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: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


I do not care about Ultima's link at this time. What do you have to prove any exact temperature as stated by NIST personnel or anyone else? Would that temperature be C or F?




posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet

Hijo de puta......[/quote]

You better hope no one asider from me can translate Spanish.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I asked my qestions based on your incorrect assertions, not anything written by someone named Greening.



Well, that's because you're obviously not up to speed on some issues.

CTs devalue from Greenings concrete paper because he's not a physicist. So I was givng leeway to Griff in order to avoid any OT discussion about THAT.

So how do you argue your points against debunkers when you don't even know the basis of their opinions. Guess it doesn't matter, eh?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Why don't you simply admit you are not going to directly answer the questions I posed, regarding your assertions against someone who's name I had never heard or recalled reading until you posted the name?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet

Originally posted by OrionStars
I asked my qestions based on your incorrect assertions, not anything written by someone named Greening.



Well, that's because you're obviously not up to speed on some issues.

CTs devalue from Greenings concrete paper because he's not a physicist. So I was givng leeway to Griff in order to avoid any OT discussion about THAT.

So how do you argue your points against debunkers when you don't even know the basis of their opinions. Guess it doesn't matter, eh?


i devalue greening's paper, because HE devalues it. he would be the first to admit that he is only giving (highly) meducated guesses.
you may be interested to know that 'debunker' greening has no more faith in the NIST report, and sees it as shoody, unscientific hand-waving, and is active in debuning it, now, as well as controlled demo theories.

orion, dr. frank greening is a retired chemist who while still employed, was a 'whistledblower' who reported politically unpopular problems with the pickering, ontario nuclear reactor. it was subsequently shut down, although i don't know if it was related.

greening argues that explosives are not very efficient at comminution.
he was also the first to argue for 'coincidental thermite' which was the alleged result of reactions between sulphur in the wallboard, and iron from the builing or something. to me, believing that argument is like throwing an egg, a box of cakemix, and some milk in the oven, and expecting a cake to come out a half-hour, later.

i can't say whether conventional explosioves are 'good' at comminution, but i do know that making very small particles requies an immense source of enrgy, BUT ALSO, something which can actually grind tiny particles into tinier ones. that's why ball mills work, because to curved surfaces can easily press tightly together on the apex of the curves. but even a ball mill requires smaller and smaller spheres to create smaller particles.

the collapses were not ball mills, and ball mills do not comminute 110 X 4 inches(thick) of concrete in less than twenty seconds.

so, although explosives may, or may not be efficient at creating fine dust, the collapse alone lacks the mechanism, and most likely, the energy to do it in 12 - 17 seconds.

mikevet, greenings papers are not the gospel. debunking is as much guesswork as conspiracy theory.

there is the onus of proof, but there is also the evidence in toto, which highly favours CONSPIRACY! even greening is DESPERATELY searching for more energy inputs to explain the physical reality witnessed. he's surmised that there was ammonium percholate sprayed onto the floor trusses. ammonium percholate is rocket fuel. he's tried to 'make' the fires hotter by guessing what chemical reactions could have occured to drive the heat up to better explain collapse initiation. 'coincidental thermite'.

i'll say this for greening. at least he doesn't just do rhetoric and regurgitation, like most 'debunkers'.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Billybob, thank your for the information. I believe you understood that I was in no informed position to comment on Dr. Greening's analysis one way or the other. I believe you further understood Dr. Greening's work had no actual relevancy to my questions.

If a nuclear reactor was shut down due to his professional input, then it goes a long way to indicate Dr. Greening is quite qualified to assess what he believes may or may not have happened to the twin towers. Is his specialty nuclear chemistry and/or physics?

I am not certain I agree that controlled demolitions were not used. Primarily, because if explosion was used, it would have caused far more damage to many more buildings and people, than imploding buildings into their own footprints. If any alleged planes and/or fire had done damage to cause collapse of any part of either tower, the buildings would not have fallen the same way. Although, 16 acres may appear to be a great deal of space, it is not when those size buildings are raised in close proximity to other high rise buildings.

