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: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
six

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


And your heat source is???...Cant be a nuc. You see you have one small..nagging.. little problem with that..You have survivors. Survivors that were standing right on top of where the "nuc" would have gone off. If they were not vaporized by the intial blast...They should haved died by radiation poisoning. Hmmm..All of them are still alive. SOOoo that leaves what as a heat source?

Prove to me that the gypsum dust would have chocked out the fire? I have never seen it happen. You??

The intial fires were close to the middle of the buildings. Half on top...Half on bottom. You pile it all in the foot print of the original building and your are telling me there is no fuel? The tetrahedron is still intact. Nothing is there to break it. Plus the fact you have just increased the surface area-to-mass ratio.


[edit on 15-12-2007 by six]




posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
And your heat source is???...Cant be a nuc. You see you have one small..nagging.. little problem with that..You have survivors.


But can you explain why the EPA would blame radiation levels on the Depleted Uranium from the planes when the 757 and 767 do not carry Depeleted Uranium?

Boeing stopped using Depleted Uranium on the 747s becasue of radiation at accident scenes.


six

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I belive that the elevated levels were due to the signs were they not? Plus you have to account for the fact that you had a 110 story office building with all of its contents. Thats a awful lot of material to consider. I know that certain watches, to achieve luminesence, use some sort of radioactive material. I dont know...But you still have survivors that were in the building that are still alive. And dont show signs of poisoning.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
I belive that the elevated levels were due to the signs were they not? Plus you have to account for the fact that you had a 110 story office building with all of its contents.


But in your expert opinion, how many signs and watches and other material would it take to get the radiation encountered?

Also why would the EPA make up something that could be so easliy proven wrong?



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   
'BetaLight' type emergency exit signs would account for a source of tritium and there'd have to be at least 4 signs per floor.

Were ionisation type smoke detectors used in those buildings?

If so - that would add up to a fair amount of americium 241 if all were smashed up and spread around. There's also a possible issue with release of radon gas when concrete and stone is pulverised.

Just possibilities.


six

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Depleted uranium is not used in fission devices. Therefore a nuclear device would not be the source of the depleted uranium. This site show a interesting use for it in teeth

www.hps.org...



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
reply to post by billybob
 


And your heat source is???...Cant be a nuc. You see you have one small..nagging.. little problem with that..You have survivors. Survivors that were standing right on top of where the "nuc" would have gone off. If they were not vaporized by the intial blast...They should haved died by radiation poisoning. Hmmm..All of them are still alive. SOOoo that leaves what as a heat source?

Prove to me that the gypsum dust would have chocked out the fire? I have never seen it happen. You??

The intial fires were close to the middle of the buildings. Half on top...Half on bottom. You pile it all in the foot print of the original building and your are telling me there is no fuel? The tetrahedron is still intact. Nothing is there to break it. Plus the fact you have just increased the surface area-to-mass ratio.


[edit on 15-12-2007 by six]


you know that doctors who rushed to the scene were surprised to find....very few casualties, and hardly any bodies? just checking.

i've seen dust choke a fire when i shovel dirt onto one. as a fireman, you may not know that putting non-flammable dust on top of a fire will result in the oxygen not reaching the fuel/spark.

this, "half on bottom" fire you claim existed. should not the lobby have been smoke filled if there was a fire on the bottom? as far as i know, there was only a huge explosion and collapse down in the sub-levels. it was all over the emergency radio, and rescue workers were dispatched. there were no reports of fire in the lower levels, that i know of. if there were fires there, i would love a reference.

BTW, you may want to look into the incidence of blood cancer and respiratory illness that rescue workers have been DYING FROM.

i really don't get how you increase surface to mass ratio when you turn a 1300+ ft. structure into a knee-deep pile. sounds kinda like reverse thinking to me.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Prolonged or over-exposure to a number of materials commonly found in construction result in higher cases of cancer.

Nuclear weapons, of any type, is just ... well... a rather 'out there' claim. Nuclear weapons are HIGHLY regulated within the U.S. A missing warhead in the U.S. arsenal would not go unnoticed for long. That is one thing, thankfully, we tend to keep on top of. I can't say the same for keeping track of military personnel or military equipment.... but... well, I should count my blessings.

