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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Sulfur is not soluble in any ferritic alloy matrix at temperatures below the liquidus of the metal alloy...end of story

Only way to get iron sulfide, iron oxide within a ferritic matrix is by melting in the presence of higher oxygen and a sulfur reactant species.

The way sulfur is tied up in mineral form within gypsum board wouldn't allow it anyway.




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
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.


Correct. That is why firefighters were able to estimate that the temperatures did not exceed 2,000 degrees F., too low to melt construction steel.


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.


Since steel made up a far greater percentage of the debris, we would expect workers to have found large pools of re-solidified molten steel after the majority of the cleanup, in the basement of the towers where it is claimed it would be, and photographs to show it. None were found. In contrast, lots of re-solidified molten aluminum was found, particularly evidence form the melted wheels of vehicles caught in the fires.

You continue to deny the fact that one could not distinguish flowing molten steel from flowing molten aluminum or other metals. You just present anecdotal beliefs and no evidence.

It's really time to acknowledge that no one has produced conclusive evidence of molten steel, including no temperatures approaching that needed to melt steel.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu

A surface layer would be left where i cut it. It would be of the austenitic/ferritc percentage combinations that won't exactly jive with the Fe-C binary diagram. But, the layer would have iron oxides and iron sulfide species dispersed within this primarily austenitic matrix. Their form will likely be globular, forming along the grain boundaries of the matrix...due to their lower temperature.



Well, I must say that you're the first truther I've ever seen that actually has something constructive to say. This is actually possible and has some logic to it.

But I think your 90% due to thermxte statement has a problem, since this very condition was repeated in a lab - Sisson and Biederman again? It's in an article available at Springerlink - at temps of around 1000C. So this has actually been demonstrated.

However, you could go a long way to showing your thoughts correct by burning some thermxte on some steel, and demonstrating that the steel looks like what was found. Otherwise, this falls into the realm of possible, but not demonstrable nor seen in real life.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

It doesn't really matter. I've shown an image of red-hot steel with molten steel dripping off of it.


This is just plain denial.

You have no idea if it's steel or aluminum dripping off.

You've already been corrected by another truther that proves the if the steel is red hot, then the aluminum will also be the same color when they're at the same temps.

To deny this scientific truth is just..... sad.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by pteridine
 


Sulfur is not soluble in any ferritic alloy matrix at temperatures below the liquidus of the metal alloy...end of story

Only way to get iron sulfide, iron oxide within a ferritic matrix is by melting in the presence of higher oxygen and a sulfur reactant species.

The way sulfur is tied up in mineral form within gypsum board wouldn't allow it anyway.


This says nothing about the condition of the steel before the collapses.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu

Looks like A36 that was thermite welded...except for the iron sulfide. But, thermate would have sulfur and explain the resultant iron sulfides. They so happen to have a lower melting point than the base steel. But, they are not present in the base steel, only the surface layer...just like the report shows.



I imagine that you're using thermAte as your culprit cuz it makes sense.

But I believe that Jones thinks he found nano-thermIte, which doesn't have the sulfur needed for your theory to work.

So do you discount Jones' findings?

Or do you propose another source of sulfur?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
and photographs to show it.

Perhaps you forgot about this:





No cameras were permitted. Even though a few people actually got cameras in there. But your claim has no basis because there's alot of things there that we don't have pictures of because cameras weren't allowed.



Originally posted by jthomas
In contrast, lots of re-solidified molten aluminum was found

Is that so? Got any images to support this claim?



Originally posted by jthomas
You continue to deny the fact that one could not distinguish flowing molten steel from flowing molten aluminum or other metals.

How is that a fact? Can you show somewhere that it's a fact that firefighters cannot distinguish molten aluminum from molten steel? Does it say in some firefighter manual that molten aluminum is indistinguishable from molten steel?

It is not a fact. It is your opinion based the belief that temperatures never exceeded 2000F which you have zero proof of either.

After my finals this week, I'm going to interview firefighters at several fire departments around my area and ask them personally if they are able to distinguish molten aluminum from molten steel. That's what real researchers do instead of sitting in their chairs making claims that they can't back up.


And you must've ignored the following from my last post, so I'll post it here again:


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.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So do you discount Jones' findings?
Or do you propose another source of sulfur?

Remember Dr. Jones' findings are preliminary and not 100% definitive. I also don't recall sulfur being mentioned in the findings, nor do I recall testing for sulfur or found during the tests. This would be a good question to ask Dr. Jones.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
and photographs to show it.

Perhaps you forgot about this:



Irrelevant. There is no description of when that photo was taken, where, or under what circumstances. In contrast the net is full of pictures showing the cleanup of ground zero from beginning to end. There are none showing re-solidified pools of molten steel.


