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: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Fire needs oxygen.

There was no fire until the hot steel was exposed to air.



The flame height will depend on the amount of air it's getting. This is true.

However, a smoldering fire produces heat with a minimum of air. And if the fuel is piled up, it would act as its own insulating blanket, keeping the heat from escaping immediately to the atmosphere. This is also true and not disputable.

It is also true that smoke was rising continually from the piles, indicating uderground fires. This is also undeniable.

The TM has zero physical evidence of any steel having been exposed to any incendiaries like thermite. This is undisputable.

Your assertions hold no weight.

This is undisputable.




posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The flame height will depend on the amount of air it's getting. This is true.


I didn't say anything about flame height.

In fact I'm not the one saying there weren't fires until the hot steel was exposed to oxygen. It was the clean-up workers and geologists working with them.

You still haven't got your facts straight. I'll respond when you are able to do that.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You still haven't got your facts straight. I'll respond when you are able to do that.


Translation:

You will continue to cherry pick quotes in order to perpetuate your failed delusional quest for another investigation.

Cool with me. Continue as you have been for the last 8 1/2 years.

It's been successful so far, hasn't it????




posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
If "there was no fire until the hot steel was exposed to air," what caused the steel to stay hot for so long?


I already explained I don't have to come up with another theory in order for yours to be wrong. My explanation to you is that I don't know anywhere near everything that happened that day. That's the problem. You don't know what happened either, you just THINK you do and you're arrogant because you actually believe you're more intelligent than the people you respond to just because of this completely irrational belief.

Seriously, your argument has become "unless you can come up with a better theory, I'm still right." No, you're still ignorant of the facts that I am posting, that contradict your unproven theory that has just been internet gossip for the past several years. You will always be wrong when you ignore the facts to make some petty semantic argument that isn't even logical in the first place. I reference people that were at Ground Zero for my facts, but you rant on a blatant fallacy that any high schooler should be able to see through. We don't know exactly what's at the center of the Earth, either, we only have theories. But that would never mean that it's filled with cream cheese until a better theory comes along just because you say so. More like you are talking out of your ass and no one needs to listen to your commentary anyway because it is nonsense, contradicted by real facts, and based on nothing to begin with but some internet nobody's guess.



Originally posted by jthomas
So bsbray11 is telling us that there never was the possibility for "flowing streams of molten steel."


Actually there were firefighters who said they saw just that. On the Naudet brothers' footage I believe one says it flowed "like lava," and that it looked like a foundry down there.

But he didn't mention anything about blast-furnace-intensity fires down there, which would be pretty damned hard to miss considering how intense it would have to be to cause that.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
You provided no evidence that there were no underground fires.


Fire needs oxygen.

There was no fire until the hot steel was exposed to air.


You guys can all keep frothing at the mouth about this all you want, ranting and making completely irrelevant arguments and then starring each others' posts.
The fact that the fires didn't exist until they were introduced to oxygen, as stated by both the clean-up workers and geologists working with them, and this directly contradicts the theory that the steel was so hot because of underground fires.

Underground fires weren't a proven fact to begin with, as an explanation to why the steel was immediately so hot and stayed smoldering for months. It's just a theory internet "debunkers" like to pose as a fact.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by bsbray11]


And now, for the THIRD time, and maybe this time I need to make it bigger to get it across:


A backdraft is a situation which can occur when a fire is starved of oxygen; consequently combustion ceases (due to the lack of oxygen) but the fuel gases and smoke remain at high temperature (at a temperature above the fire-point of the fuel gases). If oxygen is re-introduced to the fire, eg. by opening a door (or window) to a closed room, combustion can (will) restart often resulting in an explosive effect as the gases are heated by the combustion and expand because of the rapidly increasing temperature (see also flashover).

Backdraft


A flashover is the near simultaneous ignition of all combustible material in an enclosed area. When certain materials are heated they undergo thermal decomposition and release flammable gases. Flashover occurs when the majority of surfaces in a space are heated to the autoignition temperature of the flammable gases (see also Flash point). Flashover normally occurs at 500 °C (930 °F) or 1,100°F for ordinary combustibles, and an incident heat flux at floor level of 1.8 Btu/ft²*s (20 kW/m²)[1].

