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: 92
10
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But the fires were buring out in the towers before they collasped. Where did the heat source come from that melted steel and kept it molten for 6 weeks?


We've come full circle again.

If a fire appears to be burning out it doesn't mean it's out does it?
What happens when the embers of that fire get mixed with a fresh source of combustible material?

When we come to evidence there is NO evidence that steel was kept molten for 6 weeks and if you're intent on conspiratorial post-collapse fires, what's the point of them?. There IS evidence of temperatures in excess of 1000C being reached by fairly ordinary office materials and kerosene is a good way to get it started.

As to the source of air - the basements of the buildings were not totally collapsed so there's plentiful ways for air to get under the burning rubble. Those basement parking areas extended under virtually the entire WTC complex with vehicular access from the street and there were also ventilation shafts to the PATH tunnel system and vents for the parking area itself (to expel exhaust fumes). Those fires were well ventilated from below and I guess you noticed the smoke emerging from the piles - how would that get out without clear airways?




posted on May, 24 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm surprised in all your research you didn't notice these things. I'd have thought you wouldn't need to ask the question because you'd know the answer.


I am surprised anyone with basic intelligence or common sense would not know about the molten steel and also know that the fires in the towers would not be the heat source.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
When we come to evidence there is NO evidence that steel was kept molten for 6 weeks and if you're intent on conspiratorial post-collapse fires, what's the point of them?.


Well yes there is photo and video evidence of hot, molten steel in the debis pile for up to 6 weeks.

Video of molten steel weeks later:
www.metacafe.com...



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well yes there is photo and video evidence of hot, molten steel in the debis pile for up to 6 weeks.

Video of molten steel weeks later:


You worded it a little better there (up to 6 weeks)
That would be anything from 1 minute before it was uncovered wouldn't it.

Do you have pictures of the same molten material taken on an hourly or even daily basis for 6 weeks?

We went over this much earlier in this very thread I believe and the subject of colour temperature came up which indicates that the molten material pictured is not steel. I'm not about to claim no steel melted in there though as the fire hotspots only needed to be 50% hotter to achieve that. I doubt that there was any large scale melting.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 24/5/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Do you have pictures of the same molten material taken on an hourly or even daily basis for 6 weeks?


Before i post anything else do you have any information that would debate what i have posted so far about molten steel in the basements and debris?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Before i post anything else do you have any information that would debate what i have posted so far about molten steel in the basements and debris?


I'm not denying that temperatures high enough to cause some local melting could have been achieved and there is evidence of some melting. If you want to claim there were 'lakes' of molten steel that remained liquid for 6 weeks please go ahead.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm not denying that temperatures high enough to cause some local melting could have been achieved and there is evidence of some melting. If you want to claim there were 'lakes' of molten steel that remained liquid for 6 weeks please go ahead.


I have just posted to video where a fire chief states the debris was red hot and molten for 6 weeks. Please go back and watch the video. His exact stement is that it was "like a furnace" under the debris.

Also you should read the 9/11 commission reports, and its very easy to find infomration from the firmen and first responders on molten steel in the basements and debris.

You should also look at the NASA data on the temps several days after the buildings were down.


[edit on 24-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Im sorry, but Im going to have to have properly sourced metalurgical reports that it was steel that was molten, not aluminum......



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Im sorry, but Im going to have to have properly sourced metalurgical reports that it was steel that was molten, not aluminum......


Why should i post sourced material if you believers will not ?

Why can't you believers practice what you preach?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have just posted to video where a fire chief states the debris was red hot and molten for 6 weeks. Please go back and watch the video. His exact stement is that it was "like a furnace" under the debris.

Also you should read the 9/11 commission reports, and its very easy to find infomration from the firmen and first responders on molten steel in the basements and debris.

You should also look at the NASA data on the temps several days after the buildings were down.


I can't download that video as yet - seems incompatable with my browser until I get the right plugin flash player.

First problem is 'red hot and molten' does not support molten steel (there are other materials that melt at or below red heat) although it could have happened deep in the pile where no-one would be able to observe it. There's no doubt that the fires were very hot as reported and, from memory, the NASA scans revealed temperatures around 1000C or slightly higher which was consistent with FEMA and NIST data. The AVIRIS scans revealed peak temperatures of only 984 Kelvin and that data was being relayed to teams on the ground during cleanup operations (areas to avoid).

