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

Originally posted by GenRadek
www.wnyc.org...

So its another compression object. No mystery.

Compression doesn't melt? Have you ever ice skated?

Putting pressure on ice (e.g. by standing on it) melts it and creates a thin layer of water on the surface that makes it slippery. Melted water from the combined pressure and rubbing between the blade and the ice vastly reduces the friction allowing the skater to glide across the ice with little effort..

en.wikibooks.org...:How_Things_Work/Ice_Skates

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Alfie1


Nutter, they both seem to me to have clearly unmelted iron sticking out of them.

Oops, he's right. There are 2.

Unfortunately, they both have unmelted rebar.

911conspiracy.wordpress.com...

Unmelted rebar sticking out of a core of once molten steel is 100% proof of molten steel.

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 researhed this just for you and exlained it in detail, in a sentence "The TIC does not have enough range of temp".

[edit on 22-6-2010 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by iamcpc
Where did the sulfer come from that caused the eutecic system? FEMA said themselves that "no clear explanation of the source of the sulfer has been identified"

Gypsum wallboard:

Gypsum is a very soft mineral composed of calcium sulfate dihydrate, with the chemical formula CaSO4·2H2O

en.wikipedia.org...

Also notice that sulfate is an oxidizer too. SO4.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by Nutter

Oh no. Unmelted ice. How can they say that the ocean this iceberg is in is melted ice when there is unmelted ice floating in it?

What does molten mean to you?

a) Red hot and soft, and therefore be able to have objects compressed into it easily

b) liquid, flowing, melted, and as such, IT is flowing around the foreign objects and then solidifying around them

c) other

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
What does molten mean to you?

The physical property of transforming from solid to liquid.

Just remember that something molten (liquid) can also have something unmolten (solid) in it. Like an iceberg floating in the sea.

Or a cup of water with ice cubes in it. What would happen if you froze that water with ice cubes in it before the ice melts? Would the ice cubes stay unmolten or melt and then refreeze? Would you then say the water was never molten because obviously there were chunks of unmolten ice in it?

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Unmelted rebar sticking out of a core of once molten steel is 100% proof of molten steel.

The unmelted steel is clearly rusted.

The melted part isn't.

Why?

Are you of the opinion that it can't be something else?

Like say..... aluminum?

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
What does molten mean to you?

The physical property of transforming from solid to liquid.

So b.

Are you of the opinion that thermxte that got mixed up like the concrete and dispersed could account for temps high enough to melt steel?

Or something else?

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by iamcpc
Where did the sulfer come from that caused the eutecic system? FEMA said themselves that "no clear explanation of the source of the sulfer has been identified"

Gypsum wallboard:

Gypsum is a very soft mineral composed of calcium sulfate dihydrate, with the chemical formula CaSO4·2H2O

en.wikipedia.org...

Also notice that sulfate is an oxidizer too. SO4.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Nutter]

Now i wonder how us here, on the ATS thread, can come up with a source of sulfer but FEMA, after a detailed investigation, says "no clear explanation of the source of the sulfer has been identified"

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Are you of the opinion that thermxte that got mixed up like the concrete and dispersed could account for temps high enough to melt steel?

Or something else?

I am of the opinion that the fires started a thermitic reaction with the gypsum and aluminum in the towers which then was able to melt steel at a lower temperature because of the presence of sulfur.

The funny thing. I am agreeing with you guys that there wasn't a conspiracy needed to produce the molten steel but you guys will fight me tooth and nail about it just so you can deny the existance of molten steel. Of which FEMA has already reported on.

Why the denial when there is a scientific explanation for the molten steel? Just accept that there was molten steel and get over it. It's been documented.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Are you of the opinion that thermxte that got mixed up like the concrete and dispersed could account for temps high enough to melt steel?

Or something else?

I am of the opinion that the fires started a thermitic reaction with the gypsum and aluminum in the towers which then was able to melt steel at a lower temperature because of the presence of sulfur.

The funny thing. I am agreeing with you guys that there wasn't a conspiracy needed to produce the molten steel but you guys will fight me tooth and nail about it just so you can deny the existance of molten steel. Of which FEMA has already reported on.

Why the denial when there is a scientific explanation for the molten steel? Just accept that there was molten steel and get over it. It's been documented.

Thank you for shedding some much needed light on the topic of the molten steel. I now have MUCH less doubt in my mind that molten steel was there and that it could have been caused from the sulfur in the drywall and aluminum.

It still unnerves me that FEMA said "no clear explanation of the source of the sulfer has been identified" and that the reaction could have started before the buildings collapsed.

