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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
To put that into perspective the tested sample was recovered from the rubble of WTC7 a considerable period of time after the collapse of the building so the high temperature corrosion observed on that sample is by no means proof of processes occuring prior to (or during) collapse.


Maybe you can explain what caused the molten steel in all the basements and the debris field, and what kept it molten for 6 weeks?

The fires in the towers were burning out before the collapse. There were no large fires in Building 7, so what casued the molten steel?




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
To put that into perspective the tested sample was recovered from the rubble of WTC7 a considerable period of time after the collapse of the building so the high temperature corrosion observed on that sample is by no means proof of processes occuring prior to (or during) collapse.


Maybe you can explain what caused the molten steel in all the basements and the debris field, and what kept it molten for 6 weeks?

The fires in the towers were burning out before the collapse. There were no large fires in Building 7, so what casued the molten steel?

Interesting question

1. Are there any photos of the molten steel? If not, how do we know it was there?
2. When you refer to molten steel, are you referring to liquid metal or just red hot metal?
3. How much was found?
4. Where in the rubble was it found? What type of debris was surrounding it?

Thanks for your post .

[edit on 20-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
[Interesting question

1. Are there any photos of the molten steel? If not, how do we know it was there?
2. When you refer to molten steel, are you referring to liquid metal or just red hot metal?
3. How much was found?
4. Where in the rubble was it found? What type of debris was surrounding it?


There are photos and videos of molten steel in the debris field.

Photos:
i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

Video:
www.youtube.com...

I will get more for you.


[edit on 20-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Very cool pictures, thanks for posting them



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The evidnece numbers just to much to completely sight. But with the way things were laid out to us all as things developed the whole scope of events and charactors invovled smell of government involvement.

Things have been lost by authorities that would no doubt prove guilt and change the course of the story. But enough stuff took place that reeks of government invovlement.

Bottom line is that we have a government that lies to its own people and nothing they can say can any longer be trusted. And that has been the case since long before the current administration.

There is enough research that has been done by respected people to prove that 911 was a set up from start to finish. And their is only one source capable right now of keeping a loose lid on it all and that is the government.

It is just like the war on terror, it is all fabricated to keep us off kelter and second guessing. Do some further research of the evidence and if you can not see the connection, well then so be it.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I know the molten metal question has arisen several times. To put some of it into perspective, here are some other examples of fires that resulted in molten metal from fuel initiated fires.


I-5 Tunnel fire
The fire spread from vehicle to vehicle, sent flames shooting nearly 100 feet in the air outside the tunnel and reached temperatures as high as 1,400 degrees.

The chief said it was remarkable that 10 people escaped on their own, given the extent of the crash and the intensity of the blaze, which was fueled for hours by truck cargo.

The fire "consumed everything that was burnable" and left only "molten metal, frames of vehicles," Tripp added.
findarticles.com...

Gotthard tunnel fire disaster
During the height of the fire, the temperatures soared above 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), and it had not cooled enough to allow firefighters to reach many vehicles until nearly 24 hours after the accident in the tunnel. The high temperatures fused cars and trucks into a mass of molten metal. The continued extreme heat and the ceiling collapse combined to make rescue efforts difficult.
www.greenspun.com...

Summit Tunnel fire
the pressure in one of the heated tankers rose high enough to open its pressure relief valves. The vented vapour caught fire and blew flames onto the tunnel wall. The wall deflected the flames both ways along the tunnel, the bricks in the tunnel wall began to spall and melt in the flames and the BA crews from both brigades decided to evacuate.

Left to itself, the fire burned as hot as it could. As the walls warmed up and the air temperature in the tunnel rose, all ten tankers discharged petrol vapour from their pressure relief valves. Two tankers melted (at approximately 1530 °C) and discharged their remaining loads as floods.

The fuel supply to the fire was so rich that some of the combustibles were unable to find oxygen inside the tunnel to burn with: they were instead ejected from shafts 8 and 9 as superheated, fuel-rich gases that burst into flame the moment they encountered oxygen in the air outside the tunnel.
en.wikipedia.org...

Burnley tunnel fire
The fire caused by the multi-vehicle pile-up inside the Burnley Tunnel in which three people died was so hot that it turned the cars involved into molten wrecks.

Acting Metropolitan Fire Brigade Chief Officer Keith Adamson told theage.com.au he estimated the fire reached temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees Celsius (1832 degrees F), leaving at least one vehicle almost unrecognizable.
www.theage.com.au...


[edit on 20-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by gmac1000
 


your welcome anytime,

That one (illuminati matrix is very very interesting Tons of info and perspective on it all)
I dont think it didnt tounch a little bit on every subject here hehe.

Very good read .


[edit on 20-3-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Very cool pictures, thanks for posting them


No problem.


Originally posted by jfj123
I know the molten metal question has arisen several times. To put some of it into perspective, here are some other examples of fires that resulted in molten metal from fuel initiated fires.


