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: 13
35
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I don't have a protractor either, but a quick pixel count shows approximately 23 degrees (+/- 1 degree) @ :05 seconds.

I'll map it out once I get home, but you might want to grab your
protractor and check my answer until then.




posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
A cross "melted together with the intense heat. The two beams were never initially part of the same structure. Heat literally melted them together and the piece of metal that's draped over it was molten metal that had literally fallen over one of the arms".

Maybe as the gentleman says, it is a miracle of God, because what other mechanism do we have here for welding together steel beams? Apart from active thermitic materials found in the dust.



[edit on 21-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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.

How did the floors fall 12 feet, or any distance for that matter with out resistance? In order to use this very basic equation, you would have to convince us that somehow an entire floor's columns instantaneously vanished in order for the upper floors to freefall for 12 ft. The only way I can think of that happening is some sort of demolition... which brings us back on topic of thermitic material being found in the WTC dust.
Unless, that is, you guys have found some paint that has the properties of the chips being discussed including giving off more heat than a control sample of thermite...



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


Looks to me like GOD Almighty wants us to hang the true 9-11 perps, doesn't it? The poor preacher just misinterpreted the evidence. Maybe he is unfamiliar with the self-destruction the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY has been undergoing as of late.



Original photo



Following the attacks, a massive operation was launched to clear the site and attempt to find any survivors amongst the rubble. On September 13 one of the workers at the site, claimed by Frank Silecchia to be himself, discovered a 20 feet (6.1 m)[5] cross of two steel beams amongst the debris of 6 World Trade Center.[6] Those with access to the site used the cross as a shrine of sorts, leaving messages on it or praying before it.



After a few weeks within the cleanup site the cross was an impediment to nearby work, so Silecchia and others working on the project received an expedited approval from the office of New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to erect it on a pedestal on a portion of the former plaza on Church Street near Liberty. It was moved by crane on October 3 and installed on October 4,[9][10] where it continued as a shrine and tourist attraction.[2] The cross has remained during reconstruction, but in the 2004 and 2005 filings of its site plan, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey indicated that "additional remnants" of the original World Trade Center might require removal and storage during construction of the World Trade Center Transportation Hub.

en.wikipedia.org...



Posted on Nov 7, 2001 | by Art Toalston
NEW YORK CITY (BP)-The cross has been saved.

The cross, that is, of steel beams uncovered as workers in New York cleared away debris at the World Trade Center.

Recovery worker Frank Silecchia, who has championed the cross' preservation, told Baptist Press Nov. 6 the cross has been designated as a memorial by the city of New York.

The cross has been moved to the front of the World Financial Center's Building Six on West Street, Silecchia said, noting that its final location has not yet been determined.

The cross is "a symbol of faith" commemorating those who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Silecchia said.



Silecchia noticed the two steel beams in the perfect shape of a cross as debris was being removed from a fallen crosswalk that connected the World Trade Center's North Tower to Building Three two days after the disaster.

The beams, at least six feet high and four feet wide, were bolted together as part of the original structure. The edges of the beams bear no markings of being cut or welded to make the shape of a cross.

The most heart-wrenching discovery was that a silver object melted onto the cross' left side was the remains of a firefighter's jacket who died in the blast. Firefighters say the fire-resistant jacket turned silver and took on the look and consistency of metal when it encountered extreme heat and fire. Now, it is wrapped around the left arm of the cross.

www.bpnews.net...


Yes, in the blast. Not collapse, but blast, explosions, demolition, thermite. Which also created the molten metal underground for months.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
A theory on how the nanothermite red dust particles were produced and where they came from.


posted by TDX



There is one thing which baffles me- the quantity of the unignited nanothermite, it seems to be in rather large multi-ton quantities, standard explanation (that these chips were in close contact with steel, therefore the....) is not acceptable, becuase the surface area of the charges would have to be very large and the ignition temperature (around 430°C) would cause the thermite burn no-matter-what inside the charge.

Instead, I propose that the unignited thermite came from unignited charges

Our preparators had to knock the towers down, but they couldn't be sure with the exact extent of the fire and airplane damage, so what they did was to put far more charges than necessary.

During the last few seconds of the precollapse preparation one of the charges cut the critical column, while the other charges were still burning (the burning couldn't be synchronized, even when using nanothermite), or unignited, then the collapsing floors destroyed the unignited charges and forced the chips into air.

The stream of molten metal (NE corner), which was seen during the precollapse preparation of south tower, but what you don't know is that there was a significant amount of red dust during the first 2-3 seconds of the collapse, the movement of the dust suggests that it consists of relatively small particles, therefore it is not cooling molten metal.

