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.

 

Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

page: 25
86
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I'm just curious as to how exactly you expect anyone to accomplish another investigation of 9/11. Do you want them to go over all the footage again, reviewing every detail, performing test after test after test (which they did in the NIST investigation)?

Did you know that the investigation would cost money? (GASP, I know!) Guess where the money comes from? Our pockets. Guess how much NIST spent in its investigation when the attack was still important to the government in determining why the towers collapsed? Millions of dollars!

So you would rather scrap the entire multi-million dollar investigation by NIST, cost tax payers millions, and likely have the investigators come to the exact same conclusion as before; all so you can feel better about 9/11. Though, I'm sure an investigation wouldn't do it. You'd just say it was government agents all over again. You would have to have some bias-minded engineers do the research, looking only for things they can compare to their idea and considering the rest to be just random happenstance.

The molten steel, molten material, etc. has been explained as possible by people who have actually dealt with just house fires that have collapsed. If they're getting molten and fused metal in a house fire, what about a jet fuel induced multi-floor office fire? It must not be convenient evidence that things are rationally explainable. They must be kept irrational in order to allow outlandish theories to make the slightest bit of sense.

Honestly, I don't have any clue how conspiracy theorists keep it up. It is a deliberate ignorance of rational evidence that keeps their theories going.

As I've said before, this doesn't mean there can't be a conspiracy going on. The government could have had something to do with the attack, maybe letting it happen and not expecting the result, maybe actually orchestrating the attack themselves. But the evidence all says that the towers collapsed because of planes, collapsing buildings, and fires.
edit on 11-10-2010 by Varemia because: punctuation correction




posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Originally posted by Varemia
I'm just curious as to how exactly you expect anyone to accomplish another investigation of 9/11. Do you want them to go over all the footage again, reviewing every detail, performing test after test after test (which they did in the NIST investigation)?

Did you know that the investigation would cost money? (GASP, I know!) Guess where the money comes from? Our pockets. Guess how much NIST spent in its investigation when the attack was still important to the government in determining why the towers collapsed? Millions of dollars!

So you would rather scrap the entire multi-million dollar investigation by NIST, cost tax payers millions, and likely have the investigators come to the exact same conclusion as before; all so you can feel better about 9/11. Though, I'm sure an investigation wouldn't do it. You'd just say it was government agents all over again. You would have to have some bias-minded engineers do the research, looking only for things they can compare to their idea and considering the rest to be just random happenstance.
...


So the reason for your intense emotional involvement in defending the OCS is the cost of an independent inquiry? This is money that could be better spent on 1 or 2 more drone aircraft for pounding the life out of people who had nothing to do with 9/11 but are suffering the consequences of our "war on terror." I see your point now. How frivolous of me!



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Devino
The molten material, for example, is evidence of something

No, the "molten material", not having been identified is proof of nothing.

You should know that the words "evidence" and "proof" are not the same. Yes this is "evidence of something". As for there being "Proof of nothing", well... that remains to be seen.


There is not in fact a single shred of evidence for any cd at the WTC, The Towers plainly collapsed from the plane impact points
...
In the whole site not a trace of any demolition paraphernalia has been discovered and, of course, not a soul has admitted to having any knowledge of or taking part in rigging the buildings.

First of all, from what I understand no one from the official investigation looked for any physical evidence, or "paraphernalia", so 'officially' you are correct yet that does not mean that it was not there. And secondly no one has ever been questioned in a court of law so why would anyone admit to anything? Again this is not evidence against anything.

If you truly believe the first part of this quote then why are you in this thread? Wouldn't it be correct to say that as far as you're concerned it's case closed? I am here to look for answers because I do not know what happened and I still have questions. Why are you here?
edit on 10/12/2010 by Devino because: fixed quote tag



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


What gets me is that I keep hearing all this talk about evidence of CD, and how the office fires burning underground for weeks couldn't have possibly gotten hot enough...

Yet, I haven't seen ONE poster come up with a list of possible actual explosives that could have been used.

You're telling me that you have not once seen the name 'Thermite' in any of these posts? You got to be kidding!? What, do I need to quote myself again?

reply to post by Varemia
 


I'm just curious as to how exactly you expect anyone to accomplish another investigation of 9/11. Do you want them to go over all the footage again, reviewing every detail, performing test after test after test (which they did in the NIST investigation)?

Did you know that the investigation would cost money? (GASP, I know!) Guess where the money comes from? Our pockets.

