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: 26
17
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I haven't seen any inspection reports. There may be some but, I haven't seen anything.

And in case people didn't see my post in the other thread about this same issue.

"Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam", Tenth Edition, Michael R. Lindeburg, PE. Copyright 2006 by Professional Publications, Inc.

Chapter 66. Page 66-1.





posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It would be impractical to test some selected welded joints to destruction so how would an inspecting engineer inspect and pass such work?


My inspections were visual. To make sure complete bonding on both sides etc. It really didn't have anything to do with the strength.

The strength would be tested by the way you mention. Who knows if they tested the tower steel welds or not. I don't and I'm not pretending to know.

I just think there would have been some kind of QA/QC going on or Rockefeller and the NYNJPO are in trouble. That's why QA/QC happens. To cover everyone's buts in case of a disaster. You can look to the reports and say "well, the materials were to code/spec" and you're off the hook. Don't do QA/QC and see how many lawsuites you have to endure if something fails.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Yes, I'm making these statements. Normal spec is for the weld to be stronger than the steel. Are you seriously making the statements that it wouldn't? If so, the onus is on you to find the code used and show me where the specification says that the weld is to be weaker than the steel.

Which is it?


Why don't YOU show the specs that say the welds are to be full length, strength, etc?

I'm basing my statements on a few things here:

1- visual observation that at least SOME of the beams weren't full length/strength welds.
2- YOUR repeated assertions that engineers do a lot of their own inspecting to insure that their project is being done right/to spec.
3-the fact that QA inspectors, a job that YOU held in the past, have specs at hand to make sure the job is being done right/to spec, and were out in force during the construction of the towers..

You're making your statements that you believe there was shoddy workmanship on part of the construction company based on:

1- you don't believe that the welds COULDN"T be full length/depth and still be to spec.
2-some ambiguous article that you got off the internet that IN NO WAY reference the towers, and isn't even found in a structural engineering article.
3- inferences of poor inspections that is in direct conflict with your past work experience
4-a claim that the normal spec is for structural construction/welding is for the weld to be stronger than material being welded, but with NO links to back this up, just an unsubstantiated assertion.

Basically you have no credible reason to say what you're saying. You are argueing from incredulity.

A poor effort.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 

This is a weird forum to be discussing the specifications of weld metal, as I deal with these specifications on a daily basis althogh I can't quote specific spec's, every person in the field with slightly advanced knowledge of welding, heck even the resident alien welders know the filler metal is simply of a higher quality than that of the base. I'm starting to doubt the Engineer credentials you claim. The documentation provided in the post prior to your last is a copy that circulates among Q.C. hands throught our plant. Heck I think they even have a copy in the tool room.

I'm here to discuss whether the molten metal claimed to be found on sight is a result of an intentional cutting or other wise, as there was probably no welds being made at the time of the disaster, I fail to see the validity of the arguments being made here. Exspecially any relevance to the topic. I on second thought do believe your credentials as you insistence slows progress to the extent only an engineer could.

I wish there was a porta potty we could lock you in so the rest of us could get back to work. Thats what we do on our sites anyway. I'm just trying prove the distraction you are creating through no valid discussion.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by azblack
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 

This is a weird forum to be discussing the specifications of weld metal, as I deal with these specifications on a daily basis althogh I can't quote specific spec's, every person in the field with slightly advanced knowledge of welding, heck even the resident alien welders know the filler metal is simply of a higher quality than that of the base. I'm starting to doubt the Engineer credentials you claim. The documentation provided in the post prior to your last is a copy that circulates among Q.C. hands throught our plant. Heck I think they even have a copy in the tool room.

I'm here to discuss whether the molten metal claimed to be found on sight is a result of an intentional cutting or other wise, as there was probably no welds being made at the time of the disaster, I fail to see the validity of the arguments being made here. Exspecially any relevance to the topic. I on second thought do believe your credentials as you insistence slows progress to the extent only an engineer could.

I wish there was a porta potty we could lock you in so the rest of us could get back to work. Thats what we do on our sites anyway. I'm just trying prove the distraction you are creating through no valid discussion.


You're right, this is off topic for this thread. I'm getting this confused with another thread that I'm having the same discussion with Griff in. So no more here.

