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.

 

Why the "Molten Steel" Argument Needs to Stop.

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I have no proof, and I do not ask you to believe my theories. I apologize if I presented those as facts instead of my personal opinion. I don't think they control everything, only that they influence everything. Surely they can not control the masses. That is why they turn us against one another. Not all of us mind you, but the majority. They have no need to control all of us, only the ones that pose a threat. These are just my views and conclusions. Back to the molten steel though...I'm really not trying to derail this thread.




posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
steel melts in the presence of heat. Heat was present via fire. Only a sustained heat or super heating would melt tempered steel beams. What do you think melted the millions of tons of steel instantly if not a sustained fire? And don't say a nuke because it's not possible so we'll rule that out now. Why isn't it possible? NO RADIATION.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Excellent post! I have never needed to pay much attention to the "molten steel" theory to maintain a gut feeling that there is still much to the 9/11 story that has not been told.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
Greening has been beat down OVER AND OVER AND OVER... even the NIST rejects his work so...

Drop the greening argument and do a search for his "retraction and exit" from 9/1 research.


Thanks for the reply. I will take your word that Greening's work has been discredited. I only have enough physics knowledge to basically understand the logic of calculations but no where near enough to verify or dispute them.

Gottago ! made an interesting later post about the concept of heating in a 10sec time frame which I thought was reasonable comment.

Anyway the trail of deceit is much stronger elsewhere!

Hey I'm from down under.. does anyone know where you can buy those fire proof bandannas that eject from crashing planes?.. ( I'd like my tailor to make a whole suit out them!)



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I'm actually on Vacation in Montreal (beautiful city/women) and in my spare time I was reading this thread, having read it I later decided to find a place to get online and say one thing.

Tiloke seems like he just finished a high school physics class and is trying to use that knowledge.

I'm sorry, but people who TEACH physics have been saying much of the opposite. I don't mean offence, I actually applaude the fact you're challenging this, but regardless...

I'm going to go with University level physics professors.


As for my (I admit) limited knowledge of physics and physical chemistry, according to your "model" of what caused the molten metal, there should have been a larger and definitely more centralised area of where the pools could be located. This is assuming all the PE was forced into (as many previous posters said) into a single process, melting the steel. However it was not, there were many other energy sinks.

I would stay more active but afterall I'm on vacation
I'll try to stop and read tomorrow.

Edit:
As for the radiation matter, (check me on this of course) I recall many people having some diseases and the such which are usually caused by radiation. Certain rare types of emphasema, cancers, lukemia, etc. I also recall reading a report which found radation at the site.

Anyway, I'm most sure about the weird/unusual diseases, not so much the radiation part.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by Vinci]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
If an object traveling 5 MPH was 5 energy, that same object traveling 10 mph has 20 energy.


object 1 = mass 1kg, traveling 5m/s
object 2 = mass 1kg, traveling 10m/s

kinetic energy = 0.5 x m x v^2
(^2 means to the power of 2 or squared)

object 1 kinetic energy = 0.5x1x5^2 = 12.5 kgms or newtons
object 2 kinetic energy = 0.5x1x10^2 = 50 kgms or newtons

you are correct. however, neglecting air resistance, BOTH OBJECTS WOULD FALL WITH THE SAME VELOCITY, FREE FALL SPEED WOULD BE THE SAME FOR ALL BUILDINGS (only the mass would be directly proportional to the total kinetic energy) HENCE WHATS YOU ****ING POINT?
idiot.

and you also overlooked the process were some of the energy would of been transferred into the earth displacing it slightly. i would assume this is were most of the energy went.

[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   
RADIATION.
What I meant by detectable radiation is:
Hundreds would die within days from radiation sickness.
Radioactive dust would remain in the atmosphere for weeks floating all over the united states with wind currents.
Everything around the site where ANY dust had fallen, would be contaminated for decades, making many, many square miles around the site uninhabitable for generations.
Ground water sources in the city would be so contaminated as to be unusable.

Anyone can buy a geiger counter, take it out to the site and have absolute proof of a nuclear explosion. Bring a radiation suite because radioactive particles don't have a half life of 6 years. Just curious but has anyone done that and proved without a doubt the supposed "micro nuke" has been used?



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Hmm, do you know of any of the above would be true with the most minute amounts?

I know my mother was near Chernybol when that whole thing happened, in a train, and she said everyone's electric watches stopped working
But in the end she was later camping with my sister and my father and it was raining, radioactive rain. Later when they heard about Chernobyl, she was scared ****less and went to get everything checked. Supposedly all the tests were radioactive and such so she threw those away, but nobody's hair was radioactive or anything. I'm not sure why they'd check hair? But regardless, no deformities in my family. Yet



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
There still is detectable radiation in the ground surrounding chernobyl. Also thousands died from radiation sickness. A radioactive cloud was tracked traversing the earth from MANY nations. If a micro nuke (prove it even exists please) went off, ANYONE could prove it with a simple geiger counter.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Let me add few things.

1. The fires were burning out well before the towers collapsed (according to videos and photos) so what kept the debris red hot and molten for several weeks.

2. All the firechiefs on the scene were only worried about the upper floors above the impact area collasping (not the whole tower) if the fires would have kept burning for several more hours (which they did not).

3. Their were e-mails talking abot high level of radiation aroung the WTC and Pentagon but is was blamed on the depleted uranium from the planes (problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry depleted uranium).

