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: 9
7
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
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?


I think we are too. I don't think there is anything nefarious about molten steel. Even if there was pools of it.

Although, when I say "pools" I mean isolated pockets. Even the meteorites aren't that big relatively speaking.




posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


When put that way, I dont deny there was some small pockets of molten metal, but as I said, my position has always been that if there was, it happened after the collapses, maybe days, maybe weeks later when exposed to the corrosive environment. Aluminum may also have been melted as the building was clad in it. You have cars that could melt in the heat.

I never subscribed to the idea that molten metal/steel = evidence of thermite demolition, or nuke, or some exotic bombs. But too many on the TM have been pushing that, while ignoring the mundane explanation of it occurring.

And that is also why NIST never really got into it because its an after event not related to the cause of collapse. The fires were not hot enough to melt any steel, but sure were enough to soften them to failure. Anything happening to the steel afterward in the pile is afterthought. I'm glad we are at least managing to work this out, and I apologize again for my brashness earlier.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I never subscribed to the idea that molten metal/steel = evidence of thermite demolition, or nuke, or some exotic bombs.


I have never either and wonder why the TM espouses this as evidence myself.


And that is also why NIST never really got into it because its an after event not related to the cause of collapse.


I think you hit the nail on the head here. NIST was tasked with finding out the cause of the collapses. Not what happened to the steel afterwards.

Also, no problems with the miscommunication friend. We are all human after all. I think Pink Floyd put it best: "I was just a child then, now I'm only a man".


[edit on 24-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

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


Nope.

The ice that didn't melt, and therefore isn't mixed with salt is water. What melted is something else.

It's a eutectic mixture called saltwater.


Well, a eutectic mixture of steel and sulfur is still steel.


Again, nope. It's a eutectic mixture of steel and sulfur. I don't know if there's a formal name.


Why is it so important to deny molten steel?


Here's an analogy as to why:

Solder melts at ~ 185C, yet the components, tin and lead, melt at ~230C and ~325C, respectively. So if there's a fire, and there is melted solder from some electrical components, that's pretty good evidence that it got at least to 185C.

Truthers, however, have been misled to believe that melted solder is good evidence of temps of at least 325C, the melting point of lead.

Do you understand this?

The part of the beam that melted is analogous to the solder, and it saw temps of



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I will concede and call it molten sulfidated steel. Fair enough?

Or what they actually called it in the study cited below. Liquid slag. I can live with that as it probably looked like molten steel and that could account where the reports come from.

As for my natural thermite theory, I will post one more time some evidence that I believe has merit.


Metal and Metal-Oxide Phases
The primary metal and metal-oxide phases in WTC dust are Fe-rich and Zn-rich particles (Meeker and others, 2005b). Many other metal and metal oxide phases have been identified including phases rich in Al, Ti, Pb, Bi, Mo, Zr, Sn, Cu, and others. It is often difficult to distinguish between metals and metal oxides with qualitative EDS because of adsorbed surface oxygen or thin coatings of oxide phases such as rust. It is impossible to distinguish metals and metal-oxides with qualitative EDS analysis using a Be window x-ray detector.


pubs.usgs.gov...

I have a government source saying that the dust consisted of iron rich, aluminum rich, and sulfur rich (it's in the study under gypsum) phases.

Am I still being a dunce when I think that some of these powderized metals could have started a thermal reaction and possibly melted some steel? Remember when I say "some", I mean small isolated pockets.

Also remember that the result of the sulfidated steel was iron oxide and iron sulfide. Iron sulfide can ignite in the presence of air.


www.wpi.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...(II)_sulfide

Either way. Remember that I am not in any way suggesting anything neffarious about the slag.



[edit on 24-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

As for my natural thermite theory, I will post one more time some evidence that I believe has merit.


I'll concede also and say it's possible, with one caveat:

I find Greening's theory of having at least one of the elements necessary - aluminum - and its subsequent melting to become more highly reactive to some of the other elements in powdered form to be much more likely.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Exactly! Its more of a slag than anything else.

Ah well I just hope this "thermite demoed the WTC" phase is going away. As of yet I have not seen a single shred of evidence to convince me otherwise. And Jones' paper convinced me even more that its all wrong!

I also hope that this is clearing up what actually was found: molten slag that formed well after the collapses, and were not related to the collapses. I have long suspected this and have been trying to get people to understand this. I am glad that I'm finally not the only one who is getting it!



