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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

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


Sure, no problem.




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


well, and i guess i should make it clear. im not disputing that most of the fuel would have burned off quickly. but i have no frame of reference to state how much and how soon to cite as fact. but in reading even the quotes you provided did you happen to notice a theme? they all post it as fact without illustrating how they came to the conclusions they did.

now globalresearch and firehouse.org i personally find to be fairly reputable but even they didnt explain how they arrived at thier conclusions, unless i missed it cuz im kinda seeing double at the moment.

the 911research.wtc7.net site i find that it seems they just kind of throw out there the bits that support their own theories. but thats just me.

so i wasnt trying to take a jab at you personally, about that specific topic in particular as like i said youve already given us all a good logical reason why you tend to post from certain reports. it just seems that overall the recurring theme with many who do not have your rationale is that nist et al are crap, unless they support a particular alternative theory even when taken out of context.

about the thermite bombs, that one is pretty much outside my area. its not something we'd have ever used as a demo ordinance and fuel air bombs are strictly airforce/marines/navy area (primarily airforce as im not sure the navy/marine pilots use FAB's) but thats simply because as they parachute down it lets them control the fuel cloud and i know that at least the daisey cutters use magnesium to get dispersed in the air with the fuel to add to the punch, but fuel air type bombs are not really useful when put inside a structure as the available air in said structure is going to limit the effectiveness of the bomb, even with thermite i would imagine (and like i said before i think it was bsb that had once posted a video where fab's didnt do significant structural damage to buildings in the blast area)

so, while no one can dispute the fact that there are military ordinances that use thermite in a variety of capacities, its not really relevant to the discussion cuz even if a thermite enhanced fab was placed in the wtc, the powder in the air igniting isnt going to be able to really do much damage to the structural members of the building. the loose powder in the air would burn off much faster than even what they put in the flower pot in that video from britain. and thats just because in a solid mass its going to take longer to burn due to exposed surface area. also if its in a cloud of powder in a room its all over and not concentrated on the support columns.

so i feel on that issue youre right about specifics, its the implications that are less clearly defined.

PS please god someone tell me i made at least a LITTLE sense...



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
PS please god someone tell me i made at least a LITTLE sense...


Yes you made some since.

I tend to go with the fact that if you know what the flashpoint of a fuel is you could figure out about how long it would last.

I will dig out my old Air Force manuals and see if i can get a figure for flashpoints and burn off rates.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
PS please god someone tell me i made at least a LITTLE sense...


Perfect sense.

Let me ask. Would it be possible to use a hellhound not to damage the structure initially, but to damage the structure over time through it melting through the steel?

Just a thought as I have no idea if that would work.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Let me ask. Would it be possible to use a hellhound not to damage the structure initially, but to damage the structure over time through it melting through the steel?

Just a thought as I have no idea if that would work.


But i think chemical or thermite beam cutters would have worked a lot better. But thats my 2 cents.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


oh dont waste your time, if i really need to know i have the msds sheets for jetfuel im sure (i have a database of over 65000 msds sheets) and that would have the LEL and UEL for it and if the msds sheet didnt have it i have a copy of the hazmat responders guide i could look in, but again, im not disagreeing in anyway that the fuel burned off rather quickly.

i was just using your post as an example of something thats irritated me about other posters in most every thread in that nist et al get vilified and branded useless garbage, unless it supports their own theories. you had just provided the most recent example for me to use, and youre typically more thick skinned than others so i felt safe using your post as an example without worrying about it turning into a flame war as long as i was wiling to point out why i was raising the point and that it wasnt a jab at you.


reply to post by Griff
 


well, first let me say that whats to follow is not necessarily my area as the hellhound isnt an army munition. however my understanding of it, in the simplest terms, is that its a thermite ignighted molotov cocktail that in addition to the fuel explosion also scatters thermite slag. (very simplest terms)

so seems that for it to have any significant impact it would have to be friggin HUGE and even then you'd have randomly scattered molten metal thrown on to steel in a haphazard fashion. not real precise.