The most probable theory is, that the molten metal came from thermite charges, which were dislodged by the aircraft impact (the charges were originally intended to cut some of the 1000 or 900 row core columns in the building), unfortunately the spacing of the exterior columns prevented the charges from escaping the building, so they remained inside the debris pile, some of them ignited (the yellow molten metal) and some of them didn't go of (the red dust during the collapse).

source



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
That's an amazing pictire; first time seeing it! Musta been gravity...


Still waiting for comfirmation on my angle so we can continue the discussion.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Good catch. I should know better than take a preacher's word as gospel.

So-called debunker websites complain that the molten metal that flowed beneath the three towers for weeks after 9/11 does not support the case for thermitic destruction because highly energetic thermites would burn up very quickly.

They blithely dismiss the matter while failing to plausibly explain:
A. Why the molten metal was there.
B. Why NIST said it wasn't there.

The rapid destruction of the towers would require large quantities of thermitic material which would produce large quantities of molten iron which would pour into the building's foundations (7 stories deep, WTC1 & 2). As speculated above, an overkill technique might result in continued thermitic reactions after the towers were down, but regardless, it is not hard to see that the large mass of subterranean molten metal mixed with all the other materials could create a long-lasting inferno.

Debunkers who say thermitic material wouldn't cause sustained heat are in the same position as those who complain the towers would have needed huge amounts of demolition charges to bring them down but in the next breath argue that localized damage and office fires would do it.

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel." GCN.com, Aug 11, 2002

John Gross, NIST: "Steel melted around 2600°F. Um.. I think it's probably pretty difficult to get those kind of er.. temperatures in a um.. er.. in a fire"

[edit on 22-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


So all of this alleged molten metal was discovered in the pile for weeks and months later, and yet, not a single person, worker, FDNY, engineer, etc person who worked in the Ground Zero, even considered taking a single picture of it, either still molten or solidified. Not a single person? Why? In order to hide it? But then they "slip up" and mention seeing "molten metal" in the pile and reported seeing something "molten", and all of a sudden this proof? Sorry, but THAT is one hell of a leap of faith. If this isnt evidence of selective "cherry picking" of accounts and eyewitnesses, I dont know what is.

Oh , by the way, any evidence that "thermite charges" existed prior to 9/11? You know, patents? Any sort of evidence whatsoever? because the only thing I found is a patent file dated 2006. Hmmmm did the inside job crew travel forward in time to aquire future technology like "thermite charges" and bring them back to bring down the WTCs? Someone call the Temporal Police. The Temporal Prime Directive had been breached.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Is the US Military required to file 'patents' on their demolition and explosive and weapon technology? Do you think their technology could be 'discovered' under a patents search, or might it be filed under 'top secret'?

Perhaps hundreds of photos were taken of the molten metal and perhaps the FBI 'confiscated' the photos. Why should the gag-ordered NYFD firemen be immune from censorship from OUR wonderful FBI?

Photos were taken from the NASA AVIRIS aircraft of the hot spots underneath the WTC for months after 9-11. How do you explain them; an active volcano?


World Trade Center USGS Thermal



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


So all of this alleged molten metal was discovered in the pile for weeks and months later, and yet, not a single person, worker, FDNY, engineer, etc person who worked in the Ground Zero, even considered taking a single picture of it, either still molten or solidified. Not a single person? Why? In order to hide it? But then they "slip up" and mention seeing "molten metal" in the pile and reported seeing something "molten", and all of a sudden this proof? Sorry, but THAT is one hell of a leap of faith. If this isnt evidence of selective "cherry picking" of accounts and eyewitnesses, I dont know what is.


I'm sure you must have missed Bart Voorsanger, AIA on film with one of the "meteorites" explicitely stating that it is molten steel and they show it on film.

www.liveleak.com...

Here he is talking about why they were worried about the antennae (steel) and how it might melt.

www.liveleak.com...


Oh , by the way, any evidence that "thermite charges" existed prior to 9/11? You know, patents? Any sort of evidence whatsoever? because the only thing I found is a patent file dated 2006. Hmmmm did the inside job crew travel forward in time to aquire future technology like "thermite charges" and bring them back to bring down the WTCs? Someone call the Temporal Police. The Temporal Prime Directive had been breached.


Yes, because we all know things don't exist if they aren't patented. Like fragrances, they are just figments of our imaginations.


BTW, for those that don't know, a fragrance can't be patented, that is why there are knock-offs of the expensive perfumes.

[edit on 4/22/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 4/22/2009 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Ahh yes, cause the military is so damn secretive! Oh lookie what I found!
www.freepatentsonline.com...
Ahh but of course, the military gets all the goodies first, and then later on they allow others to patent their technology? I dont think thats how it works. But hey, I suppose saying "black military projects" is the blanket cover that is so easy to throw when you cannot provide any sources. Just like saying, God did it! So simple! God did it! Case closed! Prove me wrong!


