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.

 

Giving this one more go.... molten metal

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What did I say about not having to prove a better theory, and not having to know the real answer, for you to still be wrong?

I might as well say nothing, because you don't seem to ever understand this anyway. I must have repeated it over 100 times by now and logic still evades you. I don't have to know what actually happened, to know that what you say is not possible. And each and every time I have to repeat something so simple, your intelligence is impressed on me that much more clearly.


There is the possibility that I am wrong but in this case it is highly improbable. What you are saying is that magic heating occurred. This heat of no source then changed locations for no reason. You have no idea what it could be and cannot postulate a mechanism for its action, yet you are sure it is not underground fires. You, of course, know nothing about underground fires and very little about combustion chemistry, but your common sense prevails and says there can't possibly be hot underground fires.
If you claim to be a scientist, you should start behaving like one. Explain why underground fires are not possible in the case of WTC. You can claim that all the contents of the buildings wouldn't burn or that the rubble was air tight or something else that precludes the possibility of combustion. You will have to detail these claims, of course. Then you must postulate an alternative to underground fires that is testable.
If you don't do this, then the common line "I don't know what happened but it wasn't what NIST said happened and I don't have any other explanation" is just the same mindless garbage it always was. I am aware that this tactic is used by many, but often those people have an agenda based on a predetermined conclusion. Science does not have predetermined conclusions; science is disinterested. Even the way the problem is posed can negate a result. "I'm going to prove that the earth is round" invalidates the experiment. "I am going to determine the shape of the earth" would be what should be stated.

Stop trying to evade the science you claim to embrace.




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Unless you have the equivalent of so many burners used in the Cardington tests, for example, to heat many hundreds if not thousands of times the same amount of steel, all coming up from under the pile, then you can't achieve the same temperatures they did using that equipment at Cardington.


Ok, now I see your misunderstanding.

The Cradington tests used a specific heat output RATE in those tests cuz it represented what their data showed to be equivalent to the heat output RATE in a typical fire. Not cuz they arbitrarily decided to do it quickly. Their tests also show that slow fires also heat the steel to the same degree, only that it would take longer.

And so now, you're assuming that a high heat output RATE is necessary. As in megawatts/hr, or joules, or however you choose to measure it. The key here to your argument is that the RATE must be high..

This is untrue. The RATE of heat output can be moderate, and the temps in the pile can still be high, if there is little heat lost to the atmosphere.

This is a common mistake for those that are unfamiliar with physics.


I've seen you both argue with professional engineers even in the face of being obviously completely wrong, and you both will keep going as if you were right the whole time anyway because you are just damned argumentative, and nothing else. It's not even worth repeating the same things over to you, over and over and over, and you failing to comprehend and form a legitimate response, over and over and over, and instead keep making the SAME logical fallacies and ignoring the data over and over and over. It's sickening.


LOL.

Who's ranting NOW?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

And completely ignore all the heat loss that would have been caused by dumping uncounted gallons of cold water, etc.



"There's a lot of fire very, very deep," Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen said. "But we know we will not be able to put that fire out until we remove the debris."

This guy's statements debunk your statement thoroughly.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I find the video posted in the OP somewhat curious .

The narrator refers to the horshoe-shaped steel as an I-beam . This clearly is not an I-beam .

I will allow that most 'average-joes' don't know the difference between an I-beam , H-beam , bar , channel , etc., when it comes to identification .

That is not the problem I have with the vid .

The problem I have is that this piece of steel is being portrayed as a solid by both the narrator and the (steel-worker ?) , and they are expressing incredulity to the fact that it could have been bent in such a fashion .

If this piece of steel is solid , then it is a bar , nothing else .

If it is a bar , then I have a problem in that I can find no evidence anywhere that such bar-stock was used in the construction of the towers . Someone please correct me if you can prove me wrong .

If it is not bar steel , then the ONLY other category of structural steel that it could fall into would be HSS (hollow structural section) , commonly known as 'tube-steel' , 'structural-tubing' , and in the case of the twin towers , 'box-column' .

I find it rather convenient that the ends / cross-section of this piece of steel was not viewable in this video . No way to tell if it was solid or hollow .

Another thing I find curious is , why was this 8-ton piece of steel being stored at an airport ? This fact begs the question of whether it was being flown out ., or had it been flown in ?

