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: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Rust by definition is a form of very slow combustion but I've never heard of it being that energetic before. In a ship's hold the action of seawater with all the dissolved minerals in it can set up some unexpected reactions by galvanic processes but melting iron hmmm - needs research to confirm if it's at all possible. Might make a difference to know if the firefighting water used on the rubble was fresh or seawater too.




posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Something to look into Damocles.

But, I thought rust was just iron oxide. Where does the sulfidation come from?


A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion


I can see the two ingredients of iron and oxygen(oxide) but they specifically state that the mixture was sulfur rich. Which to me tells me that it couldn't have come from the natural occurance of sulfur in the steel but had to come from another source. Possibly gypsum.

But, then you get into wet gypsum (dry-wall) and it's use as a fire barrier. Not a fire excellerant.

Does that make sense?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
What doesn't make sense to me is how we come to rust that supposedly *might* melt steel, before admitting that these FEMA and NIST reports are farces.

I'd love to see rust that melts steel. Any day. I'm talking about a full red glow, at least, nothing 'here' and 'there', which I what I think of when I think of something sitting around exposed only on its surface, like any steel beam just sitting around would be. What an amazing coincidence if this was first discovered while studying the WTC collapses.

Frank Greening said once that thermite could have naturally came into being just by throwing molten aluminum and rust and lighting it somehow with explosive steam or some similar crap, and melted beams and caused the initiations. The "debunking" sites carry this stuff but no one else. Steve Jones even did exactly what Greening suggested, to show he was wrong, and video taped it. Same with NIST suggesting the bright molten metal was just aluminum with burning organics added.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
well i did suggest that for this to even have any merit, we'd have to be well outside the box and speaking in pure hypotheticals....and maybe drunk....

and bsb, no one is suggesting that the nist/fema reports are not farces...well I am not suggesting that they arent anyway lol


(seriously, have you ever seen me quote them?
)

i found something that in the state i was in made sense to me as a plausibility. no, possibility. not everything possible is plausible. reread "the state i was in". and i wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
and bsb, no one is suggesting that the nist/fema reports are not farces...well I am not suggesting that they arent anyway lol


Well to be honest I skipped over to the last page of this thread and had no idea who I was responding to, so I just generalized, because I don't know anyone else that's as agnostic as yourself on the issue.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


i prefer open minded to agnostic really.

the only thing im fairly sure of is that it wasnt a CD. for me to believe a CD theory i have to set aside facts as i know them. to do that i need different and better facts and no one has provided them yet, but that doesnt mean they dont exist.

once you take a CD theory out of the equation, and rule out theories which have no basis in fact at all, then the possibility of AQ being responsible is less far fetched.

i do NOT believe we're getting the straight story from the govt and all that means to me is a question of cover up of complicity or cover up of incompetance (both in preventing it AND the investigation by nist/fema et al or even the planning of it honestly)

but for anyone who'd say i wasnt open minded i simply reply, if i wasnt open to the possibility i am wrong why would i be here discussing it? i dont care to change anyones mind about it, im here to challenge myself. if you want to argue that my posting history refutes this i would ask if you think im out to convince people or to try to make sure that they are getting info that isnt from hollywood?

LOL and i know im going to read this post later and laugh thinking i should have gone to bed an hour ago lol

so i think i will. gnight ats, sleep well

[edit on 22-12-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
the only thing im fairly sure of is that it wasnt a CD. for me to believe a CD theory i have to set aside facts as i know them.


So what it your believe of waht casued the collapse? I mean we know it wasn't the plane impacts, it wasn't the fires, so what do you believe casued the collapse of the towers ?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I mean we know it wasn't the plane impacts, it wasn't the fires


But do we even know that much?