And as far as mythical fusion devices - we wouldn't be wasting prototype, classified, devices on blowing up civilian structures in highly populated regions of the country. It's just a bad idea. You don't want to expose yourself for being evil and corrupt with your own new toy of destruction. For one, it's too cliche.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Prolonged or over-exposure to a number of materials commonly found in construction result in higher cases of cancer.

Nuclear weapons, of any type, is just ... well... a rather 'out there' claim. Nuclear weapons are HIGHLY regulated within the U.S. A missing warhead in the U.S. arsenal would not go unnoticed for long. That is one thing, thankfully, we tend to keep on top of. I can't say the same for keeping track of military personnel or military equipment.... but... well, I should count my blessings.

And as far as mythical fusion devices - we wouldn't be wasting prototype, classified, devices on blowing up civilian structures in highly populated regions of the country. It's just a bad idea. You don't want to expose yourself for being evil and corrupt with your own new toy of destruction. For one, it's too cliche.


mythical? like the atomic bomb and quantum computers used to be?
wasting? on the single biggest herd moving event of the last two centuries(well, on par with hiroshima, nagasaki, perhaps)?
exposed? hardly, when there is an army of disinfo pros, deriding, mocking, insulting, and otherwisely belittling with ad homina, anyone who points out a logical inconsistency with the official BS. pure flak....
just like your post was, no offense intended.

don't forget, the EPA said the air was SAFE to breathe. just more EVIL, CORRUPT BS.


That is one thing, thankfully, we tend to keep on top of.


we?



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
This is very important. The fact that something like this was found at Bldg-7 and the Towers is highly significant. Both collapses were for different reasons we are told, yet we see something very similar happening to the steel in both structures? I think finding this unusual is an understatement.

IF only we could have had a lot more of the steel to examine.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
Depleted uranium is not used in fission devices. Therefore a nuclear device would not be the source of the depleted uranium. This site show a interesting use for it in teeth



That was not the question. How many signs, watches and other material would it taek a get a raditaion reading reading like at ground zero?

Also, why would the EPA lie about Depleted Uraninum from the planes when it is easy to verify no DU on the 757 and 767?



[edit on 17-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   
What OSHA had to say after analysing possible risks to workers on the site after 9/11 here



Ionizing Radiation

A survey of the rubble pile was conducted on 10/22-10/23 to check for latent radiation with particular attention to alpha radiation. Results show no elevated levels of concern from either known building latent radiation sources or any terrorist origin source materials.


Lawrence Berkeley National Lab analysed the tritium level in water under the rubble in this report here



Abstract
Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at [the]World Trade Center WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A method of ultralowbackground liquid scintillation counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174 plus or minus 0.074 (2s) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53 plus or minus 0.17 and 2.83 plus or minus 0.15 nCi/L, respectively. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from areas outside the ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir. No HTO above the background was found in those samples. All these results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.


The report details the possible sources of that tritium but note it was only a 'trace' amount well below levels of concern to organisms.


six

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 



i've seen dust choke a fire when i shovel dirt onto one. as a fireman, you may not know that putting non-flammable dust on top of a fire will result in the oxygen not reaching the fuel/spark.


I refuse to respond to this as I find this insulting to my intelligence and the others in this discussion.


this, "half on bottom" fire you claim existed. should not the lobby have been smoke filled if there was a fire on the bottom? as far as i know, there was only a huge explosion and collapse down in the sub-levels. it was all over the emergency radio, and rescue workers were dispatched. there were no reports of fire in the lower levels, that i know of. if there were fires there, i would love a reference.


I never said that there were fires below. What I ment was that you just exposed the lower half of the buildings contents to fire when it collapsed into a little pile.


BTW, you may want to look into the incidence of blood cancer and respiratory illness that rescue workers have been DYING FROM.


And this has what to do with those who would have been standing DIRECTLY above this "nuclear" device upon it going off? I have recently seen a interview with the survivors that were in the building. They should not be alive either from being in the direct path of the explosion or due to radiation poisoning.


i really don't get how you increase surface to mass ratio when you turn a 1300+ ft. structure into a knee-deep pile. sounds kinda like reverse thinking to me.


It is really quite simple. Take, for example, a 2x4. It has a set amount of surface area in relation to its mass. Now ground that same 2x4 up into particles. You have just increased the amount of surface area that could be exposed to fire. It is the surface area of all the little particles now you have to take into account for. Smaller particles burn alot easier and alot faster because there is more surface area exposed. You have increased the surface area exposed in relation to its original mass.






