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: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I've been trying to convert that PDF into a copy/paste allowable word document all day. Nice find. Now I don't have to keep typing it out.





posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I've been trying to convert that PDF into a copy/paste allowable word document all day. Nice find. Now I don't have to keep typing it out.


No problem. Let me know if you need any other PDF's made into documents, i have quite a few.


six

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I am having some trouble getting that information. Plus there are generally two types of boots worn. One is a full vulcanized rubber boot. The other is a leather topped boot sewn together with a nomex thread, with a heavy duty sole. I know that that the thread, per NFPA 1971 -2000 standards, has to have a melting point above 500 degrees F. Some help but not much. I will continue to look.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Well, as I recall correctly, Jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel (the temperature at which it burns is dependent upon the fuel/oxygen mixture). While it is not preferred to natural gas - which is much more abundant and cleaner - it can reach those temperatures (this is also why jet engines are made of titanium - because the exhaust can be hot enough to melt lower grades of steel, and cause higher rated steels to assume the consistency of a stick of butter.

Also, as I have mentioned before, magnesium is used in landing gear assemblies, and can easily be ignited by a jet fuel fire (or human body fat - which also burns hot enough to melt steel). Both of which would cause 'unusual erosion' of the steel - as magnesium, being a Delta-class fire, would go through steel like a knife through hot butter. And human body fat would make some interesting splatter patterns at 400 knots, or so.

that, combined with the titanium (also flammable) in the engines... we have a number of things that can melt right through steel without a problem.

Last I checked, it was the 9/11 conspiracy theorists trying to prove that there was no melted steel.... not the other way around.

Bombs don't melt steel. And thermite reactions wouldn't register on a seismograph.... but if they used thermite, and we still see seismic indications of a bomb... then what was it?

Have you guys ever stopped to consider what the picture would be if your allegations turn up to be true? Tell me. What *if* these thermite/fusion weapons were used to bring down the towers. What does this say about the supposed seismic evidence that 'proves' the use of bombs? If that's true... and this is true... what does the picture bring? What if the planes were remote-controlled, too?

If all of that is proven true... how do you weave it all together to form a picture? Or does that really matter... since it's already been 'proven' that the 'government' was involved?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C-
Well, as I recall correctly, Jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel (the temperature at which it burns is dependent upon the fuel/oxygen mixture).


Jet fuel burns at a temperature of between 290-315 deg celcius in open air.

You need to understand that when high temps are quoted they usually refer to the fuel burning a 100% efficiency, which is impossible even in a jet engine which is a controlled burn with correct air fuel mixture and atomization. Jet fuel, or any fuel, burning in open air is not atomized, not mixed with the correct oxygen amount, and it will not burn anywhere near 100% efficiency.

300degc is no where near enough temp to cause massive steel columns to fail, let alone melt.

Another point you need to understand is it's not just temperature needed to heat something, it's the thermal energy and it's transference from fire to object that matters. An open air fire does not transfer thermal energy to steel very well for many reasons. You would need actual temperatures FAR higher than the melting temp of the steel for it to melt.

In a blast furnace it takes temps of over 3600degc to melt steel for use in molds etc...Look up foundries...



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The other question in this would be, if the JET FUEL really did cause the steel to fail and exhibit all these weird anomalies then how is it we see standing in the entry holes of the WTC people looking for help?

Its like we are to conclude the fire and all its heat just targeted the steel at the core as if it had a mind. That is just not believable.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Thanks for your input. That would be far below steel though. And I thought I had something. Darn it.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
it can reach those temperatures (this is also why jet engines are made of titanium - because the exhaust can be hot enough to melt lower grades of steel, and cause higher rated steels to assume the consistency of a stick of butter.


Please provide proof. Thanks.


Also, as I have mentioned before, magnesium is used in landing gear assemblies, and can easily be ignited by a jet fuel fire (or human body fat - which also burns hot enough to melt steel). Both of which would cause 'unusual erosion' of the steel - as magnesium, being a Delta-class fire, would go through steel like a knife through hot butter. And human body fat would make some interesting splatter patterns at 400 knots, or so.


