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.

 

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I know it isn't comparing apples to oranges, but I wonder if a plane could do this much damage.(see pic below) I saw a fully loaded UPS tractor trailer plow into a bridge abutment in Florida years ago. The diesel tanks ruptured and it burned for a couple of hours cause it was too foggy for the firetrucks to get there quickly. When I came back by the next day, there was just a mere "scratch" on the bridge. Kinda like throwing a beer can full of gas at a concrete wall..Not much happened.

Hope they never have move than a 4.5 earthquake in NY or they are in for some major damage.

upload.wikimedia.org...

I would have thought there would be some of the core column sections that would have looked like this.....but that is why I don't have to sign my name to a seal on a set of drawings....

There is however, a large amount of concrete gone from those supports in the picture...Maybe there really is something to the way it turned to dust...
Hope we find out one day.

peas




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
What did the manager say about building # 7?
Or was that someone elses job?
Seven is the only building that proves intentional PULL IT demolition.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by thomk
 


I agree. I don't think it was steel dripping out of the corner of the building.

I would like your thoughts on my theory about natural thermitic reactions. Although my theory doesn't involve the actual cause of the collapse.

I have a thread out there where I show a video of a man using only plaster and powdered aluminum to create a thermitic reaction.

I also show a video of a man using 2 steel balls (one wrapped in aluminum foil) to create sparks of thermite.

My theory is that either the plane impacts or the collapses caused the aluminum to powderize enough with the plaster to cause thermitic reactions. I believe this could be the answer as to what was burning so long in the rubble piles.

I'd like to know your thoughts on the matter. Thanks.



I am very skeptical. (That's all of our knee-jerk reaction, ain't it?)

Thermite takes effort to prepare.

You need highly oxidized iron (completely rusted. Not particularly structurally useful.)
And you need unoxidized aluminum.
In intimate contact, but protected from the atmosphere.

There is simply far, far too much aluminum & steel in regular use. If it were easy for the two to interact, machine shops all over the world (where aluminum is cut with steel (iron) tools daily) would be bursting into flames regularly.

Same for car crashes.

I'll look at your videos, and if there's something that changes my mind, I'll freely admit it.

Tom



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by theonlyrusty
Hope they never have move than a 4.5 earthquake in NY or they are in for some major damage.


Most of the taller buildings have been constructed to withstand strong seismic forces. With large active dampers at the top of some of the buildings, while some on base dampeners... that withstand such forces.

These active dampers consist of large masses at the tops of some of these buildings that are free to move, allowing them resist the seismic forces. Their basic concepts are supported by some of Newton's Laws.





[edit on 23-12-2009 by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Thermite takes effort to prepare.

You need highly oxidized iron (completely rusted. Not particularly structurally useful.)
And you need unoxidized aluminum.
In intimate contact, but protected from the atmosphere.


In the video I posted, he uses powdered aluminum and plaster (gypsum). No iron oxide is added. And he doesn't even stir it well.


There is simply far, far too much aluminum & steel in regular use. If it were easy for the two to interact, machine shops all over the world (where aluminum is cut with steel (iron) tools daily) would be bursting into flames regularly.


There is a problem when people use steel drilling bits to drill aluminum.


In structures and moving parts there are two types of sparking. Friction sparking, caused by rubbing of two surfaces leading to the production of a spark; and thermite sparking, caused by the oxygen in rusted steel mixing with certain components in an aluminum alloy smear, and producing a combustible mix which is then ignited by some impacted energy. Thermite sparks are usually hotter than friction sparks.


www.onepetro.org...


Thermite sparking is a circumstance wherein an aluminum part smartly strikes an oxidized iron component generating a momentary and highly localized spot of molten metal. Normally, the thermite reaction is limited to the small mass of material in the impact zone and does not progress further.

What is is useful to know is that aluminum and iron together constitute a sparking pair of materials and could serve as an ignition souce for flammable liquids and vapor in the area. An aluminum cart or pallet could suffer an impact while in motion and provide an ignition source for a fire.


gaussling.wordpress.com...

Look up "thermite sparking" for more information.

I would say an aluminum plane hitting rusted steel columns at that speed would produce a thermite spark.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
And the FACT of the matter is that any engineer (except very experience structural engineers who direct experience with fire & failure modes of very large buildings) who drew their conclusions from "first impressions" was a fool.


