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.

 

Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 49
172
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by prepare4it777
Will you answer my questions?

1) Do you believe fire was the official cause for the collapse of WTC7?

2) What are the blast of smoke down the right side of the WTC7 just preior to its complete and simultaneous collapse?


Because, at this time, there is no evidence for any other cause, it must be concluded that the explanations put forward in the NIST report are the causes.

The dust or smoke being expelled from windows during the collapse of WTC 7 is likely from the internal structure failing immediately before total collapse is initiated. This is consistent with the NIST report.




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


All I can say is wow.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by prepare4it777
 


Wow, indeed. My conclusions are based on evidence and not heresay or opinions based on youtube videos.
We have evidence of fires, we have evidence of damage due to impact. We know about the unusual structure of WTC7 that would make it susceptible to damage.
There is no evidence of demolition charges or associated equipment. The evidence is what our conclusions must be based on. If you have new evidence, please bring it forward and I will change my conclusions to reflect such evidence.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Well can you please explain to us how the people were standing and leaning against the girders at the WTC's "hottest" point where the "steel was melting at" waving to all of us? Also how did those couple of small fires cause every floor to completely detach at the exact same time in WTC7? The fire theory does not add up on that instance.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by prepare4it777]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by prepare4it777
 


Good job lucky 7

I think I made a suggestion about this building 7 approach a while back in the thread.
Isn't is strange that all dines buddies left him to dis (spin) this all by his lonesome.
You know someone has to do it. Somebody raised there hand and said
I will do what ever you direct me to do.
I have given my mind and soul to do your bidding. Please remember me when it is time for a salary review.
I wish I knew how to use those round laughing guys.
There used to be talk about some kind of lightening.
yeah LIGHTINING maybe that took that baby down.
If everyone stays with 7 the disinfo gl will crumble.
You will see them pull every trick in the manual.
As dine's sig says when they find the truth beware.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by prepare4it777
reply to post by pteridine
 


Well can you please explain to us how the people were standing and leaning against the girders at the WTC's "hottest" point where the "steel was melting at" waving to all of us? Also how did those couple of small fires cause every floor to completely detach at the exact same time in WTC7? The fire theory does not add up on that instance.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by prepare4it777]


Apparently it wasn't the hottest point. No one claimed the steel was melting. The floor joists were sagging and pulled the sides inward immediately before collapse. This must be a very special demolition to do that.
In WTC7, there were internal collapses before the total collapse. Look at the vaunted videos and explain the loss of a penthouse 15 seconds before the collapse...and add 15 seconds to the free fall collapse time. How did things shear? One may invoke thermal expansion; I did the calculation on a earlier thread and came up with 5" movement on one of the 50' cantilevers. Do you think that would be enough to shear 3/4" bolts? As to the theory adding up for you -- it may not. You need a conspiracy. What you don't have is physical evidence of controlled demolition. All you have are videos and a hunch.
If, instead of explosives, the bolts sheared and started a cascade collapse, how would you be able to tell the difference between that and a demolition? Would the effects be the same? In the absence of physical evidence of demolition the conclusion must be that the impact and fires caused the collapse.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Donny, you seem to be one that's found the truth that others should beware of. Do you think Jones found thermite?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Talking with you is completely hopeless. Your refutes are lol'able in the face of logic and common sense.

I'll tell you what, I will up the stakes and add $500 of my own to the bet for you to debate Jones and beat him in the debate which makes the total funds $1,000 now.

Quit debating us and debate him.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by prepare4it777]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


dine
The government has hastily removed the physical evidence of building 7.
It has not supplied any type of reason for it's destruction but the order from Silverman to "pull it"
All evidence points to demolition by whatever means. No one can refute these facts especially you with your baseless arguments.
Keep it coming the people love it. Or better yet see the light and vie for a REINVESTIGATION. That's all we are here for.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by prepare4it777
reply to post by pteridine
 


Talking with you is completely hopeless. Your refutes are lol'able in the face of logic and common sense.