I have no doubt it was like a furnace and that indicates a fire with plenty of fuel and a good draft of air feeding it from below as was discussed earlier and showing that the basement area was not airtight - far from it.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I am surprised anyone with basic intelligence or common sense would not know about the molten steel and also know that the fires in the towers would not be the heat source.


Where did I say I didn't know about the claims of molten steel?

I'm surprised that anyone with basic intelligence or common sense would deliberately engage in argument where they are clearly wrong. You're not going to hold on to the there wasn't enough airflow are you?

[edit on 24-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


He has obviously forgotten who I am....

Ultima,
I have posted literally hundreds of links to reports, testimony, photos, and newsstories that back me up. And in each case, you deny them.

As I said before, you will NEVER accept the truth, because no one took you by the hand on 9/11 and walked you through the crash sites to show them to you.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
When we come to evidence there is NO evidence that steel was kept molten for 6 weeks and if you're intent on conspiratorial post-collapse fires, what's the point of them?.


Well yes there is photo and video evidence of hot, molten steel in the debis pile for up to 6 weeks.

Video of molten steel weeks later:
www.metacafe.com...


Please prove this photo was taken 6 weeks after. Thanks.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm not denying that temperatures high enough to cause some local melting could have been achieved and there is evidence of some melting. If you want to claim there were 'lakes' of molten steel that remained liquid for 6 weeks please go ahead.


I have just posted to video where a fire chief states the debris was red hot and molten for 6 weeks. Please go back and watch the video. His exact stement is that it was "like a furnace" under the debris.

Wow, sounds exactly like what I was saying earlier
Furnace like conditions under the debris. Thanks for helping to back up my point.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Im sorry, but Im going to have to have properly sourced metalurgical reports that it was steel that was molten, not aluminum......


Why should i post sourced material if you believers will not ?

Why can't you believers practice what you preach?



Because a few pages back you said you would answer legit questions. Were your lying about that or are you serious and will answer legit questions?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
plenty of fuel and a good draft of air feeding it from below as was discussed earlier and showing that the basement area was not airtight - far from it.



What fuel? Certainly wasn't jet fuel since it burned off in the first few minutes, and office furniture fires do not get hot enough to melt steel.

Where is the draft coming from that kept the fire hot enough to keep metals and steel molten for 6 weeks?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
plenty of fuel and a good draft of air feeding it from below as was discussed earlier and showing that the basement area was not airtight - far from it.



What fuel? Certainly wasn't jet fuel since it burned off in the first few minutes, and office furniture fires do not get hot enough to melt steel.

Where is the draft coming from that kept the fire hot enough to keep metals and steel molten for 6 weeks?


If veins of coal can burn for 46 years UNDERGROUND, I think some combustible material can create furnace like conditions in the WTC debris for a few weeks.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If veins of coal can burn for 46 years UNDERGROUND, I think some combustible material can create furnace like conditions in the WTC debris for a few weeks.


How many times do i have to ask, was their coal at ground zero ?

Please show me evidence that office fires can melt steel and keep it molten for 6 weeks.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
If veins of coal can burn for 46 years UNDERGROUND, I think some combustible material can create furnace like conditions in the WTC debris for a few weeks.


How many times do i have to ask, was their coal at ground zero ?

Are they familiar with EXAMPLES at the NSA ? I've NEVER, not one time, EVER said there was coal at ground zero. It's an example that an underground fire, with the proper fuel, can burn almost indefinitely. Try reading my entire post before commenting on it so you don't waste more of my time.


Please show me evidence that office fires can melt steel and keep it molten for 6 weeks.



The WTC's were full of insulative materials that could have encased fires and created furnace like conditions. With heat being stored and released from those insulators such as concrete and wind tunnel conditions, fire temps could have increased substantially from a standard office fire burn. You yourself posted that someone in the fire dept. said the were FURNACE LIKE CONDITIONS. Just as I've explained about 2 dozen times so far.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 24-5-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 24-5-2008 by jfj123]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join