Also why the EPL asked NASA to do a overfly of the area with the AVIRIS system.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. The fires were burning out well before the towers collapsed (according to videos and photos) so what kept the debris red hot and molten for several weeks.


The South Tower collapse started at 9:59. Your claim that the fires were "burning out" is inaccurate. Although the fires directly at the exterior sections of the impact points don't appear to be as intense as when the planes initially impacted, this does not in mean that the fires were burning out in the interior sections of the WTC towers.

Here are some photos with timestamps.










This is just prior to the Collapse. I'm not sure...but those look like flames in the corner...(where the collapse started)



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
CaptainObvious,

Actually your incorrect. This is simple science. Dark smoke implies the presence of soot. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away. As you can see from your pictures there is dark smoke thus being oxygen starved. Oxygen starved fires are well below 600 degrees celsius. We can all say that fire was not the cause for the collapse of the WTC towers.

There were numerous people who survived the impact of the plane, who were on levels above the impacted floors, who actually passed through the impact hole to escape. If temperatures did indeed reach about 800 degrees C to weaken steel these people should not have survived.

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen starved, or has just been extinguished.


Good evening my favorite Aussie....

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The color of the smoke is not always the indication of the severity of an ongoing fire.

How many computers were on any given floor?
Large fires involving plastics produce copious quantities of black smoke..

www.hse.gov.uk...

Please go to pages 10 and 13 where there are some photographs of plastic pallets on fire. Please notice the color of the smoke.

Fire Investigator John J Lentini will also disagree with you:


“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”
www.atslab.com...

Here are pictures... not really oxygen starved:









posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
CaptainObvious,

Good to see you on as well


There are also numerous people who refute that which could lead us to an endless debate once again.

Ok lets move on, i posted the below in another thread which could be relevant to our discussion.

I don't think conventional explosives were used, but thats not important, what is important are the numerous characteristics that arise from the buildings collapse that are evident and which we can see from watching the horrifying events of that day. We obviously cannot prove to you exactly what type of explosive was used and so, but then again if NIST conducted its research in a correct manner we would not have received this nonsense:

Did NIST look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."


If they had tested for these compounds we could have determined what type of explosive was used and so on.

Molten steel was found under ALL 3 buildings. How is it possible for molten steel to be found under WTC7 when no plane crashed into it, thus no jet fuel, also the fact that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fires, so once again how did WTC7 collapse without the means of some sort of explosive?

Moreover,

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.

They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "inter granular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon - Source

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.


The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.

liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

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.
- Source

We also know from numerous studies conducted by Professor Steven Jones on the theory of Thermate that characteristics such as severe corrosion, intra granular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory.

Please watch the lecture of Professor Steven Jones below for an in depth analysis and research he proves without a shadow of a doubt that thermate was used to destroy the buildings. He conducted his research using a Electron microscope and analyzed steel spheres from WTC site, what he found was a thermate signature and compounds of thermate.


Google Video Link


Link for above video - LINK

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk
There were numerous people who survived the impact of the plane, who were on levels above the impacted floors, who actually passed through the impact hole to escape.


First of all...I'd like your source for this.

Second, please define "numerous" for me. From what I have found(and I'm still looking) In the North Tower, not one person survived above the impact point. In the South Tower I believe the number was 18 for survivors.

The South tower impact was different and left one stairwell still somewhat passable. I have not see any proof that anyone "passed through the impact hole to escape"

I could be wrong? Wikipedia has flase claims stating the 18 people survived both towers. Their refrence was the 911 commission that from what i read does not confirm this.

The New York Times actually identified 18 survivors in the South Tower...Because of the passable stairwell.


In the north tower, every person believed to be above the 91st floor died: 1,344.......

......Even after the second airplane struck, an open staircase connected the upper reaches of the south tower to the street. The Times has identified 18 men and women who used it to escape from the impact zone or above.
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Even if what you're saying is true, it doesn't explain the many, many other anomalies surrounding 9/11 that can only be explained by government complicity.

Can you, for example, explain the short sells?



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk
There are also numerous people who refute that which could lead us to an endless debate once again.


Ya can't debate facts. Please find me one professional that disagrees with my previous post in regards to the color of smoke.


Originally posted by BeZerk
We obviously cannot prove to you exactly what type of explosive was used and so, but then again if NIST conducted its research in a correct manner we would not have received this nonsense:


Hold on now, we dont know what brought down the towers in regards to "unconventional" methods...then what would NIST have tested for?



Originally posted by BeZerk
If they had tested for these compounds we could have determined what type of explosive was used and so on.


Not really. What if it was a CD and it wasnt Thermite??


Give me time to look into all your other stuff. The Steven Jones stuff has been disproven several times in the past...thats why he and his paper on Thermate were shown the door at BYU.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Can you, for example, explain the short sells?


If your asking me... what are short sells? The put options?



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Regarding survivors:

On Discovery channel (I saw it on youtube) there was a documentary/special thing (which was really well made btw) about stories from the towers. One of them was some some black guy who was on the level that the plane had flown into. He literally saw it flying straight for his floor, got under his desk, and survived.

And he had to climb through some holes to survive



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Can you, for example, explain the short sells?


If your asking me... what are short sells? The put options?


Nah, I'm asking the OP.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join