So, molten metal in the basement of 7. Can thermite/ate result in molten metal? Sure. But how in the world would it KEEP it molten for several weeks/months? It just isn't possible for thermite/ate to burn for that long.

There has to some reactions that are hot enough going on in the basements to keep it that way, right? And if there are reactions hot enough to keep it that way, is it not possible that these reactions could also be the CAUSE? Sure.

What these reactions were are in question. But this doesn't represent some smoking gun. Thermite/ate is undoubtedly ruled out as a cause for the continued heat in the basement levels. It's just an anomaly that needs to be answered. Nothing more.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Why don't YOU show the specs that say the welds are to be full length, strength, etc?


Where did I say they HAD to be full length to meet spec?


You're making your statements that you believe there was shoddy workmanship on part of the construction company based on:


I have made no such statements. My statements are that they MAY be shoddy. No one will know until the specs are freely given and/or inspection reports etc.


1- you don't believe that the welds COULDN"T be full length/depth and still be to spec.


Again, a wrong assumption. The length depends on the filler material used. If it was a very high strength material, then they didn't need to completely weld the steel. I have NEVER stated that the length of the weld has total bearing on what I state.


2-some ambiguous article that you got off the internet that IN NO WAY reference the towers, and isn't even found in a structural engineering article.


Yes, an article that shows you some specs on welding and welding materials. Does it HAVE to relate to the towers for it to be worthy of your approval? Because as far as I am aware, there were NO codes for the towers specifically. They went by the NYC code at the time.


3- inferences of poor inspections that is in direct conflict with your past work experience


Again, something you pulled out of your arse. I never infered that the inspections were poor. I don't even know if inspections were done. Neither do you. Unless you have info that I'm not aware of.


4-a claim that the normal spec is for structural construction/welding is for the weld to be stronger than material being welded, but with NO links to back this up, just an unsubstantiated assertion.


I guess my civil engineering reference manual is unsubstantiated because it's not on "debunking 9/11" huh?


Basically you have no credible reason to say what you're saying. You are argueing from incredulity.


Basically, you're just arguing to argue and soon will next on my ignore list.


A poor effort.




Looking in the mirror again?

[edit on 1/23/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by azblack
 



Thank you. I knew I wasn't crazy.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
So, molten metal in the basement of 7. Can thermite/ate result in molten metal? Sure. But how in the world would it KEEP it molten for several weeks/months? It just isn't possible for thermite/ate to burn for that long.


This has nothing to do with the OP. The OP states that FEMA says that some WTC 7 steel melted. I don't care how long it stayed molten. The purpose of this thread was to dispell the naysayers that say we don't know if the molten metal was steel. The point is that FEMA found molten steel, therefore, at least some of the metal was steel.


But this doesn't represent some smoking gun.


You and your ilk are the only ones spouting "smoking gun" in this thread.


It's just an anomaly that needs to be answered. Nothing more.


Yes. Which to this day, no one has answered.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 
Cool, relevance

I was under the impression the samples found were cooled already or slag in apperance I failed to find any FEMA link on this thread. Also I need to reaserch whether the thermate has produced molten effects on steel on any controled lab test type situations. I've always been under the impression it was more of a concussion type of severance. More on that later maybe one of you can beat me to it I have to check on the hands. Must be nice on adesk like this (no pun, unlike my last post)



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Are you confusing intragranular melting to mean that there is melted steel?

Because they're 2 different things.

I'd say that you're doing a pretty good job of argueing for argueing's sake too. So don't throw stones.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by azblack
I failed to find any FEMA link on this thread.


Here ya go. From the original post.

www.fema.gov...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Are you confusing intragranular melting to mean that there is melted steel?

Because they're 2 different things.


Intergranular melting is still melting.

Have you read the original post in this thread?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 
Sorry I missed that at the beggining guess I wouldn't make a good investigator. My bad.

My guess is the assertion is the metal was already corroded making it easier to detonate, it certainly appears that way.
Or the Thermate was planted there for long periods of time before detonation (which is improbable) hence the other corrosion believed to be associated through sulfur intrusion.