But anyone on the internet in a UFO forum that decides to have an opinion on the events of 9/11 are EXPERTS!!!!! It just seems a little odd for some anonymous conspiracy fan to sit there and call any expert a fool. Yes, making a decision from a first impression is foolish. Did they all plug their ears after that and stick with what their gut feeling was? Being engineers, I am sure that time got them to think somewhat more critically about and guess what...they were still engineers. Here you are on an internet forum. You are NO KIND of engineer, and you have done no real investigation into anything that you could not do from behind a keyboard. The engineers are all fools though?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by theonlyrusty

To tomk and nutter....

tomk and nutter....care to give us your take on the structural integrity of the buildings? And also, how did the "turrurists" ever manage to do a study of the buildings blueprints and come to a conclusion that by flying a plane into a certain floor, it would have "total structural fail" capabilities?

I have never understood that. These guys surely didn't just wake up and say, "Let's fly some planes into some buildings and see if they fall"!!!


Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

"Hijack planes. Fly into buildings."

Beginning and end of plans.

You're coming along after the fact and saying that everything that happened was part of their plans. Did they also plan to cut the water mains under the street. Do they have some hatred of water mains?

According to reports, OBL did not expect the towers to fail. He didn't care. He may (or may not) have been happy that they did. Who knows. Who cares.


Originally posted by theonlyrusty
From what I see of the design of the buildings and what the architects and engineers have said about the WTC's, I personally would have picked some other buildings to have flown a jet into if I was planning a 911 attack.
I mean, they DESIGNED the buildings to withstand a whole lot of stress and I don't see that an aluminum plane that dispersed most of it's energy (fuel) out of the side of the building, would be capable of such destruction.


Without looking up the numbers, I suspect that about 10% of the energy of the jet got "dispersed outside of the building". Most of the energy was kinetic, in the mass & velocity of the plane.

The jet fuel did not cook, or weaken the columns.

The jet fuel was equivalent to "lighter fluid" in your barbeque. The lighter fluid does NOT cook the burgers. It ignites the coals.

The jet fuel lit the contents of the offices. They were the coals.


Originally posted by theonlyrusty
How do you (tomk and nutter) feel about the "squibs" coming out the sides of the buildings pre-collapse?


There is precisely zero possibility that they were squibs.

Disqualifiers.
Speed of the wavefront was WAY too slow. Should be supersonic.
No sound. It is not possible to make "quiet squibs". They would have been heard by every audio track for miles around. (With nothing but air intervening, sound travels for miles.)

Strongly implies:
Wrong timing: Squibs go off JUST BEFORE the building begins to collapse. (Yeah, I know they set of some before the main ones to weaken certain internal structures. But the main collapse starts as a result of (i.e., after) the main explosives.
Not enough of them. There were, what, 10 on a building's side?? Are you kidding? For a building the size of the WTC?


Proof that they were air:
The hurricane force winds that were set up in WTC1 stairwells when WTC2 collapsed. This clearly PROVES that massive pressure waves were generated in all the pneumatically connected structures. In order for it to persist as hurricane force winds in WTC1, it HAD to be even greater overpressures the closer you got to WTC2.

Speed of wavefronts (way subsonic)

Random, rare locations: they were rare because as soon as one window broke, it relieved the local pressure. Sparing nearby windows.

Tom



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Here's an interesting abstract from a study on the phenomenon.


Abstract Both theoretical and experimental studies have been performed in order to investigate the feasibility of thermite sparking and the impact of rusted steel on aluminum coated steel. For dry rust, the exothermic reaction occurred at 900 °C while the wet rust ignited an exothermic reaction at 1000 °C. This delayed ignition was attributed to the consumption of energy by the water while in wet rust for phase transformation. The experimental study used a compressed-gas-powered impact-testing apparatus that showed that the dry rusted steel ignited sparking upon colliding with un-coated steel. It was also found that the presence of an aluminum coat generated a higher susceptibility to sparking than colliding with un-coated steel.


www.springerlink.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
OK, lets assume for the moment that the WTC buildings were designed to be taken down after only 45 years. From an engineering standpoint is there some reason 45 years would be chosen instead of 100 or 200 years? Could the engineers have done an analysis based on repeat stress loads that dictated a shorter life span?

Obviously a more expensive granite construction could not have been imploded in such a small footprint given the height of the towers. A trade off between durability and the cost of construction/destruction probably dictated the shorter usable life span.

