It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Analysis of Rocket Projectiles from WTC2

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:31 PM
I see lots of those "Rocket" projectiles, right on the heels of the first one. They look no different than the first one to appear, and many of them are muych larger.

I think it's all just debris falling...

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Harritt and Jones have proven that there is thermitic residue in the WTC dust.


A couple of informal replies that show how bad the analysis was.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:30 PM
And from that same guy, proving just how insane Harrit and Chandler must be... OR... how gullible truthers are to believe their clap trap.

"So yes all the clues are there that he is talking about thermite - When ever a truther uses the word energetic you can bet they mean thermite.

What I find funny is that his initial assessment was correct, how can expanding gasses do that on an open surface? However, he also doesn't understand the thermite equation. Here it is again

Fe2O3 (solid) + 2Al (solid) --> 2Fe (liquid) + Al2O3 (solid)

NO GASSES ARE PRODUCED. Thermite produces no gas. So he almost got there, but because of his lack of knowledge of what thermite actually is combined with his confirmation bias he ended up producing a video showing that he's an idiot.

He's also confirmed that Harrit doesn't know what he's talking about as well. Harrit has definitely lost it. "

You notice that?

Zero gas is produced by the thermite reaction.

It's impossible....

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by LucidDreamer85

well i dont know about you but i havnt exploded many fire extingushers in my time...

Im just offering a possible explination, a higly compressed canister going off under high heat might do that it might not.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

I love how people seem to be "skeptical" but cannot seem to pass a fourth grade listening comprehension test.

Chandler makes specific claims in this video and gives a specific rationale for dropping the quotes of "rocket projectile".

He specifically claims that the item in question is a large piece of wall cladding and cross-identifies it in another source. So, unless you can directly speak to that identification, claiming that it a fire extinguisher only demonstrates your inability to understand spoken English.

He specifically claims that the item is accelerating faster than gravity (1.5g) at the point after the ejection.Either you can address this specific point or you are revealing that you think that change in air resistance of a falling object can make that object accelerate faster than gravity.

As for the claims that thermite cannot act as a propellant because it produces no gas: I can't remember what school grade gas laws are covered, but it is pretty basic stuff that heat plus gas (i.e. air) equals expansion.
Hence the explosions visible in the Cole thermite experiments.

Don't pretend to be skeptical if you cannot have the decency to actually comprehend what it is you are being skeptical about.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in