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.

 

The fire was hot enough to melt the steel!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
...I still believe their were explosives used, so take a breath and read my theory


I have a few pieces of my theory to establish before it comes together so bare with me...

In the documentary loose change their is footage from the lobby of one of the towers. It looks like a bomb went off according to the firemen (and the film). The marble on the walls was cracked off the walls and i think they mention something about the elevators... In the documentary '911 eyewitnesses' their is film which shows a big cloud from ground floor long before the building collapses... i.e. something exploded low. Back in 'Loose Change' their is a worker in the building who heard the plane crash and the explosion in the ground/basement floor (he thought a generator blew up), and mentions someone all burned saying something about the elevator.

I recalled an episode of the history channel dealing with the construction of i think the sears tower and they mentioned that these buildings (skyscrapers) have a problem with the chimney effect...basically as the sun heats the building,... it causes hot air to rise inside the building causing massive suction of air from bottom levels and how they sealed the lobby doors and elevators with gaskets and stuff to make them as airtight as possible.

Now back to that documentary loose change, they mention that the hottest temp the fuel of the planes could reach was still 1000 degrees lower then untreated steel could melt. Infact some guy that worked at the company that supplied the steel said some statement that it was not possible for the steel to melt at that temperature and was fired for it.

Also my dad reminded me to the fact that the building was loaded with asbestos.


Ok so what we have here is a blast furnace!!!


series of events:

explosion at ground level breaks hermetic seals in elevator and blows open the lobby... now the air is getting sucked into and up the building.

Plane hits... fire starts burning, and gets super heated by the generous flow of oxygen raising its temperature to something hot enough for steel to melt. It must of been super hot for molten steel to flow from the fire far above to the basement level where it is seen when the wreckage of the building is being cleared.

The documentary 911 eyewitnesses also shows good audio evidence, backed up by the other documentary loose change, that something like 9 explosions occur in the building... where the first series occurs early on and seperated by an even space of time like 5 seconds apart, and then when the building is half down another set of 4 go off... i.e. to make sure the bulding falls straight down...and not onto the buildings nearby...




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
The air being sucked up from below would've been cool. In a blast furnace, the air being sucked in has been pre-heated. Any suction would've had some negative consequences on the heating.

Blast furnances involve certain chemical reactions between materials, too. I'm no chemist so I'm not even going to go there, but I really doubt that an open fire in a skyscraper is going to produce the conditions required even if air is being sucked through it.

And you would've seen glowing steel in broad daylight if the columns even approached 600 C, let alone temperatures required for melting steel. I would venture that'd you'd be seeing a lot of brightly glowing liquid dripping through the towers before their collapses, as well, if the hydrocarbon fires could somehow pull that off.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Hmm good argument, but theirs still the question of the molten steel found afterward. The building did burn for a month after the collapse but was it hot enough then when the building was down or when the building was up?

hmm i found this interesting tidbit...



Reports of molten steel in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So their was pools of molten steal below the elevator shafts which is what i suspected was the best way for the air to do the chimney thing... and then i guess drip down through. Since the building fell straight down and all the smoke i don't think you'd have any chance of seeing this on film.

Even if this didn't bring down the building, it seems to me the most likely explanation for the molten steel. Wish i could find pictures of the molten steel as it was discovered months after the blast.

...the demo charges used to take buildings down from what i've seen are cutting charges attached at angles to eyebeams that have been prepped with cuts in them before hand....and that wouldnt produce any molten stuff on this scale... what could make the steel melt like that?

[edit on 25-3-2006 by FocusedWolf]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
ummmmm

I believe that

3 sets of elevators

3 break off points

for fire to not chimney to

the top

puts a damper on that

there is a living witness or more

who claim that explosions
rocked the bldg just prior
to impact. william rodriguez
and another , not including
the fire dept which was
threatened.....................[ hello , red flag ! threatened if they spoke ? wtf ? why ? ]

anyone who hasn't figgered
out by now that there are
major flaws and inconsistencies
in the " official story "
not to mention
the threats and coverups
flawed forensics
evidence hauled to CHINA !
has NOT been paying attention
period !

tell me , how does jet fuel
what's left of it after the
fireball 80 floors aways ,
leak to the basement and
melt steel 4inches thick !

give me a freakin' break...



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Hmm i was reading some more from that link i pasted and it seems that contractors were pulling out eyebeams by crane that were dripping with molten steel....infact rivers of the stuff they said. This building cooked and in a big big way.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I'm not sure how the steel managed to stay molten so long after collapse, but if it had to do with the collapses (and not thermite reactions afterward, for example), there would have to be some insane amount of thermal energy released.

If the fires couldn't melt steel before collapse, I don't think they would be able to melt steel after collapse. The theory that the fires melted steel columns seems like it was mostly abandoned back in 2001. After the collapse, you have the same materials for fuel that you did before the collapse, except you have much less of them, and they're blown into small pieces and stuffed amongst mounds of steel and concrete dust.

