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: 41
16
<< 38  39  40    42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion





RJ Lee Group

This frightening "cocktail" of environmental contamination had never been seen before.

It contained components from the planes, jet fuel, fires, standard building materials and electronics that had been pulverized into a fine dust that permeated everything.

www.wtcreflections.rjlg.com...


Nothing in the report that indicates the use of explosives nor even thermite.

Now, let's take a look at page 16 from the report.



2.3.5 Heat affected particulate and combustion products

Particles that either were formed as a consequence of high temperature or were modified by exposure to high temperature are important WTC Dust Markers for WTC Dust. Fires that were a part of the WTC Event produced combustion-modified products that traveled with other components of WTC Dust.

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust.

These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics

• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents

• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

www.metabunk.org...


in other words, the RJ Lee Group Report is referring to "fires" in its reference to "high temperature" when it said; "combustion-modified products" were produced by "Fires that were a part of the WTC Event."

There is nothing in its report that said that explosives and/or thermite were responsible. Let's continue:



...very small metal particles have much lower melting points than their bulk material counterparts (around 900 o C for iron nanoparticles, as opposed to 1535 o C for bulk iron). This is called the "thermodynamic size effect."

The towers contained thousands of computers and electric gadgets. Wires and filaments and meshes from electronics, as well as thin rust flakes and other small iron particles, could all have easily been made into microspheres during the WTC conflagration.


Now, let's take a look how Steven Jones duped a number of 9/11 conspiracy theorist when he added the word, "extreme" to high temperature thus modifying the RJ Lee Report in an effort to mislead people.



Steven Jones Report

The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F [8]. No explanation for the origin of the indicated “extremely high temperatures during the collapse” is offered in the RJ Lee report.

www.journalof911studies.com...


The RJ Lee Group Report had said that "fire" was the source of the "high temperature," but Steven Jones decided to add "extreme" in his report. Remember, this is the same Steven Jones who duped 9/11 conspiracy theorist with the following doctored photo when he proclaimed the photo depicted molten steel and here is that photo.

Photo: Steven Jones Claims Reflected Light is Molten Steel

Now, the video.



Continue:



Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

• Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust.

www.metabunk.org...

.
edit on 31-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: loveguy




we already know concrete needs a 'miraculous act of god' to happen for it to fail-to change it's face...why build with it then if it just crumbles to dust at the mere site of aeroplanes!!!

You forget that the only concrete in WTC was the floor slabs.
And it was light weight concrete using added fillers instead of your driveway mix.

So yes a lot of it was pulverized.
But how many truck loads of sheet rock (drywall) were pulverized too?


the concrete floor mix just floated in place while it cured, did it? No floor structure, just concrete, eh?
where have the floor-pans gone to?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

Floor pans? The concrete was pulverized during the collapse, which had nothing to do with explosives..



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Was corrugated steel decking over the support truss

911research.wtc7.net...

Steel debris

Looks like some of "floor pans" here

amhistory.si.edu...



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Can see some of the floor pans here in this picture of the "meteor" - several floors compressed into one block

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue
I recall hearing that the floor structure of the cores was reinforced concrete. Can anyone source that?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: firerescue
I recall hearing that the floor structure of the cores was reinforced concrete. Can anyone source that?


Only concrete was the floors, 4 inches.



edit on 3-1-2016 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Thanks for the references.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

I note the rebar.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Rebar was wire mesh in the concrete floor decking

Ordinary floors were lightweight concrete mix, aggregate was fly ash vs gravel, 4 inches deep

Mechanical floors which supported HVAC machinery and elevators were 5 inches

Rumor that core of WTC was concrete came from fact that steel columns were encased in plaster dry wall



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine




Looking at the data, it is hardly Mo rich. Further, the melting point of metallic molybdenum has nothing to do with the melting point of a mineral containing molybdenum. Further questions?

Portland cement, eh? Coincidence, maybe. Or another indicator for high temps. Who knows.

 

a reply to: skyeagle409



Nothing in the report that indicates the use of explosives nor even thermite.

Now, let's take a look at page 16 from the report.


And now to the part you and Jones didn't address correctly:


We agree with the RJ Lee report that the abundance of “spherical particles of iron and silicates” is proof of high temperatures, and that these particles are not common in normal office dust, but we do not agree that this abundance is necessarily due to the “fire that accompanied the WTC Event”. Before drawing such a conclusion, one must scrutinize the temperatures and other conditions needed to form these molten spheres (iron melts at 1,538 °C (2,800 °F) while iron (III) oxide melts at 1,565 °C (2,849 °F) [6] and aluminosilicates melt around 1,450 C [7]) and then compare with conditions reached in the WTC fires. We will turn to this task, after considering other data which also point to anomalously high temperatures during the WTC destruction.

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

Fires were part of 'the Event', as RJ Lee stated. But they didn't theorize, fires would've been accountable for all their findings. They searched for asbestos and found it, mission accomplished. 'The Event' was of no concern for them, their data simply speaks for itself.

You don't think RJ Lee's statistical analysis is telling enough and we obviously disagree. I see the blatant use of explosives all over page 24, but you didn't even bother to comment on the abundance of iron spheres and fireproofing in the dust. It's still 20% of said dust. Molten steel, lot's of it. Who on Ceres cares anyway, eh?

Ok. Let's think your hypothesis through for a brief moment.