Again,thank you.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
NIST is NOT taxed with investigating CT theories. They are taxed with finding out the causes of disasters like this and investigating ways to prevent them from happening again.


Wouldn't that include testing to find out if gypsum melts and corrodes steel? Since gypsum is used everyday in steel skyscrapers?


I find these sources to be biased right off the bat.


Everyone is biased.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Why should energy required to pulverize concrete be dismissed? Weight of consideration should not be given to a chemist with expertise?

What you are presenting is exactly what I pointed out when people start leaving pertinent factors out of their equations. That is called playing the statistics game, in order to deliberately, falsely present a far more postive picture desired for personal gain. That is highly subjective, which makes automatically makes it dishonest.


LOL

Like I said before, if you want to give more weight to Greening, fine.

He's a debunker. His concrete paper has been devalued because he's not a physicist or structural engineer, which seem reasonable. I was giving Griff leeway about that in order to avoid any off topic discussion about that.

But if you want to say that his knowledge is beyond question, and that he says there was plenty of energy to pulverize concrete and still have enough left over for the towers to collapse in 16-22 seconds without the use of ANY HE.... then fine with me.

So, now that it's been established that his ability is beyond repute, his evaluation of the sulfur issue should be taken as gospel.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by MikeVet
NIST is NOT taxed with investigating CT theories. They are taxed with finding out the causes of disasters like this and investigating ways to prevent them from happening again.


Wouldn't that include testing to find out if gypsum melts and corrodes steel? Since gypsum is used everyday in steel skyscrapers?


I find these sources to be biased right off the bat.


Everyone is biased.


Who said gypsum melted? It was ground up in the towers' falls. Then it reacted with melted aluminum.

Quite the blanket statement, not everyone is biased. There ARE individuals, though none will probably be found here, who can do an evaluation honestly.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Melted aluminim? Exactly how does that chemically react with drywall and steel? A well-written description will suffice. Please be very descriptive, regarding what locations in the twin towers what you state was taking place. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
Who said gypsum melted?


No one did.


It was ground up in the towers' falls. Then it reacted with melted aluminum.


To form super thermate by accident? Where's the scientific proof of this?

I guess I'll ask again.


Quite the blanket statement, not everyone is biased. There ARE individuals, though none will probably be found here, who can do an evaluation honestly.


If you don't think that everyone has their own biasness, then what else can I say?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
NIST is not here to test every idea that comes down the pike from the CT crowd. Their job is to examine what happened. I, for one, definitely don't want my tax dollars spent on answering every crackpot idea that comes from the CT crowd.


If NISTs job was to examine what happened why didn't they recover steel from Building 7 for testing?

Also NIST did not test for explosisves or chemicals but FEMA did, so FEMA must have thought it important.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by MikeVet
Who said gypsum melted?


No one did.


It was ground up in the towers' falls. Then it reacted with melted aluminum.


To form super thermate by accident? Where's the scientific proof of this?

I guess I'll ask again.


Quite the blanket statement, not everyone is biased. There ARE individuals, though none will probably be found here, who can do an evaluation honestly.


If you don't think that everyone has their own biasness, then what else can I say?


1- So then why would you ask such a question? Are trying to construct a strawman here, perhaps, for me to try and debunk?

2- first you ask for evidence, so i gave you evidence from a chemist who seems to know what he's talking about. and as ultima pointed out, is not really a debunker, but looks like a truly neutral person. but now you want proof. sorry, but i'm not here to provide proof for anyone. i can however, provide evidence. do what you want with it. many of your q's are talked about in greening's sulfur paper. a better avenue would be to read it and then, if you're interested, try to take both sides of his statements and a) try to prove it possible, and b) try to prove it impossible. then come back with q's. have fun.

3- granted, it would be difficult to find someone that wasn't biased about 9/11. so are you saying that noone will try? look, there issues that to some, are very important. but to me, icouldn't care less, and so, could be an unbiased judge if need be. i'm fairly certain the same could be said for you if you were to do a little introspection.

so what's your thoughts about glowing/moten steel pulled from the rubble pile? care to share?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
1- So then why would you ask such a question? Are trying to construct a strawman here, perhaps, for me to try and debunk?


