Giving this one more go.... molten metal

reply to post by ibiubu


Take A36 steel (WTC I beam material)...send to people that do thermite welding...have them weld it with thermate...

the microstructure will look nearly identical to that shown in Appendix C of the 911 report...the microstructural photo that shows the surface layer adjacent to fracture. This is the heat affected zone (HAZ) that welding metallurgists refer to.

How can anyone defend 911 anymore. I believe that terrorist are responsible. We've just haven't caught all of them yet.

Originally posted by ibiubu
jthomas...i'm shaking my head...lengthy thread perpetuations and needless end-capping. You were poorly trained my friend...Mossad?

Good luck trying to refute the evidence.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


essentially, yes, it became something other than steel...the surface layer was originally molten steel with iron sulfide in addition to heat (high temperatures) and oxygen due to the liberation of the metal oxide. The surface layer is like slag on a solidified piece of cast iron.

reply to post by jthomas


I correctly interpreted the microstructure...it was melted...the official story is bogus.

Wow, and I didn't need any luck...Are you Irish?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by ibiubu
jthomas...i'm shaking my head...lengthy thread perpetuations and needless end-capping. You were poorly trained my friend...Mossad?

Good luck trying to refute the evidence.

I don't know if you've noticed (probably not), he already has refuted your theoretical evidence. If you can't tell by his posts, he knows what he's talking about when it comes to metallurgy, thermite, and thermate. Just as the truth movement has been saying all along and now confirmed by yet another professional, thermate or some similar incendiary was likely used at the WTC in some capacity along with conventional explosives.








[edit on 1-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by jthomas

 

I correctly interpreted the microstructure...it was melted...the official story is bogus.

Good luck with that one.

What's your next step in getting yet another investigation?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by ibiubu
jthomas...i'm shaking my head...lengthy thread perpetuations and needless end-capping. You were poorly trained my friend...Mossad?

Good luck trying to refute the evidence.

I don't know if you've noticed (probably not), he already has refuted your theoretical evidence.

I showed easily that you cannot support your claims. So have many others for many years. You won't be getting a new investigation.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by ibiubu
jthomas...i'm shaking my head...lengthy thread perpetuations and needless end-capping. You were poorly trained my friend...Mossad?

Good luck trying to refute the evidence.

It's already been refuted. Simply from the realization that there is nothing to even refute in the first place! There is only a lot of speculation mixed with a little outright manipulation. And so we find you posting here, playing make-believe about some irrefutable evidence that you can never point out to us.

I have begged to be shown the evidence that makes you so confident in yourself, but you, of course, instantly try to shift the burden of proof without wasting a single post, in classic jthomas/weasel fashion.


You claim all day that we have a lot of evidence to refute, but (1) can't produce that evidence and (2) immediately make the logical fallacy of just telling us to prove you wrong, instead of proving what you say.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by ibiubu


What other processes could have caused this? The existence of such structure doesn't prove therm*te.
Note that the steel was exposed to underground fires that burned for months, brackish water that was used in an attempt to extinguish the fires, and great excesses of sulfur in the form of gypsum. The chemistry is certainly complex and all the components are not known.

One question I have is: how did the fire officials determine the temperatures at the debris pile were "near 2000 degrees"? Is there a report that has been released available for download? Anymore information about how they determined this?

Originally posted by NIcon
One question I have is: how did the fire officials determine the temperatures at the debris pile were "near 2000 degrees"?

Actually there has been a little thermal data about the piles, at least from what could be told from the surface of it. It was often hotter under the surface and when they opened an area up to air, it would suddenly break out into a fire, as a clean-up worker mentions in a video I can find. And all the theories about blast-furnaces underneath the pile are bogus too because if there was no fire already then there was no oxygen supply.

Here's something from the geological department of a local college (local to Manhattan I mean) that I find interesting:



www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu...


Their same pdf linked above says it too:

This is known as emissive data, or heat being given off from the structure from underlying hot debris or molten steel. Smoldering is yet undetectable, because potential fires appear cold until they are exposed to air. The first thermal images produced began on September 16, and are repeated on two-day intervals.

It's interesting because they don't label thermal hot-spots by temperature, but by the phrase "molten steel hotspots." Enough said about that one huh?

Originally posted by bsbray11
And all the theories about blast-furnaces underneath the pile are bogus too because if there was no fire already then there was no oxygen supply.

Would you explain what you mean by this and what significance you think it has?

There's this data, too, though I can't say I like the source: pubs.usgs.gov...


They took this thermal scan on September 16, so 5 days after 9/11:



The colored areas, representing heat, range from over 500C to over 700C according to this source. So 5 days later, and only at the surface, which has been cooling and sprayed with tons of water, we have temperatures that are still hard to produce with hydrocarbon fires in the first place. You know something is not right about that if it was really just the planes and fires.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
And all the theories about blast-furnaces underneath the pile are bogus too because if there was no fire already then there was no oxygen supply.

Would you explain what you mean by this and what significance you think it has?

I thought you understood chemistry?

Blast furnaces have to have oxygen. The extremely hot material would flare up into fires only AFTER being exposed to oxygen by the clean-up crew. So saying this material was so hot because of a blast-furnace effect despite this evidence to the contrary is uneducated, to put it nicely.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
And all the theories about blast-furnaces underneath the pile are bogus too because if there was no fire already then there was no oxygen supply.

Would you explain what you mean by this and what significance you think it has?

I thought you understood chemistry?