This quote really gets me! The phrase, "you got to be kidding" comes to mind again. How much money do you think the occupation of two different countries over the past 9 years has cost? However, I believe that the money lost is the least of our worries. 9/11 is the reason that we went to "war" after all isn't it?



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
The WTC was a pet project of David Rockefeller the Jekyll island /Bilderburg member. The Rockefellers sponsored Orwells 1938 War of the world hoax as an experiment in crowd psychology. The MSM were developing radio tools to control the sheeple back in the 1930's. The Japanese American designer of the two WTC towers chose to build them with planned obsolescence in mind. The 47 central support columns were custom manufactured in Japan and shipped to NY to be assembled. These support members were thermited prior to the implosion which left the molten metal evidence. Had the towers been built using masonry construction it would have been nearly impossible to bring them down in a small footprint.

The original tower design was limited to about 50 years. The constant flexing from wind loads was amplified by the square of the distance so these towers had a finite life. The question I have is whether the Rockefellers were forced by a low occupancy rate to scrap the project early, or the US government decided to use them for their war on terror campaign and bought the rockefellers out?
edit on 12-10-2010 by Bordon81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Thermite was pretty much debunked.

1) themite has relative low energy density
2) heat from local thermite charges would easily be dissipated by the rest of the columns without melting them
3) there is no evidence of massive thermite reactions
4) it does not make sense to use massive thermite reactions if you want to demolish a building discretely, especially when it can be done with small amounts in strategic positions.

But I guess similar arguments can be used for any kind of explosive. You just cant have an enormous release of thermal energy in a very short time without having any visible signs of it.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

PLB have you seen this?


www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...
edit on 12-10-2010 by slugger9787 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 

Very good videos!

Valuable additions to my 911 file. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Don't forget, the first responders who actually worked the pile also saw molten steel:
Since firefighters are in the firefighting business, I think we can reasonably assume that they know what they're talking about when it comes to anything burning or melting.


you damn straight they know, and are trained to deal with most every form of fire imaginable.

the fires in the debris are the smoking guns. neither of those aircraft had the fuel to sustain steel melting point temperatures,even placed in a controlled environment fully fueled, would not have had the ability to liquefy 6" solid steel beams. might? warp them.

however and who ever did this? knew exactly what they were doing,and knew that they were going to get away with it, because the American people only want to argue and point fingers and rely on the government to tuck them in at night.

the united states government and its conspirators, did in fact pull off the greatest heist in Americas history, and gutted the trust of the American people and way of life on 911 "FOREVER"



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Irrelevant for the question whether thermite is the cause of molten steel. The point is, even if it was used, it would not have resulted in pools of molten steel. So molten pools of steel is no evidence for thermite.

As for the videos, I only did a very quick search for it. From what I read all materials he found were present in the WTC without the need of thermite. (paint, rust, aluminum, etc).



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Devino
 


Thermite was pretty much debunked.

1) themite has relative low energy density
2) heat from local thermite charges would easily be dissipated by the rest of the columns without melting them
3) there is no evidence of massive thermite reactions
4) it does not make sense to use massive thermite reactions if you want to demolish a building discretely, especially when it can be done with small amounts in strategic positions.

But I guess similar arguments can be used for any kind of explosive. You just cant have an enormous release of thermal energy in a very short time without having any visible signs of it.


I don't understand what you mean here, you're saying that it can't possibly be Thermite? I must admit that I do not know much about explosives so I don't know what is used/could have been used in building demolitions. I do know what Thermite reactions look like as I have linked a video earlier in this thread. But as for your points that supposedly debunk the use of Thermite...
1) What does "low energy density" mean?
2) What evidence do you have that heat dissipation would stop steel from melting, isn't that exactly what Thermite does? From what I have seen Thermite melts steel just fine.
3) I don't know about evidence of "massive Thermite reactions" but isn't the possibility for the existence of evidence for Thermite part of the reason for this thread, i.e. molten material?
4) Again what's with the word "massive" when describing Thermite?

In the last part of your quote, "You just cant have an enormous release of thermal energy in a very short time without having any visible signs of it.", I totally agree. The difference is that I think there is evidence of this sudden release of energy before collapse, during and after. This is what this thread has been about. There is another thread pertaining to the sounds of explosions heard which is another testament to evidence for this being a CD.

I would like to state that "evidence" is not "poof", it is just evidence in favor of said proof. Proof does not mean that it is a fact. You can have 'proof of purchase' for something that you did not buy. So if I were to say that there is "evidence" of explosives being used to take down the WTC towers I would be correct but this "evidence" might turn out to be from some other reaction. Does that make any sense?



