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.

 

University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

page: 33
44
<< 30  31  32    34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

The molten 'material' I refer to is what was seen falling from WTC2 before it collapsed. AFAIK it wasn't sampled or tested for composition and building impacted by large aircraft at high velocity + building burning uncontrollably producing hot stuff just doesn't ring any conspiracy alarm bells for most rational people. Evidence of molten metal 'long after collapses' seems to be founded purely on doctored photographs and hearsay statements.

Maintaining metal in a molten state for 'a long time' would require a huge continuous input of energy in the imperfectly insulated environment of a pile of burning building contents & rubble but the fires that burnt for weeks were measured for temperature and found to be hot enough to achieve red heat in the hottest areas.




posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

You had an underground mall with clothing stores, bookstores etc...underneath the Towers. Then you drop tons of metals like aluminum/copper and burning debris into that hole, which by the way had air coming into the bottom of the pile thanks to the subway tunnels.... Essentially, you had a very crude blast furnace going on. Soft metals, plenty of fuel to sustain a fire and fresh air being fed into the fire...yeah, I can easily see pools of copper and aluminum....



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   
What made me suspicious of it all during 911 when it was all happening was, why the Pentagon didn't have over a dozen CCTV type security system all around the sides of the building. And also reports of a 5th plane, and reports of other explosions elsewhere that was all memory holed that same afternoon.

That convinced me it most likely wasn't spose devout radical Muslims who live, train and are based far away from societies technology.
edit on 24-7-2016 by wickd_waze because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2016 by wickd_waze because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Elbereth
Essentially, you had a very crude blast furnace going on. Soft metals, plenty of fuel to sustain a fire and fresh air being fed into the fire...yeah, I can easily see pools of copper and aluminum....

I thought about 575 feet of the line was totally collapsed, in two separate locations, making the "blast furnace" scenario unlikely.
NY Times: Subway likely to take years to rebuild




edit on 24-7-2016 by Elbereth because: fix



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

At what point was the subway filled with debris? During the fires, before the first building fell? Might read the article and get back to the thread? I don't think one line was plugged until WTC 7 fell. I know you will let me know if I am wrong. You ask a lot of questions, but seem to have a bias opinion? Why not just state and prove your position?
edit on 24-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Wow can't believe this thread is still grinding on. That has to be months now.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Probably shouldn't point this out, I'm part of this thread. My only excuse, I am relatively new to ATS. But the same arguments played out here are the same arguments that are played out over and over again in past ATS threads? For how many years?

Not an ATS examples, but I was talking to a friend that also had turbine engine training. I was trying to discuss the engine from the jet that hit the Pentagon. He was like, they never found the fuselage at the Pentagon. He totally believe there was no jet wreckage to speak of at the Pentagon. He also did not know the wings of the jet hit light poles before hitting the Pentagon. He looked at me like this was made up on the spot. This was two weeks ago.

Wonder who was pushing that falsehood of no parts and no wing strikes against light poles. Also shows how the conspiracist's narratives have changed over the years to stay relative as real evidence becomes part of the public knowledge. My friend was behind on current information by how many years? I would not think it would be from a movement with truth in their title.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Elbereth

Evidence of molten metal 'long after collapses' seems to be founded purely on doctored photographs and hearsay statements.


Doctored? BBC using AP image. Maybe there is some type of debris removal cutting device I am missing in the image?
BBC News: World Trade Center Puzzle Lingers
----------


Hearsay? I guess, technically.


Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.
Knight Ridder Newspapers: Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero
----------


New York City Department of Sanitation spokeswoman Kathy Dawkins: “Once the area was cleaned, normal commercial trash collections resumed by the haulers that are licensed and regulated by the Trade Waste Commissioner,” Dawkins says. But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains — running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to accommodate the debris.
D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime
----------


'In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,' Fuchek said.
GCN: Technology, Tools and Tactics for Public Sector IT
edit on 24-7-2016 by Elbereth because: OOOps



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

Where in this article, news.bbc.co.uk... does it mention molten metal. The caption states workers cleaning wreckage. That usually involves cutting steel. Prove otherwise.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
One, can you prove it was steel and not other material. How do you do that by sight?

Second, if molten steel / iron is hit with water, It makes a violent reaction. Can even be called an explosion. Any reported explosions when cooling the debris with water. If there were pools of molten steel everywhere, seems using water would of been dangerous?

m.reddit.com...
edit on 24-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Elbereth

At what point was the subway filled with debris? During the fires, before the first building fell?.....I don't think one line was plugged until WTC 7 fell.


"The other area of total collapse is a stretch of about 200 feet north of the Cortlandt Street station, where the tunnel ran alongside the eastern side of 7 World Trade Center, the 48-story building that fell after the two trade center towers did. This is the portion that will have to be stuffed with concrete to secure the street above until debris is cleared and subway work can begin."