Are there any engineering studies that recommeded a building demolition after only 45 years?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by thomk
Thermite takes effort to prepare.

You need highly oxidized iron (completely rusted. Not particularly structurally useful.)
And you need unoxidized aluminum.
In intimate contact, but protected from the atmosphere.


In the video I posted, he uses powdered aluminum and plaster (gypsum). No iron oxide is added. And he doesn't even stir it well.


There is simply far, far too much aluminum & steel in regular use. If it were easy for the two to interact, machine shops all over the world (where aluminum is cut with steel (iron) tools daily) would be bursting into flames regularly.


There is a problem when people use steel drilling bits to drill aluminum.


In structures and moving parts there are two types of sparking. Friction sparking, caused by rubbing of two surfaces leading to the production of a spark; and thermite sparking, caused by the oxygen in rusted steel mixing with certain components in an aluminum alloy smear, and producing a combustible mix which is then ignited by some impacted energy. Thermite sparks are usually hotter than friction sparks.


www.onepetro.org...


Thermite sparking is a circumstance wherein an aluminum part smartly strikes an oxidized iron component generating a momentary and highly localized spot of molten metal. Normally, the thermite reaction is limited to the small mass of material in the impact zone and does not progress further.

What is is useful to know is that aluminum and iron together constitute a sparking pair of materials and could serve as an ignition souce for flammable liquids and vapor in the area. An aluminum cart or pallet could suffer an impact while in motion and provide an ignition source for a fire.


gaussling.wordpress.com...

Look up "thermite sparking" for more information.

I would say an aluminum plane hitting rusted steel columns at that speed would produce a thermite spark.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Nutter]


Could you post a url to your video?

In any explosive environment (oil platform, grain silo, coal dust, etc), ANY spark is a potential disaster.

I've sawed, drilled, turned, milled aluminum with steel saws, bits & cutters for 25 years using O, A or W grade tool steel. Never once got a thermitic reaction.

I invite you to substitute an experiment for a theory. Get two rods, one Aluminum one iron, and start whacking one with the other. Let me know if you get a thermitic reaction.

I'm not saying that you might not get something happening in the plane crash (I am certain that nothing will happen with your whacking rods experiment.) In fact, I have not seen the flash as the nose cone hit the buildings explained. Yours is a viable candidate.

Tom

BTW, there is a viable possibility for melting steel or even igniting it. Aluminum melts at about 1250°F, and it will ignite & burn if you get it up around 1500°F. Once it ignites, it will burn at around 4000°F. This is plenty hot enough to melt, and even ignite iron.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

"Hijack planes. Fly into buildings."

Beginning and end of plans.

You're coming along after the fact and saying that everything that happened was part of their plans. Did they also plan to cut the water mains under the street. Do they have some hatred of water mains?

According to reports, OBL did not expect the towers to fail. He didn't care. He may (or may not) have been happy that they did. Who knows. Who cares.


Good old fashioned DB cherry picking. Someone sure planned on bringing those buildings down, didn't they?

"Next time we'll bring them *BOTH* down." This was actually said by Ramzi Yousef after his arrest.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by Nutter
 


Here's an interesting abstract from a study on the phenomenon.


Abstract Both theoretical and experimental studies have been performed in order to investigate the feasibility of thermite sparking and the impact of rusted steel on aluminum coated steel. For dry rust, the exothermic reaction occurred at 900 °C while the wet rust ignited an exothermic reaction at 1000 °C. This delayed ignition was attributed to the consumption of energy by the water while in wet rust for phase transformation. The experimental study used a compressed-gas-powered impact-testing apparatus that showed that the dry rusted steel ignited sparking upon colliding with un-coated steel. It was also found that the presence of an aluminum coat generated a higher susceptibility to sparking than colliding with un-coated steel.


www.springerlink.com...



A quick scan...

It seems that they are discussion the generation of sparks in explosives environments. Typically you use aluminum or copper tools for the specific reasons that they don't arc when they collide.

In this situation, it seems that they've set up the intimate contact between the iron & aluminum by the process of PLATING or COATING the steel with aluminum. Then a good whack with a steel impactor can generate a spark.

My bet is that an impact of steel on aluminum is insufficient to generate the temp required to generate the reaction. But that steel on steel can generate the heat, and then the aluminum is supplied by virtue of its presence on the steel.

