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 Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

page: 25
10
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Very good. Now all he has to do is plant thousands of those devices in three office buildings with over a half-million people passing through them daily, figure out how to use thermite in demolitions when it's not commononly used thus, figure out how to bring the building down without being able to weaken structural members and remove walls like real CDs do, get it to burn without the huge cloud of black smoke and yellow flame, armour it enough to survive an airplane impact and hour or so of fire, activate it with split-second precision and have it burn through structural members in an instant, make it vanish from the wreckage, and make sure the thermite traces aren't detected by the bomb-sniffing dogs or thousands of forensic techs and detectives who pored over the debris at Fresh Kills looking for body parts for a total of over a million man-hours.

But other than those little hurdles, I'm totally convinced.

/sarcasm

Note how his device takes about seven seconds to make even a small cut. And no, before you say it, "nanothermite" wouldn't have increased the speed by a factor of 700% or more.




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
Very good. Now all he has to do is plant thousands of those devices in three office buildings with over a half-million people passing through them daily


Let me guess, you're another one of those people who think that all those people passing through are going to go out of their way to go up into the elevator shafts or anywhere else "maintenance" is going on, and get all up in the business of the people working there, demanding to see everything they're doing?

Is that what you do any time you go into a building where maintenance is going on?



figure out how to use thermite in demolitions when it's not commononly used thus


Looks like the guy in the OP already has that much figured out himself. Beyond melting through the column it's just a matter of timing, which isn't anything new to the demolition industry.


Surviving an aircraft impact... also not an issue.

Removing bomb-sniffing dogs from the buildings... was done just before 9/11 and was widely reported on.



Note how his device takes about seven seconds to make even a small cut. And no, before you say it, "nanothermite" wouldn't have increased the speed by a factor of 700% or more.


How would you know? Decreasing particle size does increase reaction rate.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by 000063
Very good. Now all he has to do is plant thousands of those devices in three office buildings with over a half-million people passing through them daily


Let me guess, you're another one of those people who think that all those people passing through are going to go out of their way to go up into the elevator shafts or anywhere else "maintenance" is going on, and get all up in the business of the people working there, demanding to see everything they're doing?

Is that what you do any time you go into a building where maintenance is going on?
Building maintenance on every part of the building, including the impact floors? Lasting months? With only gov't agents?

The tallest building ever demo'd was 26 stories, and that took weeks to set up. WTC 7 was 47, and WT1/2 were 110. Logically, they would take twice as long or more, especially if you're using a method that is not commonly used in demo, using an experimental beam cutter, and trying to avoid detection. Each day, each person involved increases the risk of detection dramatically.




figure out how to use thermite in demolitions when it's not commononly used thus


Looks like the guy in the OP already has that much figured out himself. Beyond melting through the column it's just a matter of timing, which isn't anything new to the demolition industry.

Surviving an aircraft impact... also not an issue.
Bald assertion. Parts of the planes were thrown *through* the buildings. Anything moving that fast would damage or unseat an explosive or two, and it would be impossible to predict what would or wouldn't get hit.


Removing bomb-sniffing dogs from the buildings... was done just before 9/11 and was widely reported on.
There were bomb-sniffing dogs after the collapse. After. In the building which has just been bought down by tons of thermite. The debris was also seen by thousands of forensic technicians at Fresh Kills looking for body parts. Why didn't they notice anything unusual?



Note how his device takes about seven seconds to make even a small cut. And no, before you say it, "nanothermite" wouldn't have increased the speed by a factor of 700% or more.


How would you know? Decreasing particle size does increase reaction rate.
By how much? Does it make it burn evenly too? Eliminate the fire and smoke, which I note you've removed from my post? If the components were durable enough to take a plane impact and fire, how come none were found in the wreckage? The job of said components would be to contain and direct the thermite, so, by definition, it would be resistant to it.
edit on 2011/6/12 by 000063 because: -



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


We are in here to deny ignorance not to embrace it; most people on ATS have heard all these OS excuses regurgitated for years. Your argument does not hold water, where is your science that proves the OS about the WTC true?
The scientific community supports demolition of the WTC.
www.ae911truth.org...

The fact is people who worked for the Bush administration or where paid by the administration do not support demolition, they support a fairytale and no science can prove their fairytale true.
You cannot prove something that never happened.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


The scientific community, such as it is, does not support demolition theories of collapse. AE911Truth is not and does not purport to be part of the scientific community. It does not even represent the body of Architects nor Engineers. In fact only about 1/4 of 1% of architects and structural engineers have signed the petition. Keep in mind that signing the petition costs nothing besides a few moments effort. Most of those who sign the petition by far are not even licensed engineers or architects.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 



The scientific community, such as it is, does not support demolition theories of collapse.


