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.

 

Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires Cooler

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
Nothing but what was found in that pile is sufficient to turn metal molten.


So i will repeat my post again. You do agree that something else had to casue the heat the melted the steel and kept it molten for 6 weeks?



[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freelancer
Agreed. But unless any of the posters to this thread was able to obtain a sample of this molten liquid for further analysis or, show verifiable evidence from an outside source to the chemical make-up of this liquid any views or opinions expressed would be speculative at best.


Yes, FEMA was the only agency to do a testing of the steel.

NIST did not test for any explosives or chemicels



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Freelancer
Agreed. But unless any of the posters to this thread was able to obtain a sample of this molten liquid for further analysis or, show verifiable evidence from an outside source to the chemical make-up of this liquid any views or opinions expressed would be speculative at best.


Yes, FEMA was the only agency to do a testing of the steel.

NIST did not test for any explosives or chemicels


The NIST did in fact perform tests on the steel. The report is here:

wtc.nist.gov...

Please refer to chapters 3 and 4 which discusses the chemical analysis and metallurgical analysis of the recovered steel.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The NIST did in fact perform tests on the steel. The report is here:

wtc.nist.gov...



Thats funny because in this report they stated they did no testing for explosives or thermite.

wtc.nist.gov...

12. Did the NIST investigation 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 did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So i will repeat my post again. You do agree that something else had to casue the heat the melted the steel and kept it molten for 6 weeks?


The only rational explanation for so much heat being present after 6 weeks is an ongoing heat source, something like a fire perhaps. Although some may claim it was actually a meltdown of a nuclear reactor or something along those lines


I did some cursory research on the source of the 'molten steel' story and it seems that something resembling molten metal was reported as being discovered while excavating the rubble pile at a 'hotspot'. The only pictorial evidence I've seen shows *something* decidedly solid (but red hot nonetheless) being held in the jaws of an excavator but the story spread through the net with continuous embellishment (I don't suppose that ever happens
) to reach the current stage where I see posters claiming 'lakes of liquid steel' were under the rubble


It's also notable that this phenomenon was most evident under WTC2 but not WTC1 so would this suggest that they collapsed via different mechanisms?



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
The NIST did in fact perform tests on the steel. The report is here:

wtc.nist.gov...



Thats funny because in this report they stated they did no testing for explosives or thermite.

wtc.nist.gov...

12. Did the NIST investigation 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 did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.




Well from this basis it would seem you might have a new conspiracy on your hands. May I suggest you contact NIST directly for further clarification on their report.


NIST World Trade Center Investigation Team
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
Phone: (301) 975-6051
Fax: (301) 975-6122
Email: wtc@nist.gov


In the mean time, I could not help notice that a recent thread called "Molten metal pools, may have simple explanation (ATS Link) has already started to debate this very issue and which, you are already participating. Perhaps this thread will provide the answers you seek than the ones already given to you thus far?.

Rather than risk further comments of obfuscation on a thread that is suppose to be looking into Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires Cooler let us indeed move on.

[edit on 9/12/2007 by Freelancer]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It's also notable that this phenomenon was most evident under WTC2 but not WTC1 so would this suggest that they collapsed via different mechanisms?


Actually if you look there was molten steel reported in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7.

Also molten metals were also reported in the basement of WTC 6.

www.9-11commission.gov...

Quick, but safe decisions regarding where to put the cranes had to be made, inspection of the slurry wall and water in the basement were conducted, while numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. Cars - both burned and pristine - were suspended in the air balanced on cracked parking garage slabs.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats funny because in this report they stated they did no testing for explosives or thermite.


But thats not what I was showing was wrong. You said FEMA was the only one that tested the steel. They were not.

NIST did extensive tests on the steel. Just because they didnt test for your precious thermite does not mean they didnt do ANY tests on the steel.

Shall I quote your post?


[edit on 9-12-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
NIST did extensive tests on the steel. Just because they didnt test for your precious thermite does not mean they didnt do ANY tests on the steel.



But that not what i was talking about.

Here is my post,

Yes, FEMA was the only agency to do a testing of the steel.

NIST did not test for any explosives or chemicels




[edit on 9-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



Are you reading what you are posting?

FEMA was not the only agency that did tests on the steel. Why did you say that? I linked the NIST report showing their steel tests.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallyhuman
I have worked with C4 and dynomite and can tell you that the WTC buildings were man-demolished not fuel demolished.


well i too have worked with HE (C4, dynomite, tnt, anfo) and come to the exact opposite conclusion. but, maybe im wrong.

would you be willing to do some cursory calculations and tell us how much of various ordinances it takes to cut steel box columns? (there are photos that show closeups of various columns from the wtc's including perimeter measurements and thicknesses) and then use that to tell us how much ordinance it would take per floor and then once those numbers are in place if what we witnessed from a visual/audio standpoint matches up with those numbers?

my own calculations show far too much ordinance needed for it to be covert but maybe my math is faulty so if you could show your work id appreciate the opportunity for a refresher class.

thanks



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Are you reading what you are posting?