I smell dis-info here .



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
"The Army Corp of Engineers eventually supplied us with infrared aerial shots of where the heat was. It was like looking at a blob. The fire was moving under the pile. One day it would be hot here, it would be 1,400 degrees, and the next day it would be 2,000 degrees, and then five days later it wouldn't register over 600 degrees.

"What they said to me was that the concrete contains air pockets of oxygen and silica, and the silica will burn. The fire kept feeding on itself. It was like throwing a rock in the fire. It explodes. At the end they determined that most of the concrete just kept popping and popping and popping to the point where it was pulverized into dust."

- Account of Charlie Vitchers, construction worker, WTC cleanup.

"Nine Months at Ground Zero: The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took on a Job Like No Other"

by Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, Robert Gray. Page 65

# ISBN-10: 0743270401
# ISBN-13: 978-0743270403

www.amazon.com...

There is not a single reference to molten steel or melted steel in this book.



[edit on 6-5-2010 by jthomas]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
"The Army Corp of Engineers eventually supplied us with infared aerial shots of where the heat was. It was like looking at a blob. The fire was moving under the pile. One day it would be hot here, it would be 1,400 degrees, and the next day it would be 2,000 degrees, and then five days later it wouldnb't register over 600 degrees.


All that molten steel so many people testified to seeing must have been running and settling down into lower ground huh?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


According to your theory, it would also have to flow uphill to account for the data. How do you account for that, scientist Bray?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no "positive evidence" of molten steel and there never was.

Back to word games again?

positive evidence -

Direct proof of the fact or point in issue, as distinguished from circumstantial proof; proof that if believed, establishes the truth or falsity of a fact in issue and does not arise from a presumption.
Source: Legal Dictionary/The Free Dictionary

Now the definition of "proof":

proof -

* The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

* The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
Source: The Free Dictionary


We've already been over the three types of evidence:

1.) Media in the forum of audio, video and still image.

2.) Witness testimony.

3.) Physical/forensic evidence.

Images and videos exist of the molten steel. Numerous witnesses have testified to the molten steel. That sufficiently proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that there was molten steel.

I know it's all too convenient to say that the images are fake and the witnesses are all mistaken to further your agenda, but you can't debunk this one, so let it go.






[edit on 6-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
I find it rather convenient that the ends / cross-section of this piece of steel was not viewable in this video . No way to tell if it was solid or hollow .

That steel column is a box-column and it was a core column of one of the towers. And it's only "convenient" to you who has not done adequate research. You can see different and better views of that column in the 9/11 documentary made by some of the victim's families called "9/11 Press for Truth".



Originally posted by okbmd
I smell dis-info here .

That would be coming from your general vicinity due to lack of research.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
According to your theory, it would also have to flow uphill to account for the data. How do you account for that, scientist Bray?


Your assumption is invalid. There were how many levels underground? You wouldn't be able to tell if it was flowing "uphill" or just down onto another level below from surface imagery.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Then how would you account for an increase in temperature if the metal is flowing away from the surface?

Given the amount of heat, there should have been either underground fires or rivers of metal flowing under the rubble. If it was molten metal, then when it cooled many large ingots would have been formed in low spots and rubble would have been coated with metal. Maybe someone has pictorial evidence of this but, otherwise, there isn't much support for your theory.
Try again.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Read my post again , HSS (box-column) , or bar , is EXACTLY what I said it had to be .

The narrator and steel-worker? are trying to give people the impression that this is either an I-beam or solid bar and they find it incredulous that it could have been bent . THAT is mis-leading dis-info , in my opinion .

As for research , reading and comprehending someone's post would be a very good place for YOU to start .



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Read my post again , HSS (box-column) , or bar , is EXACTLY what I said it had to be .

You were saying what it had to be. I was telling you what it actually was.



Originally posted by okbmd
and they find it incredulous that it could have been bent . THAT is mis-leading dis-info , in my opinion .

It's only misleading and disinfo in your opinion if you didn't actually pay attention to the video. It was "incredulous" that the box column bent without cracking or tearing the steel. Which would mean that the box column was subject to extreme heat, unlike that seen in normal office fires.



