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.

 

Molten Steel Ejected across Street (Pic)

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
They did a series of tests under different conditions, they didn't just perform one test.


Got a link?




posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   
This is getting seriously off topic. If anyone wants to discuss the severity of the fires and the NIST tests/simulations, perhaps we can start another thread. It's not like they've been discussed to death or anything.
Let's also try to take some of the antagonism out of the debate. It gets us nowhere and stresses everybody out, and I'm sure we all get enough of that at work without having to deal with it here, agreed?

Getting back to the "stuff", whatever it is,

i.e this:



and this:



No office fire, no matter how hot, is going to raise metals to temperatures of 1000+ºC. Atmospheric temperature and the temperature of substances in that atmosphere are of course related, but not the same.

So if the first picture is indeed molten metal, of whatever kind, then the question is, how did it reach 1000+ºC temperatures? And what caused a sudden and spontaneous fountain of molten metal to suddenly burst out of the corner of WTC2 moments before it collapsed?

Concerning the second picture, the question remains, what is it? If it is indeed glowing hot metal, then what caused it to reach 1000+ºC temperatures? At that temperature, aluminium would be as runny as water, so one would not expect it to be present in lumps like that, rather it would be in pools. And if it is not metal, then what is it?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, because we all know NIST is going to include information on the >1000 C molten material running out of the side of the building, and chunks of it landing in front of the 90 West Building. That would really support the case they were trying to make, especially since their fires could barely reach those temperatures.


They weren't TRYING to 'make any case'. They conducted an investigation. Is it possible that the small amount 'glowy stuff' falling out of a building having experienced a huge fuel laden plane crash into it and explode causing raging fires may not be the 'anomoly' that some people think it is?

Whats unusual about the debris on the 90 West Building?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Realize how often offices are loaded down with half tons of combustibles and it isn't a very difficult deduction.


How big an office? How many 'half tons'?

It really doesn't matter. The clear implication here is that the investigations were 'rigged'.
What is the evidence for your hypothesis?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   


So if the first picture is indeed molten metal


It all depends on that one little word doesn't it?

Without that being possible to establish at this point it can never be anything but something to disagree about.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Without that being possible to establish at this point it can never be anything but something to disagree about.


I agree.
But unless we can show that office fires commonly raise metals to 1000+ºC, we can rule out aluminium with a high probability.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Vushta
Without that being possible to establish at this point it can never be anything but something to disagree about.


I agree.
But unless we can show that office fires commonly raise metals to 1000+ºC, we can rule out aluminium with a high probability.


But only IF what these pics show IS metal.....we're back at step one.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Got a link?


Yes.

wtc.nist.gov...

Download the PDF, read the report. It's all in there. I'm actually amazed that someone who's so critical of the "official report" has not read it. It's long, but contains a lot of information.


There are also pictures out there showing a silvery substance pouring out of a few windows that day, consistent with molten aluminum. It is possible that the glowing samples are mixed with other materials, and thus glow at a lower temperature. I still haven't ruled out that something could not have been heated to 1000c in the building.

As to it being thermite, does anyone have any evidence that thermite can be used to horizontily cut columns? I thought that it tended to cut straight down.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The high strength aluminum alloys used in airframe construction typically melt at 495 to 640 C, or 923 to 1183 F,


www.grantadesign.com...


These temperatures are quite easily obtained in a typical structural fire scenario


In a typical structure fire, the gas layer at the ceiling can quickly reach temperatures of 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

fire.ucdavis.edu...

Considering that multiple floor levels were burning at the same time, there is no reason to suppose that the aircraft aluminum would not melt.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
And what caused a sudden and spontaneous fountain of molten metal to suddenly burst out of the corner of WTC2 moments before it collapsed?


I believe that the NIST analysis of the photos from that corner showed that a number of hanging objects that were visible in the windows suddenly sagged or dropped at the time that the material was pouring out. This suggests a partial floor collapse that could have caused a pool of molten material to flow out.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

I'm actually amazed that someone who's so critical of the "official report" has not read it.