Quit debating us and debate him.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by prepare4it777]


You are just frustrated that there is absolutely no evidence of demolition. Gut feelings, that which you call evidence, logic, and common sense, are what drives the "truth" movement. Physical evidence is what is needed to claim demolition and there is none. Refutation of the fantasizer evidence is simple because there is none.
Jones claims that red chips purportedly discovered in the dust are thermitic, even though a layer of thermite that thin would be almost impossible to ignite and would do virtually nothing in the way of demolition. I believe that he has discovered paint. He says that he has new information and will publish a paper correcting the many mistakes and lapses of his previous paper. In previous posts, I said that I would read that paper before entering into any debate as discussing the existing Bentham paper would be pointless, given its many faults.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by pteridine
 


dine
The government has hastily removed the physical evidence of building 7.
It has not supplied any type of reason for it's destruction but the order from Silverman to "pull it"
All evidence points to demolition by whatever means. No one can refute these facts especially you with your baseless arguments.
Keep it coming the people love it. Or better yet see the light and vie for a REINVESTIGATION. That's all we are here for.


If the Government removed the evidence what do you plan to reinvestigate? Carefully edited videos from blogs?

The NIST report has provided an explanation that you reject because it doesn't suit your fantasies. There is no evidence that points to demolition and there are no "facts" to refute. There is speculation of demolition but it is based on interpretation of videos by those that watch too many disaster movies.
You ask for reinvestigation. Who would do such a reinvestigation and what material would they reinvestigate? Jones' paint chips? What if the conclusion was no demolition and that the towers fell as initially explained? Could those seeking the truth accept such contradiction to their predetermined conclusions?
If this movement is so pervasive, Congress should be swamped with requests by constituents and would surely appropriate funds for another investigation. If the investigators that they select are too disinterested to provide your desired conclusions, the movement should collect money for its own reinvestigation. Given what is claimed, one dollar from each person who questions the conclusions should easily cover many areas of study and the untrustworthy government will not have to be involved at all.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Here is something for you to dine on-----

Complements or TakeOverWorld

OPERATION NORTHWOODS below
Proposed by the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer, the 1962 document called for the US Military-Intell-Special Forces to secretly carry out acts of violence against Americans, to be blamed on Cuba. The intention was to create support for US military action against Cuba, ultimately to engage the USSR, hopefully in a "winnable" nuclear war which would only kill 170 million Americans.
One of the many shocking proposals included blowing up drone aircraft that would be falsely reported to be full of college students on a holiday.
ABC News reported in May of 2001, "US Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba". Although this plan never came to fruition, it highlights the intentions of the highest military chiefs to intentionally kill American citizens to realize political and military goals. Additionally, it shows that back in 1962 they were thinking about their capacity to use hijacked or remote-controlled commercial airliners to stage high profile terror attacks.
ORIGINAL NORTHWOODS DOCUMENT
A high-level plan to stage terrorist attacks on civilians in U.S. cities, by definition Northwoods was a secret conspiracy.
Suppose you found a typed, signed contract proposal to murder you and your family. Would you ignore it because it was "just one proposal"? This was how some people responded to these facts. Baffling state of denial.
OPERATION NORTHWOODS a detailed look with photos

Terrorist Attacks Planned By The American Joint Chief Of Staff Against Its Population end

Debunk this.
special thanks to Golden Fleese ats member



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Forget it guys, you are trying to reason with disinfo perps.

Learn to ignore them (pt and gen); these guys think sun can reflect on
one sheet of glass out of hundreds on the same building


These guys think windows pop out of buildings for no reason, and they're
not even on fire!



