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 Use Possibly Debunked.

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I can't believe no one else caught this. These were in the 9/11 video cache that was released a few weeks ago.
Here are two videos showing the temperatures of the two buildings right after the attack.
My question is, where is the thermite?

(sorry i don't know how to embed vid's yet)

Infraspection 5

Infraspection 6


If thermite burns three times hotter than molten lava at 2500 degrees Celsius,
shouldn't we see big blobs of white everywhere?
The hottest thing I see is at maybe 100 Celsius. (212 Fahrenheit).


However I found another interesting thing:
There are several red spots that are no where near the impact zone.(5 seconds into the 2nd video)
Why are these spots that are NO WHERE near the impact zone heating up?
Shouldn't they be cold like the rest of the building?

I don't have much 9/11 conspiracy experience so maybe someone could help me out...
edit on 26-11-2010 by freedish because: meh meh meh meh meh meh meh meh

edit on 26-11-2010 by freedish because: meh meh meh meh meh meh meh meh

edit on 26-11-2010 by freedish because: meh meh meh meh meh meh meh meh




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
first of all the spectrum analysis needed
for this was not used on any camera
known to record any 9/11 footage
that I know about. You can do
these type analysis but u cannot
do it without special equipment.
So the videos you allude to does not
change the status quo IMO.

There are also pics from a sat view
of ground zero days after the event
which actually show the temps
required for thermite use.

So, IMO, u have no case.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Well I would need to see more about the topic that does point to thermite. So far I heared that traces of thermite has been found in depth, but I didnt look at it closely. What turned the WTC to shreds was mainly explosives, however thermite MIGHT have been involved too.

Something DID melt steele and DID keep being hot at temperatures in excess of 1000° Celsius for weeks after the attack and it wasnt fires, would be nice to know what it was.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by freedish
 




However I found another interesting thing:
There are several red spots that are no where near the impact zone.(5 seconds into the 2nd video)
Why are these spots that are NO WHERE near the impact zone heating up?
Shouldn't they be cold like the rest of the building?


The lower red spots in tower 1 are just a reflection in the glass and aluminum siding of the impact in tower 2.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Thermite requires a magnesium fuse to ignite (IE: very high temperatures). Office fire and jet fuel
cannot ignite thermite.

Thermite was not used; the scientists found nano energetic material (nano thermite) which is not comparable
to conventional thermite.

Study Dr. Gash, and Tillotson's reseach from Lawrence Livermore National Lab to understand the fabrication
and characterists of nano engineered energetics.
edit on 26-11-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by freedish
 


well...

If you say thermite wasnt used cause the tempertarues where too low, than what did bring those towers down?

Even if we look at the fires, they arent hotter than 120° Celsius, so thats about 20° Celsius more than water starts to cook. So since when does a 120°C fire cause steel to weaken not talking about the whole molten metal in the basement 6 weeks after the attacks ?



[Mod Edit - replace unnecessary quote with Reply To tab]
edit on 27/11/2010 by Sauron because: replaced quote with Reply To tab



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I'm saying the original story HAS to be right.
The building collapsed due to damage of the structural integrity.
The plane was traveling at such a high velocity that went it collided with the building it broke
many steel columns, enough too compromise the integrity of the building.
That is the only explanation.


If thermite was used we would see the temperature of the building
skyrocket above way way above 120 degrees Celsius.
Therefor, unless the 9/11 truthies can come up with another explanation, the original story is true.
edit on 27-11-2010 by freedish because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedish
I'm saying the original story HAS to be right.

no offense, but u r making
some very bold statements
based upon imperfect data
and u've been here less than
a week. There is about a decades
worth of homework for u in the 9/11
forum. I'd say u came without
ur A game. Do some real
studying on 9/11 and come back
later



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Just because my forum join date is recent doesn't mean havn't been lurking here for a long time.
Obviously I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist expert, and you would know that if you read my original post.

Try to read better.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Freedish,

Read this part again in particular. The jet fuel and/or office fires are not hot enough to ignite thermite


Originally posted by turbofan
Thermite requires a magnesium fuse to ignite (IE: very high temperatures). Office fire and jet fuel
cannot ignite thermite.


If you care to grab some conventional thermite and try to light it on fire with a match, or toss into a pile
of burning furniture I'd be happy to watch the video to see you try to prove otherwise.

You can then call up all those foolish people who have been using magnesium fuses all these years and
show them your trick.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


It seems like no one actually took the time to read what was in my post.

I'm saying that these videos further prove that thermite was not used.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


also please ignore the second part of my post, someone already explained that those blobs of heat that were away from the impact zone were the reflection of heat off the other building.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Thermite can be initiated with a spark. Its done all the time with cadwelds. It really doesn't take as much as you think.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
One thing that your videos do show is that the temperatures of the fires were not that hot at all. How did the building fall from thermal expansion and contracton of a 120 C fire?

BTW, FLIRs are ultra sensitive. Hence the reflection of heat being picked up lower down the tower. Therefore, if the fires were as hot as stated, the FLIR camera should show it.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I think instead of concentrating on the fires, more attention needs to be paid to the damage done from impact. It is entirely possible that the towers could have fell without the fire. In mild winds it was not unusual for the towers to sway up to 4 feet. Most of the posts here say that since the towers didn't collapse immediately after impact, they wouldn't collapse. That would be true in a static situation, but the towers were not static.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Well Gee, I wonder why CadWelds works so well!!?


Exothermic welding, also known as exothermic bonding, is a welding process for joining two electrical conductors, that employs superheated copper alloy to permanently join the conductors. The process employs an exothermic reaction of a copper thermite composition to heat the copper, and requires no external source of heat or current. The chemical reaction that produces the heat is an aluminothermic reaction between aluminium powder and a mixture of copper oxides (copper(II) oxide and copper(I) oxide), with chemical formula:[1]

3CuO + 2Al → 3Cu + Al2O3 + Heat.[1]
This chemical reaction reaches a temperature of 1,400 °C (1,670 K).



The process is marketed under a variety of names such as Cadweld, Techweld, and Thermoweld.[2]



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by freedish
 


Right, I already covered that in my previous post.

Thermite (IE: conventional thermite) was not used; the scientists found nano-energetic material (IE: nano-thermite, or super thermite)
which is completely different.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
...

This "nanothermite / super thermite" is the byproduct of JET FUEL burning through IRON and ALUMINUM....

I put the words in "quotes" because its a byproduct they are seeing not leftovers from unexploded product.


Or you can keep believing the government sprayed a super highly experimental explosive compound on the walls....
edit on 29-11-2010 by Velocismo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Well you can keep believing that jet fuel can burn through iron and all that fun stuff.

I wont hold me breath, just come back and tell us when the jet fuel burns through the iron and aluminum, k?

Then you can explain how those magical elements came together to form the chips.
edit on 30-11-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


They do work well, however, they don't always work. The point was, you were contending that thermite needs very special conditions to initiate, I am just saying that it does not.

Either way its not relevant to 9/11.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join