Yes they do, that is why very few “employed” Architectures & Engineers will talk about 911. Most are afraid and will not risk their careers, and reputations.
I have never read about any Architectures or Engineers who has done any articles supporting the pancake collapse supporting the OS of 911. I am convinced that most license Architectures and Engineers do not support the NIST report, it was proven a lie a long time ago.


AE911Truth is not and does not purport to be part of the scientific community.


Says who?


It does not even represent the body of Architects nor Engineers.


Yes it does, the rest of them are silent of the topic as I have already explained why.


In fact only about 1/4 of 1% of architects and structural engineers have signed the petition.


You are wrong, everyone that has signed the petition that are claiming they are Architectures or Engineers have been verified so that is a 100 %.


Keep in mind that signing the petition costs nothing besides a few moments effort. Most of those who sign the petition by far are not even licensed engineers or architects.


Wrong again.


Ensuring Our Credibility: The AE911Truth Verification Team

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has an extraordinary Verification Team. They are a very special group of volunteers – individually responsible for ensuring that signers of the AE911Truth petition are real and the information they provide is accurate. All petition signers are verified, whether they are architects, engineers, or “other” supporters, and regardless of whether they live in the United States. Verifying 13,000 petition signers, [color=gold]1,400 of whom are licensed and/or degreed A/E professionals, is no small task.

ae911truth.org...

Enough said.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Enough said.


Not quite. Since this issue has come up frequently on many different threads, and many people seem to be laboring under the same confusion as yourself, I have decided to create a thread on the subject, the better to address this mare's nest of fallacy, deception and exaggeration in one place- to which others may be directed when such confusion comes up again.

And by the way, Impressme, confusing silence for consent, as you do in your post with the engineers and architects, is a good way to wind up with a rape charge, not a good way to form an argument.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


Enough said.

Not quite. Since this issue has come up frequently on many different threads, and many people seem to be laboring under the same confusion as yourself,


Enough said, meant your fallacies that you were claiming.
Care to show where I am confused?


I have decided to create a thread on the subject, the better to address this mare's nest of fallacy, deception and exaggeration in one place- to which others may be directed when such confusion comes up again.


I find this amusing that you believe science proving the OS lies from A&E ” is this mare's nest of fallacy, deception and exaggeration”. Please do your thread, this has been debated to death and the OS supporters always end up losing, because they cannot dispute the scientific evidence.
The only people confused are the ones who believe in the government lies about 911.


And by the way, Impressme, confusing silence for consent, as you do in your post with the engineers and architects, is a good way to wind up with a rape charge, not a good way to form an argument.


*is a good way to wind up with a rape charge*?


There is nothing [color=gold]confusing about people sitting silent and consenting by signing a petition and writing technical paper on the subject. Your analogy is ridiculous and a poor example when comparing 911 to it.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You seem not to have understood. For now we'll expand upon my comment about "confusing silence for consent". This is exactly what you do when you claim without supporting evidence that architects and engineers who have not signed the AE911truth petition mostly support it in secret, but out of fear of retribution, remain silent.

I propose a thought experiment, to see if you think this is really reasonable; Lets say I form a group called Architects and Engineers for Racial Aryan Purity Everywhere-- "A&E RAPE" for short. A paltry 1500 architects and engineers sign the petition to abolish all non-white races, but all are legitimate as we can prove. As a sidenote this is less than 1% of the relevant professionals. It would be reasonable for people to fear retribution from the public at large for signing an endorsement of such an idea, and rightly so, I might add. Under these conditions, would you agree then that probably the bulk of the professions secretly support the Aims of A&E RAPE?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


You seem not to have understood.


What I understand is that you have lost this argument of your claim believing that most Architects and Engineers do not support the OS of 911. As for the rest of your comment it has nothing to do with proving the OS true.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I'll take that as a NO, then, since you decline to answer a single paragraph question. Thanks for conceding the point that your earlier position is indefensible. See what I did thar?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

I find it interesting that you never answered any of my questions either.
As for me not answering your questions they had nothing to do with the OP, how does that work for you.

edit on 15-6-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

I find it interesting that you never answered any of my questions either.
As for me not answering your questions they had nothing to do with the OP, how does that work for you.

edit on 15-6-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)


Works great! I'll PM you when I create the special thread, that way we won't be off topic at all! I can't wait.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 



Works great! I'll PM you when I create the special thread, that way we won't be off topic at all! I can't wait.


Thank you, I am looking forward to debunking it.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
Building maintenance on every part of the building, including the impact floors? Lasting months? With only gov't agents?