But we know from reports the fires in the towers were not that extensive and were burning out before the collapse.

So we still need to know what casued the molten steel and what kept it molten for at least 6 weeks.



[edit on 21-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Maybe you can explain what caused the molten steel in all the basements and the debris field, and what kept it molten for 6 weeks?


The only possible cause is an ongoing source of heat. If steel had melted before or during collapse it could only remain in that state for weeks with enough heat applied to melt it so there isn't necessarily anything to suggest it when it melted. I rank it as an impossibility for steel to melt and remain molten for weeks in a pile of rubble without a high temperature heat source adjacent to it like a fire for example and the hotspots were mapped from the air and extensively reported by cleanup crews.



The fires in the towers were burning out before the collapse. There were no large fires in Building 7, so what casued the molten steel?


If we go by reports, uncontrolled fires were reported in WTC7 with no means of combatting them due to ruptured water mains and heavy firefighter casualties from earlier in the day. There was a huge amount of volatile fuel in WTC7 to support fires.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I rank it as an impossibility for steel to melt and remain molten for weeks in a pile of rubble without a high temperature heat source adjacent to it like a fire for example and the hotspots were mapped from the air and extensively reported by cleanup crews.

There was a huge amount of volatile fuel in WTC7 to support fires.


1. So what was the heat source, the fires in the towers did not get hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out belfore the collapse?

2. The EPA recovered all the fuel in the ground floor tanks. Most photos i have seen of building 7 show no large fires comming from the floors. only from the side where there was some damage.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Very cool pictures, thanks for posting them


No problem.


Originally posted by jfj123
I know the molten metal question has arisen several times. To put some of it into perspective, here are some other examples of fires that resulted in molten metal from fuel initiated fires.


But we know from reports the fires in the towers were not that extensive and were burning out before the collapse.

So we still need to know what casued the molten steel and what kept it molten for at least 6 weeks.
[edit on 21-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Well will would be very difficult to determine exactly what source created the molten steel. I would suggest it's possible that just like those tunnel fires, the burning fuel which burned off quickly, started other fires which burned longer. This is what happened with those examples I gave. The may have been molten steel before the building collapse and it could have been heavily insulated by surrounding concrete debris. Concrete is a good insulator. If the concrete debris was also very hot, it would release that heat slowly over a long period of time. It's also possible that there were a few small fuel sources like a broken gas line which continued to fuel underground fires for some time.
Of course this is all speculation but it is reasonable.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I rank it as an impossibility for steel to melt and remain molten for weeks in a pile of rubble without a high temperature heat source adjacent to it like a fire for example and the hotspots were mapped from the air and extensively reported by cleanup crews.

There was a huge amount of volatile fuel in WTC7 to support fires.


1. So what was the heat source, the fires in the towers did not get hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out belfore the collapse?

It's possible that the heat increased after collapse due to the insulative properties of the debris surrounding the steel and there may have been an underground fuel source feeding the underground fires post collapse.
Also it is possible that in some isolated area's the fires did get hot enough to make steel red hot.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Concrete is a good insulator. If the concrete debris was also very hot, it would release that heat slowly over a long period of time. .


Well as the videos show the most of the concrete was pulverized into dust.

The fires in the towers did not get hot enough to melt steel. The fires were burning out before the collapse so there had to be another heat source after the fires and as the buildings collasped.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. So what was the heat source, the fires in the towers did not get hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out belfore the collapse?

2. The EPA recovered all the fuel in the ground floor tanks. Most photos i have seen of building 7 show no large fires comming from the floors. only from the side where there was some damage.


WTC 1&2:
Burning jet fuel mixed with the building contents would have initiated the fires. The massive fireballs forced out as the collapses started suggests to me that those fires were far from being out at that point but I also don't think it was necessary to melt steel to bring the buildings down. People at ground level experienced first hand how hot the air forced out the towers was as they collapsed so pockets of intense fire could have made it down into the rubble where there were many tons of flammable material compacted together in and around steel debris. The facts are that there were fires pre- and post-collapse. Another fact is that thermite does not burn for weeks and cannot be controlled once initiated as it carries its own source of oxygen so thermite can't explain molten steel weeks after collapse.

WTC7:
I believe they managed to pump out one or two 12000 gallon underground tanks at WTC7 which only amounts to about half of the total storage capacity. There were smaller receiving tanks on the generator floors 5-8 in addition to the main tanks downstairs.

The approx 48000 gallons of diesel in WTC7 wasn't the major source of volatile liquid but I suspect it was the catalyst to get the other fuel ablaze which was over 100000 gallons of transformer oil plus lubricating oil in the motors and generators. The absence of windows in the substation and main generator area on the 5th floor could explain the lack of visible flames on the outside of that building. Don't forget that this was no small emergency generation facility as it had a capacity in excess of 20 megawatts making it a power station in its own right plus all that was sitting immediately over the ConEd substation on the ground floor with at least 10 HV transformers each over 35' tall and that's where the major fuel source was.

