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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
focusedwolf

there were explosions

no if's ands or buts about it

the speculation comes in as to their
composition and number

logic tells me , that if the 1st wtc
bombing in 93 didn't set off the richter scale

then something really big and big enuf
to melt steel and KEEP IT HOT for a month
DID set off the richter scale this time

and I'll let you figure out what KIND of
device was possibly used that would
melt steel and keep it hot for THAT LONG

ok ?




posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
focusedwolf

despite your attempt to be funny

you touched upon a reality

ever hear of a particle beam device ?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
No i don't know about particle beam devices.

I dont understand though why its so impossible for a chemical reaction to occur for months in the rubble. I mean theirs tons of fuel in the form of iron and aluminum and inert but highly insulative materials...asbestos for ex... What got it hot enough though while the building was standing, is the question. You can't put out thermite... you cant hit it with water... it has to run out of fuel to stop burning...

The building fell straight down so it was either demo charges to do that, or something unknown that could uniformaly heat the buildings metal frame...

zzz i'm out of ideas



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Twitchy, you mean ADM/SADM? (Atomic Demolitions Munitions)

www.brook.edu...

That's the stuff alright WyrdeOne, the charges I saw were actually smaller than those though, looked to be about the size of a coffee can and the information I read talked about non-military demolitions. I think some proliferation treaty supposedly prevents this technology from being developed legally, but we all know how that goes.
Someone mentioned welding, I do alot of glasswork with an oxygen/propane mixture using alot of stainless steel welding rods and I can tell you with some certainty that there's no damned way any hydrocarbon based fuel is going to reach temperatures high enough to melt structural steel into a pool that stays hot for months without an ample pressurized direct application of pure oxygen. Even under the best of conditions for a fire, pooling steel is unheard of, yet it is quite common in controlled demolitions and nuclear detonations.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   


Someone mentioned welding, I do alot of glasswork with an oxygen/propane mixture using alot of stainless steel welding rods and I can tell you with some certainty that there's no damned way any hydrocarbon based fuel is going to reach temperatures high enough to melt structural steel into a pool that stays hot for months without an ample pressurized direct application of pure oxygen. Even under the best of conditions for a fire, pooling steel is unheard of, yet it is quite common in controlled demolitions and nuclear detonations.




Blacksmiths in times past and today use blowers to direct air into the - preferably coal fired - forge which heats iron to the point where it can be forge welded.
Iron temperatures of white hot (2200 degrees F.) are easily reached.

If straight air is enough to do the job then a direct application of oxygen is not required.


Oxy is used in hand held torches to enable a small, very hot and centralized flame.
As a small fwiw, the temperature in the blue cone of a properly adjusted Oxygen/Acetylene flame is 6300 degrees F.
Although you don't want to stick the blue cone into molten metal while welding.

Is there any chance the molten metal/iron we're talking about has long cooled and was simply hanging onto the iron beams?

Large quantities of molten metal will stay hot for a very long time, but it seems a month is a little too long.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Well, the plane is sort of like an explosive. The fuel exploding probably could have caused the fire to be hot enough to melt the steel.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergeo
Well, the plane is sort of like an explosive. The fuel exploding probably could have caused the fire to be hot enough to melt the steel.


1. Most of the fuel was burned up in the initial explosion outside of the buildings.
2. Fuel burns and evaporates very quickly.
3. Aviation fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.
4. Black smoke indicates lack of oxygen and cool burning temperatures.

Thus, there is no way the fuel could have melted the steel.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Found a really good video: video.google.com...

What suprissed me is the building was designed to stop the chimney effect and yea black smoke does indicate a fire with lack of oxygen so i guess my theory is busted


That video shows scene of lobby of one of the buildings looking like a bomb went of aswell so worth watching



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Could if of been smoke explosion? I doubt this but i just wanna see what everyone says.

video.google.com... shows black smoke, but also a big white cloud...

Now theirs this: www.firetactics.com...



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
...Thus, there is no way the fuel could have melted the steel...


Forest fires can and have melted steel pipelines and bridges, and in less time it took for the towers to collapse. I state this from personal experience of 25 years as a firefighter.

Wood burns at a lower temperature than aviation fuel.



[edit on 26-3-2006 by dave_54]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
interesting

quote: Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Twitchy, you mean ADM/SADM? (Atomic Demolitions Munitions)

www.brook.edu...

then there's this ;

www.stopthebombs.org...

and this is just the stuff they'll admit to !!!!!
I'll bet a dollar to a donut , we're lucky if we know
1% of what they have !

the building EJECTED up and away
from the bldgin an ARC !
STEEL BEAMS neatly SEVERED
from each other 600 feet from the bldg

the 600 ft part doeasn't bother me as much as the
SEVERED/SNAPPED pieces of treated contruction steel
that the building SPIT OUT like we'd spit out some bone or gristle
the stuff just plain does NOT SNAP like a freaking twig !
and buildings CAN'T spit out steel beams during a collapse
not without some energy pushing it up and out !

the REALLY SCAREY PART COMES when you realize
HOW LONG it took to set the charges
the preparation HAD TO TAKE MONTHS ! ....................[ there had to be about 10 large and a cpl hundred smaller ones ]


sooooo , WHO had the TIME and the ACCESS ,to
get into the bldg and THAT MANY
high tech weapons ?

a geek in a cave 10,000 miles away ?...oh please

-------------------------
We can point out discrepancies all day and all night but
I don't think that it's the stuff that's shown to be bollocks
that people reject
more than it is , that people just can't fathom
anyone else being behind it , other than who we were told was behind it !
It just blows their mind to think otherwise,
and THAT my dear friends is the CRUX of the problem.