Please re-read what I asked. I in no way asked if gypsum melts. Here is what I asked.


Wouldn't that include testing to find out if gypsum melts and corrodes steel? Since gypsum is used everyday in steel skyscrapers?


That means that I'm asking if gypsum melts and corrodes steel. Not if gypsum melts.


2- first you ask for evidence, so i gave you evidence from a chemist who seems to know what he's talking about. and as ultima pointed out, is not really a debunker, but looks like a truly neutral person. but now you want proof. sorry, but i'm not here to provide proof for anyone. i can however, provide evidence. do what you want with it. many of your q's are talked about in greening's sulfur paper. a better avenue would be to read it and then, if you're interested, try to take both sides of his statements and a) try to prove it possible, and b) try to prove it impossible. then come back with q's. have fun.


No. The onus would be on Greening to come up with the needed scientific reproducible evidence. Not what he THINKS could happen.

There's a huge difference.


so what's your thoughts about glowing/moten steel pulled from the rubble pile? care to share?


I don't know. And that's my problem with the whole thing. No one cared to find out.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by MikeVet
1- So then why would you ask such a question? Are trying to construct a strawman here, perhaps, for me to try and debunk?


Please re-read what I asked. I in no way asked if gypsum melts. Here is what I asked.


Wouldn't that include testing to find out if gypsum melts and corrodes steel? Since gypsum is used everyday in steel skyscrapers?


That means that I'm asking if gypsum melts and corrodes steel. Not if gypsum melts.


2- first you ask for evidence, so i gave you evidence from a chemist who seems to know what he's talking about. and as ultima pointed out, is not really a debunker, but looks like a truly neutral person. but now you want proof. sorry, but i'm not here to provide proof for anyone. i can however, provide evidence. do what you want with it. many of your q's are talked about in greening's sulfur paper. a better avenue would be to read it and then, if you're interested, try to take both sides of his statements and a) try to prove it possible, and b) try to prove it impossible. then come back with q's. have fun.


No. The onus would be on Greening to come up with the needed scientific reproducible evidence. Not what he THINKS could happen.

There's a huge difference.


so what's your thoughts about glowing/moten steel pulled from the rubble pile? care to share?


I don't know. And that's my problem with the whole thing. No one cared to find out.


1- sorry for the misinterpretation. but you can't deny that was a very leading question.

2- but there IS proof that aluminum and drywall CAN react that way. are you asking for proof that it IN FACT did happen underground. how would go about doing that? having someone crawl under the rubble pile when it's burning to check on these things would have been ridiculous. what would qualify as acceptable proof? throwing crushed drywall onto melted aluminum and see what happens?

3- no one cared to find out because to everyone except a CT, the cause of the disaster is obvious - planes were flown in to buildings. the building's contents caught on fire and weakened the steel. the building's load capacity at the zone of damage was exceeded and the buildings fell. CTs think they have legitimate q's, but that just isn't the case. again, this is an area that rich CTs like Little Jimmy Walters or Rosie O'Donnell or Charlie Sheen could throw their money at to try and determine whether these explanations for things like molten/glowing steel are possible. i don't want my tax dollars wasted on CTs grasping at straws, trying to make political "hay" on things that they could be doing themselves.

4- since you don't have an explanation for these things, then logically, the very least you can do is admit that the debunkers thoughts are possible, correct?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
3- no one cared to find out because to everyone except a CT, the cause of the disaster is obvious - planes were flown in to buildings. the building's contents caught on fire and weakened the steel. the building's load capacity at the zone of damage was exceeded and the buildings fell.


Its just too bad most of the reports so far state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collaspe.

We also have the fact of molten steel in the basements and debris, and steel kept molten for up to 6 weeks.



[edit on 6-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
1- sorry for the misinterpretation. but you can't deny that was a very leading question.


Yes, leading because NIST should know if this is probable. They didn't care to find out.


2- but there IS proof that aluminum and drywall CAN react that way.


