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.

 

IRON in WTC Burned ?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   

The only likely source of the heat great enough to actually "melt" significant quantities of iron in the piles (or even just raise so much of it to red-hot or to 2000F) would be chemical energy (i.e., "combustion" of some sort). Professor Jones assumes that all the carbonaceous "combustible" matter in the "piles" would have burned away long before the time that the red-hot and molten iron was discovered (weeks after the collapse of the WTC towers). Perhaps it did, by weeks after the collapse. But Professor Jones obviously does not comprehend that the hot, red-hot and molten IRON IS COMBUSTIBLE matter.


Very interesting page here. Points out more bad science! Alot of that from Dr. IndianaJones. Some of this could show why there are pools of metal,even iron. Could shed more light on the hot spots recorded at the WTC.

www.debunking911.com...




posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Interesting indeed.

None of the CTer's seem to want to discuss this.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Where does he state this? I do not recall reading this passage in his areticles.


Professor Jones assumes that all the carbonaceous "combustible" matter in the "piles" would have burned away long before the time that the red-hot and molten iron was discovered (weeks after the collapse of the WTC towers).



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
That is very interesting. I looked through that article for some quantitative analysis but there appears to be none. (And the author seems to be more concerned with throwing insults at Jones than anything else).

Four sources are given describing the phenomenon:

1. A children's website stating that iron can "get hot" when in "big loads".

2. An iron foundry.

3. Ancient religious texts about the "fire spirit in iron".

4. A blast furnace.

For #1, I've climbed all over piles of steel as a kid and never once burnt my kneecaps or hands, so I'm not too sure about this one.

For #2, no sources are cited, and the only mention is of iron oxidizing. It being an iron foundry, I'm fairly certain that the iron was not brought to these temperatures by simply leaving it around in piles and waiting for it to heat up. And no mention is made of iron melting and creating pools of liquid metal as was reported at the WTC site, and as can be seen pouring off the end of the beams in this excavation claw:



For #3, I'll let HowardRoark tell you about how anyone who is religious is a raving, lying lunatic out to fool the world with bogus science for some bizarre, unfathomable plot.

For #4, it's a blast furnace with pressurized oxygen pumped in and under strictly controlled conditions, nowhere does it state that iron will exhibit this phenomenon or even melt on its own.

Assessing this phenomena without any quantitative data, it's at least clear that iron has to be brought to extreme temperatures by external forces before it will exhibit such, and even then it will simply oxidize and turn to iron oxide (rust) instead of melting into liquid iron. So how was the metal brought to the temperatures required to trigger this reaction in the first place? Are we back at the ludicrous "deep-strata coal fires" argument? And how does that fit with WTC7 which didn't have the massive underground basements, yet recorded the highest temperatures of all? Furthermore satellite photos would seem to show that the hotspots were not confined to over the basements, nor indeed to "the pile", thus calling this explanation into serious question:



Now I know that the history of Jones' samples are called into question, and rightly so, but his latest pdf states:

www.physics.byu.edu...
[The] previously molten metal has very little (if any) Chromium yet abundant Manganese => we rule out molten structural steel (as a major component)


If the samples were indeed from the pile, then they would seem to rule out the "oxidizing iron" phenomena as an explanation, unless the carbon and chromium in the steel (can someone confirm that structural steel includes chromium?) are somehow gaseously liberated by the process.

To date, there has not been a satisfactory theory provided for how the steel was brought to temperatures sufficient to melt it, or to trigger this oxidizing effect, other than thermite. However the oxidizing iron phenomenon may indeed explain how the pile maintained its elevated temperatures for weeks after the hypothetical thermite was exhausted, which has always been a bone of contention.

[edit on 2006-7-27 by wecomeinpeace]

Mod Edit: Image Link.


[edit on 15/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
From what i've heard Thermate which is Thermite with added sulphur and maganese in was used to melt the iron to fell the buildings



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xenesthad
From what i've heard Thermate which is Thermite with added sulphur and maganese in was used to melt the iron to fell the buildings




You heard very wrong.