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 

Thanks for your rational analysis of what we know.
In the video's above, a Danish scientist reveals that Nano-Thermite, an engineered product, was indeed found in the dust of the WTC towers. I would love to see his face is someone tried to tell him that the aluminum and rust got mixed together during the collapse, and he is not "really" seeing nano-thermite under his microscope!
I believe multiple methods were used to bring the towers down, like multiple assassin teams to insure a necessary kill. They were clearly successful. These are evil people indeed.
The biggest shame of all, however, is the stupidity and apathy of the Americans that have lost a legal government and don't know it.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
If a project such as the World Trade Center towers were designed with a life of less than 50 years the designer Minoru Yamasaki would have to submit and get approval for a demolition plan to take it down. That plan would detail the expected costs and exact methods for cutting the support structure and imploding the building.

I've heard from other engineers that such a document does exist on microfiche. Prior to submitting a proposal for the twin towers Yamasaki was rumored to have had a clandestine meeting with members of Lockheed intercept and an organization known only as Kaleidoscope services. It is possible that someone higher up in the CIA may have leaned on him to propose the planned obsolescense design that he did. I'd love to see this document available on the internet for all to see but it is apparently classified. Even the desert rat couldn't link it without fear of getting shut down so there is no way modern high traffic sites like wikileaks will be able to get a copy.
edit on 12-10-2010 by Bordon81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


What I am basically saying is that the amount of thermite needed in order to get pools of molten steel in the debris is so incredibly huge that it seems very unlikely. To see what 1000 pound (500kg) of thermite does to a car, look at this video: www.youtube.com... It doesnt leave a pool of molten steel, just small amounts of it Consider how such huge amounts could have been planted undetected. Also look how aggressive the reaction is and how much smoke is generated, no such signs at the WTC.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by aliengenes
would not have had the ability to liquefy 6" solid steel beams.


Care to show some proof that 6" solid steel beams were liquefied? Like a picture of a half melted one....

No, I did not think you could, so how do you know 6" solid beams were melted?



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Low energy density means low energy output per unit mass. Thermite has about 10% of the energy per unit mass that burning plastic has.
The Jones/Harrit paper is replete with error and misinterpretations and there is absolutely no evidence of thermite.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Conclusion As this simplified summary of the findings of the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe shows, the distinctive red-gray chips found consistently in dust samples from the destroyed Twin Towers are clearly an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material. It is not even remotely possible that the material could have been formed spontaneously through any random process such as the total destruction of the Twin Towers. Nor is it possible that the material was present in the Towers for some innocent reason.


911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



What I am basically saying is that the amount of thermite needed in order to get pools of molten steel in the debris is so incredibly huge that it seems very unlikely.


There is a difference between Thermate (military-grade thermite incendiary) and nano thermitic or nano aluminum materials. Sure, thermate is thermitic material but it is not the only thing you can do with that thermitic material. The military or DARPA conducts research on nano-thermite to get different types of reactions, some even explosive. For instance, you can engineer the thermite itself to react in an explosive manner or you can apply it to a whole host of unconventional applications, to get different reactions. So, while you may see a video or two of thermate and how that substance reacts, it certainly doesn't mean thermitic applications, particularly various methods of engineered nano aluminum would react and behave in the same ways.

With that being said, I'm sure... no I'm almost positive that thermate canisters were not strapped to the columns of the buildings, instead, if there was nano thermite used in the towers, it was probably of the advanced engineered type and so probably reacted in an unconventional manner, maybe even explosive through extremely rapid reaction. Furthermore, thermitic materials don't have to be the only demolitions used, as they could have been in combination with other applications.


--airspoon


--


--airspoon



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


The EDAX analyses show that there are no key elements of explosives or any thermite variants. All that is there are components of paint.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I would really like to see a scientific paper about nano thermite. All this talk about it is getting a little ridiculous. I did a google search and found ONLY links related to the claim that chips found in the Trade Center dust was nano thermite. So I narrowed the results to pdf files. Those are generally reliable, because they tend to house scientific papers. No luck, I found a couple non-9/11 things, but they had nothing related to how they could be used to make metal molten or keep it molten for weeks. So I removed 9/11 from the possible search terms. I actually did find papers on thermite. Now, the challenge was finding anything that could have possibly even remotely connected the red-gray shards found in the dust at ground zero. No luck.

Honestly, I can't figure out how the heck the guy determined that the dust had evidence of thermite.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join