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.

 

Can't prove "thermite", but molten steel is undeniable.

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

So your logic is that when a firefighter estimates the temp and reports it back to the news you believe it, but when i firefighter claims molten steel was flowing you do not believe it.



My logic is that to determine what kind of metal that molten metal is you could use a thermometer or take thermal photographs. You could take samples and figure it out after it cooled. The firefighter may or may not be correct when he says the molten metal is steel. It's super easy to find out if the molten metal was steel or not! What temperature was it?



Lets take a look at this first of all, I am assuming you believe the OS, forgive me if I am wrong. The temp of 2000 degrees is unattainable by jet fuel, it maxes out at 1800 degrees in a perfect environment. The firefighters were reporting back from a far less than ideal environment. Therefore if you do believe the reports that the temp was 2kf, you cannot possibly believe the OS.


I believe that the WTC towers could have collapsed from airplanes and fire AND I believe that the WTC could have collapsed from something in ADDITION to airplanes and fire. I believe that it is a strong possibility that I was lied to about some (or many) aspects of what happened on 9/11. Trying to find out if the molten metal in the rubble was steel or not has about 0 to do with the OS because, after reading the nist reports and the 9/11 reports, they don't really mention the molten metal. (I think they should have). I very well may have been lied to by someone when they said that the the temperature of the fire was 2k degrees. Being lied to by what temperature a fire was burning at does not present evidence that supports or refutes the theory that there was molten steel in the WTC rubble.




Please tell me why you disbelieve every witness included in this thread, and please tell me why you believe the firefighters that said the temperature was near 2kf but not the ones that said there was molten steel flowing.


I believe that firefighters saw molten metal. I believe some firefighters think they saw molten steel. If I saw flowing molten metal I would not be able to tell what kind of metal it is. I could use thermal images or a thermometer and narrow it down quite a bit. This is why I ask what the temperature of the rubble was.




Then please answer what metal you think it was that was flowing, and keep in mind the answer is not aluminum.


My answer depends on the temperature of the rubble was. I'm no expert, I was not there, I didn't see the molten metal, I can't identify molten metal types with my eyeballs. If the rubble was 3000 degress I would think the answer was steel. If the temperature of the rubble was 2000 degrees I would think the answer was NOT steel.



So "near" 2k degrees.

911research.wtc7.net...

says 1400 degrees

pubs.usgs.gov...

says 1380 degrees
(after using www.lenntech.com...)

whatreallyhappened.com...

Has quotes saying:

1500 degrees
1100 degrees
near 2000 degrees

www.rense.com...
says 1600 degrees

Why are there reports of molten steel and no reports of temperatures above 2600 degrees? I think that 2600 degrees is more "near" to 3000 degrees than 2000 degrees. What was the temperature in the rubble?



[edit on 21-6-2010 by iamcpc]




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
The entire site was hot for months...and no heat source that massive could be explained away by the building rubble or kerosene tanks, etc.

Even thermite cannot last that long. There is really only ONE answer that satisfies ALL the data seen: Small 4th generation nukes were used. These types of nukes were already for use back in the 1970's. Engineers imagined using small nukes for blasting and mining projects, and studied and developed small nukesn that had little radiation and a small blast area but massive power, compared to dynamite or other regular explosives.

Think about the pictures we have all seen of the Tower(s) bursting upward and spewing massive clouds of dust high up and over the whole city. Look at the plumes, gigantic, brown and smoke colored dust leaping upward...and as the Towers progress downwards, all the concrete is blown upward and outward, the structure literally falling apart as if it were made os dust originally and all at once all the molecular bonding just ceased...

The Towers were blown into dust, and only small nukes could do that while melting the core steel..vaporizing it in many places, while not blowing the walls out too badly and giving away the amount of internal force being expended. THAT was the really hard part of this whole complex plan: Making sure that the nukes used would eliminate the core but not blow the walls out with too much energy.

The unexpended radioactive material was hot, of course, and had to be watered down for months and covered with dirt to absorb it...of course the real figures were suppressed for ' national security' reasons (!) and only minimal numbers were admited to, despite their very presence being evidential.

NOTHINg could keep the ground that hot for months BUt small nukes...thermite cannot last that long...and thermite cannot cause the EMP evidence that is IRREFUTABLE evidence of nukes...lets face it, we were nuked on 9-11..and thats a fact.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 

If they were not trained in the field, I would accept the observation of molten steel as that of a layman. As this was not the case, and the witnesses span multiple fields I tend to believe it was molten steel.

And no, I really don't think it was feasible to take thermal images. I don't know what thermal imaging equipment available to firefighters was like in 2001, but I had used it no more than 2 years prior and it would not have been realistic to record it. The thermal imaging firefighters used was "live" and cumbersome.

On an off topic note, it was really cool stuff, looked exactly like "The Preadator".



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by iamcpc
 

If they were not trained in the field, I would accept the observation of molten steel as that of a layman. As this was not the case, and the witnesses span multiple fields I tend to believe it was molten steel.