Originally posted by jthomas
You continue to deny the fact that one could not distinguish flowing molten steel from flowing molten aluminum or other metals.


How is that a fact? Can you show somewhere that it's a fact that firefighters cannot distinguish molten aluminum from molten steel?


I showed how they could easily be mistaken.


Does it say in some firefighter manual that molten aluminum is indistinguishable from molten steel?


Firefighter manuals show how to distinguish temperatures from observations of that which is burning. You're accusing those of firefighters and others who assessed that temperatures were no higher than 2,000 degrees F. do not know how to do so. It's your claim that you have to demonstrate and you haven't.


It is not a fact. It is your opinion based the belief that temperatures never exceeded 2000F which you have zero proof of either.


It's what the firefighters said. You then would acknowledge that it is only the opinion of those who said they saw molten steel. One cannot have their cake and eat it too.


After my finals this week, I'm going to interview firefighters at several fire departments around my area and ask them personally if they are able to distinguish molten aluminum from molten steel. That's what real researchers do instead of sitting in their chairs making claims that they can't back up.


A real researcher would interview those who participated in the cleanup of Ground Zero. A real researcher would not claim one set of firefighters opinions invalidated another set of firemen's assessment of temperatures.


And you must've ignored the following from my last post, so I'll post it here again:

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;...


You can stop right there since you haven't demonstrated the existence of any molten steel.

The case is clear, _BoneZ_, as much as you want to insist that people saw molten steel, you have never been able to demonstrate it factually.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by pteridine
 


Sulfur is not soluble in any ferritic alloy matrix at temperatures below the liquidus of the metal alloy...end of story

Only way to get iron sulfide, iron oxide within a ferritic matrix is by melting in the presence of higher oxygen and a sulfur reactant species.

The way sulfur is tied up in mineral form within gypsum board wouldn't allow it anyway.


But sulfur can be liberated from gypsum in the form of sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid and such as well. And it is my understanding that it too is very corrosive to the steel and can create iron sulfides when exposed to steel and heat.

The heat and humid conditions caused the gypsum to break down and one by product is sulfur dioxide gas. Sulfur rich gases can also create iron sulfides, am I correct on that?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
There Are No Pictures Of Molten Metal In The Ruins At Ground Zero

All this talk of molten metal is based on reports that have been shown to be fabricated and pictures that have been 'doctored' .

Check out the following link and then convince yourself that the reports are true .

How is it that the firefighters are staring directly into a pit of 'molten' metal ? That is ludicrous by any stretch of the imagination .

Why did the hydraulics systems on the equipment not fail , in the presence of such heat ?

Why is the 'molten' material flowing from the 3rd window in one photo and flowing from the 4th window in a seperate photo ?

Why is the 'molten' material flowing from the TOP of the window , instead of the floor level ?

Why is the aluminum cladding not being melted ?

Why did NIST 'adjust' the intensity levels ?

What firefighter , in his right mind , would spray water onto a pile of molten metal , as the water contacting the molten metal would cause a violent explosion ?

How did firefighters and equipment operators endure the extremely hot steam ?

There was no molten metal .


www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

sites.google.com...

[edit on 2-5-2010 by okbmd]

And yet another excellent presentation :

www.debunking911.com...

[edit on 2-5-2010 by okbmd]







[edit on 2-5-2010 by okbmd]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There are none showing re-solidified pools of molten steel.

Or aluminum. Which I specifically asked you for in my previous post. I haven't seen you post any pictures or proof of molten aluminum or re-solidified aluminum. I won't be holding my breath either.




Originally posted by jthomas
I showed how they could easily be mistaken.

No you haven't. You've theorized and gave your opinion. That isn't showing anything except that you have an active imagination.



Originally posted by jthomas
You can stop right there since you haven't demonstrated the existence of any molten steel.

Credible witnesses saw the stuff, so anything you say in this regard is moot. But if you notice what you quoted, I did add aluminum because I knew you'd stop right there.

Reason being is you forgot to realize how hot the aluminum has to get to become red-hot past its melted silver state. Office fire temperatures are not sufficient to melt steel or aluminum to a red/orange state. Explosives and incendiaries are the only things that can easily explain all available evidence according to Occam's razor

That means you continue to violate Occam's razor by making up everything in the book to explain away the evidence, including going so low as to claim that all of the witnesses are mistaken.

Seriously, all of them? It's starting to sound like no-planers in that they claim all the witnesses are mistaken also!

Does anyone see a pattern here?

-*- Debunkers: "The images of molten steel are fake."

-*- No-planers: "The images of planes are fake."

and

-*- Debunkers: "All of the witnesses that saw the molten steel are mistaken."

-*- No-planers: "All of the witnesses that saw planes are mistaken."