Keep trying to obfuscate. All I have to say.


that, combined with the titanium (also flammable) in the engines... we have a number of things that can melt right through steel without a problem.


Really? Prove it please. Because the FEMA report tells us sulfidated steel. NOT TITERATED STEEL.


Last I checked, it was the 9/11 conspiracy theorists trying to prove that there was no melted steel.... not the other way around.


All I can say is..."the last time you checked must have been wrong". Because you are definitely pulling it out your anal canal on that one.


Bombs don't melt steel. And thermite reactions wouldn't register on a seismograph.... but if they used thermite, and we still see seismic indications of a bomb... then what was it?


Gee...the first rule of obfuscation is to confuse. I think you are confused my friend...no offense.


Have you guys ever stopped to consider what the picture would be if your allegations turn up to be true?


YES. It would mean my government is LYING to me. PROVE ME WRONG!!!!!!!!


Tell me. What *if* these thermite/fusion weapons were used to bring down the towers. What does this say about the supposed seismic evidence that 'proves' the use of bombs? If that's true... and this is true... what does the picture bring? What if the planes were remote-controlled, too?


Well NO. You tell me. What's true and what's not. I have a FEMA report stating in clear English molten steel. No way around it.

Question: Why is it soo hard for you to prove NO molten steel, yet you still feel the urge to try?


If all of that is proven true... how do you weave it all together to form a picture?


How many times do I have to tell you....IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT CAUSED IT......THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL. PERIOD.


that really matter


No. For the last time. It doesn't.


ready been 'proven' that the 'government' was involved?


So, just because I proved that there was molten steel....it automatically involves the government in a conspiracy? I think you need to take a step back and actually think about what we are talking about. No offense.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Very good observation. How do people survive these "blast furnace" 3600 C fires?



[edit on 12/18/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Jet fuel burns at a temperature of between 290-315 deg celcius in open air.


I've used kerosene to melt nails in my back yard - in open air - with little control over the fuel-air mixture. It wasn't perfect, and it wouldn't melt higher-quality steel - but it definitely gets hot enough to cause some issues.

And in the WTC building, you have this nice, open elevator network that can provide a rather constant stream of fresh air into the fire - creating a localized pocket of heat near the core.


An open air fire does not transfer thermal energy to steel very well for many reasons. You would need actual temperatures FAR higher than the melting temp of the steel for it to melt.


Yes and no. Again, there are a number of factors to consider, here. You have a massive amount of heat being pumped into a rather small amount of space. It's not exactly as in the "open air" as one would think. It may not be as ideal as a furnace - but even a simple obstruction can significantly affect the temperatures you can obtain. For instance - putting a simple bed sheet over you can mean the difference between living and dying from hypothermia.


In a blast furnace it takes temps of over 3600degc to melt steel for use in molds etc...Look up foundries...


My family's history is in metal working. It's in my blood (plus, we're of German descent, which seems to have an affect on engineering aptitude). You typically heat metal up to well beyond its melting point because you want it to flow easily through the mold.

I could get into the dynamics of diecasting... but it's not exactly important here.... but it is interesting how simple little things can mean the difference between a successful part and a failed part.

And that is hardly the point, as you don't need to heat metal to its melting point before it loses its structural integrity.


The other question in this would be, if the JET FUEL really did cause the steel to fail and exhibit all these weird anomalies then how is it we see standing in the entry holes of the WTC people looking for help?


You don't.


Please provide proof. Thanks.


You sure you even know what you're asking for? I've seen countless people ask you to provide this to them... and you fail to provide it to them.

However, if you want a run-down of jet engine construction: Wikipedia Link


Really? Prove it please. Because the FEMA report tells us sulfidated steel. NOT TITERATED STEEL.


Sulfur is a rather common element - it exists in many proteins and in many synthetic constructions (office related materials). Not sure how it got there... but sulfur is not used in thermite reactions. I have taken chemistry - and yes - I went and re-checked to make sure... but no sulfur. Now, it is used in many pyrotechnics... but you're talking solid accelerants that don't have a burn-time long enough to melt any vast quantities of steel. Not in that environment.


All I can say is..."the last time you checked must have been wrong". Because you are definitely pulling it out your anal canal on that one.