Blast furnaces have to have oxygen. The extremely hot material would flare up into fires only AFTER being exposed to oxygen by the clean-up crew. So saying this material was so hot because of a blast-furnace effect despite this evidence to the contrary is uneducated, to put it nicely.

I do understand chemistry and now I will enlighten you. To put it nicely, blast furnaces work in a reducing atmosphere and are oxygen starved. The CO formed from partial combustion of coke reduces iron oxide to elemental iron. The flare up was due to hot fuel, e.g., paper, plastic, and wood, that was undergoing partial combustion, suddenly being exposed to much more oxygen. Note that these strongly reducing conditions will also reduce CaSO4 [gypsum from the wallboard] to CaS in case you are wondering about a source of the sulfur in the eroded steel.
The oxidation part comes later in the steelmaking process when the pig iron is made into steel by oxygen blowing to reduce the carbon content. At the J&L works in Pittsburgh, hot metal was put into "torpedo cars" and sent across the Monongahela river to the BOP Shop on the South Side. The "hot metal" bridge used to send the trains over has been paved and is now used for cars; much lighter loads than what it was designed for.
Look up Basic Oxygen Steelmaking and you will see that this is a process that uses oxygen instead of the air in the Bessemer process.



[edit on 5/2/2010 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
I do understand chemistry and now I will enlighten you. To put it nicely, blast furnaces work in a reducing atmosphere and are oxygen starved. The CO formed from partial combustion of coke reduces iron oxide to elemental iron. The flare up was due to hot fuel, e.g., paper, plastic, and wood, that was undergoing partial combustion, suddenly being exposed to much more oxygen. Note that these strongly reducing conditions will also reduce CaSO4 [gypsum from the wallboard] to CaS in case you are wondering about a source of the sulfur in the eroded steel.
The oxidation part comes later in the steelmaking process when the pig iron is made into steel by oxygen blowing to reduce the carbon content. At the J&L works in Pittsburgh, hot metal was put into "torpedo cars" and sent across the Monongahela river to the BOP Shop on the South Side. The "hot metal" bridge used to send the trains over has been paved and is now used for cars; much lighter loads than what it was designed for.
Look up Basic Oxygen Steelmaking and you will see that this is a process that uses oxygen instead of the air in the Bessemer process.

First you try to downplay or deny the role of oxygen in a blast furnace, then you mention its use in a blast furnace in your second paragraph. The only thing you're enlightening me about is how you talk out of both sides of your mouth just to try to spin things like I'm wrong, even when I'm right.

The WTC rubble pile wasn't a blast furnace. There was no oxygen or fire down there to melt steel under the pile.

Any reports of people claiming to see molten steel flowing in streams suffocating due to lack of oxygen?


[edit on 2-5-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas


Actually, yes. Firefighters are on camera saying they saw molten steel running "like lava," and also like being in a foundry. But that's their testimony, not mine, so if you have an issue with it, you'll have to address your credibility concerns to them. I personally trust they were seeing what they said they saw.

reply to post by bsbray11


As do I. Firefighters, who see fire on almost a daily basis, would know before most about what the hell is burning or melting. If it was aluminum, there would be signs somewhere of the cooling aluminum and someone would've been able to distinguish that the molten metal was aluminum rather then steel. But this never happened. All witnesses to the molten metal said it was molten steel.

I will trust those who see fire every day than a couple anonymous posters that have no credibility and who's sole purpose is to come here and attack, derail, discredit, and debunk 9/11 truth.

At least one "debunker" above doesn't participate anywhere else on ATS except in the 9/11 forum. The only thread this "debunker" above participated in outside of the 9/11 forum, he was still attacking 9/11 truth, in a thread that had nothing to do with 9/11. If that doesn't tell you there's an agenda, then nothing will. It is truly sad.


Here's a little lesson on Occam's Razor for the debunkers to start living by.

The principle of Occam's razor recommends:

"selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question."

Applying this to the WTC, which is far easier to assume with the fewest assumptions?

1.) Explosives and incendiaries - by themselves would explain the molten steel and aluminum; they would explain the ejection plumes seen as both towers collapsed; they would explain the explosions heard and felt on the lower levels of the towers; they would explain firefighters being blown or "bounced around like pinballs in stairwells"; they would explain how all three WTC's collapsed; they would explain the blast damage seen in the lobbies and basement levels of the towers; they would explain the sulfidation found on the steel.

2.) Office fires - have never caused steel-structured highrises to globally fail or collapse; have never caused pools of molten metal to flow anywhere in any building; would not explain the explosions in the lower levels of the towers or the blast damage in the lower levels; would not blow people across rooms or around in stairwells; would not explain the sulfidation found on the steel.


Office fires is not an answer to a single thing witnessed at the WTC. But yet the debunkers continuously try everything in the book to explain away what happened at the WTC with fire being involved and not explosives/incendiaries.

Therefore, debunkers are violating Occam's razor by having to continuously assume and make things up to explain what happened at the WTC instead of admitting there were explosives and incendiaries which would explain it all.

reply to post by bsbray11

Thanks, bsbray. I run into that a lot. Little data here, little data there, little data everywhere. Little vague comment here, little vague comment there, little vague comment everywhere.

Thanks for the link to that paper.

And, yes, it is very interesting that in October it's all ready being described as "the progression of molten steel hotspots from September 18 to September 25."

I'm going to have to find more.

Edited because I'm really an I

Edited again because it doesn't actually say the 1st.



[edit on 2-5-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 2-5-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 2-5-2010 by NIcon]