Why do you think this matters? No one is arguing that the tunnels had any role in the molten metal observed prior to the collapses.
edit on 24-7-2016 by Elbereth because: fix



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

I just thought you were implying the fires raging before collapse could not be fed air from the tunnels?
edit on 25-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Elbereth

Where in this article, news.bbc.co.uk... does it mention molten metal. The caption states workers cleaning wreckage. That usually involves cutting steel. Prove otherwise.


The image was provided in response to Pilgrum's claim that "Evidence of molten metal 'long after collapses' seems to be founded purely on doctored photographs..." Considering that the photograph is from the BBC, I think it is unlikely to have been doctored. I see no evidence of cutting devices in the image, and I seriously doubt if there was any activity of that type going on that the two workers pictured would be standing in such close proximity to it.

The image is titled "Investigations began as the wreckage was cleared," not, as you claim "workers cleaning wreckage."

Why did you mischaracterize the title of the photo, neutronflux?

So are these two workers actually investigators inspecting a suspicious, very hot and glowing area on what looks to be a large girder, or is this simply part of the debris removal process being depicted? I'm not sure.


edit on 25-7-2016 by Elbereth because: depersonalize



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Apologies if I was unclear regarding which molten metal I was referring to.
edit on 25-7-2016 by Elbereth because: clarify



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

The article is not even about molten metal. The BBC article address fire collapse. The picture is clearly wreckage clearing. Please show how the picture in the article, or the article itself addressed the existence of anything molten? The title,
World Trade Center puzzle lingers, Is not puzzling molten material. The article puzzled if the WTC towers had better fire proofing, or a more robust floor system, if the towers would have survived. The article does not use the words molten, plastic, liquid, nor melted. The article caption for the picture," investigations began as the wreckage was cleared". Trying to not hand feed. If you research the picture, It's workers cutting the steel. Got to watch conspiracists, they use false context. That is why I'm not a fan of conspiracist controlled media. That is exactly what their YouTube productions and websites are.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Elbereth

Doctored? BBC using AP image. Maybe there is some type of debris removal cutting device I am missing in the image?
BBC News: World Trade Center Puzzle Lingers


The 'clearing' work involved cutting steel beams with thermal lances which allow the worker to stand 8' or more from the area being cut. It's unclear as to what's happening in that picture but what we do know is that carbon steel doesn't actually begin to melt until above about 1500C which is well into the white heat range and would be like looking at arc welding (over-exposed pics) but we see pics of red hot material which is about 1000C and steel at that temperature does not 'drip'.

The 1000C range is supported by thermal scans done to detect hotspots in the rubble. Other metals like aluminium and copper can be in a molten state at that red-heat temperature and even 'drip' though.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Look at my post again. The first part is merely pointing out that there are some images that are beyond dispute that seem curious and may show evidence of molten steel where it shouldn't be. The content of the article is interesting but not the point. The image itself is the point. I provided the link to show the source. It certainly isn't a slam dunk, one way or the other.

The balance of the post has to do with the testimony of people who saw molten metals at WTC and who should have been in a position to provide relevant information as to the nature of the materials removed from the WTC debris pile.

The two men pictured in the BBC photo look closer than eight feet to me, and judging from the below video, eight feet would be far too close for comfort.

Thermal oxygen lance cutting in Netherlands

edit on 25-7-2016 by Elbereth because: correct and elaborate



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

I am confused, the BBC article only addresses clean up and collapse mechanisms. How does the article justify belief in molten steel at the WTC. There is no rigging in the picture. The section of glowing metal is not actively being removed. They just pulled up a section of wall and a big piece of metal is glowing suspended in the pile? Please tell in detail the context of the picture. And if its molten metal, why are the standing so close if there is no work going on? They would not remove it if it was found white hot. How is it only the little ball of glowing metal in a big heap? It's obvious they are cutting up jumbled steel so it can be moved.
edit on 25-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

Looks like it's really not hot enough and no links to your data. 1055 isn't hot enough. You also can't prove the lead batteries were in that hot area.


NOT HOT ENOUGH I suggest you look at YOUR own post for temperature & colour as if you read below.

Some data from one location of the Cardington Fire tests for an office fire!!!!

26.5 104 515 795
27.0 108 523 798
27.5 113 529 798
28.0 119 534 798

First column time in mins others temp in degrees C for 3 different locations

Here is some beam data.

42.5 1053 973 936
43.0 1055 973 937
43.5 1055 971 935
44.0 1055 971 936

First column time others temps in degrees C

Temps are in degrees c
edit on 25-7-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

The 2D nature of the photograph could be very deceptive as to the distances involved especially if shot with a telephoto lens from a distance. It appears to be taken from a higher position than the workers in the foreground so the fire they're observing may be in a pit below them at a safer distance than you might immediately estimate. To me, it doesn't look very different to pics I've seen of people around a campfire and this could be simply an outburst of flames as rubble is lifted off the smoldering debris.

No slam dunk as you said.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 30  31  32    34  35 >>

log in

join