I never speculated who, or how long, or said it would be on every part of the building. But the fact remains that if only the security company were compromised (and the WTC's security company had a very, very bad track record) then it would be possible to get a fake construction/maintenance team in, and people passing through the buildings aren't going to get up in these peoples' business demanding what they are doing 24/7. People assume the security company watches over those things, you know?


Logically, they would take twice as long or more, especially if you're using a method that is not commonly used in demo, using an experimental beam cutter, and trying to avoid detection. Each day, each person involved increases the risk of detection dramatically.


I don't know where you get "using an experimental beam cutter" unless you're responding to someone else, but "logically" you can't admit they would have to use an unconventional method and then pretend to know how it would take to set up or much of anything else about it. Even for commercial demolitions of skyscrapers, which are not that common in the first place, every case is as unique as skyscraper structures are unique.




Looks like the guy in the OP already has that much figured out himself. Beyond melting through the column it's just a matter of timing, which isn't anything new to the demolition industry.

Surviving an aircraft impact... also not an issue.
Bald assertion. Parts of the planes were thrown *through* the buildings.


What does that have to do with anything? You think you even have to demolish columns that are already destroyed? You think the impacts were any real threat to collapsing the buildings prematurely? No, not by themselves, not according to anyone with even the slightest bit of credibility.


Anything moving that fast would damage or unseat an explosive or two, and it would be impossible to predict what would or wouldn't get hit.


Why would it even matter if a charge was hit and knocked out by the plane? Then the column it was attached to would have already been destroyed anyway.



There were bomb-sniffing dogs after the collapse. After.


And who used them to search the rubble for explosives residues? Not FEMA and not NIST. There was no formal investigation for explosives residues whatsoever, at least that was ever released to the public. Even leading a dog through the rubble, when all it's going to do in that chaotic mess is bark and scratch anyway, means nothing if you're not even putting up a half-assed attempt to actually look for residues.


In the building which has just been bought down by tons of thermite. The debris was also seen by thousands of forensic technicians at Fresh Kills looking for body parts. Why didn't they notice anything unusual?


Basic thermite is iron oxide and aluminum, and pure iron after the reaction. Sniffer dogs aren't trained to sniff out iron, or iron spheroids. And how do you know that no one saw anything unusual at Fresh Kills? Because you were there and know all the guys who looked through the whole site? Or because you have no idea and just make assumptions on religious faith?




Note how his device takes about seven seconds to make even a small cut. And no, before you say it, "nanothermite" wouldn't have increased the speed by a factor of 700% or more.


How would you know? Decreasing particle size does increase reaction rate.
By how much?


It depends on how small the particles are reduced to and what specific materials were used in the reaction. You are still wrong about decreasing particle sizes not impacting the speed of the reaction.


Does it make it burn evenly too? Eliminate the fire and smoke, which I note you've removed from my post?


When nano-particles of anything are ignited, no, they are not going to have "fire and smoke" unless there is a problem. Even aluminum dust by itself ignites rapidly like gunpowder, and does not burn in the normal sense of the word.


If the components were durable enough to take a plane impact and fire, how come none were found in the wreckage?


Again, if a column is destroyed and knocked out of place by the impacts, then those columns are already done. If you are asking why they weren't all immediately set off, then you don't know much about even the most basic high explosives. You can throw regular C4 into a fire and it won't explode, and that's very conventional, basic stuff that I don't think was even used (or even more basic TNT either). You can also throw thermite into a normal fire and it won't be set off. It has to be set off with magnesium strips that burn at very high temperatures, or some other extreme temperature source. Look up what a "primary" is in explosives terminology. Since thermite isn't set off as easily as you think, it would also need a primary and wouldn't just be set off by either office fires or the plane impacts.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

I see you are using the "asides to the audience" trick and pretending to have " facts, physics and evidence on your side" as you unsuccessfully try to polarize the discussions. As is common amongst the desperate, you imply that I am a liar, apparently for no reason other than providing the paper for you to read. I must have been correct with the scenario to produce such a response.



I can understand some of your guys disagreement here. But, in reality you two are just performing a "BLA BLA BLA“, which is annoying.

I'm not an American, I am European. I saw those towers fall on TV, I watch the one tower slightly tilt, and then as if by magic, instead of toppling over as it should do, in the real world. The opposite side started crumbling, balancing the tilt, and then magically just fell down upon itself. Ok, ok, we can call it whatever you want ... I have my suspicions of controlled collapse. You don't want to believe that ... good for you, believe the white wash report. I can understand that.

I can also understand why you wouldn't believe reports from Saudi, saying that this and that guy was still alive. Hey, I wouldn't. Nor would I believe that whistleblower, who was hired to translate arab documents.

