WTC7 - 20 story gash

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So the fuel was emptied after the buidlings collapsed and not burned off in the fire ? Thier were reports also that the fuel was run out through the pumps that were still running before and during the collapse.

Except for the larger amounts that were recovered by the EPA.

I must be making progress.
You used to try to tell me all the fuel was recovered, then most of it and now we're down a larger amount. Maybe we're zeroing in on facts here.

Due to a planning regulation specifiying a maximum 1 day tank on any floor, the Salomon system had to be continuously pressurised and on loss of power all 9 MG sets on the 5th floor tried to start to restore power to the pumps before pressure was lost. The control system then shutdown as many as weren't required to meet demand. Studies found that if the fuel riser were fractured, the entire contents of the 2 tanks would be sprayed out all over the place until the tanks went dry and that was the NIST angle on it just a few months ago. There were 2 pumps rated at 70 gallons/minute so the 12000 gallons could be pumped dry in as fast as 86 minutes and surprisingly, there was no safety system to prevent that happening.

What I was getting at with the day tanks and overflow pans was that fuel there could have been ignited but would still be contained until the tank and
pan were destroyed (falling building). So yet another source of flaming accelerant getting into the rubble to start the fires that burnt for weeks.

Did anyone report recovering over 100000 gallons of transformer oil?
Diesel was only a minor part of the fuel there and not all of that was even recovered.



[edit on 5/4/2008 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
You used to try to tell me all the fuel was recovered, then most of it and now we're down a larger amount.

All the fuel was recovered that was in the Silverstein ground tanks, as proven.

Some fuel was leaked out through the lines and pumps.

The larger amount was recovered.



[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
All the fuel was recovered that was in the Silverstein ground tanks, as proven.

Some fuel was leaked out through the lines and pumps.

The larger amount was recovered.

So we have concensus that there was actually more flammable liquid fuel unaccounted for in WTC7 than there was in the towers. A bare minimum of 12000 gallons of diesel alone.

I suggest in excess of 100000 gallons of it if the transformer oil is included so it doesn't surprise me at all that the fires burnt hot for a long time after the building came down.

The big question is how that pressurised fuel riser was fractured in the first place and this thread has shown evidence of the damge inflicted on WTC7 by debris from the collapsing towers as a reasonable explanation of that.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I suggest in excess of 100000 gallons of it if the transformer oil is included so it doesn't surprise me at all that the fires burnt hot for a long time after the building came down.

But does that still account for the fires getting hot enough to melt steel and keep it molten for 6 weeks?

Why do you keep bringing up the transformer oil?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But does that still account for the fires getting hot enough to melt steel and keep it molten for 6 weeks?

I know I asked the same thing in another thread but I'll try yet again and ask what evidence is there that any steel was kept molten for 6 weeks?

Why do you keep bringing up the transformer oil?

A number of reasons:
There was a huge amount of it
It wasn't recovered or accounted for
It's flammable and burns very hot
And additionally no-one seems to think it's significant - I do

Remember the suggestion of lack of fuel to keep a fire going for a long time and that this is a major source of potential fuel.


[edit on 7/4/2008 by Pilgrum]

Watch the difference between a building collapsing without explosives vs. a controlled demolition:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...




WTC Building 7 – The 911 Smoking Gun?

desip.igc.org...

wtc7.net...




Zogby Poll - 67% fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

www.zogby.com...




Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation

www.911truth.org...




.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Remember the suggestion of lack of fuel to keep a fire going for a long time and that this is a major source of potential fuel.

But does it still account for the molten steel, even with all the fuel from the main Silverstein tanks recovered?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Remember the suggestion of lack of fuel to keep a fire going for a long time and that this is a major source of potential fuel.

But does it still account for the molten steel, even with all the fuel from the main Silverstein tanks recovered?

"molten steel" as you call it, has been debunked to death. You should check here for your answer: www.debunking911.com...

reply to post by Disclosed


I beg to differ. FEMA is recorded as saying molten steel.

It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occured in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel in the WTC 7.

www.fema.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Disclosed
"molten steel" as you call it, has been debunked to death. You should check here for your answer:

So i guess the photos of molten steel are fake and the video of the fire chief stating how hot the debris is and stating how red hot it is inside faked too?

The molten steel has not been debunked, only in the minds of people living in a fantasy world that cannot face reallity.

Originally posted by Griff
I beg to differ. FEMA is recorded as saying molten steel.

Now leave Disclosed alone, he is one of those living in a fantasy world.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So i guess the photos of molten steel are fake and the video of the fire chief stating how hot the debris is and stating how red hot it is inside faked too?

I have no argument about it being red hot because that is a documented and proven fact. There also was liquid at that heat but that's where the problem arises because steel does not melt at red heat or even remain molten at that temperature which is about 800-1000C. No matter what heat source is used, it's the temperature that matters and steel is bright white at melting point. There are plenty of other metals that melt at or below red heat and aluminium/aluminium alloys are a good candidate.