Where is this proof? Historical, physical and verifiable proof? Not just a theory that it could happen.


what would qualify as acceptable proof? throwing crushed drywall onto melted aluminum and see what happens?


It would be a start. EVERYTHING that is known to us in engineering can be veryfied with experimental and reproducible data. Why is this any different?


3- no one cared to find out because to everyone except a CT, the cause of the disaster is obvious - planes were flown in to buildings. the building's contents caught on fire and weakened the steel. the building's load capacity at the zone of damage was exceeded and the buildings fell.


So, this explains how gypsum can melt and corrode steel? Because they already know?


i don't want my tax dollars wasted on CTs grasping at straws, trying to make political "hay" on things that they could be doing themselves.


I DO want my tax dollars used to find out this trap we call buildings. Gypsum + temperature + steel = melted and corroded steel.

You don't find it at least interesting that they didn't definitely find the cause of the corrosion of steel? I do.


4- since you don't have an explanation for these things, then logically, the very least you can do is admit that the debunkers thoughts are possible, correct?


Possible and practicle are two different things.

I can say it's possible that the same would be observed by thermate.

Then the onus would be on me to prove this. Not ignore it like NIST has done.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Its just too bad most of the reports so far state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collaspe.



1- yes, it's true that the buildings witstood the impacts. that is plainly obvious since we all saw it. but would agree that they weakened the load capacity of the buildings?

2- yes, it's true that the fires, by themselves, didn't burn hot enough or long enough to cause the collapse. but don't you agree that statement implies that fires can weaken steel? it must be true because your statement implies that there is a point where it COULD cause a collapse on its own, if left long enough.

3- so if you choose to deny ignorance, you must agree that when you combine the 2 weakening inputs, there MUST be a point whereby the effect of the 2 would bring down the buildings. that point remains somewhat undefined

would you agree to this?

[edit on 6-1-2008 by MikeVet]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Yes, leading because NIST should know if this is probable. They didn't care to find out.

Where is this proof? Historical, physical and verifiable proof? Not just a theory that it could happen.

It would be a start. EVERYTHING that is known to us in engineering can be veryfied with experimental and reproducible data. Why is this any different?

So, this explains how gypsum can melt and corrode steel? Because they already know?

I DO want my tax dollars used to find out this trap we call buildings. Gypsum + temperature + steel = melted and corroded steel.

Possible and practicle are two different things.

I can say it's possible that the same would be observed by thermate.

Then the onus would be on me to prove this. Not ignore it like NIST has done.


1- i would imagine that you would be aware of OTHER govt or industry agencies that could/should/can do these tests. what do they have to say? are you asking them as well? or are you putting the responsibility on NIST only, since you want to debunk their explanations?

2- i suggest you read this: www.911myths.com... references and links are there.

3- it's different because it's question that NIST isn't tasked with. again, this is an area that Jimmy, Rosie, and Charlie can be of help.

4- i have no idea what you're implying here. but i would say that industry agencies could be of help to you if you want answers. NIST isn't tasked with this.

5-and i want agencies funded by your industry to find these answers.

6- NIST isn't tasked with the responsibility of disproving CT theories. do it within the CT community



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet

1- yes, it's true that the buildings witstood the impacts. that is plainly obvious since we all saw it. but would agree that they weakened the load capacity of the buildings?

2- yes, it's true that the fires, by themselves, didn't burn hot enough or long enough to cause the collapse. but don't you agree that statement implies that fires can weaken steel? it must be true because your statement implies that there is a point where it COULD cause a collapse on its own, if left long enough.

3- so if you choose to deny ignorance, you must agree that when you combine the 2 weakening inputs, there MUST be a point whereby the effect of the 2 would bring down the buildings. that point remains somewhat undefined


1. Not according to NIST, the impacts did not cause a weakened load capacity.

wtc.nist.gov...

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.


2. As stated the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the steel to weaken enough for a complete collaspe.

wtc.nist.gov...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.


3. So as stated the impacts and fires were not enough to cause the collapse.

Please let me know if you need any more evidence i have more.



[edit on 6-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join