------------------------
And considering those man on the street shows where
people are interviewed and they
don't know the name of the vice president or where pakistan
is on a map , etc , but they know who the big time rappers are or
who won an oscar it's no WONDER that nobody can figure out
anything , they're consumed with blingbling and caca
and the ones who don't fit that category just don't
wanna rock the boat and they'll stand and defend an
undefendable position because to do otherwise would crush
their little world...

and that's where it stands !

sorry, done with my rant now...



[edit on 26-3-2006 by toasted]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54

Originally posted by ANOK
...Thus, there is no way the fuel could have melted the steel...


Forest fires can and have melted steel pipelines and bridges, and in less time it took for the towers to collapse. I state this from personal experience of 25 years as a firefighter.

Wood burns at a lower temperature than aviation fuel.


Big diff is, and you should know this being a firefighter, fuel burns very quickly where as wood doesn't. You'll get a lot of heat with fuel but for a short time, not long enough to melt steel (unless you can flah melt steel...lol). Wood can cause objects such as steel to heat up more than fuel would just because it will burn for much longer.

Coal burns cooler than fuel, so why does a blacksmith use coal (and sometimes wood) and not gassoline in their furnace?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
The video "911 Revisited" covers most topics discussed on this thread pretty well, from explosives to temperatures required to melt steel to oxygen availability in the center of the buildings:

www.911revisited.com...

I'm now off to watch Loose Change and the other video mentioned. I guess I just haven't cried enough yet today.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
This may sound strange but since i started thinking that their was more to the buildings falling then some planes that i sorta felt better? If i think about it like... an enemy attacked and killed thousands then i get angry ... the angry that makes people want to kill every terrorist. I should still feel that anger even if it was the US that did this attack on its people, but i guess deep down i'm not sure who i should be angry at (the president? the government totally? some unknown sub government? some secret society?) and as a result i loose my anger in the confussion... i'd be differant if i knew someone that died there.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by FocusedWolf]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Someone said earlier that the air being sucked in would have cooled the fire. Not so man, fire feeds off of oxygen, as long as there is something that can burn and oxygen to feed it. The fire can grow hotter and hotter. I kinda just read that part then jumped to make this statement. If someone has stated this already let me know. I'll go back and read the rest of this thread.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Someone said earlier that the air being sucked in would have cooled the fire. Not so man, fire feeds off of oxygen, as long as there is something that can burn and oxygen to feed it. The fire can grow hotter and hotter.


The statement was that the air being sucked in from below would effectively make a sort of blast furnace.

In that case, the cool air would have made a big difference. It would need to be heated.


The Blast Furnace is a large steel structure about 30 metres high. It is lined with refractory firebricks that can withstand temperatures approaching 2000oC. The furnace gets its name from the method that is used to heat it. Pre-heated air at about 1000oC is blasted into the furnace through nozzles near its base.


Source.


To ensure efficient furnace operation, the required flow-rate and temperature of the blast air must be maintained. Typical industrial flows are 3000-10000 Normal cubic meters per minute at temperatures of 1000-1300 C, depending on the size and type of furnace. This hot air provides up to 40% of the blast furnace sensible heat requirement.


Source.

Fires can only get so hot in open atmosphere, and no hotter without special conditions like pre-heated air. That max temperature, with a perfect fuel/air ratio, at sea level, is around 825 C, and the black smoke coming from the Twin Towers after the jet fuel burned away indicated a poor fuel/air ratio, so you probably didn't even have anything near that sustained in the WTC. Not hot enough.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Also you have to consider the time span.

It takes time to heat up any object, especially steel. Even if the fire reached 1500 (melting temp) it would not nessecerily be able to heat up the steel enough to melt it in the short time before the buildings collapsed.

You also have to consider heat transport, heat is wicked away from an object by the air flow around it.

Even blast furnaces are not 100% heat efficient. A building is not very efficient at maintaining heat enough to melt steel especially at those low temps.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by toasted


logic tells me , that if the 1st wtc
bombing in 93 didn't set off the richter scale

then something really big and big enuf
to melt steel and KEEP IT HOT for a month
DID set off the richter scale this time



The seismic evidence was actually used by seismologists to rule out the use of bombs.


www.popularmechanics.com...


FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."




www.globalsecurity.org...


Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers — but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires — that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11.



I think they would have noticed a nuclear device going off.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   
C'mon LeftBehind you know that PM garbage has been de-bunked for what it was...Government sanctioned BS.
Just like the NIST report they took their conclusion of fires and plane damage and fitted the facts around it, ignoring anything that contradicted the conclusion they wanted.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   
From what i remeber on that day and i have not seen any videos since or recently anyway for few years on it, i remeber thinking when the tower dropped that a plane could not of done that to BOTH towers not one but Both was it not, so the same conditions hapened in Both towers didnt it?

I thought it looked like a mini nuke all that dust like a mushroom cloud thats what it looked like at time on that day but i dont think it was as people would surely know it was would'nt they??

I felt like they hit top with planes and had big bombs or bombs set in places in the towers??

I do feel something does not add up but what is it though, we are deff not being told something why is the question, many reasons why could be that it was not terrorists that did it but a enemy country blameing it on terrorists and the USA would have to respond in nukes if the public knew the truth?

its like Princess Dianas death dont feel rite feels like a cover up, but we cant proove it can we?

Also that Nazi that was kept in a prison whole prison for 1 man cause he knew so much secrets or something, he said in an interview in the 70's i think it was that for a NWO there would have to be a near Earth miss of an asteroid, war on terror, and a fake alien invasion, well it makes me think dont know about other people.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join