An example of flashover is when a piece of furniture is ignited in a domestic room. The fire involving the initial piece of furniture can produce a layer of hot smoke which spreads across the ceiling in the room. The hot buoyant smoke layer grows in depth, as it is bounded by the walls of the room. The radiated heat from this layer heats the surfaces of the combustible materials in the room, causing them to give off flammable gases via pyrolysis. When the surface temperatures become high enough, these gases ignite.

Flashover

Earth to bsbray, come in bsbray, I know you are out there. Your question has been answered, AGAIN! Ignorance must be bliss eh bsbray?

And yet somehow, you think that "pools of molten steel" flowing around is fact and gospel and not open to discussion, critique, or anything. Thou shall not question the pools of molten steel. Heretics shall be burned. And whats a kicker, is that supposedly workers saw it, in a no oxygen environment which kept fires extinguished, and didnt suffocate. Simply amazing. Another 9/11 special! Right there with silent high power explosives, magic thermites, superhuman abilities, and invisibility!

[edit on 5/4/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Translation:

You will continue to cherry pick quotes in order to perpetuate your failed delusional quest for another investigation.

Cool with me. Continue as you have been for the last 8 1/2 years.

It's been successful so far, hasn't it????


For you, yes, it has.

Remember you are the one ignoring clean-up workers and scientists who documented that the fires did not start until the already-hot steel was exposed to air.

There was no oxygen flow through that pile. This is what even they are telling you.

The subway wasn't at the bottom of the pile and it was destroyed and filled with debris anyway, all around the edges of the complex. All of these excuses trying to create the idea of a blast-furnace effect at work under the debris pile are ridiculous pseudo-science but you defend it like a religious zealot defending their faith despite its absurdity, with fallacy after fallacy. First I have to come up with a better theory in order to point this out to you (wrong). Then I'm cherry-picking (wrong again -- that's you). Excuse after excuse for your own ignorance Joey, projecting to me. And then once in a while you throw a tantrum and throw out some gamer-speak, probably because that's where you get most of your education.

Why do I always feel like I'm babysitting when I post here??



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
And now, for the THIRD time, and maybe this time I need to make it bigger to get it across:


A backdraft is a situation which can occur when a fire is starved of oxygen; consequently combustion ceases (due to the lack of oxygen) but the fuel gases and smoke remain at high temperature (at a temperature above the fire-point of the fuel gases). If oxygen is re-introduced to the fire, eg. by opening a door (or window) to a closed room, combustion can (will) restart often resulting in an explosive effect as the gases are heated by the combustion and expand because of the rapidly increasing temperature (see also flashover).

Backdraft


A flashover is the near simultaneous ignition of all combustible material in an enclosed area. When certain materials are heated they undergo thermal decomposition and release flammable gases. Flashover occurs when the majority of surfaces in a space are heated to the autoignition temperature of the flammable gases (see also Flash point). Flashover normally occurs at 500 °C (930 °F) or 1,100°F for ordinary combustibles, and an incident heat flux at floor level of 1.8 Btu/ft²*s (20 kW/m²)[1].


I already know what a backdraft and flashover are.

Neither of them are relevant to what I have showed. You probably just learned the words the first time yourself after a Google search and just assumed they were good excuses because, well, you would need them.


The problem is you still have no oxygen to feed any fire. When oxygen is re-introduced, sure, you *could* have a flashover (if volatile gases were trapped and couldn't escape before being ignited -- not likely anyway when you're just digging into a pile and exposing it to the outside atmosphere) and you *could* have a backdraft, but when there is no oxygen and no fire, neither of those are relevant.

Understand? No, of course not. That's not what you do here.

Let's see what other lame excuses you have for there being no fires under the pile. Until clean-up workers dug through enough to expose the hot steel to air.

Maybe next you can start making up corrosive chemical reactions that produce heat but don't require oxygen, from that "chemical soup" that might become your next pipe dream. There are lots of excuses for you to guess when you're completely ignorant but want to pretend you know what happened anyway. Too bad no one did a real investigation about this huh.


[edit on 4-5-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
No oxygen, no "flowing streams of molten steel."

Does anyone really want to continue to claim there was no oxygen in the "pile?"