And no, I really don't think it was feasible to take thermal images. I don't know what thermal imaging equipment available to firefighters was like in 2001, but I had used it no more than 2 years prior and it would not have been realistic to record it. The thermal imaging firefighters used was "live" and cumbersome.

On an off topic note, it was really cool stuff, looked exactly like "The Preadator".



This company was using thermal images to get termites in 2002.

www.houstonhomeinspections.net...

The seattle fire department got it's first thermal camera in 1997.

en.wikipedia.org...

If it was molten steel then why was there not one report of temperatures over 2800 degrees? Something is not adding up here. What looks enough like molten steel to fool experts but does not get as hot as molten steel?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

No man, its not interesting at all. I trust the architect who has owned his firm since the 70's over any anonymous poster on the internet including myself.


IIRC, Voorsang says it is fused, not melted.

There's a difference.


Here's the thing;

The video is linked directly in this thread and in the video he absolutely refers to it as molten steel. You did not bother to research as much as clicking a simple link. That alone speaks worlds.

He says it is both.

Again in this thread a debunker is presented with 2 pieces of information, and only mentions the one that helps their case.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

If it was molten steel then why was there not one report of temperatures over 2800 degrees? Something is not adding up here.


I already answered why twice, but your repeating the question forced me to look for a better answer, which I have found.

The thermal imaging equipment sold even today only has a range of 1100 degrees. The "close to 2000" reported by firefighters would explain the estimation of an answer.


If it was molten steel then why was there not one report of temperatures over 2800 degrees? Something is not adding up here. What looks enough like molten steel to fool experts but does not get as hot as molten steel?


Answer is above.

Edited for elaboration...

So yes, companies used thermal imaging to find termites but nowhere on any of the links you provided does it even say the equipment can read temps that high. I sent a request for the specifications to 2 seperate companies, I will post the specs as soon as I get them. However, the important information that I found was that the dynamic range was 1100 degrees on the top model and 1000 on the second model.

The device I have used also was not capable of giving a readout accurate to the scale required to verify anything over 1100 degrees f. the technology was not available on the open market in 1999, it was a demo at a tech show for products to be released.

You can research further into it if you want, I should have the information tomorrow.

Nija edited a third time because you did not read your own link;


The National Institute of Standards and Technology Fire Research division is the lead government agency developing performance standards for fire service thermal imaging cameras in the United States, although the U.S. Army Night Vision Laboratory has contributed to the effort.[1] Preliminary recommendations from the field include visible low-battery warnings, ability to withstand full immersion in water, and the ability to provide meaningful visual readouts beyond 2,000°F (~1,100°C).[8]


Confirmed. TIC not able to resolve temps over 2k.

That is my final answer.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Please put forward some evidence that molten steel was found at the WTC site ; no-one ever does. I am sure you are aware Mark Loizeaux never saw any.



I had a better pic but it was removed from the net. I'll try to find it later but it's just like this one www.net4truthusa.com...
only there were two beams. One cut off like you see here and the one behind it that was melted that they were preparing to cut. The article was on a debunkers site who was trying to prove the metal wasn't melted. You can see in this pic that the obvious melting was remove by beam cut but the drippings are running down the beam.
If I ever find it again, I'll put it in my blog here on ATS so you guys can link it. Sorry but you are drastically wrong, the proof is in your face but you prefer to be star struck (believing famous people like they don't lie). No matter what, you best believe if they get paid to do work and can get paid not to do anything but read a script, they will. Oh and he was caught on several untruths, especially about timing and oh, lets not forget - the seismic tech. Apparently, there is ONE ON EVERY JOB SITE! I'll repeat that for ya ONE ON EVERY JOB SITE!
Go read Mark Loizeaux site again dude.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaWhizNo matter what, you best believe if they get paid to do work and can get paid not to do anything but read a script, they will.


Why so cynical about people's motives?

Would you do this?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
If the temperature at the core of the pile is near 2000 degress Farenheit days after the attacks and, according to this source:

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

The melting point of steel is 2600-2800 degrees then that is evidence that supports that there was no molten steel in the WTC rubble. The temperatures were simply not hot enough!

Why would the title of this post be that molten steel is undeniable when it presents evidence that there was no molten steel?????


I know I'm going to regret getting into another 9/11 thread but maybe this could be the answer?

www.youtube.com...



It is a aluminothermic/thermitic reaction achieved with only drywall (gypsum board) and aluminum powder. Both of which where a-plenty in the rubble piles.

Possibly what caused some steel to melt?

Note that there need be NO conspiracy for this theory to achieve molten steel/metal. Because gypsum has sulfur in it which reduces the melting temperature of steel.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Ok now I have a question. Why was there only one report of "around" 2k degrees and many reports of temperatures below 2k degrees?

I feel like if there was so much molten steel then everyone would be in agreement with temperatures "over" 2k degrees. I need to know what parts of the rubble the molten metal was reported at and what days the reports came in and what parts of the rubble the temperature reports came from and what days the temperature reports came in.

