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.
Melting steel?
page: 18share:
edit on 18-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-12-2015 by skyeagle409
because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: charolais
I am not sure if this is legit. They found sulphur.
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives
Has there ever been any analysis or investigation examining the microstructure of the steel from the beams?
I am not sure if this is legit. They found sulphur.
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives
a reply to: deliberator
It's not legit, but we can take a look here.
It's not legit, but we can take a look here.
RJ Lee Group Confirms: No Evidence of Explosives and Thermite in its Dust Samples
No Thermite Found
The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn't find thermitic material. Other sampling of the pulverized dust by United States Geological Survey and RJ Lee did not report any evidence of thermite or explosives. It has been theorized the "thermite material" found was primer paint.
No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges and there are no recordings of a series of very loud explosions that would have been expected with controlled demolition. Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint. It's calculated 1,200,000 tonnes of building materials were pulverised at the World Trade Center and most minerals are present in the dust (not necessarily in a large quantity).
More extensive sampling of the dust has not found any evidence of thermite or explosives, says a report from the US Geological Survey.
The RJ Group
The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.
911research.wtc7.net...
www.wtcreflections.rjlg.com...
a reply to: deliberator
Sulfur came from gypsum sheetrock
Gypsum is Calcium Sulfate (CASO4) - exposed to high temperatures reducing atmosphere (carbon monoxide or free
carbon) will produce free sulfur
Simple chemistry......
I am not sure if this is legit. They found sulphur.
Sulfur came from gypsum sheetrock
Gypsum is Calcium Sulfate (CASO4) - exposed to high temperatures reducing atmosphere (carbon monoxide or free
carbon) will produce free sulfur
Simple chemistry......
a reply to: skyeagle409
I've stated this before. I don't CARE about other situations. We are talking about the WTC buildings specifically. You're almost acting like a politician, here, deflecting from the actual issue. There could be a hundred buildings burning down similarly, and it wouldn't matter. I would say NIST's data should still be publicly available.
But, you know, there aren't a hundred buildings that went down like the WTC ones.
I've stated this before. I don't CARE about other situations. We are talking about the WTC buildings specifically. You're almost acting like a politician, here, deflecting from the actual issue. There could be a hundred buildings burning down similarly, and it wouldn't matter. I would say NIST's data should still be publicly available.
But, you know, there aren't a hundred buildings that went down like the WTC ones.
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
I feel that more than enough information has been released that adequately explains the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.
I would say NIST's data should still be publicly available.
I feel that more than enough information has been released that adequately explains the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.
a reply to: Chadwickus
We can take a look here and see why these buildings didn't bend and topple over to the side of the lower undamaged portion of the buildings.
Let's review a video of the Verinage demolition method that doesn't require the use of explosives and examine how the upper blocks of buildings are used to demolish the lower blocks.
We can take a look here and see why these buildings didn't bend and topple over to the side of the lower undamaged portion of the buildings.
Let's review a video of the Verinage demolition method that doesn't require the use of explosives and examine how the upper blocks of buildings are used to demolish the lower blocks.
edit on 19-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: skyeagle409
This video is a load of crap, there was no pancaking, if air was being pushed out we would not see it. Instead we see debris..edit on 19-12-2015 by wildb because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-12-2015 by wildb because: (no reason given)
a reply to: skyeagle409
I feel like that the existence of information that hasn't been released is a serious issue. As I said, it's not about what we can see, it's what we can't see. NIST's explanation may in fact be correct. I would be surprised, but willing to accept that... After they release all their modeling data for peer review.
The issue with NIST not releasing their modelling data is that they could have given the steel beams in the WTC the properties of styrofoam for all we know.
For an even as important as 9/11, the only amount of information that is "enough", is all the information.
I feel like that the existence of information that hasn't been released is a serious issue. As I said, it's not about what we can see, it's what we can't see. NIST's explanation may in fact be correct. I would be surprised, but willing to accept that... After they release all their modeling data for peer review.
The issue with NIST not releasing their modelling data is that they could have given the steel beams in the WTC the properties of styrofoam for all we know.
For an even as important as 9/11, the only amount of information that is "enough", is all the information.
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
You do understand NIST did not look at the collapse itself ? They only looked up to the collapse...
You do understand NIST did not look at the collapse itself ? They only looked up to the collapse...
a reply to: wildb
im only going to say this once because im bored.
if you have a roof and a floor and glass walls
if the roof falls on the floor where does the space in that room go?
to the sides.
understand physics
they look like explosions because of the tremendous weight of the building, but you cannot, CANNOT prove there were explosives planted on those floors.
im only going to say this once because im bored.
if you have a roof and a floor and glass walls
if the roof falls on the floor where does the space in that room go?
to the sides.
understand physics
they look like explosions because of the tremendous weight of the building, but you cannot, CANNOT prove there were explosives planted on those floors.
edit on 19-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: vjr1113
I'm not so sure, gravity does not have energy to propel a steel beam weighing 18 thousand pounds over 600 feet. That required a lot of energy. Furthermore the buildings did not collapse they disintegrated .. a point which is overlooked .
my argument referring to physics as the explanation for debris flying horizontally stands
I'm not so sure, gravity does not have energy to propel a steel beam weighing 18 thousand pounds over 600 feet. That required a lot of energy. Furthermore the buildings did not collapse they disintegrated .. a point which is overlooked .
a reply to: wildb
In the first video, that is not indicative of demolition explosions. In fact, there's no explosions at all. In the second phot, that is not an explosion, those are squibs of compressed air forced out during the collapse, which is also seen in this photo.
Photo: Squibs of Compressed Air
To sum it up, you have no case for explosives at ground zero.
In the first video, that is not indicative of demolition explosions. In fact, there's no explosions at all. In the second phot, that is not an explosion, those are squibs of compressed air forced out during the collapse, which is also seen in this photo.
Photo: Squibs of Compressed Air
To sum it up, you have no case for explosives at ground zero.
a reply to: wildb
The steel beam was not propelled by explosives, and if it were, the explosion would have been heard many miles away, on video and audio and detected by local seismic monitors and yet, no such evidence of any kind was ever found, not even in the WTC rubble nor in dust samples.
To sum it up once again, you have case for explosives at ground zero because there is zero evidence for explosives.
'm not so sure, gravity does not have energy to propel a steel beam weighing 18 thousand pounds over 600 feet.
The steel beam was not propelled by explosives, and if it were, the explosion would have been heard many miles away, on video and audio and detected by local seismic monitors and yet, no such evidence of any kind was ever found, not even in the WTC rubble nor in dust samples.
To sum it up once again, you have case for explosives at ground zero because there is zero evidence for explosives.
edit on 19-12-2015 by
skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)