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.

 

FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

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...

Are we still going to argue that there was/wasn't melted steel at Ground Zero? Please read that report and tell me, even if it was the sulfur from the drywall (gypsum board), how we could have evaporated steel without having melted steel?

That is definite proof that there was melted steel at ground zero. If you want to argue that it was only microscopic, you still have to admit that there WAS melted steel found and analysed.




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Great find. I have a feeling grain boundary melting occurs at lower temperatures, but I am unsure by how much. It is however, evidence of melting, and astonishing that there wasn't more samples to look at (!).

I also find this interesting:


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.


I don't know about you, but I find it close to impossible this kind of high temperature corrosion could occur in the ground. What would the fuel source be once collapsed? Where would the oxygen come from in the rubble pile? Was there a raging inferno burning away on the rubble pile after collapse?

I think that not only is it possible this started prior to collapse, but it's almost guaranteed. What a shame there aren't / weren't more samples.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   
flagged and starred

nice find griff


most def something going on before collapse



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Thermite and thermate will give the result found under the rubble. It keeps on eroding and giving off heat for a very long time. Plus, needs no oxygen to do that.

No wonder NIST thought it unusual sulphur and continued burning of those beams would be be found. If they reported it was thermite or thermate, the Bush administration would ensure that report would never be seen by the general public.


six

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


There was plenty of fuel once the building collapsed. All of the contents were now exposed to the fires that were going. Fires that before were just limited to the fire floors themselves. O2 could have come from anywhere such as sewers,utility chases, subway tunnels..etc. The fires would have gotten hotter once you would have put the insulating barrier on top of them. The barrier being the collapsed building. The pile was very hot for 100+ days. Fire fighters were regularly having their boots melted from just working on the pile. Fire boots are made not to melt, so the temps on the pile would have to have been quite high.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


I don't think there is evidence to show "fires" at ground zero. I also think if there were, there would have been a "fire blanket" in effect, not the oxygen rich scenario you describe. I am aware of their boots melting, and think this one of the strange unexaplainables that day. Note, because there were no "fires", does not mean there was no heat down there.. There clearly was, but it was not from a "fire" source.


six

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


I never descibed a O2 rich enviroment. Fires can burn/smolder with little O2. There is a good discussion in regards to this here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
I never descibed a O2 rich enviroment. Fires can burn/smolder with little O2. There is a good discussion in regards to this here.


But would a smoldering fire keep the temps so hot for so long?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
Note, because there were no "fires", does not mean there was no heat down there.. There clearly was, but it was not from a "fire" source.


I agree and I don't think smoldering accounts for it, either. I can post at least one article where a guy working at the site claims to have seen steel beams pulled up from the debris pile that were molten on one end. There's not much unusual about reports of molten steel, except that people usually claim "there was no way to tell it was steel," but in the case it's pretty obvious that the witness WAS in fact describing structural steel.

These are the same piles that are supposedly smoldering (ie no real fire, per se), and I'm pretty sure that that doesn't add up. The surface temperatures recorded by NASA a few days after the event were still way up in the hundreds of degrees Celsius, around 600 or 700 C if I'm not mistaken. That doesn't really sound like a smoldering, underground "fire" to me.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Spot on.

This guy's words are "exposed to temperatures as hot as the inner earth". This is rather vague, but it definitely shows this was not some smouldering embers and must have had significant energy issues I don't believe have been investigated as they should have:




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
The melting point of aluminum is listed here as 660C. So, given the evidence here of molten metal, I think we can safely assume 660C is a good minimum for the temperature down there:



Even the dripping metal from the towers pre-collapse...



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
There is no way smoldering fires would get hot enough to melt steel. I can't believe a guy who claims to be a firefighter would believe this.

And yes where did the heat come from? Wouldn't the collapse itself of put out the fires on the upper floors? Everything turned to dust, so what would the fuel source be? Steel and dust is not a fuel source, and that's all that was left.

Six is your thoughts on this really coming from your training and experience with fire-fighting or from somewhere like 9-11myths? Just asking...



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
I don't know about you, but I find it close to impossible this kind of high temperature corrosion could occur in the ground. What would the fuel source be once collapsed? Where would the oxygen come from in the rubble pile? Was there a raging inferno burning away on the rubble pile after collapse?


