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: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Isn't it funny how you totally ignored FEMA and what they said? I wonder why?


You mean the Biederman/Sisson study?

They say that something other than steel melted.

A eutectic melted.




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It mirrors a point bsbray likes to make when he challenges the sulfur source for a naturally occuring thermite powder being the sheetrock. He correctly points out that you just don't throw flour water and eggs into the air and when it lands, you have a cake.


See. This is your problem. That is for therm*te and it's use as a CD. Watch the video I posted again. Did he have a scale with him to measure the exact amount? No. He threw some aluminum in with some gypsum and it reacted.

Edit: I rewatched the video and in the comments he does say that it's so and so much of each.

But the point still stands that it doesn't need to be an exact mixture to start and possibly maintain a reaction that could easily produce molten steel in areas.



To determine if the ingredients, when thrown into the air, would produce a thermxte powder? Yes there is.


Look up the many videos on it. It's not a precise mixture.

Here's one using sand, aluminum, and sulfur

www.youtube.com...


Yes that's right, you can indeed use silicon dioxide instead of iron oxide to make thermite. The sulfur reacts with the aluminum first in order to get enough heat to begin the SiO2 and Al reaction.


BTW, how much sand is in concrete?

Here's one where the guy paints hydrous gypsum on aluminum sheets to form a "thermite like device".

www.youtube.com...


Greening's stuff has a scientific background to it. Did you not notice the papers he's produced? He backs up his opinions with science. You haven't so far.


So does mine. I have shown that a thermite like reaction can occur with powdered aluminum and gypsum, sand and powdered aluminum with sulfur, and aluminum strips and gypsum.

The videos speak for themselves.


[edit on 23-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
They say that something other than steel melted.

A eutectic melted.


Wrong.


It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occured in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel in the WTC 7.


www.fema.gov...

Notice it specifically says "as was observed in the A36 steel in the WTC" when talking about MELTING?

You're going to have to do better than this to "pwn" me.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
the sulfur source for a naturally occuring thermite powder being the sheetrock.


Don't you get it yet that this is what I'm arguing for? Like most other professionals that aren't "truthers"?

I thought this was the going theory on how the steel was melted and corroded put forth by the OS believers? If not, then please enlighten me what the source of the sulfur was if not gypsum? Nano-Thermate?

BTW, go ahead with Greening's molten aluminum. It makes no difference as the reaction is the same. Just the speed and veracity of the reaction is influenced by the grain size. Not the chemical reaction itself. Disclaimer: I am not positive on this as I'm not a chemist. If you find any differing information, please provide.


[edit on 23-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

But the point still stands that it doesn't need to be an exact mixture to start and possibly maintain a reaction that could easily produce molten steel in areas.


I agree with what both of you are saying but I think you are missing a key point.

Its not just that there were random amounts of aluminum dust and plaster, its that pulverized concrete was mixed up in it.

If he did that experiment again with more gypsum and concrete dust than aluminum dust then I think you would have a pretty good case.

I totally understand where you are coming from, I.E.;

Say theres 4 tons of aluminum dust but 20 tons of gypsum dust, only 4 tons of aluminum will reduce 4 tons of gypsum, the other 16 just floats away and doesn't react. Or vice versa.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

The melted steel issue is a non-starter until some truther confronts their fears and finds that none of the meteorites contain formerly liquid steel..


Theres only 2 of you of the opinion there was no molten steel, you both agree that there was molten metal, and you both say the metal was aluminum.

The jet fuel makes aluminum glow white, not redish orange when that much heat is present. This is one of the fundamental building blocks of modern engineering. Aluminum is used where lower tensile strength is needed and less heat is going to be present. Steel was invented out of iron to increase its tensile strength and raise its resistance to tempurature. Thats why we make engine blocks out of aluminum and skyscrapers out of steel.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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?


Bump.

I'd like an answer to this.

Because aluminum oxide is bright white, and the meteorite is not. It looks like oxidized steel to me and there is an expert that confirms, which I have mentioned several times now and you have repeatedly tried to debunk.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


So wait a minute, have you seen the scale of melting on the steel surfaces? 30-50 microns. How can such a THIN layer of surface "melting" be enough to cause the steel to fail?

Also, does this mean that the magic nanu nanu superduper thermate was just painted on in a thin layer?
Do you realize how woefully inadequate that would be? I mean, really really really inadequate? The thermate on ignition will just slip right off and not do a damn thing to the steel except maybe heat it up a degree or two. You've already seen the video of 1,000lbs of thermite trying to cut through a car, and that failed to cleave it in two. 1,000lbs. No clean cut. Maybe it made a hole here and there and poured through the roof, but that was about it. Now you expect me to believe that a tiny thin layer of super magic thermate did it? Oh boy, its fun watching this logic train derail itself on the smallest fact.