But nothing that I read here suggests that you'll end up with sustained, ignited thermite from collisions of any of these components. It seems that they are simply worried about momentary sparks.

Tom



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
What was the molten material?

Short answer: I don't know for certain. But I will put limitations on what it could possibly be.

It could not be steel. While there are a couple of possible speculation that have been offered regarding local "hot spots" that could get hot enough to melt steel (battery current or fed by oxygen generators), I find the conditions necessary to generate that amount of material to be too improbable to sustain long enough to produce that amount of molten steel.


So, like NIST, you only consider fire and absolutely nothing else.

You know FEMA established there was indeed melted steel in appendix C of their report, right? And they were totally unable to determine when or where it came from. So that leads me to believe that you and others should be more open in your opinions than just assuming only fire played a role in things that day.


It wasn't aluminum, because the visual on that does not match AT ALL. Molten aluminum isn't that color in broad daylight and while falling through air.




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by thomk
 


I notice you never responded to my post regarding NIST's own former Chief of their Fire Science Division finding so much wrong with the NIST report that he wrote his own paper critiquing it and its methods and investigative process?


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thomk
And the gist of that agreement is that the guys who did the report for NIST are absolutely first rate engineers who understand the fine points & details of the issues. And provided a first rate report.


Is that why James Quintiere, former Chief of NIST's own Fire Science Division, came out against the findings of the report?


www.abovetopsecret.com...


This is what Quintiere had to say:


At the time, I told them NIST was the best organization to do
the job. Little did I realize that the NIST heart was not in it, and its efforts
would not be proactive, but reclusive. While NIST had public hearings
during the course of discharging their findings, they were limited to 5-
minute presentations by the public, and no response to submitted questions
or comments. There was no transparency of their effort, and even their
Advisory Board did not know when they would finally release conclusions
until October of 2004. The conclusion was formally contained in a report
consisting of a 10,000-page document that defies reading and analysis.
Although Sally and Monica were updated in bi-weekly conference calls
mandated by Congress from NIST, they very early became discouraged and
concerned with the NIST progress and style. I participated in all of the
NIST hearings, and the related Congressional hearings, and in that way
followed the NIST progress. In October of 2004 their conclusions on the
cause of the building collapse was a surprise to me. While I can find issues
with their investigation of the event in assembling information through the
lack of calling witnesses, issuing subpoenas, and applying normal proactive
legal processes, I will primarily focus on the issues related to the fire and
the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.


Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is
deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion. The significance of
these two conclusions is significant, as it bears on the responsibility for the
collapse of the towers. The NIST conclusion essentially puts the primary
cause on the impact of the aircraft, while the alternative conclusion lays it at
the feet of fire safety design. The correct answer bears on the practice of
fire safety.

Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is
deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion. The significance of
these two conclusions is significant, as it bears on the responsibility for the
collapse of the towers.


www.fpe.umd.edu...



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by thomk
 


Here's a link to my thread. The videos are in the OP. Thanks for your input.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Originally posted by Alfie1
An anti-tank round will penetrate a tank will it not. Are you saying the mass of the anti-tank round "outweighs" the mass of the side of the tank ?


No one is denying that the planes pierced the Twin Towers. But it's one thing to pierce them; another thing entirely to disintegrate them.

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001:


Here's the transcript:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.


I fiannaly got to watch the video.
No way did the aircraft bring the towers down unless they were reinforced and loaded with state of the art explosives.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thomk
What was the molten material?

Short answer: I don't know for certain. But I will put limitations on what it could possibly be.

It could not be steel. While there are a couple of possible speculation that have been offered regarding local "hot spots" that could get hot enough to melt steel (battery current or fed by oxygen generators), I find the conditions necessary to generate that amount of material to be too improbable to sustain long enough to produce that amount of molten steel.


So, like NIST, you only consider fire and absolutely nothing else.


Kid, I'll tell ya what.

You ASK me what I think. Don't tell me what you (mistakenly) think I think.

In exchange, I won't call you "kid" anymore. Deal?

Because, you haven't a frikken CLUE what I think about all of this.

So, in case you're still uncertain, the answer to your out-of-left-field assertion is "No, you are wrong. I do NOT 'only consider fire & nothing else'."

BTW, neither did NIST "only consider fire & nothing else".


