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.

 

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

page: 30
218
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The meteorite at www.youtube.com... is interesting in that it has office paper in it. Maybe it wasn't melted as you suggest but merely compressed during th ecollapse.




posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
This is an excellent reference sourced overview of the most heated 9/11 debate issues. Excerpts related to issues under discussion:


Mike





www.theblackvault.com...



" In addition to the observation of the collapse, theorists draw upon the post collapse elements surrounding the World Trade Center. The compilation of the following is put forward by opponents of the official story to further the idea of a controlled demolition as well as government involvement.


1) The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse.


* This claim is meant to point out that steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives. A handful of individuals working in and around the debris field utilized phrases containing the words “molten metal” or “molten steel” to describe the devastation. Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done. The following are some of the more common statements seen:

o Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y described "literally molten steel" at the WTC.

o The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers in a second hand account by James Williams who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."



2) The lobby of one of the towers was partially destroyed (broken windows and marble panels) and a dust cloud can be seen rising from the ground during the moments of collapse.


* Sarah Atlas of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, one of the first on the scene said "Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins" (Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002). Similarly, Dr. Allison Geyh, a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins, recalled in the late fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."

* Obtaining a conclusive answer to these molten metal arguments is difficult for a lack of documented research on the issue. While NASA's satellite images of Ground Zero do show large hot spots well after 9/11, they do not provide an exact measure of temperatures within the rubble pile since this type of remote sensing captures only the temperatures on the surface of a debris pile. Independent scientific investigation into what sort of metal, if any, was liquefied has yet to be conducted.



3) Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft (10 m) long and large sections of steel destined for recycling were quickly sent to areas in SE Asia.


* This claim suggests the building was destroyed to provide for an easy clean-up and removal of debris, often implying little study was done of the evidence.

* It is important to recognize the longest beam surrounding the towers was no greater than 38 feet.

* Ground Zero actually took more than eight months to remove all of the debris.

* Furthermore, Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, responded to this notion and the evaluation of evidence, "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples." NIST has numerous sections of steel from both Towers as well as WTC 7.."







[edit on 2-5-2009 by mmiichael]

[edit on 5/3/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
So now,returning to the topic,let's discuss the little balls of iron.Formed while molten and airborne.These resemble welding 'berries',the hardened spray of plasma state weld droplets of steel,having the carbon burned out ,in the process.Only these are much smaller,indicating more energy required in formation.What else besides the nano thermate(which is explosive) can produce these,eh?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by trueforger

let's discuss the little balls of iron.Formed while molten and airborne.These resemble welding 'berries',the hardened spray of plasma state weld droplets of steel,having the carbon burned out ,in the process.Only these are much smaller,indicating more energy required in formation.What else besides the nano thermate(which is explosive) can produce these,eh?




Electrical transformers, of which there were many in those buildings, violently explode at high temperatures.


Mike



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

Try again.Exploding transformers do not have the force to produce this tiny a particle size.The smaller the particle,the more force required to atomize STEEL.And by the way,did ya see that horse shoe shaped piece of 6" thick flange I beam?Mighty.

Or did you mean TRANSFORMERS,the toy?That makes more sense...



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 

It is possible that electrical arcing would produce such materials. Force has little to do with size; it is the conditions that determine size when there is enough energy to melt the material.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by trueforger

Exploding transformers do not have the force to produce this tiny a particle size.The smaller the particle,the more force required to atomize STEEL.And by the way,did ya see that horse shoe shaped piece of 6" thick flange I beam?Mighty.

Or did you mean TRANSFORMERS,the toy?That makes more sense...



Isn't that a Truther theory? Transformers brought down the WTC buildings.
No one can account for their wherebouts on 9/11. A tarot card reader says she saw one hanging around the buildings earlier that morning.

It's a game. Find some questionable detail in the rubble or a video of the collapse and apply first year engineering student knowledge of chemistry and physics, then claim it could not have happened by the generally accepted explanations.

Works fine when your audience of the converted has high school physics.


Mike



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Electrical transformers, of which there were many in those buildings, violently explode at high temperatures.


This is really reaching. First of all, they don't just explode because they're hot. Something has to short inside of them and they have to be introduced to much more current than they're made to withstand before they start spewing molten metal, which means a breaker ALSO has to fail. And even then I've only seen them spew molten aluminum, not steel, which requires over twice the temperature and much greater heat energy. There is a much greater chance the circuit is simply going to be broken, no energy is going to flow, and nothing is going to happen. There were also no reports whatsoever of transformers or any other electrical equipment exploding.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
Electrical transformers, of which there were many in those buildings, violently explode at high temperatures.