It's definitely a challenge to try separating the facts from the assumptions so let's hope for more facts so we'll need less of the latter.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Also it is possible that in some isolated area's the fires did get hot enough to make steel red hot.


It's not too difficult to get steel red hot and the coals of an ordinary woodfire will do it easily without any fan forced drafts. The oldtime blacksmiths used such a fire to heat steel past its curie point so they could work it on an anvil. I used to use an ordinary kerosene blowtorch to anneal and re-temper steel tools and the Curie point for steel is around the 1400C mark - it's a cherry red at that temperature but using a magnet is a better indication because it becomes non-magnetic (a magnet isn't attracted to it).



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
in order for metal to continue to be molten as long as was said . There would have had to have been a chemical reaction, not an open air burning flame no matter what fuel is burning.

Metal can only get as hot as the flame aplied no matter what.

and once it reaches its laten temp. wich for steel depending on its alloys,

is 2800 f .

steel can be glow red all day long and its structural integrity wont be affected ,untill around 2100 f .

It could have had 1500 to 2000 degrees f. engulfing it for atleast 2 hours before any of the steel would have even started to show any sighns of its effect

and even then it would not have been a strait down effect. It would have slowly started to lean at the point that had reached 2100 degreess f. only

and no where else .

So unless a chemical reactant was used at the core of each floor and outer collumns.

A very large area of fuel would be needed for each floor to maintain the consitant heat needed to keed any kinda metal at its heat fatague level.

The only way any molten metal could have been found at ground zero was chemical indused.

The flames at the towers where black ,(some one needs to turn up the oxy tank ...


All i am saying is a very very controlled flame is needed to keep metal laten with any kind of fuel, the mix of oxy, and fuel has to be maintained in precise ratios to keep it laten,

No open air flame could ever do that . Or steel mills would be out of business.

The only way is chemical reaction , such as flinnging alluminium fast enough into metal oxide to create a spark which creates a cheimcal reaction.(alluminum dust mixed with metal oxide and a spark = Thermite+ HOT very HOT. and as a result we get IRON oxide .

This reaction will last as long as there is the 2 chemicals still reacting together no outside heat needs to be applied once the reaction starts only ,time will stop it.

come to think about, the metal itself was thick enough to dispurse its heat away from the actual ceteral flame farely rapidly

. The floors where actualy 1 acre in size, WOW that would need to be alot of controlled flames to keep just one floors air mass hot enough,and for long enough to create enough heat to allow any of the beams to reach heat fatague.

And rember the bottom beams where 4 inches thick and there where 46 of them, all able to absorbe heat quickly. and 1000 feet away .

And they melted too. Explain that.

And I will believe

anyone here ever solder ?? with heat iron and lead? and if so what happens as soon as u remove the heat ??


PS. this is all applyable to building 7.and there is no metal on any car that comes close to being as thick as the thinest metal on any buildings core beams anywhere in the world.

You r talking (gauge ie 18,19,20,ect.) steel versus (inch ie. 1/4 -6 inch) steel.

Actualy look up steel manufactoring you wont be bored . watchin an open hearth process or elctric arc process is like looking at the center of the earth. Simply amazing





[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
WTC7:
I believe they managed to pump out one or two 12000 gallon underground tanks at WTC7 which only amounts to about half of the total storage capacity. There were smaller receiving tanks on the generator floors 5-8 in addition to the main tanks downstairs.


www.wtc7.net...

To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.



Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.


[edit on 21-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F which is not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat.

"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

Temperatures when metals glow red:
752F Red heat, visible in the dark
885F Red heat, visible in the twilight
975F Red heat, visible in the daylight
1077F Red heat, visible in the sunlight
1292F Dark red
1472F Dull cherry-red
1652F Cherry-red
1832F Bright cherry-red
2012F Orange-red

[edit on 21-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by jfj123

Also it is possible that in some isolated area's the fires did get hot enough to make steel red hot.


It's not too difficult to get steel red hot and the coals of an ordinary woodfire will do it easily without any fan forced drafts. The oldtime blacksmiths used such a fire to heat steel past its curie point so they could work it on an anvil. I used to use an ordinary kerosene blowtorch to anneal and re-temper steel tools and the Curie point for steel is around the 1400C mark - it's a cherry red at that temperature but using a magnet is a better indication because it becomes non-magnetic (a magnet isn't attracted to it).


Yes, very true. When I used to go camping in Northern Michigan, I would go copper ore hunting. At the end of the day, I'd break the ore up and melt it down over a simple camp fire to create chunks of purified copper. I know copper has a lower melting point then steel however I only had a small, wood camp fire and that was enough to melt down copper.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
www.muggyweld.com...

this might help brb with more


[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join