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.

 

South Tower Video - Discuss

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
There was reports of molten metal. It was not analyzed at anytime to see if it were steel or not.


I present the FEMA report Appendix C:

www.fema.gov...

What was that about no molten metal? What was that about no molten steel? What was that about no steel being analyzed at anytime?




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
He's can't be a demo guy using those observations. How about the South
tower? No "sledgehammer" there; it started tipping over and fell off axis.

How do you figure it was able to slide away from the core columns and
break apart before the rest of the tower began to move?




Look at that, the top portion lost about 1/3 of its size before any "crushing"
began




Don't worry about the photo and video evidence though



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
"It was not analyzed at anytime to see if it were steel or not."

Largest alleged terrorist attack on mainland USA and the bozo investigators did not do an analysis on the material? Maybe they were too busy watching that clown Gallagher.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

What was that about no molten metal? What was that about no molten steel? What was that about no steel being analyzed at anytime?


The metal that was allegedly witnessed in a molten state was not analyzed.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
He's can't be a demo guy using those observations. How about the South
tower? No "sledgehammer" there; it started tipping over and fell off axis.

How do you figure it was able to slide away from the core columns and
break apart before the rest of the tower began to move?



Please watch the close up of the South Tower and it collapses. Please point out the explosions. Also, please explain to us what should have happened with the South Tower's collapse.

Thank you!



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 





Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry

3rd, being a demo guy, If this was the result of Jet Fuel and Damage, why is there evidence of molten steel in the dust from the WTC ?



1st of all. It was a combination of Fire, Damage, and dislodged fireproofing. Jet fuel acted as an accelerant.

There was reports of molten metal. It was not analyzed at anytime to see if it were steel or not. There was not any molten steel found in the dust. That sounds like Space Chimp- Judy Woods and her "dustification" crap.



Your right, My apologies, there was not evidence of molten steel, but rather Molten Iron and Lead, and vaporized Lead.




J Lee group who were hired by lawyers for Deutsche Bank to do tests on the Dust for environmental/cleanup reasons. "Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)." page 21/34 "In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event. Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust." page 23/34 "Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event." page 25/34 "The presence of lead oxides on the surface of mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the surface of mineral wool." page 25/34



RJ Lee Group

For lead to be vaporized the temperatures would have been over 1750 Celsius
www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

1750 Celsius =3182 Fahrenheit
www.mathsisfun.com...

Iron melts at around 1535 deg Celsius

But, tell chimp lady to start singing!




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Only a 'paid government shill' or a 'dis-info agent' would look at that video and say that was a normal collapse....

It's obvious that the buildings were brought down by controlled explosives....

So, you got to ask yourself, "why are people still defending the OS?"
(for answer read first line)

PEACE ans LOVE...



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
spot on rainfall...

and it seems to rile them to a point where they get really angry...!!

The towers came down because they were "pulled" down....

...ask Silverstein, he will tell you.

And arguing otherwise, using nastiness or not, does not change the facts one iota....

Personally i find these people tell some big lies....which now that i think of it, the US govt seems to do a lot of too....

...is it possible therefore that there is a connection between the two??





posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainfall
Only a 'paid government shill' or a 'dis-info agent' would look at that video and say that was a normal collapse....

It's obvious that the buildings were brought down by controlled explosives....

So, you got to ask yourself, "why are people still defending the OS?"
(for answer read first line)

PEACE ans LOVE...


I'm not gonna go that far as to say what or why, but I'm sure getting tired of being ignored.

This is the 3rd topic I've posted this specific info on and I'm ignored completely.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
One of my fav photos:




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by Nutter

What was that about no molten metal? What was that about no molten steel? What was that about no steel being analyzed at anytime?


The metal that was allegedly witnessed in a molten state was not analyzed.


It does not matter when we have half melted steel left over. If you had half an ice cube left sitting over a pool of some liquid, would you assume the liquid is mercury? No. You'd obviously know that at least some of it was water.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


And? I don't get your point. There were fires burning for days in various states of temperature. You had the entire contents of one of the largest structures on earth as a material sources both for fuel and combustibles. What is the big suprise that some metals were heated? Why does that indicate a conspiracy?