But some people have suggested that a thermite reaction may have been going on in the debris, since there was both aluminum and steel oxide (rust). At a high temperature, a chemical reaction will take place between aluminum and some oxidizer, and you get thermite. Since thermite burns at a very high temperature, it can continue provide the heat required to keep the chemical reaction going. So, if you have a lot of aluminum and steel oxide, and start a thermite reaction, it could keep going until there's no fuel left. For this to happen, something besides the fires would've had to start the reaction, because the temperatures required wouldn't just pop up out of a hydrocarbon fire.

I personally don't think that's very likely, but it's the best explanation I think I've heard so far. I don't like it because the aluminum oxide and aluminum probably aren't going to be in ideal conditions for creating a thermite reaction for a number of reasons. First, the aluminum and steel oxide has to be laying on top of each other, and for the reaction to continue for a long period of time, there couldn't be any gaps between fuel sources that the thermite reaction couldn't cross. The aluminum and oxide is supposed to be in a powder form, too, but at Ground Zero those conditions shouldn't have existed. And without planted explosives, getting a thermite reaction to start at all would be near impossible at the WTC.

Besides that, I'm thinking sophisticated weaponry. I suspect advanced technology was used to rig the towers, which isn't available or even necessarily known to the public. Small nuclear devices may have been able to create the massive amount of thermal energy required, but I have troubled trying to fathom how much heat would be needed to keep steel molten weeks after collapse. That just seems unreal to me, but for all I know it could still be easily achieved.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Hmm i remembered something my dad told me (he's a cop). I told him my theory and he was telling me that he was at buildings where the fire at the top sucked oxygen so much that it had actually forced open elevator doors and opened or blew out windows... just thought i'd share it for no particular reason



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   
If you knew how the towers were constructed you would know your statement is rediculous. The black smoke destroys your theory as well, plus the video shows only mild fires. If fires at around 3000 degrees were burning they would be very bright and flames would be flying outside the towers for all to see. It would have been an incredible sight.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:36 AM
link   
One theory that had floated around before was micronuclear demolition charges. I haven't been able to find alot of information on it, but there is a new micro-nuke technology in demolitions, I'll dig around for the links when I get a chance. Given that all the cell phones and radios went out in the area just prior to each collapse, the molten steel, and the residual radioactivity of the debris from the collapse, and a seismic event consistent with underground detonation, it's very possible that this was a micro-nuclear demolition at least at the core supports. Would be interesting to tool around ground zero with a gieger counter and see. Would the clean up of the debris get rid of all the residual radioactivity?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Interesting theories here.

I have one that has tormented me for a while.
If the fires were hot enough to melt steel which was encased in concrete and asbestos, then why were the fires not hot enough to melt the glass in the windows, all the office furniture, clothing from the people who were inside, even paper that was around the collapsed towers afterwards?

I'm not trying to debunk anyones theories here, but i am just at a loss to explain the above.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Twitchy, you mean ADM/SADM? (Atomic Demolitions Munitions)

www.brook.edu...



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
video.google.com...

Thats footage of molten steal leaking from the tower that suggests -

a) The fires were hot enough to melt steal.
b) Thermite was used.

Both conclusions have a few holes, such as the thermite needing to be placed and the fires needing special conditions to get that hot.

Also note in this video:video.google.com... that the building buckes before and debris flies out. Which against supports it was either fires or thermit.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The comments on massive amounts of air coming in from the bottom strikes me as enabling the fire to burn hotter than expected.

This may not apply, but I'll throw it out anyway.

Oxygen-Acetylene cutting torches do their cutting when additional oxygen - over and above what's required to enable the torch to burn cleanly in the heating only mode - is applied.

Most of you have probably cut steel with an oxy-acet rig.
The cutting doesn't start until you depress the cutting handle which allows additional oxygen to enter the flame area through a dedicated orifice.

What many non-welders don't know is that you can cut steel with oxygen only.
Done most times to cut thin stuff like auto exhaust tubing and the like.
The regular welding tip and not the cutting tip is used.

The drill here is to do the preliminary heat with the standard welding flame and once the metal starts to melt, increase oxygen flow by opening the oxygen mix adjusting valve.
Once that starts, you can close the acetylene mix valve and oxygen only will cut the steel just fine.

I'm not saying that's what happened in the Towers, but I can see how a tremendous inflow of air could increase temperatures and melt steel that was already heated by the jet fuel fire.


I'm not a believer in the planted explosives theory either.
What some call explosions look to me to be simply pressurized air - from the pancaking floors - blowing out windows.
That may have happened if elevator or stairwell doors were open on that particular floor and closed on others.

As far as the reported sounds of explosions go, more than likely the sounds were initiated by the floors falling and the temendous compression of air as they came down.