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Possible method of destruction for Twins:


Dr. Stephen Jones, in the video interview, notes that he contacted demolitions experts, and said that the total WTC1 and WTC2 would only take around 1000 pounds for each of the WTC1 or WTC2 of thermite/thermate. He describes it as an example of "10 separate 40 lb. trips into the WTC towers (400 lbs.), for 5 people", etc. Hardly difficult to do. Thermite/thermate burns well over 1000C more than steel's melting temperature, thus the thermite "super heat" explains the durable molten pools well after six weeks [!] sitting there attempting to cool down from 1000C+ more than was required in the first place to melt steel.

He additionally describes in the interview a patent from 1999 that his team found for a thermite "linear cutting system" Quoting his interview:

Dr. Stephen Jones: "[An] important point is that therimte can be...designed to either cut throuth steel without explosion...called an incendiary....[D]evices at least since 1999 [exist]...to have thermite come out essentially as a hot slicing molten iron...knife that will cut through thick steel...And we've dug out that patent....So you have this device that holds the thermite and lets it go out in such a way that it will cut through steel; it's called a "linear cutting system" and...that fits exactly with what we see. [From other things he says earlier, concerning the spalling metal melt (now solidified) that you can see in some pictures of damaged steel in the WTC demolition, there is only visual evidence of dripping in and out of the box columns for instance with an 'insta-melt'--without evidence of the whole column being buckled under uniform heat which is what the Bush false conspiracy theory requires. Instead, heat is only applied in one small "knife through butter" steel location in a line, which is indicative of thermite as well."


Old news, but describes methods and quantities which are far from the
twists skewed by GL's
Source: portland.indymedia.org...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Old news. Planned, as are many contingencies, but never acted on. Dredged up as "proof" by those desperate for attention but as proof it is the equivalent of a Hollywood movie plot that was never filmed.

You still have not answered my previous post. You are demanding a reinvestigation but you have no idea what will be reinvestigated or who will do it. Check your favorite websites and see if they tell you what you should ask for and how you will justify it. So far, you have no basis for a reinvestigation. The something-for-truth groups have been taking money from true believers for a while and you have nothing to show for it. Send money to Jones to help him with expenses of his lab studies. At least you'll see something other than some the tired old rehash of edited videos that are themselves tired old videos.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


It would be interesting to ask said experts in demolition of large buildings with thermite exactly what questions Jones posed to them and what boundaries were set. The quantity is exceptionally low and no mention was made of charge placement or containment. The charges would have to be judiciously placed and carefully timed as there is not enough to burn through more than a few steel columns. Of course, collapse induced by destroying a few key columns would appear to be a catastrophic event very similar to what happened and indistinguishable from failure by fire. This would not look like any sort of controlled demolition previously seen so that all those comparisons with videos of commercial CD's are really as pointless as many have been claiming.
Jones' next paper will be very interesting as in the last he estimated ten tons of red chip thermite were scattered throughout the dust. If only 400 pounds of super thermite was used, what do you think the red chips could be?



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Actually, I am here to educate you so you don't continue to fill the thread with the teachings of denial and disinformation. God knows you are good at it.
Denying the signifance of false flag operations and "Pull it" orders by the owner of the building ond changing the subject is denial 101.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


You are not educating, you are repeating fantasies from the truther websites.
What will be reinvestigated and who will do it?



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
People would ask you for evidence and you would trot out the same tired interpretations that you call evidence that aren't.


Nope, completely wrong, if someone with eyes, opened, no rose tinted specs, nor government allegiance for God knows what reason, asked me for evidence of explosions, I would show them this and ask simply `Where have the 20-30 storeys gone that should be beneath that antenna?`, their reply would be `Uhm i`m no rocket scientist but my guess is, they are now that 1000`s of tons dust with 100`s of steel beams being ejected in a 360 degree expulsion`...



You do not think this is evidence of explosions?.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Why is this evidence of explosives? The top of the building is intact as the rest collapses under it.
If explosives were used to scatter this amount of material there would have been no question that they were used as the amount of explosive to do this would have been exceptionally large. Did the videos show high explosive shock waves or record the high levels of sound from explosions?




top topics



 
172
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join