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.

 

Thermite Search Protocol - US Law

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
We know regular themite works - we also know that it would have taken tons of the stuff to do what you think it would have done, plus with no easy way to initiate it.


So it would take tons and tons of thermite to do what you all claim office fires did?

Yeah OK...




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by hooper
We know regular themite works - we also know that it would have taken tons of the stuff to do what you think it would have done, plus with no easy way to initiate it.


So it would take tons and tons of thermite to do what you all claim office fires did?

Yeah OK...


No, to do what you claim it did. Remember, you don't think that the falling upper floors of the tower would have crushed, disassembled, etc. the lower floors of the tower, ergo, each of the lower floors would have needed to be rigged with nanothermite.

Unless you are telling me that you believe the falling upper section of the tower would have crushed the lower floors as we saw on 9/11 then all we need to do is weaken or remove enough of the structural members on a intervening floor to cause the two sections to collide by force of gravity.

Which was done by virtue of crashing a huge jetliner into them, filled with highly flammable jet fuel at an enormous rate of speed, say 400+ miles per hour. Thus casuing, as you so coyly put it "small office fires".

You take your pick.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Actually, you have to have the same resistance underneath the falling portion as you do in free air in order for the building to not fall to one side or another.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


OH OH OH!!!111!11!! I pick thermite!!!



Wanna tell us what force stopped this upper section from tilting further/falling off?

Wanna tell us how this upper sectoin crushed 1000 feet of tower vertically,
while having angular momentum?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Which was done by virtue of crashing a huge jetliner into them, filled with highly flammable jet fuel at an enormous rate of speed, say 400+ miles per hour. Thus casuing, as you so coyly put it "small office fires".

You take your pick.


You need to learn to read, I did not say SMALL fires.

Yes it does sound so dramatic when put in the sensational way you do, but sorry science deals with facts not emotions.

Jet fuel burns very quickly, and doesn't burn as hot as you assume. After all the fuel was burned off, which happened before the collapse, all that was left was office furniture. All fuels burn at a certain temperature, and only in a controlled environment will that fuel burn at it's max temperature. So the fuel would not have burned at the listed max burn temp, as that is temp under controlled conditions. The smoke from the WTC turned black over time, which indicates the fire was lacking in oxygen and thus the fire was cooling down. There would not be enough thermal energy to heat up thousand of tons of massive columns to cause them to fail.

A candle flame burns at 1000C, that's pretty hot, but do you think you could cause steel to heat up enough to fail with a candle flame? Obviously not because even though it's hot there is not enough thermal energy to pass enough heat to the steel. The fires in the towers got nowhere near 1000C, abd I believe NIST found nothing over 250C. Not enough thermal energy to cause construction steel to fail.

And again even if it was, steel does not instantly collapse from heat, please show me an example of this happening. It fails over time, and you expect me to believe carbon fire for an hour on 15% of the floors would cause the other 85% to instantly fail and collapse into the path of most resistance. Sorry but if you believe that physics is not your strong point.

Construction steel will not fail from carbon fires. Do you think the engineers are that stupid to keep building high rises with a material that would collapse from carbon fires?

Trust me the steel used in construction is tested to make sure this won't happen. It's quit easy to do, you could test it yourself if you really want to learn something. But seeing as you're arguing for the governments story you must have already done your research, no?

Sorry but you have been lied to, your government is not being truthful in what it is trying to sell you. An unbiased understanding of the physics involved makes this obvious.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 

Arthur Scheuerman, Battalion Chief FDNY (Ret.), Former Instructor Nassau County Fire Training Academy and high-rise Fire Safety Director NYC, states:
There is increasing evidence that the fire was the main cause of the collapse of the WTC Towers and there were serious design, construction and fire protection deficiencies that made the building unusually susceptible to fire. This report is my contribution to determining
the causes of the large life loss and building collapse in the Towers, in hopes of developing design parameters and code changes to mitigate such hazards.
The most probable cause and mechanism of collapse of the Towers is presently under contention. There are two main theories of collapse, one based on core column damage from the aircraft collision and subsequent core column failure from the heat of the fire, and the other from the effects of the fire on the steel bar joist, floor trusses. Due to the strong
emotions evoked by the tragedy, a bias naturally affects the perception of the causes of the collapse. Each theory stems from the position an analyst is in. Those in the building industry naturally feel their work is the best possible and gravitate to defending their design and construction work and tend to emphasize the aircraft as causing the most damage and being mostly responsible for the collapse. Some are not expecting building deficiencies and are, therefore not looking for, and are, naturally, less likely to find any design or construction flaws.
downloads.pennnet.com...

