Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Great Thermite Debate!

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by Bedlam
 


So I didn't do it. Okay, have a nice day. Truth is I did.


Not with a gunpowder firework fuse you didn' t. I used a little oxybutane torch. It takes a lot of heat.




BtW, you said that thermite can only fizzle, now you say you can weld with it. How do you provide the heat for a redox reaction? an accelerant explosive, hence detonation.


Show where I said it can only fizzle. You generally DO weld with it . If you blow it up with an explosive it won' t go, just scatters. It produces molten metal. Great. That' s good at times. It does not explode. It is not temporally precise. You can't do demo with it.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 





Its the first time someones been able to prove, to me, that indeed thermite setup correctly on the beams could bring down the towers.

So we are going to start this thermite thing again because you found a Youtube video?

So lets bow down to the great Youtube.
Youtube the source of all truth.
If it's on Youtube it must be true.

Na sorry.
You can say it could have.
You can say it looks like.
You can say he says.
You can say a lot of things.

But you still have to prove it using evidence that would hold up in a court of law, before the public will believe you.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


That's because you are talking about standard thermite in powder form. It can be caked in an explosive form.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


www.orgothermit.com



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
htttp://my.alacd.com/tms/2003/PAPERS/03_531X_701.PDF

So, if a thermitic reaction is not explosive, why can it blow up an entire cast house?
edit on 24-1-2013 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Thankyou for the substance of your post. I mean, you really challenged the video and the very VALID examples it proves. I'm not saying Youtube video's are the be all and end all, not by any shot. But what the man IN THE VIDEO does, proves and explains is very substantial and worthy of my time and effort to try and understand.

Did you even watch the video?
Anyone with have a brain could watch the video and say, yes, ok its possible. Because the video shows it can happen.

As TA said (respected poster) if this man can do it in his backyard, imagine what a state sponsored man can do with limitless amounts of scientifically altered substances, methods and technology.

Care to watch the video and comment on its actual examples?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Bedlam
 


remember, in the days leading up to 9/11 people report that the dogs were taken off site.

looks very logical, and plausible to me.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)


That keeps being claimed, no matter how many times it is shown to be untrue. Sniffer dog Sirius died in the attack :-

www.globalanimal.org...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Hmm, i dont have any proof of this, but if the government was able to pull of such a spectacular attack.. I dont believe it would be hard to plant a story like that in the media.. especially when its an article posted 10yrs after the fact, after many claims that the dogs were pulled off site had been seen.

It would be beneficial FOR the government to place an add like that, especially if there is validity to the fact dogs were pulled off site.

but i appreciate the contribution!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 




Anyone with have a brain could watch the video and say, yes, ok its possible. Because the video shows it can happen.

As TA said (respected poster) if this man can do it in his backyard, imagine what a state sponsored man can do with limitless amounts of scientifically altered substances, methods and technology.


But Dr. James Millette did a study of the dust and released his results one year ago.
WTC Dust Study Confirms: No Thermite




Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.


So why are you here reposting the same old c##p about thermite bringing down the building?
You are trying to rekindle support for something that didn't exist in the first place.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I really havent seen a lot of headlines that heralded the scientific debunking of thermite residues, in the 9/11 rubble.....
there have been peer reviewed articles published that residues were found.....?
Which is it?
There is virtually NO way that the damage susteained in the aircraft strikes could have brought the buildings down so efficiently, neatly and swiftly.
PERIOD
The obvious fact is staring the world in the face and you all argue over methods and means....??
This is ostrich madness...a type of stupor induced by the ardent watching of television and drinking of the coolaid.
Those 3 buildings were brought down with the help of the advanced technology of destruction the US war machine has produced.....Either explosive or particle beam, matters little.....and what about bldg ^6?
The facts are that your entire way of life has come under attack by the very people charged with defending it!
Rogue elements of the US goverment, have usurped the system for private agendas wich require the force of the US Military to pull off.....
The prize is control of the dwindling resources of hydrocarbon fuels on the entire planet......

edit on 24-1-2013 by stirling because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 




There is virtually NO way that the damage susteained in the aircraft strikes could have brought the buildings down so efficiently, neatly and swiftly.