[edit on 17-12-2007 by six]

[edit on 17-12-2007 by six]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
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.


Since implosion literally decompresses as a building drops, how were fires staying alive with all that heavy decompression going on? There was no air and thus no oxygen.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by OrionStars]


six

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


As I explained before, The building DID NOT collapse into a nice little air tight pile. There are voids through out any rubble pile. Then you have to factor in any type of air source, from the sewers and steam lines, subway tunnel, other utilities, and even air from the outside atmosphere. There was nothing there to put out the fires.

Edit to add: The building did not explosively decompress. There are no outward signs of any explosion, let alone one big enough to totally remove the O2 from the atmosphere in the building to put out the fires.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by six]

[edit on 17-12-2007 by six]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
^But you have to admit most of the building was turning to dust and being forcefully ejected, not exploded, outwards?

I really see a fire having a hard time staying alight during all that destruction and ejection and pulverization of building contents.



That huge billowing cloud is the buildings contents, the fuel for the fire. How did it survive the rest of the collapse when it appears the section that was on fire is already destroyed and its contents ejected? By the time the collapse finished all that was left was steel and a fine dust.

Even if the fire did survive, and smolder a while, it's not going to melt steel no matter how you look at it.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
the building exploded everywhere. explosive decompression is a definite likely hood, and plain old displacement was enough to 'squish' the air out of the fire.

i never said there was a nuke. i don't know why you keep bringing it up.
i do think a micronuke is a possible candidate for taking out the core, or perhaps a fusion device or energy beam weapons were used. (not necessarily space based weapons, either. they could have been in the towers) i am not, however, welded to any theory. what's obvious is the official story is a rubble pile.

sorry if i bruised your ego. yet, you are completely unconvincing in your arguments.
you claim the fire survived the collapse, yet, there was very little fire at the surface of ground zero. why would fire survive underneath(where there was no fire), and not above(where all the fire was), if anything your saying is remotely feasible? and, more importantly, why with these underground pools and rivers of molten steel would appear instantly after collapse, when these mythical 'choosy', intelligent fires that went through 70 stories to land UNDER the pile, not only seemingly teleported to their new location, but were also INSTANTLY hundreds of degrees celsius hotter than the fires at the top.

'refuse to respond'. sorry, but dust like that seen at the towers is pretty good at choking a flame. admit it.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


And the EPA said that the air was good to breath. Are we really to trust these government agencies? Especially when one has already been proven to lie about it?


six

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Proof please the the atmosphere in the WTC during collapse was a oxygen deprived atmosphere. I dont see a explosion big enough to temporarily remove the O2....There is not a vacuum created...Just how was the atmosphere O2 deplete?


six

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


But you have to admit most of the building was turning to dust and being forcefully ejected, not exploded, outwards?


I would not say dust, because there were large pieces that needed cranes for removal. I would agree about the forceful ejection. I dont think that the force of the air and contents being expelled outward would be enough to extinguish the fires. What you have to remember is that everything on those floors was on fire. From the chairs, the carpet, computers, paper,..everything. Alot of this material was petroleum based. It would not have simply just blown out. Let me explain it this way. While on structure fires we employ the use of large fans to ventilate structures. You have to be very careful when these are used because if used at the wrong time you can intensify the fire, and spread the fires to parts that before, were not involved. You basically are force feeding air to the fire. Kinda like a turbo a car.


That huge billowing cloud is the buildings contents, the fuel for the fire. How did it survive the rest of the collapse when it appears the section that was on fire is already destroyed and its contents ejected? By the time the collapse finished all that was left was steel and a fine dust


I dont think all of the buildings contents were ejected. In other building collapses, such as in S.F. during the earthquake, the contents of the floors were not ejected. Granted these were much smaller buildings, but I think the same principles would apply.


Even if the fire did survive, and smolder a while, it's not going to melt steel no matter how you look at it.


I dont think it just smoldered awhile. I think it was actively burning. You had 90+ floors that were not involved compacted into s small area, exposing it the fires that were already in existence. If it just smoldered for awhile, you would not have had elevated temps for 100+ days. The pile would have cooled alot faster.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join