The conspiracy and coverup don't have anything to do with nanothermite and deathrays from space bringing down the towers. Impact, fire, and lax enforcement of fire codes did it and the coverup is the neglect of the fire codes during construction.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by hooper
 


Actually, you have to have the same resistance underneath the falling portion as you do in free air in order for the building to not fall to one side or another.


Not in this universe. Maybe where you live that's true but here its a little different. Things don't go careening off to the side the nanosecond they encounter any resistance that is greater than zero.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Can you show me proof, other than internet quotes, that carbon fire can cause construction steel to fail?

I dismiss your quote on the grounds of appealing to authority.

Do you understand any of this enough to show evidence of your claims without appealing to authority? Can you explain, in your own words, how office fires caused thousand of tons of construction steel to instantly and symmetrically collapse.

You're not debating with any real knowledge of science but from a refusal to believe your government would do such a thing. That's dangerous thinking.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by pteridine
 


Can you show me proof, other than internet quotes, that carbon fire can cause construction steel to fail?

I dismiss your quote on the grounds of appealing to authority.

Do you understand any of this enough to show evidence of your claims without appealing to authority? Can you explain, in your own words, how office fires caused thousand of tons of construction steel to instantly and symmetrically collapse.

You're not debating with any real knowledge of science but from a refusal to believe your government would do such a thing. That's dangerous thinking.


1) Steel is the product of "carbon fire".

2) You've unilaterally categorized the fires as "office fires" therefore negating the existance of jet fuel without offering direct evidence to support this assumption.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Yea, it's getting to the point where they want you to believe someone with 150 bullet holes died from getting hit by lightening. The thermate chips are the bullet casings, littering the ground.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by KleptoPsychotic
reply to post by turbofan
 


Yea, it's getting to the point where they want you to believe someone with 150 bullet holes died from getting hit by lightening. The thermate chips are the bullet casings, littering the ground.


Caareful now, those are chips of super-nano-thermite. Not just ordinary, garden variety thermite. Just a few tablespoons will bring down the WTC.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
2) You've unilaterally categorized the fires as "office fires" therefore negating the existance of jet fuel without offering direct evidence to support this assumption.




WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane. Remember?

Maybe you guys should think before posting and come up with a theory
that accounts for ALL of the evidence...not just some of it.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


No. There is a reason I capitalized the word "IF"



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
1) Steel is the product of "carbon fire".


I should have said open air carbon fire to be fully correct but...

Steel is the product of controlled direct heat which has to reach extremely high temps to produce steel, far above the temps reached in an office fire.

You obviously don't understand the concept of thermal exchange, heat moving from a warm object to a cold one. For the steel to heat up would require direct heat to produce enough thermal energy for heat exchange from the fire to the steel. So any fire not directly connecting the steel is not going to heat up that steel to any degree, so all your office fire was not directly effecting the steel, only the fire directly connecting to the steel.


2) You've unilaterally categorized the fires as "office fires" therefore negating the existance of jet fuel without offering direct evidence to support this assumption.


What assumption? The characteristics of fuels is well known, your ignorance of science is the problem, not any assumptions by me. If you have a problem with assumptions try the NIST report, it's whole hypothesis is based on assumptions.

They were office fires, what else would they be once the fuel burned off?

From your own side of the debate...


Engineering professor Forman Williams will say the jet fuel “burned for maybe 10 minutes.” (Chertoff et al. 3/2005)



most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperatures above 250ºC NIST



However you look at it there would not have been enough thermal energy in those fires to cause global failure of thousands of tons of construction steel designed to withstand fires (and bombs, remember 1993?).

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Please tell me exactly how many tons of "construction steel" needed to fail, unless of course you think that every piece of steel in the towers needed to be compromised by heat in order to initiate the collapse, in which case we have to go back to the drawing board with this.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Yeah its called gravity, and it is particularly unforgiving, constant and instantaneous.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Please tell me exactly how many tons of "construction steel" needed to fail, unless of course you think that every piece of steel in the towers needed to be compromised by heat in order to initiate the collapse, in which case we have to go back to the drawing board with this.


For the towers to symmetrically and globally collapse with NO resistance then YES all connection would have to fail instantly and at the same time.

There is NO evidence of gradual failure, and there is NO precedence for fire causing global collapse.

If the steel didn't fail it would have created resistance, which would have slowed the collapse as apposed to it accelerating as if in a vaccuum.

The connections and columns (the columns telescoped so yes they failed (to remain standing)) all failed ahead of the collapse wave, if they hadn't then the collapse would have slowed due to resistance as apposed to accelerating through the path of most resistance.

Falling objects take the path of least resistance always. So why did the top of WTC2 not continue in it's path of least resistance and suddenly decide to take the path of most resistance? Please think about that question for awhile.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join