The only thing not up in the air is still the buildings

And the trail gets colder every day



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So what it your believe of waht casued the collapse? I mean we know it wasn't the plane impacts, it wasn't the fires, so what do you believe casued the collapse of the towers ?


ive said many many many times that i have no bleedin idea why the towers fell. i do not think it is incumbent upon me to provide an answer to that question. the only reason i dont buy nists assessment hook line and sinker is because it is based way too much on speculation, but thats the crux of it in'it? THEY dont have all the information, i dont think anyone does so here we sit.

specualte all you want but there is simply no way to tell how much damage was done to the towers as a result of the impact and how much damaged the fires would cause is so open to debate as to not be very valuable.

the only information the governemtn DOES have that i think would be invaluable is the photos of the damage to WTC7. i think that if they releasead their photos/video we could put that issue to bed pretty quickly one way or another.

when the magical day arrives when nist comes forward with a theory that is technically sound and based in fact and explains the collapses to everyones satisfaction (most everyone, theres gonna be some yahoo out there screaming "LIES!!") i think that the explaination is going to have more to do with the impacts of the jets and the ensuing fires than it does with preplaced explosives.

on the other hand, im not holding my breath....


six

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I seem to remember something about a coating applied to the aluminum being a sulfur rich compound. I will see if I can find the source. It was in one of the recent threads. Ment to mark it...but forgot.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Something to look into Damocles.

But, then you get into wet gypsum (dry-wall) and it's use as a fire barrier. Not a fire excellerant.

Does that make sense?


Yes it does. I think everyone can agree that intact drywall is used as a fire barrier and wouldn't catch fire, so to speak.

But if it's present in the junk covering the various steel parts, ( ground up combustibles such as plastics, carpeting, paper, and incombustibles such as drywall, concrete, etc ) that when the fires moved to that particular steel, the drywall would be oxidized by the fire and the residue deposited onto the steel to give Jones the impression that thermite/ate was used.

Does that make sense?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
when the magical day arrives when nist comes forward with a theory that is technically sound and based in fact and explains the collapses to everyones satisfaction (most everyone, theres gonna be some yahoo out there screaming "LIES!!") .


Well actually we need to have the crime scene reports from the FBI. Since they are the legal lead investgators.

Those are the reports i have been trying to get ahold of. But the FBI is not releasing too much. I have FOIA requests into them but not much luck so far.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well actually we need to have the crime scene reports from the FBI. Since they are the legal lead investgators.

Those are the reports i have been trying to get ahold of. But the FBI is not releasing too much. I have FOIA requests into them but not much luck so far.

well, strictly speaking, the FBI is investigating the criminal aspect of it. that wont do anything to explain why the towers fell unless they have some earthshaking evidence that supports any of the CD theories.

so im happy to hear youre trying to get the FBI report as i think it will answer a lot of the other questions RE that day, but for why the towers fell....or why there was melted steel, sadly we have to rely on nist. unless guys like griff are able to get their hands on the technical evidence and come up with a real independant explaination based on fact.

only problem there is that if griff did come up with an explaination that didnt involve government complicity, the truth movement would suddenly cry that he'd been paid off by the govt. "SEE they got to one of 'us' to try to tear us apart from the inside"

its a vicious cycle



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
for why the towers fell....or why there was melted steel, sadly we have to rely on nist. unless guys like griff are able to get their hands on the technical evidence and come up with a real independant explaination based on fact.

only problem there is that if griff did come up with an explaination that didnt involve government complicity, the truth movement would suddenly cry that he'd been paid off by the govt. "SEE they got to one of 'us' to try to tear us apart from the inside"

its a vicious cycle


Nice strawman you just built there Damocles, he's even got Griff's avatar pinned to him.

Assuming that such evidence was ever allowed to be independently studied (and here I'd rather bet on the tooth fairy's existence), it would obviously need to be be studied by various capable teams, who would report independently as well. If it was just given to one government-selected researcher, then by all rights everyone should shout to the rooftops.

There's no vicious cycle to break, as there are no independent investigations. Funny, that.

You can do better than this.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
well, strictly speaking, the FBI is investigating the criminal aspect of it. that wont do anything to explain why the towers fell unless they have some earthshaking evidence that supports any of the CD theories.


But in the process of doing the crime scene that would have investigate all evidence, that would include how the towers feel.

One thing though is they already kind of showed a bad example. They only spent 5 days on the Pentagon crime scene after stating it would 30 days.

You would think since this was the biggest attck on America since Pearl Harbor and some of the biggest crime scenes that they would have taken more the 5 days.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Now looking at this document Griff posted, I add to the mix this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

with the video conference by Steven Jones where he talks about unreacted Thermite

video.google.com...