just seems that theres easier ways to do it that are more likely to succede.

as much as this sounds like im grasping for straws, id have to ask you griff...is what fema/nist (whichever it was) found in the molten steel area, could that have been explained by the magnesium wheel hubs burning? i mean, they hit the building, plane shreds, hubs end up hitting a column which could have stopped their forward movement, fire breaks out, magnesium lights...etc. is that a plausible mundane explaination for the results of their testing?

not asking for probable, just plausible.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But i think chemical or thermite beam cutters would have worked a lot better. But thats my 2 cents.



I do too. It was just a thought really.

My contention is that well placed horizontal beam (the horizontal supports of the core columns) cutting would do the trick.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I do too. It was just a thought really.

My contention is that well placed horizontal beam (the horizontal supports of the core columns) cutting would do the trick.


but then could not the argument also be made that if nist is correct in their model of the collapse initiation, isnt it possible that stuff falling inside the building took out the same horizontal supports and weakened the core so that when everything else went, the core columns went too?

not saying it did, just asking if its feasable.

oh, and i still want to see one of those thermite cutters in action. not cuz i care about their relevance to 911, i just think it would be cool to watch
hehe once a pyro always a pyro



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
just seems that theres easier ways to do it that are more likely to succede.


Yeah, I was just thinking it might be easier to have one device instead of many. But, you and Ultima are probably right that it would be haphazard.

Yet, we are to believe a-symmetrical damage and a-symmetrical jet-fuel/office fires could do it. So, I still feel it is as much plausable as the official story.


as much as this sounds like im grasping for straws


At least you're trying. Not like NIST who just ignored it. BTW, the report is from FEMA.


is that a plausible mundane explaination for the results of their testing?


May be plausible. To bad NIST didn't care enough to find out.


not asking for probable, just plausible.


Remember though. One of the pieces tested was from building 7. That means no jet parts and no jet fuel. Just regular office fires.

And also, another thing to think about is that WTC 7's rubble was wisked away even faster than 1 and 2. So, the smoldering for months idea gets less plausable IMO.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
not saying it did, just asking if its feasable.


I won't say it's not feasable. Just that I thought NIST says it was floor trusses pulling on the outer columns that did it.


oh, and i still want to see one of those thermite cutters in action.


I'm actually just talking about laying it on the horizontal beam supports. Kind of like thermite welding but only in reverse.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Yet, we are to believe a-symmetrical damage and a-symmetrical jet-fuel/office fires could do it. So, I still feel it is as much plausable as the official story.

well thats the pisser of it in'it? we dont have clue one what the damage actually was. so all we (and the govt for that matter) can do is speculate. granted, some speculation is better than others


To bad NIST didn't care enough to find out.

lol our tax dollars at work right there eh?



Remember though. One of the pieces tested was from building 7. That means no jet parts and no jet fuel. Just regular office fires.

well, playing devils advocate, with plane parts found other places on the street...no telling what "could" have ended up in wtc7. there are several tirehubs on such a plane yeah? i know i know thats reaching, but no one can PROVE it didnt happen...(and isnt there some "theory" from the govt that diesel was being pumped into one area feeding a fire? note theory in quotes)



And also, another thing to think about is that WTC 7's rubble was wisked away even faster than 1 and 2. So, the smoldering for months idea gets less plausable IMO.

ok, but, is that because "they" wanted to hide evidence..or would clearing 7 open another avenue for trucks/equipment to get to wtc's 1&2? im not familiar with the layout of manhattan so thats just a random question



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
(and isnt there some "theory" from the govt that diesel was being pumped into one area feeding a fire? note theory in quotes)


I believe the EPA recovered all the fuel oil in the main floor tanks, which also raised the question about fires on the main floor.




[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but no one can PROVE it didnt happen...


That is the kicker aint it?