I think I could find it on here, somewhere. It was a couple years back. Like I said - I've been with this for a while.


Gee...the first rule of obfuscation is to confuse. I think you are confused my friend...no offense.


Too late - I took offense to this topic six years ago.

Yes, I am confused as to what, exactly, you guys are trying to prove. Which is why my post, there, sounded 'confused'. Savvy?


YES. It would mean my government is LYING to me. PROVE ME WRONG!!!!!!!!


Now how do I go about doing that? You already have your mind concluded. I don't argue on here to convince you, or anyone else posting here of squat. I do it for the young kids who get on here and see an interesting post topic and start reading. And if it weren't for me being on here - then all it turns into is a forum of guys hi-fiving each other for their latest and greatest insult to the current administration. Which is an eyesore.


Well NO. You tell me. What's true and what's not. I have a FEMA report stating in clear English molten steel. No way around it.

Question: Why is it soo hard for you to prove NO molten steel, yet you still feel the urge to try?


Am I trying to prove no molten steel? When did I say that? HOW did you arrive at that conclusion? When I specifically gave you examples of things onboard an aircraft that can very quickly and easily melt through steel? This is why I'm confused... what are you trying to prove?


How many times do I have to tell you....IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT CAUSED IT......THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL. PERIOD.


So, what does that mean? and I thought the whole reason you were concerned about the molten steel in the first place was that "jet fuel can't melt it"... now you're saying "it doesn't matter what melted it" ... but I thought that was the entire subject of concern. ... So if that isn't your concern... then what is? Ranting against the government in whatever way you can?

And you wonder why I'm confused....


So, just because I proved that there was molten steel....it automatically involves the government in a conspiracy? I think you need to take a step back and actually think about what we are talking about. No offense.


Apparently it does.... or so people have lead me to believe. So... which is it? There is molten steel.... but it's not a government conspiracy? But I thought Jet Fuel couldn't melt steel.... or at least... that's what you and a few others keep telling me.

Why don't you figure out what in the name of sanity you are talking about, before you tell me I need to think about what you are talking about.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Well, as I recall correctly, Jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel (the temperature at which it burns is dependent upon the fuel/oxygen mixture).

Also, as I have mentioned before, magnesium is used in landing gear assemblies, and can easily be ignited by a jet fuel fire (or human body fat - which also burns hot enough to melt steel). Both of which would cause 'unusual erosion' of the steel - as magnesium, being a Delta-class fire, would go through steel like a knife through hot butter. And human body fat would make some interesting splatter patterns at 400 knots, or so.

Bombs don't melt steel. And thermite reactions wouldn't register on a seismograph.... but if they used thermite, and we still see seismic indications of a bomb... then what was it?



1. What was left of the jet fuel after the intial explosion was burned off within a few minutes.

2. Did the aluminum ignite to cath the magneium and titanium on fire?

3. There are thermite bombs.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. What was left of the jet fuel after the intial explosion was burned off within a few minutes.

ok this is the best example of something that irritates me. many many many many people who cry out "oh the nist report was a huge steaming pile of dung full of lies to protect the govt" will then turn around and quote as fact the parts of the reports that support their theories.

now YOU ultima have explained why you do this to me already and it was a very valid rational, so im just using this as an example cuz you happend to be the one to post it this particular time.

so, someone other than ultima, (because he's already posted his very reasonable logic behind why he does it) please tell me why its fair to pick and choose which parts of the reports are facts and which are lies? is there a criteria or is it just that the parts that support alternative theories are ok?



2. Did the aluminum ignite to cath the magneium and titanium on fire?

would it have had to though? is that the only way the magnesium could have ignighted?



3. There are thermite bombs.


well unless you mean incendiary grenades, which dont blow up just burn, id be interested in the specs of these bombs just as a learning experience. id guess you have more experience with airforce ordinance than i do and we never used "thermite bombs" so if you have them handy, id be interested in reading that. i could go yahoo it but then who knows what id get and im sure you have a specific ordinance number in mind when you say that. thanks



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
so, someone other than ultima, (because he's already posted his very reasonable logic behind why he does it) please tell me why its fair to pick and choose which parts of the reports are facts and which are lies? is there a criteria or is it just that the parts that support alternative theories are ok?


