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: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:
six

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


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.


Prove that statement. I dont think you can. First the building didnt explode. Two... There are no signs of explosive decomp. Where are all of the materials being ejected from the explosion? What came out would not have been enough outward displacement of air to extinguish the fire. Those floors were not air tight, therefore the fire would not have been smothered out.


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


????? I never said nuke..But I think a nuke....??? Kinda contradicting yourself? Again what about the survivors that would have been standing right on top of you nuclear device during its detonation? BTW a nuke is a fusion device.


sorry if i bruised your ego


No..You didnt


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)


Because the fires were never at the top of the building. They were towards the middle of the structure. Show me there was no fire in the middle. The fires were not at the top. So if the fires went out, what was your heat source? Something was burning. There was heat, smoke etc at the pile for 100+ days.


why with these underground pools and rivers of molten steel would appear instantly after collapse


So you know something that NO ONE else knows???You know, for a fact that the molten material was steel???...You see, thats kinda funny. The material was NEVER tested. So NO ONE knows what the molten material was. Every thing on that aspect is just speculation. SOoo if you know that, unequivocally, that the molten material was steel, you need to talk to someone in the NIST or the FBI.


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.


I did not assign any intelligence to the fires. They just followed predictable behaviors. Again, the fires were in the middle of the buildings...Not the tops floors, So yes they would have landed in the middle. Not teleported anywhere. No one ever said anything about instantly getting hundreds of degrees hotter either. That didnt come from me.


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


But it didnt and I wont.




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
So you know something that NO ONE else knows???You know, for a fact that the molten material was steel???...You see, thats kinda funny. The material was NEVER tested. So NO ONE knows what the molten material was. Every thing on that aspect is just speculation. SOoo if you know that, unequivocally, that the molten material was steel, you need to talk to someone in the NIST or the FBI.


Well if the temps are correct from NASA and everyone else along with the eyewitness accounts from the demolition and excavation crews then i would have to say that there was molten steel in the debris.

Even the video where the fire chief states after 6 weeks the temps were still over 1500 degrees and it was like a furnace inside places in the debris.


six

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Still just speculation on your part..Nobody knows, or will ever know.


Even the video where the fire chief states after 6 weeks the temps were still over 1500 degrees and it was like a furnace inside places in the debris.


Kind of confirms what I have been trying to explain.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Oh my my my....


mythical? like the atomic bomb and quantum computers used to be?


No - more like "Mythical" as in the British Navy having a Zumwalt class DD running around during the American Revolution.


wasting? on the single biggest herd moving event of the last two centuries(well, on par with hiroshima, nagasaki, perhaps)?


now why use something that far out of the ordinary when you could simply use the CIA to convince someone from the NRA or one of the local militias to try and blow up the towers? Like in Oklahoma City (not saying there is a conspiracy there, though). Think about it - you deal a blow to a very significant obstacle to 'herding', as you put it, and groups who stand for individual ownership of weapons and would stand in the way of an oligarchy or something of the like forming.

It would be much more beneficial to EVERY political party in the government.

Why try and use some top-secret device to send us to war with another country? We could simply go to war and accomplish those objectives secretly - with those same invisible black ops who managed to place these devices in the buildings.


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....


How do I know that the 9/11 "Truth" movement, in general, isn't a bunch of disinformation on behalf of the government, a terrorist network, the Neo Nazis, China... or little green men from mars?


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


So file a lawsuit. I'm sure there is a lawyer out there that is starved for cash and would take, literally, any case. They are very good at twisting reality around to better suit their own needs.


we?


*smiles* Well, now it would seem that you've got your mind geared towards finding a single conclusion, now wouldn't it?

Yes - we - I'm in the U.S. Navy - Aviation Electronics Technician. Every circuit card in the plane (spare the ones that only the cryptology guys get to work on) are fair game for me to fix.

Since the guys protecting the warheads and documenting them are in the military (or at least a good number of them are), I said "we". Also, I said "we" to imply that not all of the military is so good at keeping track of equipment... or ordering the correct parts.... Sometimes I'm surprised we even get the planes launched off the carrier facing the right direction - management can seem that poor.


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.


Where, pray tell, are you getting implosion from, Orion?