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Ah I get it, so all those fires that were burning in the Twin Towers and the remains of the other WTC buildings and WTC7 all instantaneously went out and cooled down in a split second when they collapsed and buried all the heated materials, which were also burning, and starting more fires. I get it I get it. Gee and silly ol me thought that a couple thousand tons of steel heated to a 1,000C would stay hot when buried with tons of flammable debris which is left smoldering for weeks. Oh and silly me to think that oxidation of steel does not produce heat, and in vast quantities, rusting steel can actually be a fire hazard. What are those iron ore carriers so afraid of fires breaking out on iron ore carriers? And to think that all there would be absolutely NO way for any air to get into any space of a large debris field from sewers, subway tunnels, conduits, OPEN HOLES caused by falling debris to feed the fires just enough to keep them smoldering.

Bsbray, you always manage to astound me in your ignorance.

By the way, explain to me how "molten pools of steel" managed to stay molten well below the melting point of steel, weeks later. Just try and explain this one to me, cause so far, you are not making much sense. I mean come on, thermite creates molten steel at the temperature of molten steel. Once that reaction stops, the steel cools and as it cools it hardens. Yes there can be agents that lower the melting point of the steel, but there does come a point where molten steel will harden and cool. But hey, maybe if you can show me where molten steel can stay molten at a temperature of 1100F-1800F, that'd be great!

And it also amazes me how you think that there is no such thing as a chemical reaction, or how there can be no chemical reactions in such a vast debris pile. Reactions that would produce similar if not, the same results. I mean really. And whats even funnier is you thinking that heat cannot be produced by those chemical reactions even in a low oxygen environment. (hint there are reactions that create oxygen!) Your science skills are truly lacking. And its making me chuckle.


[edit on 5/4/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
So bsbray11 is telling us that there never was the possibility for "flowing streams of molten steel."


Actually there were firefighters who said they saw just that. On the Naudet brothers' footage I believe one says it flowed "like lava," and that it looked like a foundry down there.

But he didn't mention anything about blast-furnace-intensity fires down there, which would be pretty damned hard to miss considering how intense it would have to be to cause that.



Since I know jthomas will never actually respond to this, I'd like someone else to explain.


You have a firefighter on video, right after 9/11, saying yes, he saw streams of molten steel flowing "like lava" under the WTC.

His words, not mine! I am the messenger who brings your unwilling ears this information, and just tries to ramrod it in where you would never allow it to go on its own.

If you think he's too stupid to know what molten steel looks like, which is much different in appearance from molten aluminum, and when those are the only 2 metals in such abundance, that's your call and you have no way to prove he wasn't actually seeing what he said he saw.

But is that really the best excuse you can come up with? That he's just wrong about what he's saying? No further question or comment? Just forget the possibility that he and many others who said similar things were just all wrong? While you guys, NONE of you actually being there, think you all know better than these people, because the government told you so.




"molten steel running down the channel rails"

"like you're in a foundry"

"like lava"


None of you were there. I wasn't there. These people were there. And they aren't alone in what they say by any means. And yet you just dismiss what they say out-of-hand, instantly, because you don't like it. Too bad. They still said it and you have no explanation.

And they also said -- NOTHING about fire. The clean-up workers only said there was NO fire until they exposed this incredibly hot steel to air. If there was really a blast-furnace down there melting steel, don't you think they would have mentioned the incredible amount of fire that would require too? But they don't. Instead they mention what you claim wasn't there.

It's not hard to pick out who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. Between people that were there, who all go with one story, that self-verifies and is consistent with itself (yes, molten steel, already there, started fires when exposed to air) versus people who weren't there, with a story that doesn't match the facts at all and contradicts the people who were there (no molten steel, fires even without being exposed to air). It's clear to see who is really in denial about what happened. It's those posting here who cannot comprehend or rationalize what the firefighters and clean-up workers and geologists there were all saying.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
No oxygen, no "flowing streams of molten steel."


That's not a given. The steel could have been melted during the collapse, and then insulated by the debris pile. It still would have received no oxygen while being buried in that pile.

The fact that the piles were not receiving oxygen and did not have noticeable fires is demonstrated by the fact that (a) those involved noted that the fires only started after being dug out and exposed to oxygen, and (b) the steel running "like lava" included no mention of such blast-furnace fires that would be necessary to be responsible, as per the "theory" (ie 'net gossip) you are perpetuating.



And look how I prefaced my post above. You see? I knew that you wouldn't respond directly to what I actually posted, jthomas. Now how did I know that?

Your avoidance of facts and evidence is predictable. I just proved it, by predicting it.


[edit on 4-5-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I also note that the pictures of 'meteorites' posted earlier show twisted re-bar amongst concrete. If these were ever 'molten' as claimed, why is the rebar still recognizable as such?


