It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by gottago
The streams are pooling in the wells of the bolt holes and dribbling down, very neat and defined.
Originally posted by billybob
no. i have thought about it, and it's pretty obvious that the corrosion did not happen over a long period of time.
paint? you mean the white parts? or the rust coloured areas that might be red from primer?
i've been around big steel all my life. it doesn't turn rusty when you spill a glass of water on it. the water has to be in constant contact with the steel for several hours AT LEAST for visible rust to appear. the liquid that caused this was clearly running, and not pooled.
Originally posted by Whodunnit
And they were spraying water cuz they were HOT. Which also explains the fact that ya'll bring up about how they show signs of being hot. I don't disagree with this assesment.
Originally posted by Griff
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.
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.
Originally posted by RKWWWW
What does this have to do with claims that there were streams of molten steel at ground zero?