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: 16
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


What cladding? Griff and I just had a very civil lengthy discussion on why that is not cladding on any steel.

On what experienced knowledgeable standing do you base your observation from photos?




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
So now we are back to the "Underwriters Laboratories certified the steel" malarky again?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Now that I think about it, that was a flat roof. It could be drain pans. Considering the roof was the last to drop, and had to be drained to keep water from building up and causing more weight on the roof, particularly on WTC 1, with the tons of weight of antenna. It that case, it could be an aluminum alloy. Aluminum does not rust when left outdoors in the elements. That is the one of the primary reasons the steel on the facade was also clad in alumunum. Preventative maintenance purposes.

That metal is in pristine condition all considered.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
You arent seriously claiming that aluminum doesnt corrode (rust) are you?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
What cladding? Griff and I just had a very civil lengthy discussion on why that is not cladding on any steel.

On what experienced knowledgeable standing do you base your observation from photos?

If you have some certified information indicating that the basic construction data presented by the NIST and other reports is grossly wrong I'd really like to see it.

I was thinking that main problem with the reports was in the interpretation and conclusions, not the most basic building design and construction data. I refer to the pictures which clearly show the sealant at the cladding joints.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Malarkey? You know nothing about the purpose of UL? You know nothing regarding the testing all materials throughout the construction industry and other construction material labs? You disagree with NIST when they agreed with UL on steel ratings for the WTC complex? Or else, what is your relevant point? Anything?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Have you tried placing a piece of aluminum foil in the elements to see if it rusts? If so, did it rust?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


What are you talking about? My part of the discussion had little to do with anything involving NIST. Why such a tanget regarding the topic of this discussion, "FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7"? Starting an argument just to argue? If so, I am not interested in such discussion. I never am.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


No, I know plenty about the purpose of UL. We had UL reps into the facility where I used to work six times a year to certify the products we made. Care to guess what they think of Kevin Ryan?

UL helped NIST with parts of the investigation, they had NOTHING to do with rating the structural steel of the WTC during its construction.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
What are you talking about? My part of the discussion had little to do with anything involving NIST. Why such a tanget regarding the topic of this discussion, "FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7"? Starting an argument just to argue? If so, I am not interested in such discussion. I never am.

By that deflection, I take it that you can't support your claim in relation to the cladding.

I'm not interested in arguing about it either but any factor that affected the strength of those buildings like degradation caused by corrosion is important to clear up even if it didn't actually produce molten steel and as the subject came up in this thread, it would seem a good place to clear up any misconceptions and more importantly, any disinformation being presented.

All available design data indicates the box columns were coated in a sprayed-on SFRM material on the sides and the exterior surface, vermiculite plaster on the inside of the building. The unsightly SFRM coating was concealed by aluminium flashing which carried the mounting points for the windows.

If you are in possession of information proving this data is wrong, please present it.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
UL helped NIST with parts of the investigation, they had NOTHING to do with rating the structural steel of the WTC during its construction.


This could possibly be a conspiracy in itself.

I heard a great quote from my boss not long ago (remember we have an office in NYC). He said something to the effect of: "Rockefeller made his millions by underbidding everyone else". He wasn't talking about anything related to conspiracies. What if Rockefeller underbid the job and used steel that was a little substandard?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I see what you are getting at but the aluminum would corrode before the steel. Look into any galvanic chart and you will see that the aluminum is the less noble metal when it comes to aluminum and steel. Which means the aluminum will corrode first. At least that is what I get out of the galvanic charts.

Now, all of the following metals would corrode steel (they are below steel on the chart (more noble). And the further down the chart, the more corrosion to steel.