I have a room full of air... I suddenly drop the ceiling a few feet. That causes compression. A sudden release of this compression would be called an 'explosion' - or 'explosive decompression'.

Also, this doesn't do anything to the heat that is still present. Fire is the chemical reaction known as 'oxidation' to any chemical substance. This is initiated by heat, and perpetuated by the existence of both the oxidizer and the oxidant being present and in contact with each other (and in the proper proportions, yadda yadda techno-babble).

So, if I do not remove the heat, and simply temporarily remove the oxygen... what happens when the oxygen returns? Well... the reaction begins, once again, and we have fire.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Kind of confirms what I have been trying to explain.


I have a question six. What temperature do the boots that the firemen say were melting actually melt? That could help us figure out if there would have been molten steel in the rubble pile (which actually is already proven IMO from this FEMA report). Thanks.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
You're asking for some rather detailed specifics in a very large and chaotic event.... just informing you of what you're asking for, here, Griff.

My experience would put boots melting at above 200 degrees Fahrenheit - but I have no exact temperatures for you.

However, I can say that you begin to have several questions, here - there are fires below/within this rubble pile adding heat to specific areas, as well as whatever heat was left over from the fires within the WTC.

So, if there is melted steel, is it because of these fires, or the fires while the WTC was standing?

And, what would all of this mean?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I think we need to remind ourselves of the Steel that the FEMA document was referring to was from one of the Towers and from Bldg-7. To me that is highly unusual and calls for special attention.

Two very different things happened to Bldg-7 as opposed to the Towers. Yet we see the same effect on some Steel.

Then of course there were the claims of 'molten steel', some fire fighters talked about it being like a 'volcano'. Pieces of a puzzle, when put together something unsettling starts to emerge.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
You're asking for some rather detailed specifics in a very large and chaotic event.... just informing you of what you're asking for, here, Griff.


I'd expect the unexpected in an event of this unprecedented scale.

There's no evidence of nuclear devices (like a flash, blast, EMP, massive neutron flux, background radiation or fallout). NYC is still habitable from what I see. The radiation readings seen are easily explained from known sources that were within the buildings and the planes and there's nothing sinister about those plus the readings are well within limits for human exposure.

Similarly for conventional explosives the tell-tale signs are notably absent.

As observed, there was sufficient compression created within the building during collapse to blow out windows so that massive draft could have a blast furnace effect on existing established fires. Enough to create subsequent superheated ongoing infernos in the rubble? well there's reasonably good evidence of exactly that happening.

I remain impartial on the whole thing IE show me enough unchallengable evidence of a scenario presented and you'll get me on board but remember said evidence will have to connect more dots than any other suggestion. You can probably guess which scenario is winning so far from my point of view



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
Kind of confirms what I have been trying to explain.


Confirms that there probably was molten steel in the debris and basements?

Now we just have to figure out what caused the molten steel since the fires were not that hot and buring out before the buildings collasped.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Which... is suspect only if you accept your assumptions to be fact, Ultima.

I have yet to see any real evidence that the fires could not be hot enough to melt steel. And I have not seen anything suggesting that the fires burned out before the collapse (that has been substantiated against peer/expert review).

This is the problem that I see here - many are making additional assumptions based on previous, unsupported/verified assumptions. While not entirely wrong... the main problem with it is that the previous assumption is assumed fact - as if it has been verified as nothing but fact. And it tends to get out of hand when you have one assumption being based off of another, and another.... and before long, you have this whole network of various assumptions that someone has to follow several iterations to find the core reasoning for the whole matter.

In short "One step at a time."



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Now we just have to figure out what caused the molten steel since the fires were not that hot and buring out before the buildings collasped.


But can we then take the leap of faith and assume that the metal melted anywhere other than in the debris pile fires?
There seems to be abundant reliable (& non-biassed) evidence of those fires being extremely hot and their source seems to be the pre-collapse fires.