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
One of my fav photos:



Turbofan,

Once again, can you please comment on this 46 second video of the South Tower collapse.

Please point out for us:

- sounds of explosive
- video evidence of explosives

Pretty interesting that the collpase initiates right at the point of impact huh?

Thank you,

Dr.P




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper, I'm really getting tired of doing your reading for you.

How does one get molten steel ? IN THE DUST OF THE WTC ? Yes it was in the Dust read the RJ Lee group Report.


You guys are now in denial to the tenth degree. Remind me of little children who stick there hands in over there ears and go la la la la la la la la la la.


Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."
Guess the RJ Lee Group is a bunch of space chimps, I can sound this out for you guy's.



[edit on 17-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Please get a better video.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper, I'm really getting tired of doing your reading for you.

How does one get molten steel ? IN THE DUST OF THE WTC ? Yes it was in the Dust read the RJ Lee group Report.


You guys are now in denial to the tenth degree. Remind me of little children who stick there hands in over there ears and go la la la la la la la la la la.


Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."
Guess the RJ Lee Group is a bunch of space chimps, I can sound this out for you guy's.



[edit on 17-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]


Yes in the dust. Big f***** deal! It proves that metal was exposed to heat. Not exactly earth shattering news unless you add about ten layers of unfounded conspiracy nonsense.

Metal was exposed to heat and I guess the only source of heat was super nano-thermite, huh? Really, think these things through a little bit.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Please get a better video.


Evasion noted, Thank you!

Now, can enyone else point out where the explosions are in the South Tower collpase?

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper, I'm really getting tired of doing your reading for you.

How does one get molten steel ? IN THE DUST OF THE WTC ? Yes it was in the Dust read the RJ Lee group Report.


You guys are now in denial to the tenth degree. Remind me of little children who stick there hands in over there ears and go la la la la la la la la la la.


Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."
Guess the RJ Lee Group is a bunch of space chimps, I can sound this out for you guy's.



[edit on 17-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]


Yes in the dust. Big f***** deal! It proves that metal was exposed to heat. Not exactly earth shattering news unless you add about ten layers of unfounded conspiracy nonsense.

Metal was exposed to heat and I guess the only source of heat was super nano-thermite, huh? Really, think these things through a little bit.



Okie dokie, What in those buildings was capable of creating tempatures 3000 Degree's F

I didn't say it was nano-thermite. I don't know what it was. Shouldn't there be an investigation of this claim ??



THE WHOLE No WTC Demolition thing comes from the Government responding saying there is no evidence of Controlled demolition. Thus no investigation of such.

HOWEVER

When you have heat excess 3000 degree's that is evidence of controlled demolition.

To tell you the truth, I was once in your shoes, watch the original recording's of C-span, tell me if you come back with the same feelings.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
The top of the building came down like a sledge hammer. You can't ignore that with your wiseguy comments.


No it didn't. That is the whole point the OP is trying to make.

Look at this (WTC2)...



How does a tilting top, under angular momentum, suddenly act like a 'sledge hammer'? If you know your physics you would realise the top should have continued it's angular momentum. To change from angular momentum to a vertical fall, through the path of most resistance, would require an external force, as per Newtons laws. That would be a force external to the forces already acting on the building. Can you explain what the external force was?

(I know that is WTC2 but it applies to WTC1 also. The tilt of WTC2 just makes it more obvious that the official story you are clinging too is not a complete explanation of what happened.)

Edit; BTW you don't have to hear, or see, any kind of 'explosives'. Simple physics explains that some form of external force had to have acted on those buildings, otherwise they defy the laws of physics. That is enough to justify asking question of the official story, and if you don't see that then I doubt your credibility and arguing with you is pointless.

[edit on 11/17/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Please get a better video.


Evasion noted, Thank you!

Now, can enyone else point out where the explosions are in the South Tower collpase?

Thank you.


Pot meet kettle.

I've been noting yours for weeks.


And All I asked for was a better video.

So again, evasion noted.



[edit on 17-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join