Originally posted by bsbray11
You know FEMA established there was indeed melted steel in appendix C of their report, right? And they were totally unable to determine when or where it came from. So that leads me to believe that you and others should be more open in your opinions than just assuming only fire played a role in things that day.


Would you care to wager $1,000 on that?

I just checked. The words "melted" and "molten" appear no place in Appendix C.

The pourous piece of metal that is shown in FEMA403 Appendix C (studied by Dr. Beiderman (sp?) at WPI) did not melt. That is not melting. It is immediately recognizable as "high temp dissimilar metals corrosion".

The reason that it HAS to be this is simple: It is not possible to control the temps precisely enough to melt the intergranular areas and leave the grains solid WITHIN THE SAME PIECE OF METAL. The heat conductivity of the metal is too high. I doubt that you could even do it this precisely in a precision temp controlled oven without turning the rest of the piece into a misshappen blob. With obvious running, cooled rivulets of solidified, previously molten metal.

But it is trivial to do with corrosion. This is exactly what you'd expect to see.


Originally posted by bsbray11
It wasn't aluminum, because the visual on that does not match AT ALL. Molten aluminum isn't that color in broad daylight and while falling through air.




1. What temperature is that aluminum in your picture?
2. What alloy is that aluminum?
3. Did you not read my answer? Read it again, you might find out where you're running off the cliff on this question.
4. Do you know what color aluminum turns if you heat it a few hundred degrees hotter & add a whole slew of contaminants?
5. Can you think of any reason why they don't heat it a couple hundred degrees above its melting temp in foundaries?

Your metallurgical background is...?
Do you know how to identify high temp molten iron in air? Steven Jones doesn't.

Tom

[edit on 23-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thomk
And the gist of that agreement is that the guys who did the report for NIST are absolutely first rate engineers who understand the fine points & details of the issues. And provided a first rate report.


Is that why James Quintiere, former Chief of NIST's own Fire Science Division, came out against the findings of the report?
...


Do you mean the Dr. James Quintiere who wrote the book "9/11 Was An Inside Job: Blowing The Lid Off Of A Politically Corrupted Investigation"? That Dr. James Quintiere?
Ooops. Only one problem. There AIN'T no such book.

Do you mean the Dr. James Quintiere who wrote the book "9/11 Was An Inside Job: Bombs In The Buildings"? That Dr. James Quintiere?
Ooops. Problem 2. There AIN'T no such book.

Perhaps instead you mean the Dr. James Quintiere who wrote the book "A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers"? Fire Safety Journal Vol. 37, No. 7
Yep, there IS one of those: cat.inist.fr...

Do you catch that? The same Dr. Quintiere, whose reputation insufferable bozos drag into the mud by association every time they quote mine him and FALSELY imply that he is a truther.

And the Dr. Quintiere who wrote the article "QUESTIONS ON THE WTC INVESTIGATION"
www.springerlink.com...

Here is the Abstract in toto:

Abstract - A critique of the World Trade Center investigation with respect to the cause of the collapse of towers 1 and 2 is presented. The official investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that the collapse was due to the fires heating the core columns that were stripped of insulation by the aircraft impacts. An alternative cause is considered that puts the cause on insufficient insulation of the steel truss floor members. Evidence for the latter is supported by NIST analysis of a truss member, Underwriter Laboratory furnace tests of the floor assembly, and engineering calculations and scale model tests conducted at the University of Maryland. The presentation is couched in terms of 10 questions for NIST.
...

"Let us consider that a steel temperature of 600ºC is sufficient for causing failure of a WTC truss as structural calculations have borne out.... Figure 11 shows the time to achieve 600ºC (failure) for the various structural elements in the twin towers. ...

Failure times [of trusses] are 70 and 110 minutes for WTC 2 and 1, respectively, for no loss of insulation. A small loss in insulation reduces these times sharply, especially after 20 % is lost. This result suggests that the loss of insulation on the trusses was not likely, as collapse would have resulted much earlier than in reality. However, the loss of all insulation on the heavy core columns results in a failure time of about 75 minutes; this is not so inconsistent with the actual failure times of 56 and 102 minutes. But the correspondence to the truss computed times are a much better match. ... These computations support the trusses as the root cause of the collapse. "


THIS is the essence of Dr. Q's disagreement with NIST. He feels that failures of the trusses (without insulation loss) were the initiating event instead of failures of the core columns (with loss of about half of its insulation).
___

"Conspiracy theorists have dominated the web pages and received strong recognition in the media. Yet responsible criticism has been minimal."
- Dr. James Quintiere

Imagine that. CONTRASTING truther claims to "responsible criticism".