(and isnt there some "theory" from the govt that diesel was being pumped into one area feeding a fire? note theory in quotes)


Yes. Being an engineer that has to specify what building materials to use on buildings, I'd expect NIST or some other agency that could perform the task at hand to do the necessary testing to find out if what we (engineers and architects) are spec'ing are dangerous when put into this type of situation (diesel fires) in other buildings. Wouldn't you agree with this? Conspiracy or not?



ok, but, is that because "they" wanted to hide evidence..or would clearing 7 open another avenue for trucks/equipment to get to wtc's 1&2? im not familiar with the layout of manhattan so thats just a random question


Another kicker. But, I don't see how clearing this area allows for better access.




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
I've used kerosene to melt nails in my back …
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.



“Dirty burn" is a slang term for an open-air, uncontrolled burn of a substance or compound, usually impure. Typically, the temperatures created from a dirty burn are far below those possible in a controlled burn of a pure substance. From Wikipedia



JET A-1
Flash point....38°C
Auto-ignition temperature....210°C
Freezing point....-47°C (-40°C for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures....260-315°C (500-599°F)
Maximum burning temperature....980°C (1796 °F)
Density at 15 °C (60 °F)....0.775-0.840 kg/L


Source

So any substance burning in open air will not burn at 100%, especially when mixed with other substances as in an office fire. The fact that you are questioning my claims shows you have not researched this.

Claiming that air through elevator shafts would help cause high temps is just wrong, it’s still an open air fire. Let alone there being no evidence for your claim, and the fact that buildings are designed very carefully so as not to create the ‘chimney’ effect you claim, you have no basis for your hypothesis.

Also if there was a pocket of heat, and even if the columns got so hot at that point of heat to fail, you still have to explain the lack of resistance from columns that were not sitting in ‘pockets of heat’.



...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.


You keep claiming massive amounts of heat, what do you consider massive?
An office fire by definition is ‘open air’, trying to change the definition of that won’t help your argument. There are no ‘buts’ in physics. Open air means not contained in a controlled situation where the fuel and air are controlled such as an engine.
Sry but your hypothermia analogy isn’t even close, and tells me you don’t understand how temperatures work. Even if the fires managed to burn at 100% efficiency it’s still not hot enough to cause steel to fail, and once the fuel reaches 100% efficient burn it’s temperature does not continue to increase. So you can throw as many sheets or obstructions you want, it makes no difference.



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


That quote was referring to molten steel after the collapses.
But you’re right the steel will lose some strength, but even if it did it’s not going to suddenly and globally fail. Global failure was not inevitable once the collapse was initiated, you still have to explain what happened after the initiation of the collapse.
Steel doesn’t suddenly reach a certain temp and then give up, it bends, buckles, sags etc. We see none of this. Hot steel doesn’t explain the lack of resistance, even hot steel will offer resistance. Why do we not see steel causing a global collapse at the Windsor tower who fires burned for 24 hours, same office material, same steel, different reaction. Or WTC 5 and 6 etc…Pls explain…

I’ve worked with metal also, quite a lot in fact, so what’s your point?

(the rest of your post was in reply to someone elses post)

[edit on 19/12/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
That is the kicker aint it?

why yes, yes it is lol



Yes. Being an engineer that has to specify what building materials to use on buildings, I'd expect NIST or some other agency that could perform the task at hand to do the necessary testing to find out if what we (engineers and architects) are spec'ing are dangerous when put into this type of situation (diesel fires) in other buildings. Wouldn't you agree with this?

absolutly


Conspiracy or not?

conspiracy or CYA? i mean, it wouldnt do for NIST to simply shrug their shoulders and go "pfft, i dunno" now would it? so they invent some tests, spend their budget. do a cursory exam of a few samples, then do what we do here, drink beer and look at the photos. few other controlled substances and suddenly we have a whole report on what happened.