If it is true that steel-frame buildings can collapse from fire alone, it is crucial for owners of existing structures and insurers to understand the risk of a sudden fire-induced collapse so that structural repairs and risk adjustments can be factored in. Given the official story, it is remarkable how little insurance premiums, or even design parameters and building construction codes, have been modified (if at all) to address the possibility of catastrophic fire-induced progressive collapse. The fact that they have not been modified indicates that insurance companies do not accept the PC hypothesis.

WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature

Kinda funny how utter irrelevant this little office-fire hypothesis turns out to be in the real world, innit? Thanks for the laugh!


edit on 25-1-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I commented about the Mo but not about steel frame buildings. I did say that there was no evidence for any explosives and that Jones' paper was technically lacking. If you have evidence for explosives such as residue, detonators, wiring, etc. please provide it.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I commented about the Mo but not about steel frame buildings. I did say that there was no evidence for any explosives and that Jones' paper was technically lacking. If you have evidence for explosives such as residue, detonators, wiring, etc. please provide it.


My evidence for explosives is what my eyes saw - both at the time on TV and in dozens of videos made available in later years. I don't need disputable, scientific evidence. Asking for evidence like detonators and wiring is plain ludicrous, quite apart from being totally unnecessary.Slowed-down videos plainly reveal both demolition squibs (some of which were set off prematurely many floors down below the level of destruction) and demolition charge flashes as each floor was blown up. Many of the 240 core columns should have survived the dropping of floors but didn't. They would have needed high explosives to bring them all down.

The 'molten steel' issue is a red herring. Jones was so desperate to find conspiratorial evidence that the towers did not fall naturally due to fires and damage caused by the planes that he jumped to conclusions and misinterpreted the molten material dripping from the 81st floor of the South Tower. It was not steel needing thermite but molten aluminium mixed with many office materials plus the highly flammable UPS system used by Fuji Bank on the very floor where Flight 175 ended up. This was reported years later by an employee of the bank, which owned floors 79-82 and had made reinforcements in 1999 to the floor trusses on the very floor from which molten materials leaked out. This floor, already under strain from the extreme weight of all the lead batteries, had slipped due to the force of the shockwaves caused by the impact and explosion of the plane. No thermate-melted steel, folks, just aluminium, lead and metals from office furniture. It was the conjunction of the plane ending up in the UPS section, opening up cracks in the wall, and the great strain on the 81st floor caused by the heavy batteries, whose melting would have caused a pool of molten lead to form in the sunken floor, that explains why molten material managed to leak out only from that area of the South Tower.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   

If you have evidence for explosives such as residue, detonators, wiring, etc. please provide it.


Such evidence may have once existed among the wreckage. Sadly, it was all quickly carted away in expensively tracked cargo trucks, held under firm lock and key, then most of it sold to China or India at below market prices to be melted down.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: micpsi




Asking for evidence like detonators and wiring is plain ludicrous, quite apart from being totally unnecessary.

That is your opinion.
Which is totally opposite from the experts opinions.



and demolition charge flashes as each floor was blown up.

I would expect to see every window on each floor explode outward as each floor is blown.
But we do not see that.
We do see the odd window blow outward as the air pressure builds from the downward collapse.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

If you have evidence for explosives such as residue, detonators, wiring, etc. please provide it.


Such evidence may have once existed among the wreckage. Sadly, it was all quickly carted away in expensively tracked cargo trucks, held under firm lock and key, then most of it sold to China or India at below market prices to be melted down.


There was no need for nor evidence of demolition. Physically, the building collapsed much faster than each floor could be demolished with explosives, roughly 150-200 milliseconds per floor, without using enormous amounts. Demolitions are really obvious and there were no obvious demolitions during any of the videos nor was there any recovered demolition materials. There are some who desperately want a well-planned conspiracy by the same incompetents in government that couldn't get bottles of water to New Orleans after Katrina. [The US Coast Guard was the only bright spot in that morass ].
As has been stated, if you really want a conspiracy look to substandard construction by crooked companies and a coverup by city officials to prevent lawsuits. As a consolation, the towers would have probably come down anyway because of the extent of damage and their design. You can always wait for deathbed confessions but I suspect they will not involve planned demolitions.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I commented about the Mo but not about steel frame buildings. I did say that there was no evidence for any explosives and that Jones' paper was technically lacking. If you have evidence for explosives such as residue, detonators, wiring, etc. please provide it.


My evidence for explosives is what my eyes saw - both at the time on TV and in dozens of videos made available in later years. I don't need disputable, scientific evidence. Asking for evidence like detonators and wiring is plain ludicrous, quite apart from being totally unnecessary.Slowed-down videos plainly reveal both demolition squibs (some of which were set off prematurely many floors down below the level of destruction) and demolition charge flashes as each floor was blown up. Many of the 240 core columns should have survived the dropping of floors but didn't. They would have needed high explosives to bring them all down.



Why is asking for evidence ludicrous? Your evidence is that you have a "feeling" that high explosives were needed for 240 core [?] columns. You have a feeling that "many of the 240 core [?] columns should have survived the dropping of floors but didn't." Based on what? Which columns do you think should have survived without floors holding them?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
240 ?? I thought there was 47 core columns ?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn




Such evidence may have once existed among the wreckage. Sadly, it was all quickly carted away in expensively tracked cargo trucks, held under firm lock and key, then most of it sold to China or India at below market prices to be melted down.


India...?? China...??

Try Staten Island NY

Debris was hauled here to be sorted for human remains, personal effects. Pieces of steel from the impact floors were retained for study

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

0.03% of the steel went to Fresh Kills, the rest was put on barges and sent away..



new topics




 
16
<< 38  39  40    42 >>

log in

join