This is the guy that you are invoking as defending your side of the argument???
LoL.

"With friends like this..."


Originally posted by bsbray11
... I always find this video humorous anyway, of NIST engineer John Gross saying he never heard a single report of there being molten steel at the WTC that day, even though the presence of it was proven in appendix C of FEMA's report, not to mention firefighters and others testifying to seeing it running under the debris piles:



Ohhh, and you have to love how red in the face and guilty he acts on top of it.


This was FAR from the first time that Gross had heard this "melted steel" nonsense.
Gross was right. The punk with the 'tude was wrong. So are you.

I get pretty much the same look on my face when some know-nothing punk starts to lecture me about my field.

I guess we both find it humorous. For different reasons.

Tom



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

Enhanced enforcement is underway.

All members are entitled to their own opinions on the topic and are welcome to express them.

Comments on anything else, especially personal commentary of any kind whatsoever directed toward other members, are subject to warnings or removal. Repeated behavior of this kind is subject to temporary post bans or permanent account bans.

Please stay focused on the topic, respect the rights of other members to express their own opinions, ALERT us to problems and do your best.


THIS IS A MODERATOR ADVISORY. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST. STAY ON TOPIC.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Kid, I'll tell ya what.

You ASK me what I think. Don't tell me what you (mistakenly) think I think.

In exchange, I won't call you "kid" anymore. Deal?


You know, I don't really care what you call me.


BTW, neither did NIST "only consider fire & nothing else".


Then what else did they investigate and how?

They didn't check for residues, for either explosives or thermite, they went into their investigation with the ASSUMPTION that only the plane impacts and fires were the relevant factors. So what exactly DID they do to investigate anything else?




Originally posted by bsbray11
You know FEMA established there was indeed melted steel in appendix C of their report, right? And they were totally unable to determine when or where it came from. So that leads me to believe that you and others should be more open in your opinions than just assuming only fire played a role in things that day.


Would you care to wager $1,000 on that?

I just checked. The words "melted" and "molten" appear no place in Appendix C.


Then you might want to read it again because your eyesight may be failing (and yes I would like your $1000 please) :


Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. 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. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1000 C (1800 F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.


wtc.nist.gov...

The word "melting" is in that paragraph alone twice, as is a reference to the fact that there was a liquid eutectic consisting of iron, meaning the steel was melted below its normal melting point via the tiny sulfur particles penetrating the grain boundaries of the steel.


1. What temperature is that aluminum in your picture?


Above 660 C, obviously.


2. What alloy is that aluminum?
3. Did you not read my answer? Read it again, you might find out where you're running off the cliff on this question.


Nope, sorry. Would you care to post some molten aluminum that DOES appear the same as what was falling out of WTC2, please? There are hundreds of images of molten aluminum on Google images alone. I find it awfully funny that I have never seen aluminum look like molten steel, except in very low-lighting conditions where the aluminum is extremely hot. If you are talking aluminum that is as hot as the melting temperature of steel, then you know it doesn't really makes a rat's ass difference anymore whether it is steel or aluminum, because they would equally not be a product of office fires alone.


4. Do you know what color aluminum turns if you heat it a few hundred degrees hotter & add a whole slew of contaminants?


Let me guess, burning organics? You are going to have to propose a specific theory here if you want to say this is still somehow aluminum, not make a bunch of vague claims that 'somehow' the aluminum can appear as it does in videos of molten metal pouring out of WTC2.


Your metallurgical background is...?


What's yours?


Do you know how to identify high temp molten iron in air? Steven Jones doesn't.


I beg to differ. Jones even tested NIST's theory of molten aluminum with burning organics, and they didn't even mix to form the appearance of a homogeneous substance. Nor did the aluminum remain bright orange as it fell through it the air, but it immediately cooled and turned silvery again. Not to mention NIST gave no references or other validating evidence whatsoever. They simply made an assertion on an FAQ that doesn't even appear anywhere in their formal report. And if you're making assertions that contradict NIST, then you're not doing any better than they are unless you have something to show that NIST did not.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by bsbray11]




top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join