FEMA was not the only agency that did tests on the steel. Why did you say that? I linked the NIST report showing their steel tests.



I will repost it again,

NIST did not test for any explosives or chemicels.

NIST also failed to recover any steel from building 7 for testing.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Did they recover any steel from WTC 1 and 2? I believe those were the only two buildings that had aircraft fly into them, and had jet fuel dispursed into them.

That IS what this post is discussing, isnt it? Jet fuel?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
That IS what this post is discussing, isnt it? Jet fuel?


No we were just discussing the fact that NIST did not test for explosives or chemicles in the steel.

Also they did not recover any steel from builidng 7 to test.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You are wrong.

The subject is "Jet fuel made the WTC fires cooler". I didnt see explosives or chemicals listed in the original posters request.

Six has done an outstanding job of answering all of those questions...kudos to you! Glad to see professionals posting on this forum, with real evidence and experience to back it up.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The subject is "Jet fuel made the WTC fires cooler". I didnt see explosives or chemicals listed in the original posters request.


Gee, you really cannot stand it when someone comes up with facts and evidence that proives you worng. A soon as i post something that proves you wrong you have to post about not being along with the original post.

Aslo Six has not answered most of my questions.

Also you might want to do research so you can see what NIST stated about the jet fuel.

www.nistreview.org...

NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)




[edit on 11-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


six

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Because they did not search the lower floors on the way up. Simple as that. Let me give you a glimpse into my world when one of these high rise fires is going. I already explained to you the search and rescue priorities
A) Fire floor B) Floors above the fire C)Floor immediately below the lowest point of the fire D) Rest of the building... In that order. Now keep in mind that each one of these floors 40,000 sq/ft plus. You know from the outward signs that a very large, very hot fire is going on multiple floors starting on the 78th floor. For the most part elevators are not used but to move equipment. So that means you hoof it up a minimum of 78 floors carrying tools, extra air bottles, high rise hose packs, extra hose, your own gear, your own SCBA, Thermal imagers, rope.....you get the idea ..150 EXTRA pounds of equipment in addition to your own weight. You are carrying alot of stuff to make a initial stand, rescue people etc. until supply lines can be formed, positive water can be obtained, and you have a idea just whats going on. To give you a example, several of the guys I work with are professional triathletes. All in the top 50 in the world. They run a race for charity here up 76 flights of stairs. The best time among them is 16 minutes in shorts, t-shirts, running shoes.

Now to get a idea of just whats going on while you martial your forces together is to send a recon team. Which is what they did. It was pointed out that they road a elevator up. Now I KNOW they would not have seen any fire on the way up. Like I said. No reports of fires on the lower floors, They would not have searched the lower floors. Plus the air bottles that they carry are 45 minute bottles. Thats 45 minutes if you are not doing any hard labor. 20 to 30 , depending on what shape your in, is how long they typically last. Not near long enough to even search a quarter of the square footage involved. SO therefore they would not have searched on the way up unless they knew there to be fire on lower floors.

So now you have your initial response together, recon has reported back initially form their location, PLUS you have dispatch in your ear telling you that they are recieving MULTIPLE calls from the people trapped on the floors above the fire. Fire moves up. Smoke is filling the floors above. Thats why the people on the floors above the fire are your second priority. So you now start your climb up to the fire floors carrying your equipment PLUS the extra equipment you will need, which by the way will not be enough. All the time never assuming the building will collapse.

By the time you are to the tenth floor, you are feeling the strain, started to get winded, fighting the people coming down the stairs. you get to the 20th floor you gotta take a rest. By the time you make it to the fire floors, you are spent, and yet the hard part is just now beginning. You must first do a primary search of the fire floors for any savable victims. 10+ floors worth of searching through debris, flames, dead bodies etc. Your air bottle, remember will last you ONLY 20-30 minutes under strenuous conditions, so you hope that you brought enough spares. PLUS you have to figure out a safe way to bring down the people trapped above you if you can not bring the fire under control fast enough. 10+ floors of fire, there is no fast enough. All this and you have not even STARTED your fire attack.

You get the picture??? 343 firefighters was not near enough to even do PART of the job in ONE of the buildings. No they would not have searched the floors below the fire. NOT their priority. The people on the fire floors and ABOVE were. PEOPLE were their priority.



[edit on 11-12-2007 by six]

[edit on 11-12-2007 by six]


six

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Thats where your wrong. I did answer your questions. I answered them from a professional point of view. My answers are not what you wanted to hear. It is funny that everyone else seems to understand my answers to your questions, but you dont.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by six]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Thanks for that six

Gave me a real perspective on what it must have been like in there.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Great post, Six.

I knew the added weight was tremendous, but i forgot about the limit air supply you would have too. I don't know how you guys can do that...but give thanks that you do.



[edit on 11-12-2007 by Disclosed]




top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join