Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why the "Molten Steel" Argument Needs to Stop.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie

Because ALL CAMERAS WERE CONFISCATED as you passed through MILITARY CHECKPOINTS BLOCKS FROM GROUND ZERO.

Most of the photos taken even by the FEMA guys are still being withheld.


So I guess we will never really know for sure then will we, bummer.




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Pootie - you obviously were not in NYC. within 2 weeks I could 'walk' by the trade center. There were no 'military' check points.

WHERE DO YOU PEOPLE COME UP WITH THIS STUFF!?!



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
You know what I like about your post? You concede molten steel was at the sites. This is a big breakthrough at ATS.


Tell me about it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Seams the debunkers will fight tooth and nail to say there was no molten steel. Even when proven.

BTW, to the OPer, molten steel doesn't automatically mean CD IMO.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Concrete would smother any fire.

But thats to those pesky laws I keep mentioning that state energy can neither be created or destroyed, the heat would remain.

Concrete doesn't work to "soak up the heat" that well, as I said before, thats why concrete homes pay less for heating and cooling. It would wok as an insulator keeping that heat semi-trapped until it could find a way to more easily dissipate.

P.S. I had no idea that there was an argument about whether it existed or not(the molten steel). Why is it such a great accomplishment that you need to shout out "WE GOT AN ADMISSION!!!!!" This thread is it explain it , if it was there.



[edit on 9-7-2007 by Tiloke]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Personaly I think concrete would absorb the heat and smother any fire down below. Besides for your theory to be valid first you have to prove there was molten steel.


A blanket of concrete dust would starve the fire of oxygen. Some claim the subway tunnels were feeding O to the pile but this is hard for me to swallow as the basements had so much debris in them so densely packed that I can't see air flowing into it very well.

The insulating "R factor" of the concrete in the pile is hard to determine as it should be very evenly distributed and not some thick blanket on just the top covering the pile as I believe the above poster is insinuating.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Actually the concrete should have acted like a giant kiln holding the heat in and acting like a furnace.

Hoover Dam built back in the 1930s is still settling the mass of concrete is so large, the Dame still generates heat.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
Concrete would smother any fire.

But thats to those pesky laws I keep mentioning that state energy can neither be created or destroyed, the heat would remain.

Concrete doesn't work to "soak up the heat" that well, as I said before, thats why concrete homes pay less for heating and cooling. It would wok as an insulator keeping that heat semi-trapped until it could find a way to more easily dissipate.


The MILLIONS of gallons of water being poured on the piles would take the heat away... no?

You seem stuck on the fact that energy must change forms but then you ignore all of the forms it was taking up in this scenario.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Im very sure there was still hot coal under all that debris im not denying that, ive seen camp fires covered up with dirt and were still hot couple days later. So I cant say for sure about the concrete, however my main deal is all this molten steel. Im not buying into it because I have not seen definitive proof there was any.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
Wow, I actually need to quote the first post in this thread. Do people read anything other than the title before posting?


No friend, I don't think you read Jim Garrison's quote above. This coat hangar theory of yours is like the "Magic Bullet" theory on steroids.

Let's forget about the molten steel theory for a minute and maybe you can answer me how, without melting steel, do steel supports end up being sheared at a forty-five degree angle or thereabouts? God help me for getting involved in this thread!


Sorry, don't mean to steer the thread off course, but it really is relevant.

Peace



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie


You seem stuck on the fact that energy must change forms but then you ignore all of the forms it was taking up in this scenario.



No, you seem to ignore the sheer amount of energy that was involved. The amount of energy released has been compared to a small earthquake or a nuclear weapon. If even a small fration of this energy were converted to heat, do you really think that a few streams of water would make a difference against that kind of energy?

Dr. Love, this thread is about the molten steel. Please do not use the "ignore that, look over here" technique that always rears its ugly head when someone can't prove a point.



[edit on 9-7-2007 by Tiloke]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
there was no insulation the pile slowly cooled from day one it didn't heat up. Check the thermal imaging of the hot spots, they are cooling the whole time.

