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.

 

9/11 Rare-New Evidence Of Controlled Demo?

page: 12
30
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I'm no scientist so the talk of eutectic liquids is really lost on me.


Thermite is a eutectic reaction. You have two substances, and the lowest melting point between them becomes their common melting point. For aluminum and iron oxide, the aluminum rips the oxygen from the iron oxide, leaving just molten iron and a rising cloud of newly-formed aluminum oxide. I guess the heat energy released by the reaction is great enough to keep the iron molten, but I'm no chemist either.

If I'm not mistaken then this is the beam where pretty much the entire outer surface was sulfidated. That's going to require ambient temperatures of above 1000 C or whatever they're prescribing. Basically it got extremely hot around that piece of steel (way beyond hydrocarbon fires). This isn't from thermite, either, or else then you'd only have this where a cut was made, and not all over the entirety of a piece of steel.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by bsbray11]




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
This isn't from thermite, either, or else then you'd only have this where a cut was made, and not all over the entirety of a piece of steel.


I'd like to see an experiment (uhum NIST) where they show that gypsum could actually do this to steel. If so, why do they use drywall (gypsum) as a fire retardant?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
That sounds about like Greening saying that molten aluminum on rust can be made to form a thermite reaction by themselves, when experiment showed that they couldn't at all.

There's a common problem between them (but not the only problem): temperature.

Even if that's where it came from, how was it exposed to 1000 + C long enough to show it? Hydrocarbon fires just don't get that hot.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Even if that's where it came from, how was it exposed to 1000 + C long enough to show it? Hydrocarbon fires just don't get that hot.


Do you know the length of beam/column we are talking about? And how much was acted on? Thanks.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
How did the CORE COLUMNS shatter on 110 floors?
Break
collapse
ect....



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I've seen the beam before but I swear photos must be next to non-existent using Google images now, but it's on the order of magnitude of feet in length and width and the whole outer surface, just about everything I remember being visible of it in the photo, was sulfidated.


Here are images of smaller samples I found:






posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
It would also be nice to know where they are from. Top/bottom. Core/perimeter etc.

Any chemists out there? Is there a way to make a fuel/air explosion using sulfur in a way to "eat" the steel like that?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I've seen the beam before but I swear photos must be next to non-existent using Google images now, but it's on the order of magnitude of feet in length and width and the whole outer surface, just about everything I remember being visible of it in the photo, was sulfidated.


Here are images of smaller samples I found:





Very interesting point exspecially after or before reading this....

This is a mind blowing article and a MUST READ!!!! Mayor Giuliani had been given orders that the towers be dismantled by 2007 due to galvanic corrosion: ALUMINUM + STEEL = Electro-mechanical failure

From redlineav.com...


Over the years, the process known as 'galvanic corrosion' had structurally degraded these buildings beyond repair. Supporting statements to this effect had been compiled by the engineers and delivered to the building owners during the time-frame that I have described. Subsequently, both Mayor Giuiliani's Office, and the New York Port Authority, had allegedly received an order for the buildings to be completely dismantled, by 2007."



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Good points OutoftheSky. Galvanic corrosion may have been present. Although, I don't think it would account for very much strength reducing in the steel. Steel and aluminum aren't that far apart on the galvanic scale. The further apart the metals are on the scale, the more reaction occurs. Plus, the only thing aluminum would be touching would be the outer surface of the perimeter columns. But, I say this without ever seeing the corrosion myself, which could have been significant. Does anyone know if there was a barrier between the steel and aluminum?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Does anyone know if there was a barrier between the steel and aluminum?


On the perimeter columns of the towers, I think some space was left between most of the panels and the steel, like this old illustration shows:




I don't think WTC7 even used aluminum panels on its exterior, but I could be wrong.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
- Heres a high quality version of the topic video

www.webfives.com...



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I have personally spoken to T.S. Gordon many times. If you have questions about his story let me know.

He even gave me his home phone number...

I am not endorsing or denying his story, just putting it out there.

The more interesting part of his story about galvanic corrosion is the the towers were weakening at the "sway fulcrum" (for lack of a better term) between floors 7-21 according to him. The BOLTS THEMSELVES were corroding in their holes with the steel. Attempts were supposedly made to put "sleeves" in each bolt hole but this process turend out to be nearly impossible due to noise and effort...

He also seems to know a TON about the ONLY TWO photographers allowed at ground zero by FEMA and they are REALLY shady according to him...

Read his story at the link above... strange stuff. If you have any questions for him let me know. I posted some of his correspondence with me in the other thread about galvanic corrosion.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
On the perimeter columns of the towers, I think some space was left between most of the panels and the steel, like this old illustration shows:


If the aluminum and steel were not in contact, an anode and cathode would not develope and corrosion would never happen. I wonder what happened?


I don't think WTC7 even used aluminum panels on its exterior, but I could be wrong.


I think you're right. I believe they used granite spandrel panels.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Good points OutoftheSky. Galvanic corrosion may have been present. Although, I don't think it would account for very much strength reducing in the steel. Steel and aluminum aren't that far apart on the galvanic scale. The further apart the metals are on the scale, the more reaction occurs. Plus, the only thing aluminum would be touching would be the outer surface of the perimeter columns. But, I say this without ever seeing the corrosion myself, which could have been significant. Does anyone know if there was a barrier between the steel and aluminum?



The exterior Aluminum panels were designed to meet an unusual set of technical specifications. Those criteria were published in various trade-periodicals at that time. This information has not been released by NIST, or otherwise been widely discussed of late. We know that this material was custom manufactured to exacting specifications.