Now, more than ever, i want to test these. I want to compare and contrast thermite in a rubble pile vs the reaction of the drywall, aluminum to present strong evidence about the thermite/thermate theories.

Originally posted by iamcpc
Now i wonder how us here, on the ATS thread, can come up with a source of sulfer but FEMA, after a detailed investigation, says "no clear explanation of the source of the sulfer has been identified"

Possibly because the FEMA team consisted of engineers and not chemists?

Originally posted by iamcpc
Now, more than ever, i want to test these. I want to compare and contrast thermite in a rubble pile vs the reaction of the drywall, aluminum to present strong evidence about the thermite/thermate theories.

Please let us know your findings if you do. I don't care whether they support the OS or the "truther" side. Just what the results are. Thanks.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Alfie1
Nutter, they both seem to me to have clearly unmelted iron sticking out of them.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/30b013d53a70.jpg[/atsimg]

Oh no. Unmelted ice. How can they say that the ocean this iceberg is in is melted ice when there is unmelted ice floating in it?

Sorry Nutter, but your post reminded me of this lovely short vid and I couldn't resist posting it :-

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Are you of the opinion that thermxte that got mixed up like the concrete and dispersed could account for temps high enough to melt steel?

Or something else?

I am of the opinion that the fires started a thermitic reaction with the gypsum and aluminum in the towers which then was able to melt steel at a lower temperature because of the presence of sulfur.

Well, that's an extrordinary belief, that it could naturally do that.

I say that cuz you have the aluminum, although presumably, being finely ground up is a pretty far stretch. You DO have a sulfur source. But what's the oxidizer?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I say that cuz you have the aluminum, although presumably, being finely ground up is a pretty far stretch. You DO have a sulfur source. But what's the oxidizer?

An aluminum plane crashing into a building will cause the aluminum to be finely ground up. The same physics is involved when the towers collapsed. Most everything was "ground up".

As far as the oxidizer. Sulfate is SO4. That is a sulfur molecule with 4 oxygen molecules attached to it.

The definition of thermite:

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction.

en.wikipedia.org...

Notice it says "metal oxide" and not "iron oxide"?

Calcium Sulfate breaks down in the presence of heat to CAO (calcium oxide...a metal oxide) and S (sulfur) dioxide.

3CaSO4 + 2Al  3CaO + Al2O3 + 3SO2

That is the thermitic reaction of aluminum and gypsum in stoichiometric language.

Did you look at the video I posted of a thermitic reaction with just using drywall (gypsum) and aluminum powder?


[edit on 22-6-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Well, that's an extrordinary belief, that it could naturally do that.

It's not only my own.

911myths.com...

That's a study done by Dr. Greening about this exact issue.

Thermites can be a diverse class of compositions. The fuels are often aluminium, magnesium, calcium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron. The oxidizers can be boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,III,IV) oxide.[1]

I will have to look at the study when I am at home or on a pc able to view .pdf. All I could see was the wiki page, which does not include sulfer quadraoxide as an oxidizer.

Also, looking at the equations without propper subscripts and exponents is maddening. Point being however one of the sources you cited does not support the theory.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by iamcpc
Now i wonder how us here, on the ATS thread, can come up with a source of sulfer but FEMA, after a detailed investigation, says "no clear explanation of the source of the sulfer has been identified"

Possibly because the FEMA team consisted of engineers and not chemists?

2 of the authors that deal with this, Biederman and Sisson, are material science guys.

Not structural engineers.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I say that cuz you have the aluminum, although presumably, being finely ground up is a pretty far stretch. You DO have a sulfur source. But what's the oxidizer?

An aluminum plane crashing into a building will cause the aluminum to be finely ground up.

Maybe.

But Greening doesn't even entertain this idea. He talks instead about molten aluminum from the plane interacting with either concrete and/or drywall, IIRC.

So not quite thermite in the commonly used sense. A thermitic type reaction, sure.

Did you look at the video I posted of a thermitic reaction with just using drywall (gypsum) and aluminum powder?

Yep.

It still seems to be a stretch to assume finely ground aluminum though. I could see the drywall being finely ground though.

I'm curious though, are you of the opinion that this contributed to the collapse, or to the molten metals in the piles?

Originally posted by jprophet420
I will have to look at the study when I am at home or on a pc able to view .pdf. All I could see was the wiki page, which does not include sulfer quadraoxide as an oxidizer.

Sulfate is not an oxidizer by itself. CASO4 breaks down to CAO + SO2. It's the CAO that is the oxidizer while the SO2 breaks down further to add sulfur to the mix.

Also, looking at the equations without propper subscripts and exponents is maddening. Point being however one of the sources you cited does not support the theory.

Could you point out which source?