Another kicker. But, I don't see how clearing this area allows for better access.




well, look at the roads that run horizontally on the picture away from the red area. ingress and egress routes for what i would presume would be a LARGE number of trucks hauling debris away....open roads with access to the heart of GZ to use as staging areas...could be any number of reasons logistically speaking



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


oh, and i still want to see one of those thermite cutters in action.


I'm actually just talking about laying it on the horizontal beam supports. Kind of like thermite welding but only in reverse.

en.wikipedia.org...


good one. if they just cut all the horizontal supports in the core, the core columns would EASILY buckle due to their new length.

for lurkers and laymen:
(without getting technical about euler and young's modulus and whatnot: take a hanger. bend it in the middle. easy, right? now take a half inch slice of the same hangar wire, and try and bend it. much, MUCH harder, right? so, by removing horizontal support to the vertical columns, the 'short wire' columns(twelve-ish foot storeys) are turned into much longer 'wires' which allows them to bend much more easily, and assists in the 'natural collapse')



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


excellent example.

care for a hypothetical excersise?

lets go to a fantasy world where we could all trust nist and we took their report up until the initiation of the collapse at face value. according to them floors sagged and pulled the walls inward at the impact zones and things started collapsing inside the tower before the top started to fall yeah?

ok, so what would have happened, hypothetically speaking of course, ("and let me tell you its a BIG what if...") the falling stuff took out some of those same horizontal supports?

hypothetically speaking of course.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by billybob
 


excellent example.

care for a hypothetical excersise?

lets go to a fantasy world where we could all trust nist and we took their report up until the initiation of the collapse at face value. according to them floors sagged and pulled the walls inward at the impact zones and things started collapsing inside the tower before the top started to fall yeah?

ok, so what would have happened, hypothetically speaking of course, ("and let me tell you its a BIG what if...") the falling stuff took out some of those same horizontal supports?

hypothetically speaking of course.


well, NIST's falling stuff happens on the (relatively thin compared to the horizontal load bearing beams in the core) floor truss spans, and not in the much denser core. so, for stuff to be falling in the core and taking stuff out, they'd need a new scenario.

hypothetically, of course,
, if we took NIST at face value, we'd need to start looking at science in a whole new way, free of pesky empirical evidence and repeatability.

the only way those buildings fall(so quickly), is if the core fails first.

perhaps, the biggest "huh!?" is the fact that the hat truss is not sitting on top of a pyramid-shaped pile of rubble. flat and spread out in a radius half the height of the former structure is not the shape of a gravity driven collapse.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
hypothetically, of course,
, if we took NIST at face value, we'd need to start looking at science in a whole new way, free of pesky empirical evidence and repeatability.


i nearly woke the neighbors laughing about that one...nice.

oh and i guess i cant say i disagree with too much of the rest of your pst. strictly opinion stuff so not worth anything.

its just fun to play make believe sometimes lol



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   
ok, so lets step out of the box for a moment and take a walk so that when we stop we can hardly see the box atall anymore.

ok so i was trying to find something that would tell me the sulpher content of jet fuel and i came across a 911 debunking site where the guy was talking about how since burning is really rapid oxidation and rust is oxidation then iron rusting is really a slow burn. ok i seem to recall hearing a prof say something like that in college and i can buy that in theory. guy on the site goes on to say how large stacks of iron have been known on occasion (particularly on transport ships in the salt water air) to actually get hot enough to cause melting/burning of the iron.

now, i kind of disregard this guys ideas cuz everywhere i looked he was swapping out the word "steel" for "iron" or using them interchangably and for all intents and purposes you cant really do that and be making the same argument.

BUT theoretically, in the interest of being open minded and looking at all angles of this (hey, if we can consider micronukes and space beams we can consider this) just how hot would a large stack of iron(steel) that was having water poured on it for a few days and then left essentially buried for a while get as a result of rusting? (oxidation)

ill admit, i more or less slept through chem so i ask as a legit question...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join