of 400 pounds becuase an object free falling four feet will be travelling about 12.5 fps. Force will be 8 * (4 * 12.5) = 400. We know that becuase that's one of the standard ANSI tests they use to test impacts on windshields.

Still incorrect. F=m*a is actually Newton's 2nd Law of Motion, not "the law of kinetic energy," and I am unaware of any such "law." In Isaac Newton's words, he described a net force causing a rate of change in the linear momentum of a body (not an acceleration per se).

en.wikipedia.org...

www.ic.arizona.edu...

There is a definition of kinetic energy however, KE=m/2 * v^2 (or KE=p^2/(2*m) ).

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Sorry I missed this.

Have you observed the DSC curve for this, "sawdust"?

Just wondering if you noticed the temperature scale and energy release
per gram?

Did you also notice the control sample of superthermite which was tested
under the same conditions?

A simple, "yes", or "no" answer will suffice.

Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join