Also how do we know it was not molten aluminum AND molten steel?????



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
video.google.com...#
Video of fireman stating they saw molten steel.




[edit on 22-6-2010 by crowpruitt]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Your close-up of the "meteorite" is useful though as it shows extremely clearly how the reinforcing bars within it patently haven't melted.



That's cuz they were C-4 coated.

It was applied precisely, so that when it was ignited, it dustified the towers, but due to its precision, the shokwave generated outside the bars was so precise, that the steel couldn't escape it.

/P'doh



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Alfie1

So you think, in a court of law, someone saying they saw molten metal, or molten steel, without any analysis, would be proof positive ?


Hey then that means, When I saw Elvis running from the basement of the WTC right before the crashes, carrying a lunchbox in one hand, and a detonator in the other, its more than enough proof that Elvis brought down the WTC! Awesome!


I saw him there I tell ya. Why doesnt any one believe me? I saw him. he was there! That should be more than enough proof too right?












I addressed that directly and you choose to mock the answer you wanted to hear rather than address what I said directly.

Your wear your true colors on the outside good sir and for that I applaud you.




Because if I was that ignorant I would be too ashamed.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by jprophet420]


Of course I shall mock a question that was based on willfull ignorance. Why??

Lets look at it logically. You said that because some guy told some guy that he saw something, then that should be proof enough of seeing said object and should be almost unquestionable.

But i've noticed that when any one on the "debunker" side says something similar about an issue (about someone NOT seeing any explosions and bombs, or they DID see a plane hit the Pentagon, WTC, the ground at Shankesville, etc) then its all, "Oh you dont have a source, what is the eyewitness's name? Occupation? How could he/she see it/not see it, etc etc etc," so it gets a little frustrating having a truther say that because some guy said that he was told by some other guy that he saw some molten steel, so that is more than enough viable evidence of said molten steel, and t hen have the next moment be told that when someone did in fact see, for example, a plane hit the Pentagon dead on, that the eyewtness's account is unnaceptable for whatever stupid reason.

hence my little Elvis bit. What's good for the goose, its good for the gander. If someone says they saw Elvis running from the WTC and they claim to have "expert" backup, then it should be as admissable as someone claiming that there was molten steel with "expert" backup.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 22-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
video.google.com...#
Video of fireman stating they saw molten steel.




www.loupiote.com...

www.drjudywood.com...


www.drjudywood.com...

www.anchorcastingsinc.com...

thumb9.shutterstock.com.edgesuite.net... 241321.jpg

I can't really tell the difference between the types of metal being poured. I doubt a fireman could either which is why i call so much question about the temperature.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

No, but I think the combined testimonies of expert witnesses combined with the physical evidence and video/pictures would be enough to convince any jury of peers beyond a reasonable doubt.



And yet curiously, no truther has bothered to get permission to sponsor a study on the meteorite to see if it was ever molten.

Well, not unexpected at all, really.

It's better for them to live in their own safe little world of denial, where they get to rage against the enemy they know - the big bad gubmint - than to admit that the enemy they DON'T know - Muslim extremists - were able to do 9/11.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Good grief, is this debate still going on? I suppose it's only a matter of time before this crowd starts suspecting that Halliburton tossed some thermite down that BP well too.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
I feel like if there was so much molten steel then everyone would be in agreement with temperatures "over" 2k degrees.


You don't need over 2K degrees to melt steel with a eutectic reaction with sulfur.


The sulfur generates a eutectic system when molten thermate interacts with iron or steel, lowering the melting point of iron.


en.wikipedia.org...

Also. In the Fema report Appendix C, they state that the eutectic reaction they found approached 1000C or 1800F which is substantially less than the temperature needed to melt steel. Yet they found that the steel did melt.

I can't copy and paste the pdf file, so you will have to look it up yourself. They mention this on page 2 of the pdf.

wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf


I need to know what parts of the rubble the molten metal was reported at and what days the reports came in and what parts of the rubble the temperature reports came from and what days the temperature reports came in.


And you would have more information than FEMA and NIST.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Originally posted by Nutter



Ah so all we have to do is test and see if the heating of steel in a hot corrosive environment of 1800 degrees results in a mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel!

That seems easy enough! Test the OS! Test the molten steel theories!

It shouldn't be that hard to recreate a small rubble fire and see what happens to the steel in it! I have not found anyone who has tested that.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Why retest something?

FEMA already did the tests. On the WTC steel itself no less.

They found a eutectic reaction that melted the steel at 1800F. Period.

Now, as far as a conspiracy. Molten steel does not equate to a conspiracy. As I have shown that it only takes powdered aluminum and gypsum (drywall) to start a eutectic reaction in the rubble piles that could very easily answer the molten steel question.

But, now the question is: Why has the government denied the existence of molten steel when even their own FEMA tested and reported on it?




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join