NASA had the same kind of attitude towards pieces of 'little ol styrofoam' comming off the external tank.

What your gut tells you in small, low speed backyard tinkering just doesn't scale up.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


dissapointing that you refer to this as 'the same old crap' considering its never been investigated.

Can I be honest, I do not want this to become another 911 argument.

I want to discuss what the man in the video proves, he proves that what NIST SAID was incorrect, and that Thermite setup correctly can be used to disable the towers structure. NIST, supposidly the gods of this investigation being flatly debunked is telling in itself.

I went to your link, in the first page there were MANY people with very valid points AGAINST that article.

Would you like me to rehash? or are you tired of the same old crap?

DaTroof


The article contradicts itself by saying Aluminum was both present and not present. Iron oxide is the most common oxide used for thermite reactions.


Glargod

Are they serious? The closest sample was 0.2 miles away from ground zero and taken 17 days later.


but, considering you believe 1 person report is conclusive evidence, allow me to respond with a report authored by multiple people saying exactly the opposite.
aneta.org...

here' are some extracts from the conclusions.

The paper you linked to (that took samples quite a distance from the WTC and quite a time frame after) says


There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS,


Yet, the paper released im linking to
aneta.org...


He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower


suggests...

It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon.



Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike
structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite
or super-thermite.



As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately
430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known
super-thermite sample.



The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C)
which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust [5].



now tell me, if you were the united states government, you committed mass murder to enforce war crimes, would it be hard for you to pay off a African Scientists to publish a report that goes against the very plausible document suggesting it was an inside job?

Further more, why was the debree from the WTC removed so quickly? why wasnt it allowed to be investigated?

edit on 24-1-2013 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by samkent
 


www.orgothermit.com


You'll note how they say it's for welding. Second line.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by Bedlam
 


That's because you are talking about standard thermite in powder form. It can be caked in an explosive form.


No, actually. Yes, there are solid forms - you generally don't wag around a bag of powder in the field, after all, although it's easier to use powder to weld with, if you're making a weld you want to keep.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
htttp://my.alacd.com/tms/2003/PAPERS/03_531X_701.PDF

So, if a thermitic reaction is not explosive, why can it blow up an entire cast house?
edit on 24-1-2013 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)


Because you're mixing a huge mass of molten aluminum with a comparatively small amount of oxidized metal? And the mass has so much heat energy that it can react the metal all at once? And this is not how thermite works in the field? Unless, of course, you want to posit that the planes were full of molten aluminum.

Also note how the link you gave calls "explosions that destroy the entire place" "small pops". And that the most common cause was dampness. I guess you could call water a devastating explosive too.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
I guess you could call water a devastating explosive too.


Talking about water, I found a youtube video that proves that water tanks could have blown up the WTC towers:

www.youtube.com...

Just look at the destructive force. IMO we should check the WTC debris for water droplets.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Turner Construction participated in the post-9/11 Ground Zero clean-up and performed extensive renovations within the World Trade Center towers just prior to 9/11, was in fact performing unspecified renovation work throughout the WTC complex until the very morning of September 11, 2001.[24]


12 employees of Turner Construction were located in an office in the third subbasement of Tower 1, the north tower. Turner had been performing renovation work in various parts of the center and had occupied various office spaces.[26]


In 1997, Turner Construction also constructed the new headquarters for the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). The Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center, a laboratory managed by NAVSEA was described during the 1990s as the “National Center for Energetics”, the “Pentagon’s jargon to broadly describe explosive materials, propellants and pyrotechnics” and as the “only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States


these are the guys that did it ... link ... they are Nazi's



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


I see my last post was offtopic. Let me rephrase it but now ontopic.

I don't have any evidence either, though that does not seem to be a factor in making accusations, so, I think that you, tinhattribunal, are the guy that did it, you are a Nazi.


Come on ATS mods, if you remove my post at least have the curtesy to remove the crap I replied to.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Just to be clear....



some of the posts in this thread are less than civil.....

Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join