Whats more the lack of photo evidence is because of the restricted access for investigators at ground zero as quoted above. There are photos of molten steel but they are withheld/classified. Rescue workers were down there, there were reports from the rescue workers of the pools of molten steel including investigators taking photos of said pools.

I also would really be interested in seeing those photos.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by VicRH
I agree, since when do coat hangers turn to molten metal through that sort of effect through bending? Sure it will heat up but it doesnt melt! They snap.


Correct. It is a process called fatigue not melting. There would not be any fatigue failures in a gravity driven collapse.


Fatigue (material)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In materials science, fatigue is the progressive, localised, and permanent structural damage that occurs when a material is subjected to cyclic or fluctuating strains at nominal stresses that have maximum values less than (often much less than) the static yield strength of the material. The resulting stress is thus below the ultimate tensile stress, and may be below the yield stress of the material, yet still cause structural failure.


Can someone explain the cyclic or fluctuating strains that would be produced in a one time gravity driven collapse?

BTW, creep is also related to fatigue, which is what NIST is trying to say happened also.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Pootie - you obviously were not in NYC. within 2 weeks I could 'walk' by the trade center. There were no 'military' check points.


Two weeks may have been when the restricted zone shrank but I assure you no cameras other than FEMAs were allowed inside the cleanup operation even at that point.

This is why there is such a vacuum of photographic evidence available.

Do some research.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
If you will watch the towers fall on tape you will see all that energy dispersing for blocks and blocks. You cant hold that kind of energy its going to disipate in all directions because it was an open area. I think there was some hot coals under that building just like all other buildings that burned down.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
Dr. Love, this thread is about the molten steel. Please do not use the "ignore that, look over here" technique.


OK, so I ask my question again, without MELTING steel, how does a steel support end up sheared at a 45 degree angle? The operative word in my question being "melting".

Peace



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
No, you seem to ignore the sheer amount of energy that was involved. The amount of energy released has been compared to a small earthquake or a nuclear weapon. Do you really think that a few streams of water would make a difference against that kind of energy?


COME ON... Could you post anything other than unfounded anecdotal "evidence"?

WHO compared the "energy released" to a nuclear weapon???


All you really have for input is MASS of BLOCK X g and this needs to cover for for ALL OF THE ENERGY SINKS. The PE calculations have been done and the PE of the block is WAY to small for all of the sinks even conservatively speaking.

I understand you are trying to make a connection between the conversion of mechanical energy to thermal energy but you have failed to produce any mechanism to support this.

You have also failed to explain how so much energy would be available to generate such massive heat while at the same time fulfilling the needs of all of the other energy sinks.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
I think there was some hot coals under that building just like all other buildings that burned down.


The fires were ABOVE 70 floors worth of materials. How do we now have "hot coals" in the BOTTOM of the pile?

There SHOULD BE 70 floors worth of un burned debris then 4-5 floors of burned debris then 25+ floors worth of unburned debris... correct?



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
In science an experiment must replicate an isolate the conditions it seeks to explore exactly or the conclusions are meaningless. Even "thought" experiments require the same due diligence. Your experiment with a hangar is flawed in at least one important way:

You added energy to the system.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
There were probably fires down below because a giant tower just fell on top of it. We dont know what was down there, maybe gas tanks or electrical whatever. And dropping tons of material ontop of something is bound to cause fire.
To me it sounds silly to think fire wouldnt take place on the lower level.

All it takes is a spark sometimes ask any fireman.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Ok Vox, Read the thread next time.

The coat hanger was an example of kinetic energy being converted to heat energy. I understand that there were other forces involved also, but the point of it was that kinetic energy can be converted to heat. It had nothing to do whatsoever with the strength of the hanger or its ability to resist stress or the fact that I put energy into it. The energy put into it in the case of the WTC would be the potential energy stored in the very towers themselves.

As I said before, the energy released by the falling buildings has been compared to a small earthquake or a nuclear weapon.

If even a small fraction of that energy were converted to heat during the collapse, than that would explain the high temperatures and melted steel that people claim to have seen.

The thousands of tons of concrete that settled over that would be enough to keep those temperatures up for weeks.


[edit on 9-7-2007 by Tiloke]






top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join