Originally posted by okbmd
reading and comprehending someone's post would be a very good place for YOU to start .

After getting owned on the above, you should probably take your own advice.








[edit on 7-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Who's playing word games now ?

And , it is beginning to become self-evident that you have no comprehension whatsoever in regards to what a 'normal' office fire looks like .

You tout yourself as some kind of 'researcher' , but I'm having trouble understanding what , exactly , it is that you research ?

Normal office fire ?

Please feel free to post some links of normal office fires that compare to the fires of the WTC .

Or will you ignore and brush aside this request just like you have done in regards to all my other requests for you to post links that are comparable as regards the 'no other high-rise has collapsed due to fires' claims that have become second-nature to you ?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Which would mean that the box column was subject to extreme heat, unlike that seen in normal office fires.



SO then you have evidence that it was heated in the office fire, and not in the debris pile?

I'd like to see that.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no "positive evidence" of molten steel and there never was.


positive evidence -

Direct proof of the fact or point in issue, as distinguished from circumstantial proof; proof that if believed, establishes the truth or falsity of a fact in issue and does not arise from a presumption.
Source: Legal Dictionary/The Free Dictionary


It's interesting that you came up with the legal definition of "positive evidence" rather than understanding the scientific definition.


Now the definition of "proof":

proof -

* The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

* The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
Source: The Free Dictionary


"Positive evidence" is direct, real, certain, incontrovertible, indisputable, conclusive evidence of something. You have failed in your obligation to present positive evidence of "molten steel."


We've already been over the three types of evidence:

1.) Media in the forum of audio, video and still image.


None establish the indisputable existence of molten steel.


2.) Witness testimony.


There is NO positive evidence of temperatures high enough to melt steel. None has been presented. Only temperatures high enough to melt aluminum have been demonstrated.


3.) Physical/forensic evidence.


No positive evidence of "molten steel" or "pools of molten steel" or "re-solidified molten steel" has been presented.


Images and videos exist of the molten steel.


No positive evidence of "molten steel" has been demonstrated. You should now understand what "positive evidence" means and why you have presented none.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Then how would you account for an increase in temperature if the metal is flowing away from the surface?


Is there proof that the temperatures actually increased over time? Because from everything I've seen in terms of thermal data, the hot-spots shrank underground over time and the surface temperatures were dropping. Let me see what data you're referring to.


Maybe someone has pictorial evidence of this but, otherwise, there isn't much support for your theory.
Try again.


Yeah "maybe" someone has "pictorial evidence" of something where cameras were banned by FEMA. Or maybe you already have scores of witnessing that were in the rubble pile saying they saw exactly what I am talking about. And you are the one making baseless theories about how these people must have all been wrong based on nothing but your prejudice.

No "official" investigation made any comment on this data, and what you're asserting here about underground fires being responsible for the data doesn't add up as I have repeatedly posted. The temperatures are not a match. It is a seriously unbalanced equation. But you keep ignoring that.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
1.) Media in the forum of audio, video and still image.

None establish the indisputable existence of molten steel.

It's indisputable to those who are not suffering from some sort of denial disorder. Especially when the image posted is confirmed to exist by the president of CDI. So, basically, the image is corroborated.



Originally posted by jthomas
2.) Witness testimony.

There is NO positive evidence of temperatures high enough to melt steel. None has been presented.

That does not matter and does not discount the evidence of witness testimony.

If images of molten steel, confirmed to exist, are presented, then those images are of molten steel. If firefighters confirm that there was molten steel flowing like lava, further corroborating the images, then there was molten steel, irregardless of reported temps.

Molten steel existed because numerous witnesses and available media says so. You don't get to choose what may or may not be evidence based on "reported temps". Two of the three types of evidence have been fulfilled to prove there was molten steel. Therefore, there was molten steel.

This discussion is over, you lost.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
post links that are comparable as regards the 'no other high-rise has collapsed due to fires' claims that have become second-nature to you ?

Not a claim. For one, you should do some actual research and look into fire-induced collapses of steel-structured high-rises. Which you'll find none. But publications like Fire Engineering keep track of things like that:

No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire.
Source: Fire Engineering, 10/02/2002

Fire Engineering also published an article earlier in 2002 that stated:

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.

And how right they were.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join