Ever hear of an iceberg? How does ice float in molten ice?



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Bsbray11 was completely refuted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Now, it's , "The steel could have been melted during the collapse,..."

Amazing.

I guarantee that there were as many "eyewitnesses" to that as there was to the phantom "molten steel."



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ah I get it, so all those fires that were burning in the Twin Towers and the remains of the other WTC buildings and WTC7 all instantaneously went out and cooled down in a split second when they collapsed and buried all the heated materials, which were also burning, and starting more fires. I get it I get it. Gee and silly ol me thought that a couple thousand tons of steel heated to a 1,000C would stay hot when buried with tons of flammable debris which is left smoldering for weeks. Oh and silly me to think that oxidation of steel does not produce heat, and in vast quantities, rusting steel can actually be a fire hazard. What are those iron ore carriers so afraid of fires breaking out on iron ore carriers? And to think that all there would be absolutely NO way for any air to get into any space of a large debris field from sewers, subway tunnels, conduits, OPEN HOLES caused by falling debris to feed the fires just enough to keep them smoldering.

Bsbray, you always manage to astound me in your ignorance.



I have no trouble believing you are astounded, but because of your own self-induced ignorance, not because of me.

First of all where is your evidence that steel was heated to 1000C before collapse?


I'll help you out: NIST found no evidence of any steel being heated beyond 250 C.

I'll help you out more: The Cardington tests showed that steel heated under very powerful fires (controlled by megawatt burners) much thinner sections of steel than at the WTC could be heated to a maximum of 700-800C. This is while the steel is still under flame only!! And this was when they were intentionally trying to roast the steel, and it was much less steel to heat too mind you. And that in itself still took about a half hour to accomplish in the lab. Afterwards the steel immediately began cooling to much lower temperatures.


So we have scientific, laboratory studies, pre-9/11, involving lots of heat being put onto much smaller sections of steel, and at their very hottest during the experiment, they reach the same temperatures that the WTC steel was in the rubble pile several days after 9/11.

You have this running joke going like you are more intelligent than I am. If that's the case then why can't you see the problem with what I just explained to you? Could it be a psychological disorder associated with sociology, with the mentality of masses of people, like herds of animals? Something else for you to think about.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, it's , "The steel could have been melted during the collapse,..."

Amazing.

I guarantee that there were as many "eyewitnesses" to that as there was to the phantom "molten steel."


Right, I said it could have been. You are acting like it could have only happened after the collapse. Well, that would make you ignorant, as that is not the only possibility.


And btw no, I was not refuted on that page. If you really could refute what I am saying you would just explain again here. I have said it many times before but you are the most manipulative poster here and as a rule anything you post, I immediately consider the opposite because I have seen you outright lie so many times.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Bsbray11's claims about the existence of "molten steel" were completely debunked here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The evidence is crystal clear that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum but not high enough to melt steel.

There is absolutely no evidence of any molten steel, never was, and no one is able to produce any such evidence.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


And you were debunked by the simple fact that molten aluminum and molten steel look nothing like each other.

You assume a firefighter and all the others who saw the same thing, would not be able to tell the difference, based on nothing.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
At higher temperatures than the melting point of aluminum, molten aluminum glows like any other molten metal.

And molten aluminum does so at a far lower temperatures than molten steel.

No temperatures were reported or demonstrated above 2,000 degrees F., far lower than the minimum 2,600 degrees F. necessary to melt construction steel. These temperatures of a maximum of 2,00 degrees F. were reported by firemen trained to recognize the effects of temperatures on burned and melted materials.

No matter what hyperbole Truthers have resorted too, they have clearly failed to demonstrate the existence of molten steel.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by jthomas]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
At higher temperatures than the melting point of aluminum, molten aluminum glows like any other molten metal.


Molten aluminum can only look like molten steel in very specific circumstances, when it is sufficiently dark and there is lots and lots of heat, well beyond its melting point. Something a conventional fire also cannot do.

If molten aluminum is even exposed to open air it turns silvery again on its surface because of the cool air. The material running out of the towers, for example, glowed orange the whole way down. That is most definitely not molten aluminum. We have metallurgists and others who work with metals on a daily basis here telling you the same jthomas, but of course you ignore them all because you are a habitual liar and manipulate information intentionally.


[edit on 4-5-2010 by bsbray11]




top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join