This has to be coming from the same camp. This is too coincidental to ignore.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by pteridine
 


Sulfur is not soluble in any ferritic alloy matrix at temperatures below the liquidus of the metal alloy...end of story

Only way to get iron sulfide, iron oxide within a ferritic matrix is by melting in the presence of higher oxygen and a sulfur reactant species.

The way sulfur is tied up in mineral form within gypsum board wouldn't allow it anyway.


I disagree that your comment is the "end of story." I have explained to you that those reducing conditions will produce CaS. CaS plus water gives H2S, which will readily react with hot iron to produce the sulfide. The underground fires can be much hotter than open air fires. Iron sulfide melts at 1194*C, so a liquidus phase is quite possible.
There is no evidence for thermite or thermate. These materials are unsuitable for building demolition because their time of action is too long and unpredictable.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


You are most definitely wrong, BS. I will explain again, carefully. Please try to follow along. Steelmaking is a multi-step process. The blast furnace is the device that makes iron, not steel. Steel is made from the iron when impurities are burned out in a separate step in a different process. The blast furnace has to be run under reducing conditions [this means oxygen poor] so that iron oxide can be reduced to iron by carbon monoxide produced from partial combustion of the coke. The partial combustion of coke provides the CO and the heat needed for the process. The initial product is a high carbon molten iron that must, in a separate process, have oxygen injected into it to burn out the excess carbon [and other impurities]. This second step is accomplished in a BOP shop which is just a modernization of the Bessemer converter.
As to your second point about "There was no oxygen or fire down there...", I believe that you are wrong again. The plots of heat show that there was definitely fire down there. Underground fires are the most plausible explanation. How would you explain long term heating otherwise?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no evidence for thermite or thermate. These materials are unsuitable for building demolition because their time of action is too long and unpredictable.

These materials would not have been used solely for the demolition of 3 buildings. They could very well have been used to weaken certain points of the structures to give the "appearance" that the structures were being weakened from fires.

Conventional explosives were used to bring all 3 WTC buildings down.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no evidence for thermite or thermate. These materials are unsuitable for building demolition because their time of action is too long and unpredictable.

These materials would not have been used solely for the demolition of 3 buildings. They could very well have been used to weaken certain points of the structures to give the "appearance" that the structures were being weakened from fires.

Conventional explosives were used to bring all 3 WTC buildings down.


There doesn't seem to be any evidence of conventional explosives bringing the buildings down. If they were, as you claim, why would anyone bother with using thermitic materials "to weaken certain points of the structures to give the "appearance" that the structures were being weakened from fires.?" The more contrived the conspiracy gets, the more improbable it is. Read the comments you made regarding Occam's razor and try this explanation, again.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
There doesn't seem to be any evidence of conventional explosives bringing the buildings down.

There is if you would turn off the denial for a second.

There are 3 basic types of evidence which can prove or disprove a claim:

1.) Any media in the form of audio, video, and still image.

2.) Eyewitness testimony.

3.) Physical/forensic evidence.


Evidence exists in the form of witnesses and videos. That's two of the three. It's difficult to get the third due to the fact that most of the steel and debris pile is gone to properly search for the physical evidence.



Originally posted by pteridine
If they were, as you claim, why would anyone bother with using thermitic materials "to weaken certain points of the structures to give the "appearance" that the structures were being weakened from fires.?

Contrary to popular belief, we don't have all the answers. We have no idea in what capacity or in what aspect such materials would have been used.

However, I have not seen you or anyone else explain what type of incendiary or what type of office condition would create molten aluminum so high to the point of red-hot, and/or create molten steel, and equal the results FEMA found in the steel samples. Any condition of molten red-hot aluminum or steel requires temperatures to exceed 2000F. Explosives and incendiaries would easily accomplish all of the above, and corroborate the eyewitness testimony and video evidence. Occam's razor.


Because you guys could go through a whole list to explain away the evidence. You have to make something up to explain the ejection plumes, the explosions heard, any kind of molten metal. And that goes totally against what Occam's razor tries to accomplish.

You don't need to try to explain this aspect or that aspect to what happened on 9/11 except to say that explosives were used. That solves every one of your made-up explanations.






[edit on 2-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by ohhwataloser
 


just saying it can't be orange...i used to try to superheat aluminum while simultaneously fluxing the tenacious oxide surface layer in order to vaporize tramp elements. And, that didn't make it glow orange. Sorry if I offended you...peace


Yes it can be orange, we did it in metalshop in high school all the time, could make molten steel glow orange also, guess what they look exactly the same. google molten aluminum. no ones offended, facts just need to be set straight.


Originally posted by okbmd
There Are No Pictures Of Molten Metal In The Ruins At Ground Zero


Theres no pictures, so it never happened? Is this even worth typing?