This is really reaching. First of all, they don't just explode because they're hot. Something has to short inside of them and they have to be introduced to much more current than they're made to withstand before they start spewing molten metal, which means a breaker ALSO has to fail. And even then I've only seen them spew molten aluminum, not steel, which requires over twice the temperature and much greater heat energy. There is a much greater chance the circuit is simply going to be broken, no energy is going to flow, and nothing is going to happen. There were also no reports whatsoever of transformers or any other electrical equipment exploding.




This is total guess work on your part. You have never tested large scale electrical transformers at extreme temperatures and under tons of pressure. You have no way of ascertaining whether ones in the WTC exploded and or exactly how they behave when doing so in the conditions.

Most anomalies resulting from unusual circumstances like earthquakes and fires have not been fully studied I'm confident.

Electrical transformers and other similar equipment have blown or exploded in many other fires. I doubt if any controlled studies on the subject and specifics ascertained as it is not a type of knowledge that is useful or can be productively applied.

What is unknown or undetermined does not have to be suggestive of foul play unless that's what you are looking for.

That's what you're looking for.


Mike




[edit on 2-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


How about eyewitness accounts? Never seems to make much difference to people, few of whom were actually there or saw anything other than doctored videos on conspiracy sites. The real question is, why are you so sure something other than terrorists (all identified, including Moussaoui, who admitted to the plot- no doubt with CIA complicity, somebody will say with zero evidence) were responsible? This kind of crap is agenda-based almost every time, and people get awfully defensive and name-call-y when disagreed with, because all their evidence is highly circumstantial and can't be verified. So, don't ask me if I'm gonna go along- you've bought the conspiracy theory, sight unseen I might add, with no evidence either. I was four blocks away.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
This is total guess work on your part. You have never tested large scale electrical transformers at extreme temperatures and under tons of pressure.


You're the one that's doing total guess work. Increasing the temperature of a transformer also increases its electrical resistance. Increasing the current to the maximum amount possible through the transformer is what will cause it to explode. If anything shorts, you have no current. Things quickly short when they are overloaded (I mean electrically, but also structurally) and overheated. Ask any electrical engineer you want, they will tell you the same thing.

"Under tons of pressure" is a totally baseless assumption on top of a totally baseless assumption. All weight would do anyway is smash the transformer, probably break the circuit somehow and prevent current flow if anything. At any rate it wouldn't HELP current flow!! Transformers aren't inherently explosive like dynamite or C4. I hope you realize that. They only spew molten materials when they are faced with enormous current, and there aren't many things that would cause that, which is why transformers rarely explode in real life despite there being 1000's of them everywhere.

I've seen numerous safety videos regarding electrical equipment, how to handle it, how it works, etc. I'm an electronics major, though not an electrician, I still know a thing or two about the physical phenomena you're referring to. I don't KNOW that a transformer didn't explode in there, but I find it extremely unlikely that it would happen and no one would see or hear it to report it. Hell, I find it unlikely to begin with. And of course there is no evidence of it at all. If there were such a problem it would persist until the power was cut to it, and it would be very bright and very loud and would produce a LOT of smoke.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I don't KNOW that a transformer didn't explode in there, but I find it extremely unlikely that it would happen and no one would see or hear it to report it. Hell, I find it unlikely to begin with. And of course there is no evidence of it at all. If there were such a problem it would persist until the power was cut to it, and it would be very bright and very loud and would produce a LOT of smoke.




Building with the amount of materials, equipment, machinery, and even population of a small town hit by the equivalent of a giant bomb and absolute chaos and turmoil with raging fires.

And you talk about what would be expected to be seen by witnesses.


Not even worth discussing this any more as it just continues to deviate from reality.


Mike



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Building with the amount of materials, equipment, machinery, and even population of a small town hit by the equivalent of a giant bomb and absolute chaos and turmoil with raging fires.

And you talk about what would be expected to be seen by witnesses.


If you're arguing against witness testimony, does that mean you're never going to bring it up against conspiracy theorists again? Or are you a hypocrite? If there was a small town in there you'd think SOMEONE would have seen a transformer bellowing smoke, sparks, and generating bomb-like explosions. If someone could miss this then SURELY someone could miss an isolated bomb exploding within the building.