My reasoning is:

It's not so much their data that I refute. It's the conclusions formed from that data that is suspect IMO. So, therefore, I believe posting their data is acceptable. Does that make sense?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
AIM64C, Griff is stating that FEMA said there was molten steel in the rubble piles, like someone simply pointing out that the Twin Towers were built by David Rockefeller.

You don't have to prove what they "mean" in order to prove the accuracy of those statements. In Griff's case, a couple of easy citations of the FEMA report is all that's required.

So without getting all confused and uppity and not sure how to handle it, let's just agree: FEMA found molten steel in the WTC debris pile. Isn't that interesting?

[edit on 19-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


yeah it makes sense. its just that whole "fuel burned off in minutes" thing seems like a SWAG to me more than it does an actual fact based conclusion.

lol but i seem to have posted a lot of things last night i dont remember much of...



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
lol but i seem to have posted a lot of things last night i dont remember much of...


Looks like I'm not the only one.


Cheers.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ok this is the best example of something that irritates me. many many many many people who cry out "oh the nist report was a huge steaming pile of dung full of lies to protect the govt" will then turn around and quote as fact the parts of the reports that support their theories.

well unless you mean incendiary grenades, which dont blow up just burn, id be interested in the specs of these bombs just as a learning experience. id guess you have more experience with airforce ordinance than i do and we never used "thermite bombs" so if you have them handy, id be interested in reading that. i could go yahoo it but then who knows what id get and im sure you have a specific ordinance number in mind when you say that. thanks



1. But in this case i am not using the NIST report. There are several other reports that state the a large amount of the jet fuel fuel was burned off inthe initail exposion and what was left burned off in a few minutes.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F” (Eagar, 2002).



www.firehouse.com...

A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.



911research.wtc7.net...

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence.

Visible flames diminished greatly over time. Significant emergence of flames from the building is only seen in a region of the North Tower 10 stories above the impact zone.
South Tower: Virtually no flames were visible at the time of its collapse.
North Tower: Flames were visible in several areas at the time of its collapse. A region of flames on the 105th floor is seen after the South Tower collapse.
The smoke darkened over time. While the fires in both towers emitted light gray smoke during the first few minutes following the impacts, the color of the smoke became darker.
South Tower: Smoke from the fires was black by the time it collapsed. At that time it was only a small fraction of the volume of the smoke from the North Tower.
North Tower: Smoke from the fires had become much darker by the time the South Tower was struck, 17 minutes after the fires were ignited. The smoke was nearly black when the South Tower collapsed. Thereafter the smoke appears to have lightened and emerged from the building at an accelerated rate.


911research.wtc7.net...

Section 2.2.1.2 Fire Development
Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.


911research.wtc7.net...

Jet fuel (kerosene) only burns at a fraction of the temperature needed to melt steel. In any case, the fuel did not last long, as much was consumed in the impact fireballs, and the rest would have evaporated and burned in under 5 minutes. Thereafter the fires were far less severe than other skyscraper fires (such as the 19-hour One Meridian Plaza blaze in 1991). Few flames were visible, and the black smoke indicated the fires were oxygen-starved. Survivors passed through the WTC 2's crash zone, and firefighters who arrived there described "two pockets of fire".



2. No, i was not talking grenades, ia m talking thermite bombs.

www.textfiles.com...

THERMITE BOMB: Thermite can be made to explode by taking the cast thermite formula and substituting fine powdered aluminum for the coarse/fine mix.


There is also a thermite fuel/air device.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
There is also a thermite fuel/air device.


Could you post specs on this? Thanks.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Could you post specs on this? Thanks.


Check out the site.

www.textfiles.com...

THERMITE FUEL-AIR EXPLOSION: This is a very dangerous device. Ask yourselfif you really truly want to make it before you do any work on it. It is next to impossible to give any dimensions of containers or weights
of charges because of the availability of parts changes from one person to
the next. However here is a general description of this device affectionately known as a HELLHOUND.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Thanks for the info. I've heard of "hellhounds" before. Just didn't put 2 and 2 together I guess.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join