Iron (cast)
Stainless steel 410 (active)
Copper (plated, cast, or wrought)
Nickel (plated)
Chromium (Plated)
Tantalum
AM350 (active)
Stainless steel 310 (active)
Stainless steel 301 (active)
Stainless steel 304 (active)
Stainless steel 430 (active)
Stainless steel 410 (active)
Stainless steel 17-7PH (active)
Tungsten
Niobium (columbium) 1% Zr
Brass, Yellow, 268
Uranium 8% Mo
Brass, Naval, 464
Yellow Brass
Muntz Metal 280
Brass (plated)
Nickel-silver (18% Ni)
Stainless steel 316L (active)
Bronze 220
Copper 110
Red Brass
Stainless steel 347 (active)
Molybdenum, Commercial pure
Copper-nickel 715
Admiralty brass
Stainless steel 202 (active)
Bronze, Phosphor 534 (B-1)
Monel 400
Stainless steel 201 (active)
Carpenter 20 (active)
Stainless steel 321 (active)
Stainless steel 316 (active)
Stainless steel 309 (active)
Stainless steel 17-7PH (passive)
Silicone Bronze 655
Stainless steel 304 (passive)
Stainless steel 301 (passive)
Stainless steel 321 (passive)
Stainless steel 201 (passive)
Stainless steel 286 (passive)
Stainless steel 316L (passive)
AM355 (active)
Stainless steel 202 (passive)
Carpenter 20 (passive)
AM355 (passive)
A286 (passive)
Titanium 5A1, 2.5 Sn
Titanium 13V, 11Cr, 3Al (annealed)
Titanium 6Al, 4V (solution treated and aged)
Titanium 6Al, 4V (anneal)
Titanium 8Mn
Titanium 13V, 11Cr 3Al (solution heat treated and aged)
Titanium 75A
AM350 (passive)
Silver
Gold
Graphite


www.corrosion-doctors.org...



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
I'm thinking in terms of the aluminium delevoping pinhole type corrosion from the rear of the material which would increase the ingress of water to the SFRM coating on the steel. I would expect the steel prefab outer wall sections to come precoated with anti-rusting material but bolts and particularly welds would expose bare metal unless very well repaired afterward prior to the SFRM spraying.

That aspect of possible substandard steel isn't unheard of either but it's the sort of thing we'd like to think of as happening in other places like Asia.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
but it's the sort of thing we'd like to think of as happening in other places like Asia.


Just remember that nearly everything is built by the lowest bidder. Something to think about.

I also believe that if that were the case, Rockefeller has enough money and "pull" to circumvent a real investigation. Remember that the Rockefeller family owns most of NYC. Maybe that's why Guilliani shipped the steel out so fast? Not because of explosives/thermite etc. but because the Rockefellers knew that if the steel was investigated, it would be shown that it was substandard and they would be in a world of trouble with law suites. Just something to consider when thinking about why the steel was shipped off so hurridly.

[edit on 1/16/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I said nothing about Kevin Ryan. Impilied nothing on Kevin Ryan. What I did state about UL had nothing to do with Kevin Ryan. I do not intend to discuss Kevin Ryan.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I admit. I deflected from other people's red herrings to go back to the topic "FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7". You got me on that one.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
The Rockefellers and Rothschilds are among the very few top international families owning the world, through private ownership of such institutions as the Federal Reserve and Wold Bank. Nothing in the economoy happens without such families as the Rockefellers and Rothschilds. They control everything and have for a very long time. Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Orwell, and Huxley, among others, told the world this day would come. People failed to listen until it was too late.

Who pulled off 9/11/2001? People controlling the finance and economy are the only ones who can effectively pull off the assassination of a president or a 9/11/2001. They are the only ones with the resources and power to control cover-up of such heinous acts against humanity. They do not have any. No sociopath does.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Just remember that nearly everything is built by the lowest bidder. Something to think about.

Everything from buildings to space shuttles.

That idea about problems with the steel is far more 'manageable' as a conspiracy than a lot of theories I've seen put forward



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Now, why am I not surprised that you dont want to discuss the moron who made the BS claims about UL that you based your post on??



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Now, why am I not surprised that you dont want to discuss the moron who made the BS claims about UL that you based your post on??


Because it was never mentioned in this discussion. Until you brought it up to deliberately tangent from the topic of this discussion. Keep your crude comments and your tangents to yourself when addressing me in the future. Are we clear on that?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join