I actually find it interesting that they mention this also. But, it proves that there was molten steel in the rubble pile.

Yes, there were fires in the pile for weeks to months after the collapse.


I think that not only is it possible this started prior to collapse, but it's almost guaranteed. What a shame there aren't / weren't more samples.


I'm really only focusing on the fact that there was molten steel at ground zero, so we don't have to hear it anymore. But, thanks for your response and I wouldn't mind if the thread steered in that direction along with the original intent.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 



So, do you agree that there was molten then? Thanks for your input six.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
what's fascinating is that apologists keep showing up to deny that there was anything molten, and when they finally admit there was molten metal, they try and say it was lead, or aluminum or glass, which is a faith-based argument with no substance.

but, 'they' ALWAYS show up.

and, then 'they' will say that there were 'blast furnace conditions' in the rubble pile. because the subway tunnel was providing plenty of oxygen. 'they' will talk about underground coal fires that last hundreds of years.

it's really a horribly weak theory.

IF it was a 'blast furnace' and it 'grew' as new fuels were exposed to oxygen, WHY was the rubble pile hottest IMMEDIATELY following the collapse, and then why did it gradually cool over the following MONTHS? not to mention, WHERE did all the exhaust gases and soot go?

for there to have been a blast furnace, there would have to be a huge plume of soot and hot gas BILLOWING out at HIGH VELOCITY.

i could go on, by why bother. you can't teach an old dog a trick it already knows.


six

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Claims to be a firefighter...Nice dude ....real nice....Could it be that prehaps I have a damn site better understanding of fire behavior than what you have read in books and speculated about in threads?

No the collapse would not have put out the fires on the floors. To the contrary..The collapse did just the opposite. It exposed more fuel to the fires. For there to be a open flame ..yes there needs to be a ample supply of O2...But for a fire to smolder...minimal amounts of O2 are needed.

I have a feeling that no matter what I told you about my experience you would not believe me anyway. I do hold rank with the FIRE department that I work for . I dont play firefighter. I live it. Every third day of my life for 24 hours I live it. Is that good enough for you?

I thought the new rule forbade personal attacks? Real nice. I dont quote ANY 911 sites just for that reason. You can ask Griff or any others on here


six

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I think that it may have been entirely possible for it to happen. What magnitude are we talking though? To the microscopic level? Or to the melted to dripping point?.... NASA measure pretty high temps. The fuel source would have come from the other floors that had not been exposed to fire previously until the collapse. So basically you had 90+ floors of addtional fuel added to a already going fire.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
....Could it be that prehaps I have a damn site better understanding of fire behavior than what you have read in books and speculated about in threads?
...It exposed more fuel to the fires....
...Is that good enough for you?
...I thought the new rule forbade personal attacks?...


Wow you are a little sensitive? Why so defensive? What personal attack? Anyone can claim to be anything they want to on the internet, should I just believe you're a fire fighter cause you say so? Sry but I'll take your theories on 9-11 at face value, compare it with my own experience and then comment. Telling me you are a firefighter makes no difference to me, and I will use my own common sense and experience to decide if I believe your claim or not. That's the problem with most de-bunkers, they believe what they read cause the writer claims to be an 'expert' in one way or another. Expert or not you should still always check for yourself if for nothing else than educating yourself, don't you agree?
What gives you the impression my knowledge comes from just reading books? Put it this way, I have had more real world experience with engineering and metals than you have had as firefighter, no offense but you want to play the who's got the bigger cock game.

So back on topic, I find your hypothesis that the collapse would 'add more fuel' a little hard to believe. What is this extra fuel that was added and where did it come from? Common sense and real world experience tells me the fires would be all but extinguished by the collapse wave and the fact that all the fuel was turned into dust. But I'll give you the benefit of your experience and wait for your full explanation.