But there is one thing, I am not asking anyone about. And this is about the two aircraft, that was required to be 24/7 in the air, protecting NY and the UN building. Now, I am raised up in Iceland, and not the US. But I remember well how the aircraft on the base, had a 24/7 readiness, with 5 to 10 minutes in-the-air-guarantee. These aircraft were standing ready, with pilot in cockpit (or close to being in the cockpit), with blast doors behind so it could take off immediately, during the cold war. This is what I call a ding-ding requirement, if required the plane would go into the air. I also know that the two aircraft that were to guard the UN building, were to do that 24/7. And not just go-in-the-air, but that they were FLYING 24/7.

The UN building, as well as the World Trade Centers, were put in New York, because of the guaranteed 24/7 protection. I can understand these aircraft not being able to stop the first plane, but they were so far away, that they couldn't the second .. wow. Knowing the US Navy and airforce, I say no way in hell ... not even a possibility, unless there was a "stand-off" order.

This is the first thing that struck me, when heard of these incidents. Why was the protection so far away, that it couldn't reach it protected target in 15 minutes time. Changing of the guard? Those were in-the-air, changing of the guard ... two didn't settle down, unless the other two were in the air type.

Now, I know a lot of things have changed since 9/11. The internet for one, information on the internet has just been scratched off. Wikipedia, Youtube, Google ... I know we say the chinese are systematically blocking the internet, but I have to tell you, so are we. Information from these sites, will override anything else. I once wanted to find a document about a French case, that proved a turning point in the 18th century, concerning beliefs in werewolfs, and on the justice system. Prior to 9/11, finding such factual documents wasn't hard ... now, such documents hardly exist. In comes Wikipedia, the online crapbook ... go search the Bermuda triangle. This one is no longer a mistery, solved in the 80's by an engineer, who showed that methane pockets in the ocean, explain the phenomena. Search wikipedia, the Bermuda triangle is suddenly a mistery again, and not solved ... a mistery of God and what else ...

Gentelmen, we have wound the clock back about a 100 years and you are too busy bickering over semantics to get off your fat buts and do something about it. Concerning 9/11, let me tell you this ... maybe it was all a coincidence, maybe it all happened according to the Commission Report ... I have my doubts, but at this point, it is pretty much semantic. But there are things, that we can take to date ... as of now.

The World Trade Centers, were not an American thing. They represented, the world economy. And they didn't belong to the US, but they belonged to the entire world, presenting the economy, just as the UN building also belongs to the world. The US partaking their protection, and provides hosting. However, the attack on the World trade center, which represents the wolrd economy is followed by the collapse of the world economy.

Now, there is a coincidence, that is too much of a coincidence to be accepted as a coincidence. I don't care about what happened in the past, I say get off your butt and make sure these thieves can't continue. This concernes our children, and our childrens children, and not you and me.

Wake UP
edit on 5-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
But there is one thing, I am not asking anyone about. And this is about the two aircraft, that was required to be 24/7 in the air, protecting NY and the UN building. ... I also know that the two aircraft that were to guard the UN building, were to do that 24/7. And not just go-in-the-air, but that they were FLYING 24/7.

The UN building, as well as the World Trade Centers, were put in New York, because of the guaranteed 24/7 protection.


Just when you thought you had heard the silliest conspiracy theory, along comes another one, even sillier!

Care to show a valid source for your claim that there were aircraft in the air 24/7 defending the UN building....



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Just when you thought you had heard the silliest conspiracy theory, along comes another one, even sillier!

Care to show a valid source for your claim that there were aircraft in the air 24/7 defending the UN building....


As of today, it would take a long time to find it. As I said, I am not asking about this one, this I know was one of the reason the UN was to be in NY, and not somewhere else. This was a cold war requirement, and as far as I know, this requirement did not change, unless they changed after 9/11. Nor am I really going to bother with searching for sources either, it's not an object to argue. It's just a recalection of my first reaction to the incident.

This isn't a new one, it's one of the first things that came up afterwards. And as far as I can recall, their circle of flight was too far away, to reach NY. But I wouldn't be surprised, if the official explanation hadn't changed during this time, as so many other things do.

Many years ago, before 9/11, you could find a documentary about Eisenhower and the fire bombings of cities in Japan, during WWII. But now, the only movie about Eisenhower I can find, is the memoir documentary.

The Chinese aren't the only one regulating the Internet.

And as time passes, 9/11 will go down in history, as a false flag operation. An excuse to wage the wars, that came to follow. And if not directly as a false flag operation, it will have the same status as Pearl Harbour.

A shame on the US.

edit on 5-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join