It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by rand27
I know the truth behind 9/11.......GET READY.... Two planes crashed in to the World Trade Center......The only conspiracy is the one perpetrated by Al Quada. The level of stupidity on this topic never ceases to amaze me.
I think you'll find that the coal that burns at 1700 degrees C underground doesn't burn at 1700 degrees C above ground. Here is a picture of coal burning at 850 degrees F which is only about 450 degrees C. The photographer says the normal combustion temperature for coal is only 700-1000 degrees F so 850 degrees is a typical value in the middle of that range.
Originally posted by Ciphor
Otherwise I don't really get your point... No coal was found in ground zero and to my knowledge, no coal like substances were found either. Sulfur and oxidization is the only real possibility and it has been proven that sulfur alone does not suffice.
They aren't metallurgists testing the piles of molten metal they see, so if they say they see a pile of molten metal I believe them, if they see it's steel I ask how they know it's steel and not some other metal.
First, are you implying that hundreds of eye witness are not creditable as sources? Not only are they witnesses, they are FIRE FIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS.
Who are you calling a "smug chuclehead"? The guy who describes the 10 pictures or the person whose post you replied to (Gaderel)? I don't see anything wrong with the description of the 10 photos, though they may not prove what you want them to prove, it's only 10 photos.
Originally posted by largo
reply to post by Gaderel
So what did this smug chuclehead prove?
Originally posted by wcitizen
Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
The "molten steel" image is a fake:
notice how the firefighters are in the exact same positions.
Thanks for providing those photos, that's very interesting.
Does anyone happen to have a source for the 'fakes'?
edit on 17-9-2010 by wcitizen because: text moved
Originally posted by neformore
Just another thought on this "thermite" claim.
We've established that thermite carries its own oxidant - yes?
And we've also establised that a reaction could spark if thermite is exposed to heat to trigger it - yes?
And I think we ought to establish that once the reaction is triggered, nothing is going to stop it from happening because - as is noted - thermite will react even if it is exposed to water.
What no one has explained is why - if as claimed by some - thermite was used - the supposed reaction became self sustaining.
It wouldn't be. It would ignite, oxidise, burn out and then begin to cool in one go as soon as all the oxidant was used up - and anything sufficiently far enough away from the heat source would never reach temperature to ignite anyway.
Originally posted by ariel bender
It is a terrible event, but there are no conspiracies or secret teams of spies placing thermite charges on key locations. Any engineer or metallurgist can review the design, materials, stress and metal fatigue that occurs when A36 Steel is exposed to high heat for sustained period.
Smaller. Cheaper. Nastier. Those are the guiding principles behind the military's latest bombs. The secret ingredient: nanotechnology that makes for a bigger boom.
Nanometric aluminum powder is known to react more rapidly than
conventional, micron-size aluminum grades in propellant and explosive
compositions. Defence Research and Development Canada - Valcartier
(DRDC-V) and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO)
are collaborating to assess the potential of nanometric aluminum powders
in explosive compositions. Various plastic-bonded explosives (PBXs) and
TNT-based formulations have been developed to compare ultrafine and
conventional micron-sized aluminum.
Explosive performance was
determined by VoD measurements and plate dent depth tests. The study
was also complemented by air-blast tests to evaluate the difference in
energy release in the far-field. It was found that for PBX compositions, no
significant differences were observed between formulations containing
micron-sized and nanometric aluminum. For mixes of TNT and aluminum,
an improvement was noted in the velocity of detonation and in plate dent
depths using ultrafine aluminum. Aquarium tests were run on TNT/Al
blends to confirm the improvement observed, to evaluate the relative
performance of the different sizes of aluminum and to qualify the behavior
of the aluminum in such an explosive.
Originally posted by airspoon
There has been some debate as to whether molten steel was found in the WTC rubble, with most official conspiracy theorists arguing that molten steel is a myth. It would seem that it is pretty difficult to debunk the issue of molten steel, so instead of even considering it, ignoring it and/or denying it seems to be preferred.
A common argument made by most OCTs (Official Conspiracy Theorists), is that we can't claim both thermite/thermate reactions and explosions, since thermite doesn't explode. They argue that we must pick one or the other, as both certainly wouldn't be used.
My simple rebuttal is that there is no reason to suggest that both processes couldn't be used or even combined.
Google Video Link
Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by neformore
Rather, you have to maintain certain standards, then have your work scrutinized by experts in the same field as your work. It is a pretty rigorous -and difficult- process that many criticize for various reasons relating to the difficulty of getting scholarly work through the process.
A peer reviewed scientific paper has been published, by Prof. Steven Jones, describing the thermitic material found in the dust from the 9/11 tragedy. It would be presumptuous and arbitrarily poumpus of us to assume that we know better than a community of experts in this very field of study. So, with that and without our own respective studies on that material, it would hard to credibly argue against such material. If we can humble ourselves enough to agree with that, then we can at least agree that the material was found and there is at least a high probability that the study is accurate,
Unless we have done a study ourselves, it is pretty hard to argue against a peer-reviewed and published study and it is even harder to argue against an investigation based on that study. Am I right?
Perspective From Below Ground Zero...ecmweb.com...
Nov 1, 2001 12:00 PM, By Joseph R. Knisley, Senior Editorial Consultant
The N and R subway lines, which run along the east side of the WTC, are back in service.
However, it could take years to rebuild an 800-ft-long stretch of the 1 and 9 IRT subway tunnel, which lies several feet below Ground Zero. Depending on the final reconstruction plan for the site above, rebuilding could include a new alignment of the tracks and station. Restoring service on the flooded PATH tubes to New Jersey
->largely depends on rebuilding the collapsed station in the middle of the basement of the WTC.