There's not enough evidence to say that molten metal brought the buildings down so at this point it's a symptom, not a cause.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   
i dont have a yard so i cant do this but just for kicks someone who CAN should try this.

ok, there are things we KNOW were in those buildings yeah? lots of paper (files books etc) carpet, foam from chairs and so on and so forth.

can we agree with this?

could we then also agree that theres a good chance a lot of this survived the collapses and ended up in the rubble piles?

ok, so someone go dig a hole. drop in a few reams of paper and whatever other materials you think may have been in those buildings (carpet scraps foam etc) pour in a gallon of kerosine. light it.

wait a bit, throw in a few more reams of paper and a chunk of steel, make sure the fires going a while then bury it.

wait a few days, pull the steel out and see what happens.

i have no idea nor do i have any preconceived notions of what SHOULD happen i just think it would be an interesting experiment.

and burning things is fun. the little gnome guy tells me to burn things all the time. i give him beer and he shuts up



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
So, if there is melted steel, is it because of these fires, or the fires while the WTC was standing?


It doesn't matter in this thread. Just that there was molten steel.


And, what would all of this mean?


The end of hearing "there was no molten steel in the rubble pile".



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'd expect the unexpected in an event of this unprecedented scale.


Why? We have building materials and hydrocarbon fires. What's so unprecedented about that?


plus the readings are well within limits for human exposure.


So they say. The EPA also said the air was ok to breath. Are we to believe everything they tell us?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'd expect the unexpected in an event of this unprecedented scale.


Why? We have building materials and hydrocarbon fires. What's so unprecedented about that?



I'm referring to an object the size and mass of those buildings collapsing having no precedent by which we could make comparisons and therefore predictions of what effects are likely in dissipating that amount of energy in a relatively small area. It was a chaotic event producing chaotic results that may never be fully explained so melted metal doesn't fall outside the limits of possibilities. It needn't necessarily have any sinister connotations either.


plus the readings are well within limits for human exposure.



So they say. The EPA also said the air was ok to breath. Are we to believe everything they tell us?


It's becoming apparent that no report will ever be enough to satisfy everyone, especially from a government funded investigation. I don't need to be Nostradamus to predict that the same issues will be subject to debate and disagreement a decade or more from now.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
It doesn't matter in this thread. Just that there was molten steel.


Are you sure it was steel? While it is rather likely... there are various other pieces of equipment, furniture, etc that uses low-quality steel (which melts at a lower temperature) and other metals with lower melting temperatures than the structural steel.

Not saying that the initial fires couldn't be hot enough to melt steel, either. I'm simply throwing out there that melted steel - one way or another - is a conclusion with highly debatable implications.


The end of hearing "there was no molten steel in the rubble pile".


And why is this important?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Are you sure it was steel?


Refer to the original post.


While it is rather likely... there are various other pieces of equipment, furniture, etc that uses low-quality steel (which melts at a lower temperature) and other metals with lower melting temperatures than the structural steel.


Not to be rude, but this thread is about the structural steel that showed signs of melting and evaporating. The only structural steel (that I am aware of) that was tested. There's no getting around this by obfuscating it into lesser steels and other metals. Again, I'm not being rude.


I'm simply throwing out there that melted steel - one way or another - is a conclusion with highly debatable implications.


It's not just melted steel. The first sentence of the FEMA report:


Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field.


There's no way around that we are talking about the structural steel.


And why is this important?


Because the debunkers out there will not even acknowledge that there was molten steel. If they are to ignore hard proven evidence, then what use is it to debate with them?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Are you sure it was steel?


Are you sure it wasn't? Because I can actually link you to at least one article where a clean-up worker describes a steel beam pulled out of the ground molten on one end.


Most people that say the saw "molten steel," armchair debunkers contest by asking, "Was it really steel and not some other metal?," and then this has apparently turned into a "debunking" even to some people, somehow. Maybe not for you but it has in less formal minds.

My question to you is, if I posted the article and had it sourced and cited to where you can dig it up independently yourself, would you say that the man was lying or that he didn't know what a steel beam was, or that there actually were molten beams in the rubble pile?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Great find griff, you've got the debunkers spinning overtime; reminds me of the Clintonian "it depends on the definition of what is is."

Carry on.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Which... is suspect only if you accept your assumptions to be fact, Ultima.

I have yet to see any real evidence that the fires could not be hot enough to melt steel.


All of the reports NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 commission reports all state the fires were not hot enough to melt steel.

Also the videos and photos show the fires burning out before the collapse, no large flames showing from the floors.


FEMA report on steel finding something like thermite in the steel.
911research.wtc7.net...

CLimited Metallurgical Examination
C.1 Introduction
Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted.

C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature.




[edit on 18-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join