Or the construction site oriented on top of hydrocarbon dumping area or smog high in sulfer content

Either way I'm convinced there had to be a planned demo for the upper layers not to encounter resistance on the way down and deviate from center. This assumption is being made considering all prior post and the fact the support structure came down with it. I mean it may have been possible if the core had remained intact but judging from the size of the beams it would have inurred some resistance traversing to the ground. This effect should have been multiplied by any such meting due to fire (as per the bogus report we got). Metal will not collapse and degredate as charcoal wood as a result of burning, it will bend from over head pressure with heat before shear no doubt.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
So, molten metal in the basement of 7. Can thermite/ate result in molten metal? Sure. But how in the world would it KEEP it molten for several weeks/months? It just isn't possible for thermite/ate to burn for that long.

There has to some reactions that are hot enough going on in the basements to keep it that way, right? And if there are reactions hot enough to keep it that way, is it not possible that these reactions could also be the CAUSE? Sure.


Have you studied thermate? Have you studied geothermal energy?

When steel coated with thermate is buried, a natural heat also exists underground. When thermate is used, the thermal energy, hot enough to melt steel, will stay hot, and continue to melt when buried, particularly when warmer weather keeps the underground warmer than in colder weather. When exposed to air, it cools off and allows the thermate to stop heating the steel.

It is the sulfur in thermate that lengthens the time buried steel will continue to melt by catalytic sulfuric reaction. Thermite - aluminum, iron oxide, magnesium. Thermate - add sulfur. Then there is CO2 and H20 available underground. Molecules have an unchanging habit of naturally becoming unbound with heat, and binding into other chemcial molecular structures with various catalytic reactions.

The information at the website explains how thermite and thermate work on steel:

www.journalof911studies.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Thank you for the article. FEMA must not have any qualified chemists working for them. They are contending "raging out of control fires melted steel in WTC 7"? That never happened. Steel bends under heat before it melts. When it bends, the building will start to topple in the direction the steel has been compromised. When the steel bends to the inside, the building starts to topple to the outside of the bend. WTC 7 never wavered or began to topple. It defied the laws of nature for speed, while dropping straight down into its own footprint.

Which makes FEMA's report absurd. That is definitely iron oxide residue, which either thermite or thermate can leave but not carbon based fire or smoke. Fire will burn off iron oxide and use the oxygen in iron oxide. Carbon based fire cannot become hot enough to melt steel, particularly in open atmospheric conditions.

That is what they are calling molten/melted steel from some unknown placement of some structrual steel beam? They proved nothing related to fire doing any of what they show in photographs. However, they gave legimate fodder to those saying it was a thermate reaction.

On page 13, they exactly describe the sulfuric reaction of thermate. There is no carbon based fire ever causing sulfuric reaction. If people are documenting to prove inside job, that report is worth printing down in case that website goes disappearing for some odd reason or other.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
If people are documenting to prove inside job, that report is worth printing down in case that website goes disappearing for some odd reason or other.


I have the pdf saved to my flash drive and also a word document copy (one that you can copy and paste things from unlike the pdf). If anyone is interested, please let me know and I can send it to you.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Basically you have no credible reason to say what you're saying. You are argueing from incredulity.

A poor effort.


Here's more of your pumping your ego up in your posts. No one talks like this in real life, unless you're talking down to someone. And you spelled arguing wrong.

For how many jobs have you had to inspect welds, Rick? How do you even have any idea what you're talking about? Why should somebody have to offer proof of anything to you when you start assuming things on your own?

The actual physical tests to see if steel is up to its rating is done in labs with expensive equipment that basically abuses the material and measures how it responds. So someone does actually do that.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The actual physical tests to see if steel is up to its rating is done in labs with expensive equipment that basically abuses the material and measures how it responds. So someone does actually do that.



Said I wouldn't talk about this anymore in this thread, buuuut....

Tests WERE done prior to construction to validate the engineering.

Post collapse, steel collected WAS tested to make sure the welds were to spec.

No more about it in this thread. I'll respond in Griff's collapse thread if you like.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Intergranular melting is still melting.

Have you read the original post in this thread?


www.tms.org...

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

Semantics.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


"......to validate the engineering......" when testing steel for metallurgy certification? In what way are they validating exactly what engineering? I am not going to try to second guess you, before you have the opportunity to explain exactly what you meant.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join