All this talk of molten metal is based on reports that have been shown to be fabricated and pictures that have been 'doctored' .


All witnesses were fabricated? Your lies start here



How is it that the firefighters are staring directly into a pit of 'molten' metal ? That is ludicrous by any stretch of the imagination .


is this refering to a picture or something or a report? I've stared at molten metal before.



Why did the hydraulics systems on the equipment not fail , in the presence of such heat ?


I can't back it with numbers but neigher can you. The hydraulics are hardly what would be called "close." Look at the picture please. Big steel jaws acting as a heat sink, open air enviroment. I think this is a laughable claim personally.



Why is the 'molten' material flowing from the 3rd window in one photo and flowing from the 4th window in a seperate photo ?


Look at the photo more carefully, their different photos. Now if one is faked I cannot say, but neigher can you. Far as I can see guess there was more than one molten metal photo. could you tell me atleast what your trying to say?



Why is the 'molten' material flowing from the TOP of the window , instead of the floor level ?


I can't find a photo that clearly shows this in your links. The quality is crap. But without knowning anything except what you said, can I ask how you can tell the difference between the top of the window of one floor and the bottom of the area between the floors?



Why is the aluminum cladding not being melted ?


I thoughts thats what this molten metal was? Now what are you claiming? One of your links says thats what it is.



Why did NIST 'adjust' the intensity levels ?


I would like to know this myself, but whats does this prove?



What firefighter , in his right mind , would spray water onto a pile of molten metal , as the water contacting the molten metal would cause a violent explosion ?


Too many factors go into this for us to even argue over it. But the short answer is water + molten metal doesn't mean explosion, tempature and the amount of water would be a good starting point. which we don't have info on eigher.



How did firefighters and equipment operators endure the extremely hot steam ?


Again too many factors go into this for us to even argue over. Short answer is they just did, the areas they were at I guess just wern't that hot.



There was no molten metal .


13 sec video for you or was this fabricated also?




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
There are none showing re-solidified pools of molten steel.

Or aluminum. Which I specifically asked you for in my previous post. I haven't seen you post any pictures or proof of molten aluminum or re-solidified aluminum. I won't be holding my breath either.


If there was no molten aluminum, then there most definitely could not be molten steel, could there?

We haven't seen any pictures of pools of molten steel that you claim exist. There is no point trying to evade your responsibility to provide them.


"Much of the underground was intuitively easy to understand. It consisted of parking garages, often in some stage of collapse, where more than a thousand cars now stood abandoned and covered with the standard gray concrete dust. A disproportionate number of the cars were BMWs, Jaguars, Lexuses, and the like -- indicating if nothing else, the preponderance of a certain culture that had thrived there. Although a few seemed strangely untouched, most were crushed, sliced, blasted, or burned. Along the north side, where the basement structure remained strong and intact (and was ultimately preserved), the fire had been so intense in places that it had consumed the tires and interiors, and had left hulks sitting on axles above hardened pools of aluminum wheels."

- "American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center."
William Langewiesche, page 34


Facts that you haven't refuted _BoneZ_:

- A college student ("Jon") made a video of John Gross and claimed Gross "lied". The video shows quite clearly that John Gross of NIST addressed a specific claim that eyewitnesses saw "huge pools of molten steel under the towers." The college student then switches to various claims none of which show anyone or any video showing "pools of molten steel" and misrepresents the specific claim Gross was addressing. John Gross is vindicated in that NO evidence, NO testimony, NO video, and NO temperatures sufficient to melt steel were demonstrated in that deceptive video nor have ever been demonstrated since.

- No temperatures reaching the required 2,600 degree F. to melt steel have been reported or demonstrated.

- Temperatures well above the melting point of aluminum existed in the pile for a long time.

- There was around 4,000,000 kg of aluminum cladding from WTC 1 and 2. It would be expected that there would be molten aluminum but not molten steel at the reported temperatures in the pile.

- Molten aluminum at high temperatures and/or contaminated with impurities, as would be expected running through the debris in the pile, glows and looks like any other molten metal. It would not be readily apparent that it was molten aluminum and not molten steel. (This is also true about the metal dripping from WTC 2 before it collapsed. See:
www.debunking911.com...)

- It would not be unexpected for people to assume it was molten steel since aluminum is not associated with building construction and people would not have any reason to assume the cladding was aluminum. Many just said they saw molten metal.

Show us the pools of molten steel, _BoneZ_.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
- Molten aluminum at high temperatures and/or contaminated with impurities, as would be expected running through the debris in the pile, glows and looks like any other molten metal.


your missing something, it looks like any other molten metal at the same temperature otherwise no it doesn't.




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join