A rapid reversal or stoppage of in flowing air from the lower levels could also result in what some identify as explosive sounds.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I just wanted to say this, a candle is just as hot as the gas on fire in them planes. Also, if you look at the pictures there were people still standing and jumping not because of heat but fumes from the gas. Sorry but the only way them towers went down is combustion AFTER the fact the planes already hit. There was not enough combustion in the plane to take the towers down. Ive seen videos and did my own research, Also WTC 7 how did that fall if there was only minor fires also, there was not any body in that tower. Also, it fell from top to bottom like it was explosives. WTC7 also had a pent house with bulletproof/fireproof windows on one floor with its own air supply, was somebody watching and controlling this from there? after all they had a perfect view of the 2 towers. Think about it.. IT WAS A SET UP BY THE US GOV SO THEY COULD ATTACK IRAQ WITH REASON



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
video.google.com...

Thats footage of molten steal leaking from the tower that suggests -

a) The fires were hot enough to melt steal.
b) Thermite was used.

Both conclusions have a few holes, such as the thermite needing to be placed and the fires needing special conditions to get that hot.

Also note in this video:video.google.com... that the building buckes before and debris flies out. Which against supports it was either fires or thermit.


Cool footage. At the very least that footage shows that the building was hot enough for either steel to melt or a thermite reaction to occur which burns hot enough for steel to melt.

Some official was reported to saying that the building burned at 2000 degrees F if i remember (they said it in the loose change documentary).

No doubt the building had aluminum, not to mention a plane with a skin of aluminum, which according to wikipedia it has a melting point of 1221 degres F, which the jet fuel was hot enough to burn and if not...then the jet fuel + the rising column of air from the center of the building would of been.

So assuming the molten aluminum makes it to rusty exposed steel, even stuff not directly the source of the buildings strength, like for somekind of framing etc, Then it is possible that somehow the next temperature needed for a thermite reaction to occur (2000 degrees F according to some site) was attained by the intense fire in the core of the building.

Also look, according to this site: www.whatreallyhappened.com... their definatelly was a thermite reaction occuring with the building after it collapsed...atleast it was hot enough...



The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to.



Also in the documantry 'loose change' that part when that official from the steel company being fired for contradicting the mayor or someone who said the building was burning at 2000 F and saying that regular untreated steel doesn't burn at that temp...well it was hot enough for thermite reaction...which can make steel melt.

Hmm these theories are shaping up.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by FocusedWolf]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Interesting theories here.

I have one that has tormented me for a while.
If the fires were hot enough to melt steel which was encased in concrete and asbestos, then why were the fires not hot enough to melt the glass in the windows, all the office furniture, clothing from the people who were inside, even paper that was around the collapsed towers afterwards?

I'm not trying to debunk anyones theories here, but i am just at a loss to explain the above.


Well i dont know the blueprints but the buildings insulation could of protected certain areas like the outer offices, causing the fire to just be in a center core or something.

What still bothers me is the lobby looking shattered long before the building collapsed. I was thinking that perhaps the fire at the top, and airtightness of the bulding caused suction through the elevator shaft and really the whole building....and that the weakest point of the building was the bottom floor like 80 floors away? Hmm I don't that sounds likely at all... unless the fire that we see in the film isn't the whole thing and that the center core is burning in the elevator shafts over several floors... then it could of had the destruction suction needed to screw up the bottom of the "straw" because it needs air...the lobby. Would look like the elevator door opening on its own, and then the air in the lobby sucked out causing a vacuum...causing the bloors to blow inward with possibly enough flying debris to give the room the "bombed" appearance.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Ugh just thought of something, is it possible that that molten stuff in the video is not steel by some other molten metal... zz then it could just be aluminum pouring out.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Here is my problem. How could anyone survive the temperatures people are talking about in the TT? If it was in fact hot enough to melt steel how could someone be standing in the hole left by the plane. There is a female clearly visible in that opening. The building is still standing, thus the steel has not melted yet, and she is there at the opening. Clearly it is not hot enough to melt human how can it b hot enough to melt steel?
lonelanter.org has virtually every 9/11 film and or document and the person is clearly visible.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by polanksi]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
molten steel ?

wtf ?

I saw sparks ! , like when a torch is
taken to cut or weld metal

or when an ARC WELDER starts a bead !

please don't tell me you think that THAT PIDDLEY
amount in that footage pooled in the basement
and STAYED HOT for a MONTH ? !

you can't be bloody serious !

talk about taking the ball and running with it

and I must agree with polanski



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Another possibility is that thermite didn't bring down the building but a thermite reaction occured in the basement somehow... which would expain the contractors pulling out columns of steel weeks later that were dripping with molten steel.

Also my thinking was the fire started that reaction so initially it was just burning fuel which explains the people at the windows in the nearby floors...

And another possibility is a new way to make buildings fall...maybe antimatter device which is powered by swamp gas



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join