Once again, couldnt the micro-scale "melting" be the result of the corrosive environment the steel was in? The heat, the oxidation of the steel, the sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acids combining in one giant oven causing the steel to undergo HOT corrosion that would cause this eutectic melting? I've posted countless times the different mechanisms that when occurring together can create this event on the steel. Hell steel can even burn in the proper conditions, causing it to thin out.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

I agree with what both of you are saying but I think you are missing a key point.

Its not just that there were random amounts of aluminum dust and plaster, its that pulverized concrete was mixed up in it.




Perhaps my wording was a bit wonky, but this is exactly the point I've trying to get across.

All the materials will be ground up to some extent, we can all agree on that. How finely ground up they will be, or were, needs to be determined through experimentation or documentation. Nutter's done neither.

The same point extends to not just the concrete being mixed in, but all the other materials. carpet, furniture, ceiling tiles, drywal, etc.

To merely proclaim that there will be a reaction is intelluctually bankrupt.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



If you would actually read my posts, I said nothing about this being used as a demolition technique.

You would also know that I said nothing about nano anything. I was asking Joey if that's where he thought the sulfur came from since he was arguing it didn't come from the gypsum.

The rest of your post is just an automated "argue with a truther" type crap even though I agree with the majority of the professionals out there when it comes to there being a possible natural thermite like reaction set off by a 110 story tower grinding itself to the base.

Ever see this video?

It is of a man with 2 steel balls wrapped in tin foil that produce thermite sparks when struck together. I bet there's no way that a 110 story tower grinding itself to the base could do that.


www.youtube.com...



[edit on 23-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
All the materials will be ground up to some extent, we can all agree on that. How finely ground up they will be, or were, needs to be determined through experimentation or documentation. Nutter's done neither.


Nutter doesn't have to as we can see and verify how ground up everything was. Remember the micron-meter dust clouds? Remember the tests done for the air quality, the dust samples, the debris, etc.? Why does Nutter have to verify this? Just so you can argue with him?


The same point extends to not just the concrete being mixed in,


I guess you missed the video of silicaoxide being used in a thermite like reaction? What is that you ask? Sand. What percentage of concrete is sand? I asked you that question before.


but all the other materials. carpet, furniture, ceiling tiles, drywal, etc.


Well hooky smokes batman. Drywall IS gypsum wall board.



To merely proclaim that there will be a reaction is intelluctually bankrupt.


So you agree with the truthers that the eutectic reaction shown in the FEMA documents hasn't been verified and the source of sulfur hasn't been verified? Which is it? Because I was under the impression that this natural reaction was the going theory. Correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
Ever see this video?

It is of a man with 2 steel balls wrapped in tin foil that produce thermite sparks when struck together. I bet there's no way that a 110 story tower grinding itself to the base could do that.


www.youtube.com...



On a side note. This is what i believe the "sparks" were when the aluminum planes hit the rusted steel when they first entered the buildings. Unlike the theories of missles being shot or a radio control lazer etc.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Once again, couldnt the micro-scale "melting" be the result of the corrosive environment the steel was in? The heat, the oxidation of the steel, the sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acids combining in one giant oven causing the steel to undergo HOT corrosion that would cause this eutectic melting? I've posted countless times the different mechanisms that when occurring together can create this event on the steel. Hell steel can even burn in the proper conditions, causing it to thin out.


And if you read my posts you would have understood that this is exactly what I was saying. Maybe it's time to take a step back and actually READ what someone writes instead of going off half cocked about demolitions and nano-super-duper thermate?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

So you agree with the truthers that the eutectic reaction shown in the FEMA documents hasn't been verified


Of course not.

The eutectic melting was in fact reproduced and verified as the probable cause in a lab by Biederman and/or Sisson, IIRC. But since as I note below, there is no verified source for the sulfur, I believe they just burned sulfur.


and the source of sulfur hasn't been verified?


True.


Because I was under the impression that this natural reaction was the going theory. Correct me if I'm wrong.


A natural eutectic reaction, yes.

No where in the literature is there advocacy for any kind of thermitic reaction emanating from the ground up building, and possibly being responsible for pools of previously liquid steel as you are stating.

The closest is Greening, but he differs by advocating melting aluminum chunks reacting with whatever's there.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The eutectic melting was in fact reproduced and verified as the probable cause in a lab by Biederman and/or Sisson, IIRC.