I'm not denying there was molten steel but red heat is not evidence of it.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm not denying there was molten steel but red heat is not evidence of it.

Oh so now you change your story and state their was molten steel?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Now leave Disclosed alone, he is one of those living in a fantasy world.

What is this, Junior high school?

For some reason I thought this was an adult forum, with discussions on 9/11 conspiracies. But resorting to name calling? How sad.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh so now you change your story and state their was molten steel?

I'm trying to be reasonable about this and other issues as I have no political agendas making me dedicated to any theory so I can safely stick with facts wherever they take me. I have no pre-conceived idea of what the truth is and I'm hoping the real evidence will lead to accurate conclusions.

I'm saying there may have been molten steel found adjacent to a hot fire 6 weeks after the collapses but what does that prove other than that the fires were hot enough. A fact to consider is that red hot liquid is not steel, it just couldn't be as steel melts to liquid at about 700C hotter than red heat. FEMA documented evidence of intergranular melting indicating prolonged heating at

Originally posted by Pilgrum
FEMA documented evidence of intergranular melting indicating prolonged heating at

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm trying to be reasonable about this and other issues as I have no political agendas making me dedicated to any theory so I can safely stick with facts wherever they take me.

Simply put: there may have been molten steel in the rubble but what does it prove other than that the post-collapse fires were hot enough?

But didn't you state before that their was not molten steel? Now you change your story? Speaking of facts, i am still waiting for any facts that support the official story.

How were the post-collapse fires hot enough when they were not hot enough to melt steel in the first place and were burning out before the collapse?


[edit on 10-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by bsbray11
I think you're mis-interpreting what FEMA is saying. I'm pretty sure FEMA explicitly said that the steel was liquefied. It's melting point was actually lowered by the simultaneous sulfidation. That was the whole idea behind the inclusion of sulfur in a eutectic mixture applied to the columns to rapidly corrode/melt them.

They're showing evidence of penetration into the microstructure of the steel by a hot mixture containing sulphur, forming sulfides of iron and manganese which accelerated the corrosion as those sulfides have a lower melting point than the original steel. It's not an instantaneous process, it takes a lot of time and continuous heating, conditions which were present in the post-collapse fires.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But didn't you state before that their was not molten steel? Now you change your story? Speaking of facts, i am still waiting for any facts that support the official story.

How were the post-collapse fires hot enough when they were not hot enough to melt steel in the first place and were burning out before the collapse?

I still have not seen evidence of what I'd consider to be molten steel but I'm prepared to accept that it may have happened to some degree as the conditions were there (heat and steel). My view hasn't changed and I still think the tales of lakes and rivers of molten steel are a gross exaggeration or even a fabrication.

By 'burning out' I think you mean the fires had passed their peak pre-collapse but they were far from being 'out' and they had a lot more fresh combustible material post-collapse. I fail to see how the post-collapse fires are a factor in the failure causing the collapse and despite some of the fuel in WTC7 being recovered, there was far more not recovered.

I'm still keen to see your proof of steel being kept molten for 6 weeks btw unless it's fema403_apc.pdf in which case I already have it and it is not proof of such a claim.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by bsbray11
I think you're mis-interpreting what FEMA is saying. I'm pretty sure FEMA explicitly said that the steel was liquefied. It's melting point was actually lowered by the simultaneous sulfidation. That was the whole idea behind the inclusion of sulfur in a eutectic mixture applied to the columns to rapidly corrode/melt them.

They're showing evidence of penetration into the microstructure of the steel by a hot mixture containing sulphur, forming sulfides of iron and manganese which accelerated the corrosion as those sulfides have a lower melting point than the original steel. It's not an instantaneous process

I never said it was instantaneous.

it takes a lot of time and continuous heating

The eutectic reaction is what provides the heat, isn't it? It's an exothermic reaction, right? Meaning it gives off heat? Like thermite does, because it's also a eutectic. And the sulfur, again, added to lower the melting point of steel.

Can you say just how long you think it would take for this to happen, at least to the point of compromising the structure? I'm pretty sure the word used by FEMA to describe the corrosion was "rapid," but maybe I need to go back and dig that page back up.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The eutectic reaction is what provides the heat, isn't it? It's an exothermic reaction, right? Meaning it gives off heat? Like thermite does, because it's also a eutectic. And the sulfur, again, added to lower the melting point of steel.

Can you say just how long you think it would take for this to happen, at least to the point of compromising the structure? I'm pretty sure the word used by FEMA to describe the corrosion was "rapid," but maybe I need to go back and dig that page back up.

From their summary:

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

Long-term heating that possibly started prior to collapse is how I read that. If it was a factor in the total collapse there'd be more than just a couple of pieces demonstrating that evidence, more likely a vast amount of it.

The problem with thermite as the source of that heating is that it's violent and uncontrollable, lasting a minute at most. The long-term heating, if accomplished with a thermite mixture, would take a continuously replenished supply of it.

The 1000C figure is supported by NIST test fires with standard building contents like computer workstations where the peak temperature measured was in fact around 1000C also in agreement with their modelling.