Where Steven Jones looks to have found unreacted Thermite in some of the samples of WTC dust. There is something going on here guys and it seems to be difficult to pin down.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by talisman]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


ya know gottago, you and i dont agree and thats ok, theres always been a mutual respect there...but i have to tell you im more than just a little offended here. you obviously read something in my post taht wasnt there or you took it in a way that wasnt intended so rather than ask for clarification you accuse me of building a strawman...so i ask: to what friggin end? what do i have to gain by that? and what standpoint or position am i exactly trying to support in doing so? sorry but such things are beneath me. figured youd have known that.

i said that its UNLIKELY we're going to get a straight answer from our government so it would take the efforts of someone who IS NOT part of our governtment. ok, i guess its my bad for giving people the benefit of the doubt, i wrote "a guy like griff" when i could have said " a team of researchers selected by scholors for 911 truth from various universities around the country and world" my bad for not assuming i had to spell out the simple stuff there GG. to me it was pretty obvious what i was trying to say but i guess i was mistaken.

ill sumarize again: its unlikely our govt will give us an answer that satisfies everyone. for us to get such an answer SOME GROUP would have to have access to the evidence. IF said group was given access to the evidence and THEN determined that the governemtn was NOT at fault, it STILL wouldnt satisfy everyone. there would be those that would STILL say that this INDEPENDANT GROUP was paid off/threatened or what the hell ever by our government.

to those whos minds are made up, no report or evidence or proof or confession will suffice so long as it disagree's with their beliefs.

was THAT a little more clear? or did you mean i was builing a strawman in another direction cuz if you were i would LOVE to hear this one.

in the time ive been posting here what have i posted that was blatantly and intentionally false? when have i ever tried to decieve anyone? dont attack my integrity unless you got big guns kiddo. id expect that an apology is forthcoming but this is me not holding my breath.




Originally posted by gottago

There's no vicious cycle to break, as there are no independent investigations. Funny, that.

people been bitching for 6 damn years that they want an independant investigation. hell i thought that was THE cornerstone of the truth movement. and yer right, NEVER GONNA HAPPEN. we agree there. waht i was pointing out, and i thought it pretty elementary, was that even if it did, wouldnt satisfy most people if it disagreed with their beliefs.


You can do better than this.

ya know its funny, id have to say the same.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Where Steven Jones looks to have found unreacted Thermite in some of the samples of WTC dust. There is something going on here guys and it seems to be difficult to pin down.


but, as thermite is a powder, and some of the ingredients of thermite would also possibly be present in the dust from materials at the scene, isnt that a little misleading?

i mean ok he finds iron oxide. yeah, probably wouldnt be any rust on the structural steel from a building near the ocean.

aluminum powder? no chance it got filed off from the outter cladding or the plane in that meatgrinder collapse?

yeah in most thermite mix's theres more in it, but im unaware of anything that he could have found that couldnt ALSO have a mundane explaination.

sorry but i still find jones reports and his research methods a little sloppy, but thats my opinion and im entitled to it.

people tend to find monsters when they seek them.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


In this case though he is getting independent verification on what this could entail, namely unreacted Thermite. I would like to see the whole talk.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Damocles I do respect you as gentlemanly and worthy "adversary," so much so that I've marked you for some time as a friend here, and I put that word in quotes because we often agree, but here I thought this aside was gratuitous to your point and really only served as a backhanded slap to "truthers" (for lack of a better word) who, in your scenario, would never accept even independently verified evidence that counters their position.

It's a one-sided and grossly unfair generalization, which I can only assume you threw into the brew to make all truthers look like unreasoning fanatics, and it was based on a scenario that you admit yourself will almost certainly never happen--a truly independent investigation. The irony of course is that you set all this up to make that assertion, not the much more valid and important point that the government is highly suspect in not allowing any independent investigations to begin with.

Well, I hate the word, but I am a truther, and I think I am capable of making reasoned judgments, and I did take exception to such a blanket statement and I am sorry but I saw it as a cheap shot. Looking over my post, I agree it was harsh, and I'm sorry for that and do plead mea culpa/xmas frazzle for that. Let's continue to respectfully disagree, and happy Christmas.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join