So we agree that there was indeed actual melting? It does not matter if it was a eutectic mixture or a eutectic mixture heated by an ongoing aluminuthermal reaction. Either would explain people saying molten steel when it probably did look like molten steel because most of it was iron (already tested by FEMA). So now we have just closed the thread as that was the op's original point. That molten steel is verifiable.


No where in the literature is there advocacy for any kind of thermitic reaction emanating from the ground up building, and possibly being responsible for pools of previously liquid steel as you are stating.


It does not matter to the point of this thread whether my theory of a natural thermate type reaction melting steel or sulfuric eutectic corrosion melting steel is the correct one. We have come to the agreement that there was actual molten steel. I just think my theory of a natural thermate type reaction is just as valid as the sulfuric goop theory. In light of what happens when you strike aluminum with steel.....aka...... a 110 story tower collapsing in on itself along with plenty of sulfur to lower the melting temps (a eutectic mixture).


The closest is Greening, but he differs by advocating melting aluminum chunks reacting with whatever's there.


Does it matter?

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

So we agree that there was indeed actual melting?


Not in the slightest......


That molten steel is verifiable.


because of this silly attempt.........


We have come to the agreement that there was actual molten steel.


and this one.......


Does it matter?


To avoid the fact that what melted in the FEMA report wasn't steel after it went through the eutectic process at < 1000C.

No amount of mental gymnastics on your part will ever convince any learned person that steel will melt at



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Let's put it this way Joey.

Salt thrown on ice to make it melt is a eutectic mixture. We still call the ice that melted water right?

Well, a eutectic mixture of steel and sulfur is still steel. Therefore the eutectic can be called molten steel as the sulfur causes the steel to melt at a lower temperature.

Why is it so important to deny molten steel? Even a eutectic molten steel mixture? Is this some sort of buzz word that throws you guys into anti-truther mode or what? Like the word "thermite" does? Example......GenRedak's post to me totally off topic.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


My sincere apologies Nutter. Its just that I have been in this game way too long and have been reading the same old arguments about "molten metal" or something melted that eventually it all looks the same to me and I have seen people use your argument (well your post to be exact) about the eutectic mix as evidence of applied thermite or whathave you. So the moment I started reading your actual comment, I thought, great here we go again. My apologies again Nutter.I'll make sure to pay closer attention next time.

To get back on topic, just so I am sure with your thoughts, what is your inkling as to the meaning of the eutectic mixture? Is it pointing towards something sinister or something more mundane? I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

Now as to why NIST does not mention "molten steel", I think I may have an answer Its because this "melted steel" occurred probably well after 9/11 in the pile, as a result of the hot corrosion in the pile. Everyone would expect that the mention of "molten pools of steel" would be a result of some sort of thermite or whatever, and NIST avoided going down that road. Any mention of that and we'd have the TM going ape-poopie over it. Since there was "some" molten metals, but not directly related to the attacks or the collapses, it was not mentioned, and they deny it, because in reality there was not any "molten pools" of anything in the sense the TM is trying to push. Intergranular melting is a little different than a pool of molten metal wouldnt you agree?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
My apologies again Nutter.


Thanks for the apology.


Is it pointing towards something sinister or something more mundane?


Mundane.


I think I may have an answer Its because this "melted steel" occurred probably well after 9/11 in the pile, as a result of the hot corrosion in the pile. Everyone would expect that the mention of "molten pools of steel" would be a result of some sort of thermite or whatever, and NIST avoided going down that road.


I agree 100%.


because in reality there was not any "molten pools" of anything in the sense the TM is trying to push. Intergranular melting is a little different than a pool of molten metal wouldnt you agree?


I agree up to a point. There were observations of pools of molten metal for one thing.

As far as intergranular melting, that is only what was left of the sample. Were did the rest of that steel go?

For example. Using ice again. Say we have an ice cube. We let it sit for a while at room temperature on some sand and let it melt to 1/4 size. Then we take the remaining ice and refreeze it. Then we examine the remaining ice. We would only be able to find intergranular melting of the remaining ice because of 2 things. 1) The molten water ran down into the sand and isn't part of the sample anymore. 2) When going from solid to liquid phase, the whole thing doesn't melt at once. It melts in the intergranular regions. Layer by layer.

But does that mean there was no molten ice?

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Well it is a fact that when steel or iron rusts, it does "go away" in the sense that it burns off.

I know I know, its a little taboo to use this particular site here on ATS, but it does give a pretty good idea of what happens to steel in these conditions:

Iron Burns!

I think you and I are arriving at the same thought, but from slightly different sides. But hey as long as we get to some answers right?




top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join