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.

 

Independent Researcher Confirms Active Thermitic Material In WTC Dust

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by muggl3z
 


nope! thermite is not an explosive.
It is an incendiary.

Gah! Right you are. Still...




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by muggl3z
 


No prob!


It happens!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Preston,
I often read threads and don’t post on them. I often don’t read threads on 911 because they are repetitious or for the purpose of mutual admiration of a poster subset. Sometimes, when I read them I have nothing to add. Sometimes, they are so ridiculous and so populated with true believers that it is pointless to comment at all. These two threads fall into the ridiculous category. The laminae of steel and concrete shown can be readily explained by the collapse and is not evidence of molten metal. As to John Gross, I don’t speak for him or NIST about anything. Maybe he didn’t see any molten metal. Ask him about it if you are concerned.
Certainly, slow burning underground fires can be exceptionally hot and can melt metal. That would be the only way that the metal would melt and remain so for any length of time. Molten metal, if present in the rubble days and weeks later would not prove any conspiracy, just that there were underground fires burning.
Why do you think NIST was involved in demolition using thermite, nano- , micro-, milli-, or macro? Has thermite been proven to be the cause of collapse? Many military and GOCO labs were working on energetic materials, why not point the finger at them? ExxonMobil sells flammable hydrocarbons. Are they conspirators in every fire?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Certainly, slow burning underground fires can be exceptionally hot and can melt metal.

How? Only furnaces with controlled conditions can melt steel. How do fires underground and oxygen-starved even begin to get hot enough to melt steel without an accelerant or oxygen source?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


The only underground fires that anyone has any experience with are coal mine fires. Temperatures in some are estimated to be in excess of 1400*C which is hot enough to melt many metals. These fires burn for years and are nearly impossible to extinguish.
Certainly, the WTC fires had much less fuel available but weeks of burning in a closed system would produce higher temperatures than would have be achieved in an open fire.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by muggl3z
 




Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive


Pg.21 - www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Unless your "oxygen" source comes from Iron Oxide!


(as you already know, just wanted to drive that point home!)



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Are you implying that thermite would react and stay hot for months without any additional thermal input? It wouldn't. While it is possible that CO from the underground fires could react with iron oxide, iron oxide would not provide oxygen for any sort of combustion. In fact, hot iron in the presence of steam would produce hydrogen and iron oxide and erosion of the metal would be noticeable.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join