I've read the Lord of the Rings but I'm not going to remember everything about it my friend.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

As to it being thermite, does anyone have any evidence that thermite can be used to horizontily cut columns? I thought that it tended to cut straight down.



Not perfectly sure but isn't there such a thing as thermite welding? How do they weld horizontally with thermite if it cuts only straight down? I would think that the reaction could be placed with a material that starts the reaction horizontal but then starts to go vertical. Could that be the reason we see columns that have a mysterious 45 degree angle cut? Just my thoughts.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The high strength aluminum alloys used in airframe construction typically melt at 495 to 640 C, or 923 to 1183 F,


www.grantadesign.com...


These temperatures are quite easily obtained in a typical structural fire scenario


In a typical structure fire, the gas layer at the ceiling can quickly reach temperatures of 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

fire.ucdavis.edu...

Considering that multiple floor levels were burning at the same time, there is no reason to suppose that the aircraft aluminum would not melt.


I'll ask this again Howard. At what temperature does aluminum glow orange in broad daylight? The picture that goes around says 1300 F. That's within the 1500 F at the gas layer of a ceiling but doesn't account for that the gas layer at the ceiling would have a layer of concrete between it and this molten substance. Remember that concrete is an excellent fire retardent.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I believe that the NIST analysis of the photos from that corner showed that a number of hanging objects that were visible in the windows suddenly sagged or dropped at the time that the material was pouring out. This suggests a partial floor collapse that could have caused a pool of molten material to flow out.


I have the video, and there appear to be no dropping, saggy bits.


The high strength aluminum alloys used in airframe construction typically melt at 495 to 640 C

Correct, but it must be 1000+C to glow that colour.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
As to it being thermite, does anyone have any evidence that thermite can be used to horizontily cut columns? I thought that it tended to cut straight down.


Here's just one example:

Thermite Destructive Device - United States Patent 5698812



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

I have the video, and there appear to be no dropping, saggy bits.






Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

The high strength aluminum alloys used in airframe construction typically melt at 495 to 640 C

Correct, but it must be 1000+C to glow that colour.


No, it only has to be slightly hotter than it's melting point.


The ingot is placed in the gas fired crucible (the silicon carbide vats where the aluminum alloy is melted) which is heated to approximately 1300 degrees F.


That's about 700 C.



www.laaluminum.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I'll ask this again Howard. At what temperature does aluminum glow orange in broad daylight? The picture that goes around says 1300 F. That's within the 1500 F at the gas layer of a ceiling but doesn't account for that the gas layer at the ceiling would have a layer of concrete between it and this molten substance. Remember that concrete is an excellent fire retardent.


Like I said, there were multiple floors burning at the same time.

It is pretty much pointless to try state that the fire temps could not have reached that high. They could have quite easlily.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Like I said, there were multiple floors burning at the same time.

It is pretty much pointless to try state that the fire temps could not have reached that high. They could have quite easlily.



If the floors were that hot, wouldn't the external aluminum start to melt also? Since aluminum melts at lower temperatures than 1300 F? Or would the wind be cooling the outside off? Or are we correct when saying that the temperatures would have been wicked away by the steel? I didn't see any steel/aluminum on the outside even begin to turn red, let alone start to melt.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
The floors were pretty big. Hot spots would have formed in the interior areas.

Furthermore, the aluminum still attached to the outside was insulated by the fireproofing on the exterior of the columns, so it would not have been subjected to the same sustained temperatures as the debris on the inside was. Nor is it the same alloy.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I have come to the conclusion that this arguement is moot. No one is going to concede to the other side because there is no proof one way or the other. So, if NIST et al did such a wonderful job in their analysis, why don't we know what substance that was? Why was there no metalurgy tests done on these molten/red hot metals to see what they were. NIST can't say that that wasn't their job because it most certainly was. The poles of molten metal would have told them what temperatures things got to and we wouldn't be fighting over whether the fires were hot enough to fell the towers. So, yes they should have done metalurgy tests on this and other molten/red hot metals. Makes me wonder why they ignored this phenomenon when even engineers at ground zero said poles of molten metal.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join