The meat of my argument here is based on the fact that things will short electrically much sooner in any situation than they are going to allow for a massive amount of current to be transferred, and a massive amount of current is the only way to make a transformer explode (without explosives
). It just isn't going to happen, because as soon as that current gets so high it's shorted out by something, if not a breaker then just by the effects that will quickly be created. Just the HEATING caused by the current would cause wiring to short.

And if not, like I said, if people can miss something like this, they can miss a bomb going off too.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The meat of my argument here is based on the fact that things will short electrically much sooner in any situation than they are going to allow for a massive amount of current to be transferred, and a massive amount of current is the only way to make a transformer explode (without explosives
).



A note about this form of nano-energetic compound:

This highly energetic compound can be activated electrically, negating the need for a conventional activation mechanism (wires,detonators, etc.). Many high-grade thermates can be activated in this manner.

A sufficient charge need only be applied to a single point on the metal framework to initiate the reactions this destructive compound disguised as fireproofing throughout the entirety of the areas where it is applied - and would do so almost instantaneously due to the conductive nature of the metal framework of the buildings. No detonators would be required.

Perhaps the transformers shorted because their last use was to deliver a charge powerful enough to ensure total activation of the thermate recently applied to the iron skeleton of the building under the guise of fireproofing.


[edit on 2-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
There was bombs place in the WTC, how I know this is because the same officials who were behind this are behind the swine flew pandemic. They used the media to lie to us while they raked in billions of dollars in profits from the drug manufactures, to no bid contracts for the oil companies’ and millions in weapons sells. I don’t need the government to tell me what I was supposed to have seen on TV when I saw the WTC explode into fragments and dust, I know what I saw. Nevertheless, the government is trying to tell you that YOUR eyes are lying to you, the US government says TRUST us, we know what happened, and we will not lie to you. (suckers!) When buildings fall down they collapse, or pancake and the buildings never fall just perfectly, not every floor joist is going to break at the same time it is imposable. What we saw on 911 with the WTC was outward and upward explosions hurling steel beams up to 600 feet in all directions and pulverizing all the concrete to a fine dust and leaving a mushroom cloud in the air.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
It would help this discussion if we all were to actually read the findings.Earthfiles has a good synopsis,for the short of attention span.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Especially read the part about the droplets of iron being formed perfectly round IN THE AIR.Not under a pile of compressed rubble.I don't have to prove what happened,that's what a real investigation will be for.I can show what didn't happen according to consensus reality.And I have seen little berries of molten steel a plenty.Force is what forms them and what propels their trajectory.Amp up and you get smaller berries cast further away.Arc welding is thousands of degrees but the berries are much larger than the Jones' samples.Ergo the power source for these is orders of magnitude greater.Wonder if any of these are found in other steel frame buildings collapsed by fire.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Works fine when your audience of the converted has high school physics.



True.

Honestly in only takes a basic understanding of physics and chemistry to understand that the official story is physically impossible.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Warbaby
reply to post by bsbray11
 


How about eyewitness accounts? Never seems to make much difference to people, few of whom were actually there or saw anything other than doctored videos on conspiracy sites.


Which videos have been doctored? Please link me to ALL THE DOCTORED videos I have been watching. I can guarantee you that if they are doctored, then each and every news agency is going on the chopping block since that is where all the footage I see comes from. I am very interested in just how duped I have been so could you please point out all of these doctored videos?


The real question is, why are you so sure something other than terrorists (all identified, including Moussaoui, who admitted to the plot-


The real question is how you can believe that any terrorists from either of those planes was identified. I really need to understand just exactly how that was done as well.

More imporatantly. I am willing to put $50,000 US down that says if you come visit me and I get to use the exact same "enhanced interrogation techniques" on you, I will get you to confess to it as well. Please U2U me so I can get you the info you need to get here.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Bottom Line:

Discrepancies exist between what we were told happened by the PTB, and what was reported happening during and after the events by independent research groups, eyewitnesses, and some government agencies (FEMA)

Short Example:

It was reported that a 747 slid across the field in front of the pentagon and hit it. And yet, the lawn in front of the crash site was pristine. Take a quick moment to look up some plane crash pictures. Does the ground where it hit and slid look pristine? I think not. An odd discrepancy if I do say so myself.

Not claiming to be an expert, not claiming to know everything, just saying

what "we know we know" is tiny compared to "what we know we don't know" and indescribably small when compared to "what we don't know we don't know."



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join