To you, and others who believe thermite brought down the towers, have any of you even seen thermite in action?



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadEagle

To you, and others who believe thermite brought down the towers, have any of you even seen thermite in action?


Yes... and Thermate and Superthermate. I have not seen the Cylindrical Thermate Cutting Device designed to cut through very thik steel in action though.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
For #3, I'll let HowardRoark tell you about how anyone who is religious is a raving, lying lunatic out to fool the world with bogus science for some bizarre, unfathomable plot.



AHEMM. excuse me?






[edit on 27-7-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
However the oxidizing iron phenomenon may indeed explain how the pile maintained its elevated temperatures for weeks after the hypothetical thermite was exhausted, which has always been a bone of contention.


Yes, thank you Duhh for giving us the answer to "how could thermite burn for weeks" question. Now we have "evidence" that once the thermite was expended that this oxidation proccess could have fueled the fire to keep it that hot. Again...thanks for supplying the answer.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
So, if you will admit that there was ample fuel for the fires to burn, and ample time for the heat to build up, then why do you need rely on the the thermite theory in the first place?



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, if you will admit that there was ample fuel for the fires to burn,


From oxidized steel? You too are assuming thermite, apparently.

You can't have it both ways.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
the towers only burned for 50 minutes or so. How is it even remotely possible that was enough time for the 47 key columns to reach the tempatures needed for a total failure and collapse?



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by whokilledthekennedys
the towers only burned for 50 minutes or so. How is it even remotely possible that was enough time for the 47 key columns to reach the tempatures needed for a total failure and collapse?



Read this,

fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk...

The look up the Euler equation for column buckling.

Then we will talk.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The look up the Euler equation for column buckling.

Then we will talk.


As in, talk about how there is absolutely no evidence of enough buckling to initiate a collapse?

Or, how the number of "buckled columns" suggested by NIST would have been ridiculously inable to cause even a local collapse?



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
What is funny here is this! This is a thread about not needing , thermite/ mate super or whatever the CTers are clinging to this week. It is about how all this heat can be generated with out the slight of hand mumbo jumbo. Back On Track ???



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

To date, there has not been a satisfactory theory provided for how the steel was brought to temperatures sufficient to melt it, or to trigger this oxidizing effect, other than thermite.
[edit on 2006-7-27 by wecomeinpeace]


well there is another theory to explain how the steel was brought to melting temperatures and way beyond (evaporating temps) and that is with radiation without thermite:


Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F).


think 'modern thermonuclear explosive'. It provides a very feasible explaination.

members.surfeu.fi...

Also, on the thermite discussion - its quite possible lots of thermite was produced naturally, the WTC buildings were apparently quite rusty, probably more rusty in some places than others. Now, many builders and workmen know that when they are drilling with aluminium drill tips they have to be very careful on metal surfaces because of the risk of thermite fires(!), if they drill into a rusty surface they could trigger a thermite reaction which could literally burn the house down, its simply the combination of very high friction, aluminium and presense of rust. So for me its quite possible there was plenty of thermite, but mearly a natural by product of the crash. There is video footage of what appears to be a localized thermite reaction taking place where the aircraft hit the building. Anyhow, you would need unrealistic amounts of thermite to vaporise the core in the way that it did, so i am enclinded to believe some type of advanced micro thermonuclear device was used.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
"Burning radiation"

WTF is "Burning radiation?"




posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
just a little power phrasing, the quote was translated from Finnish. Radiation can burn things, k.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Nukes?? Show one shred of evidence for that please. Your Llnk or, opinion, or whatever? That is so rich,( loud laughter here ) wanna see it. Ooops, or was that just one of those" well this could cause that" CT moments ?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Nukes?? Show one shred of evidence for that please. Your Llnk or, opinion, or whatever? That is so rich,( loud laughter here ) wanna see it. Ooops, or was that just one of those" well this could cause that" CT moments ?


I did post a link, check out this

members.surfeu.fi...




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join