Typical examples from that era had similar alloy compositions, though none were exactly the same as we use today. By varying the percentages of Silica and Alumina, and lesser quantities of Nickel, Tin and Zinc, this material appeared to meet their needs. (I felt it with my hand, and I have handled dozens of unique samples at dad's request.) Uniquely, I thought it had a very coarse-substrate,(6-8g) as though it were cast, but otherwise it appears to have been an extruded profile with a smooth outer finish, having a good-quality brushed sheen. It literally appeared to be brand-new, and far more durable that any of your contemporary aluminum-laminates, such as "Aluccabond I, and II."

This was formally stated as the key to creating an "elastic membrane," that much I remembered as my project began. Materials experts will attest that the entire composition qualities are important to the integrity of this compound.The 'clear,' electro-metallic plating, (then unproven,) may have contained Sulfur, and was pronounced to have; "effectively prevented oxidization and withstanding the elements, performing better than anyone had expected, over time." -(Architectural Record.)

Special 'elasticity' requirements were weighed against the shear-resistance as required to support the vertical, and lateral loads. Experts did not know what alloy mix would ultimately provide the best solution at the time the project was put out to bids. They had certainly evaluated the known "inter-granular corrosion," statistical guidelines, yet this material had never been subjected to this extreme application for civilian use. I had followed some of this in the trade-journals at the time. Choosing the right mixture was sort of a work in progress right up to the final days before the delivery due date. Certainly today's composites exhibit increased qualities in every regard. However, I will cite this photo example from NIST, because it may well be idemnical to the cause, and it certainly serves as an effective visual aid.


Since his site looks to be down, you can see it here: web.archive.org...


There were a total of about 15 floors which had received new bolts, each bolt-hold requiring a noisy core-drilling which had caused the project to cease. The procedure caused a 'ringing' that transferred the noise, vertically throughout dozens of floors. This infuriated the tenants, beyond belief, and thus it became an unacceptable and impractical approach.


[edit on 7-8-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Are we saying that the galvanic corrosion is the eutectic reaction? I'm getting a little confussed here. Doesn't a eutectic reaction require heat to start? When corrosion is just one metal becoming an anode and the other a cathode (simple battery)?

[edit on 8/7/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Sorry for the delay in my response, been a little busy today.

As for what I said about the brittle steel, it's a chemical reaction on the atomic level when the molten steel, unshielded by an inert gas, bonds with the oxygen in the air. Welding is very much an atomic procedure since a proper weld should create one solid piece of steel where once there was two.

When you're cutting steel with an oxy torch (this can be seen in the beam photo) the molten steel is blown away from the inert shielding gas and oxidizes very quickly. It looks as if the molten steel is bubbling and boiling and in essence all thats left is the cool solidified outer skin of these steel bubbles. You could even crush it with your bare hands but you would end up with hundreds of little pieces of steel stuck in your skin.

Think of a cracker, when you break it in half you see that it is extremely porous and there for has very low structural integrity and is easily crushed. It looks almost the same.

As for the aluminum, it has a much lower melting point dependent upon the type and alloy of the metal itself. Some types of aluminum will melt so quickly that it takes a good deal of skill with a TIG torch to weld. I believe it' not far out of the question to say that a normal fire could melt aluminum. Just throw a soda can into a camp fire.

A36 steel is also bolted instead of welded in certain instances and the bolts themselves could've been made of a poorer quality metal with less heat resistance but that still would not explain the melting and oxidizing of the A36 steel core beams, especially the oxidization of the entire beam.

Please forgive my ignorance but could some one explain Eutectic liquids in layman's terms?

What was NIST's explanation for the total oxidization of the beams?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Please forgive my ignorance but could some one explain Eutectic liquids in layman's terms?


BsBray is much better at explaining things than I am so I'll let him.


What was NIST's explanation for the total oxidization of the beams?


As far as I know, they ignored it. Which really puts into question their agenda of finding the truth.

[edit on 8/7/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I just think it's highly suspicious that the biggest domestic disaster on American soil warranted almost no investigation. The idea that they cleaned it all up, shipped it off and melted it down as fast as they could proves that something is not right.

There have been plane crashes, like Flight 800 ( i believe) where they even sent divers into the water to recover as many pieces as they could so they could put it all back together and figure out what happened.

Why on Earth would they want to conduct an investigation with almost no evidence left?



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Marvin Bush was a principal in a company which provided security for the World Trade...

Larry Silverstein bought the World Trade Center some 90 days before 911 with all sorts of special and now, in hindsight, curious insurance riders

WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. He argued entitling him to a double payment of nearly $7 billion that he would use for rebuilding

on and on... why 9-11 continues to be "questions and examined" is beyond me... criminals abound at the top of business and government... might as well get used to it...



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I will refrain from the squib talk, since it is clearly compressed air and debris that was forced out several different areas including stairwells and the lobby's.


how can you state this as "fact"? what was every door opened down to the lobby? lol. no way the planes caused the marble to break off the lobby walls.

www.911keymaster.com...

the facts are: the 911 commission report only describes what could have cause the collapse initiation sequence and clearly states that this theory put forth by them has a 25% chance of being correct.. whats the other 75%?

did anyone even read the report?

an object in motion stays in motion until reacted upon by another force..
why did the top break off, head for the side.. then fall straight threw the path of most resistance? why because .. there was no resistance. hows that possible when the towers got thicker toward the ground? there was no fire on the 60th,50th,40th,30th,20th,10th floors. they had always bore the weight of the top floors before. no they had help.



looks like around a 45 degree angle behind that fireman doesn't it? how did that happen? on the ground floor? and does that not look like its melted also?

yes it does.

shape charges w/ thermite already in place..

now your objective "research" should include the power down on the 8th & 9th of sept also. if you want to keep what your ego wants to "feel" separate from your researched facts.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join