It wasn't fires found under the rubble anyway it was molten steel. Office fires don't get hot enough to cause construction steel to melt, and a smoldering fire wouldn't either. You should know that being a firefighter an' all...For steel to melt it requires a very high temperature heat source directly concentrated on the steel. Go visit a foundry and you'll see how silly the notion of molten steel from office fires is.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
I think that it may have been entirely possible for it to happen. What magnitude are we talking though? To the microscopic level? Or to the melted to dripping point?.... NASA measure pretty high temps. The fuel source would have come from the other floors that had not been exposed to fire previously until the collapse. So basically you had 90+ floors of addtional fuel added to a already going fire.


problem?

proposed 'smelter fire' was underneath pile, but initial fire was on top of the buildings.

that's 90 floors of cold debris between spark and fuel, firedude, and with very little oxygen available, and tons and tons of (flame-choking) gypsum dust everywhere.

where's your triangle, now, see?


six

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You called in to question my integrity. I will not stand for that from anyone. I dont care who they think they are. I have never posted ANYTHING on here that could not be independently varified by any firefighter or a little bit of research. NOTHING. I have not once EVER called into question your qualifications.


Put it this way, I have had more real world experience with engineering and metals than you have had as firefighter, no offense but you want to play the who's got the bigger cock game.


And I am to take this at face value? You dont know me. You dont even know how old I am. I, purposly, post very little personal information on any web site. Kinda of a double standard you have eh? You dont take my word, but I am supposed to take yours? I am supposed to believe you are who you say you are just because you say so. Remember, anyone can claim to be anything they want to on the internet. You really wanna whip it out and measure?

Let me give you a introductory lesson in basic fire. Wait, I am not sure I am qualified to give this lesson since I only play a firefighter on the internet..but here goes anyway..

Fire needs 4 basic elements 1) Fuel 2)Oxygen 3) Heat source 4) Chemical chain reaction. To extinguish fire you need to remove just one of the above mentioned elements for fire to go out. A building collapse does not remove any of these elements. You have not removed oxygen. A building collapse will have voids. There are other avenues for oxygen to reach the fire. You have not removed any of the fuel. Plus the fact that you have just put all the fuel that was not on fire, or in danger of catching on fire, within reach of the intial blaze when you neatly compact everything into less than a third of the original height of the building. Thats where your extra fuel came from. Thats 90+ floors that were not involved. And then you have added a very thick "insulating" layer on top of it all. You have not broken the chemical chain reaction. You have not removed the original heat source. Therefore the fire would not have gone out.

Not all of the fuel was turned into dust. That would be impossible. You could not begin to prove that ALL of the fuel was turned to dust. No way. If you can, please show me that ALL of the computers, furniture, partitions, carpet, etc..etc..etc..was turned to dust.

Fire have gotten hotter as new synthetics have come on to the market. Fires get alot hotter than you think. Here is a example of what heat can be generated just from carpet

For this example we shall say that the floors were approx 1 acre. Carpet weighs about 3.88 lbs/yd.

1 Acre = 4840 sq yd
3.88 lbs/yd sq * 4840 = 18779.2 lbs of carpet
18779.2 lbs * 10,000 BTU/lb = 187,792,000 BTU's generated by 1 acre of burning carpet

.75 acre of carpet = 140,844,000 BTU's generated

.5 acre of buring carpet = 93,896,000 BTU's generated

Here are two links that show just how hot a "standard" office fire can get

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Here are some links to show just how much hotter a poorly ventilated fire will get.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

(Notice the fact these are NON 911 web sites...Wait, Thats right, Since I only play a firefighter on the internet... I only get my information from 911 web sites. My bad. I'll try harder next time.)

The fires that were exposed as the debris was removed were extinguished as they were exposed. That was part of the reason for the continual spraying of water. Show me that it would be impossible to achieve the temps required to "melt" steel under the pile. You cant. No one can. There is not been one study done that shows it couldnt have happened. Everything is just speculation. As far as I know no one ever tested as to what exactly the molten material was. So saying it was steel is simply speculation as far as I concerned. You cant prove it was steel. Unless you are privy to some kind of information and/or testing the goverment doesnt have.

Just some food for thought. Think of the pile as a large charcoal grill. They never have open flame, but sure generate a large amount of heat for long periods of time, in a oxygen deprived atmoshpere, before you ever have to add more bricks to the coals. But remember, I am not qualified to tell you this. I am just a firefighter on the internet.


[edit on 15-12-2007 by six]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join