SPreston, the hotspots have been explained time and time again. Please, do explain how thermite can remain molten for weeks on end. Please do I am very much interested. Also, why couldnt it be other chemical reactions that are readily found in such extreme environments? Ahh let me guess, they did not have many chemistry experts and metallurgists over at the "truth" camp right? because as chemists know, the conditions in the rubble were very corrosive and could create the effects witnessed in the pile. Metallurgists understand how steel rusts and what happens when steel is heated and combined with steam, sulfur, al left to sit in that for weeks. Steel heats up when it rusts too! Did you know that? And heated steel will rust even more! add water and allow for the chemical reactions to create the acids and chemicals that eat away and destroy the steel. I've posted it many times in the past, but time and again its handwaved away, which is no surprised becasue it does require a basic understanding of chemistry and a little metallugry. So when it counters your preconcieved notions, it automatically blacklisted and ignored.

[edit on 4/22/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Ah but was it created by thermite or did it happen deep in the pile thanks to other conditions one would expect in such an environment?

Oh hold on! lets see more on that!

Hey whats that I see? Paper? Inside the once "molten" metal blob! Dang thats super paper that can withstand high temps and molten steel! geeze where is the patent on that?

Heh, oh yes an antenna that was placed high up on top of the tower is somehow going to get buried at the bottom of a collapse pile? Yeah. You do realize how asinine that assumption is right?



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


That is not the same meteor. Nice try though.

The clue would be that the meteor in my video is grey and that one is rusted (just a pile of pressed steel).

BIG difference there.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
SPreston, the hotspots have been explained time and time again. Please, do explain how thermite can remain molten for weeks on end. Please do I am very much interested.


Hmm...let's see. YOU believe somehow fire made it's way down there and was insulated and burned to those hot temperatures (which are really stretching the limits of what a non-furnace fire can do I might add).

But, can't think of anyway to replace fire with molten iron from thermitic reactions?

Limited sight?



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


a) How would you see paper if it were INSIDE the blob? Are you sure that paper is not stuck to the outside, and didn't become so until after the "blob" cooled?

b) Can paper burn in absence of oxygen? What happens to susbstances like paper when exposed to high heat, but in the absence of oxygen?(this one is an actual question, I really want to know)



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Heh, oh yes an antenna that was placed high up on top of the tower is somehow going to get buried at the bottom of a collapse pile? Yeah. You do realize how asinine that assumption is right?


The only thing asinine is people who refuse to watch what others have posted. If you had, your answer would have been given.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


But hold on there Griff.
Why couldnt that other meteor be created similarily?
Why couldnt that have happened to it deep in the pile
in much the same way? Compression, heat, chemical reactions could have done just that.
You know, what the heck, I'll repost this again since it gives a good explaination of the complex chemistry and the corrosive environment which was present inside the pile.

Chemistry inside the pile

Hey, its facts, its documented, its real. I have yet to see anyone on the CT side even consider this other possibility. If you dont agree with it, or think its flawed, please show us how it is using the same techniques and understanding of chemistry and metallurgy (and some history). Be aware, there is a lot of reading involved. Skimming through wont do anything. You have to understand it too. By all means, I encourage you and others to do some actual research and understand what type of environment was inside the pile for such a long period of time.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


No I believe that the fires helped in creating the environment for the chemical reactions that allowed such intense heat to continue. The fires may have been burning in there as well, but its not only fire that can do this.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


see the video! there they are! paper wedged and stuck in there. Now if the steel was still molten or cooling, how will paper manage to "stick" on it without turning to ash? even if there was little oxygen inside, i dont think that paper will last long with something hot and molten.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Griff
 


But hold on there Griff.
Why couldnt that other meteor be created similarily?
Why couldnt that have happened to it deep in the pile
in much the same way? Compression, heat, chemical reactions could have done just that.
You know, what the heck, I'll repost this again since it gives a good explaination of the complex chemistry and the corrosive environment which was present inside the pile.

Chemistry inside the pile


When did I ever state that a thermitic reaction wasn't a chemical reaction?

So, hot iron burns huh? How is that proof that what started the iron to burn wasn't thermitic?


Hey, its facts, its documented, its real. I have yet to see anyone on the CT side even consider this other possibility. If you dont agree with it, or think its flawed, please show us how it is using the same techniques and understanding of chemistry and metallurgy (and some history). Be aware, there is a lot of reading involved. Skimming through wont do anything. You have to understand it too. By all means, I encourage you and others to do some actual research and understand what type of environment was inside the pile for such a long period of time.


Again, please tell me how any of this refutes thermite/ate as the initiator?




top topics



 
35
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join