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Dont forget Joey, you also have the sulfur dioxide released from the decomposition of the drywall's gypsum. That would be the greatest source of sulfur (not in its elemental state, but sulfur dioxide). And sulfur dioxide is very corrosive to steel.
And also heating the steel speeds up the oxidation process. In turn the oxidation process also generates heat. And then you have a loop. Throw in sulfur dioxide, water, heat, rusting, and time, and that is gonna really mess with the steel, and eventually corrode it and have some slag formation from the sulfidation of the steel. Hot corrosion is some nasty stuff.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Dont forget Joey, you also have the sulfur dioxide released from the decomposition of the drywall's gypsum. That would be the greatest source of sulfur (not in its elemental state, but sulfur dioxide). And sulfur dioxide is very corrosive to steel.




To be honest, his and Greenings explanations are both highly improbable. I remain unconvinced that the meteorites contain previously liquid steel.

One truther even stated that the one was mostly oxidized steel (rust) and that was why it wasn't rusted (oxidized) like the intact steel sticking out of it.


My opinion about all the first responder statements is that they are mistaken about it being steel. Their own testimony says that temps were too low for it to be steel. The IR readings say the same.

I doubt that they considered the other possible materials as a source of what they saw, since they never expected that their statements would be used by some wild eyed delusional maniacs that want to say that thermxte is responsible for bringing down the buildings.

Of course that argument has been rendered invalid, since Jones himself hasadmitted, in discussions with Frank Greening, that thermxte could not have brought down the towers, but rather, in some incredibly stupid and complex idea of his, he now believes that the thermxte was usedas fuses for the conventional explosives.

So, now Jones has come full circle:

1- no explosions of the magnitude and brissance necessary to fracture steel
2- therefore something else did it
3- thermite did it
4- oops, there's sulfur, so thermate did it
5- oops, we found small particles of aluminum and iron in the dust, so nano thermite did it
6- oops, even nano thermite won't stick to vertical columns, so it was mixed with solgel and painted on
7- oops, such a thin layer won't do squat
8-I'm out of a job now, due to my insanity
9-wait, now i hear explosions in the videos
10-nanothermite was a fuse for the conventional explosives



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I doubt there was liquid steel in the meteorite as well. The pressure and heat would have fused the debris far better than melting it together. Although, there may have been some slag formation inside, but we dont know. That's something we may never know. But that does not mean that magic thermites were used.


As for the fire-fighters and responders in the pile, they would have been incinerated. To have molten steel right next to you "pouring" from the walls, underneath all that debris, then temps would have been like in a foundry and I doubt that they would have been able to survive for any amount of time, unless they wore those large "space suits" fire-resistant heat deflecting outfits that they wear in steel mills or for work next to volcanic lava flows. Plus I doubt the heat would have been as dissipated as in a mill.

I always find it funny that this magic paint on thermite is the fuse idea, is actually seriously being considered.
I always get a good laugh at the sheer idiocy behind it. And some people think he is flawless and true.


Although I am glad that we did manage to clear some misunderstandings with Nutter.
At least I hope we did.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Molten metal, molten metal, molten metal. Proof of molten steel = 0



molten metal was found at wtc 7. no plane crashed into it, so it couldn't have been aluminum. also, have you ever seen molten aluminum? i weld on it, it isn't orange, its silver. anyone with any knowledge of melting metals would not mistake the two.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i weld on it, it isn't orange, its silver. anyone with any knowledge of melting metals would not mistake the two.



Molten, liquid aluminum can be silver, that much is true.

However, if you get it hotter, it turns orange.

I wouldn't expect a welder to know that though, so there's zero surprise to anyone that this is news to you....



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i weld on it, it isn't orange, its silver. anyone with any knowledge of melting metals would not mistake the two.



Molten, liquid aluminum can be silver, that much is true.

However, if you get it hotter, it turns orange.

I wouldn't expect a welder to know that though, so there's zero surprise to anyone that this is news to you....


Aluminum glows orange at lower temps, yellow, then white at higher temps. The more heat the less color.

But I wouldn't expect a JREFFER to know that.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

What I wish to debate is why there was molten steel at ground zero yet people deny it?


No molten steel was seen, found, or photographed. No temperatures high enough to melt steel were recorded. No samples of re-solidified steel have been presented.

This subject has been put to bed years ago; all the claims of "molten steel" have never been demonstrated and there are multiple threads here and elsewhere that have already dealt with it.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

What I wish to debate is why there was molten steel at ground zero yet people deny it?


No molten steel was seen, found, or photographed. No temperatures high enough to melt steel were recorded. No samples of re-solidified steel have been presented.

This subject has been put to bed years ago; all the claims of "molten steel" have never been demonstrated and there are multiple threads here and elsewhere that have already dealt with it.





Thank you for not reading the thread as usual. This thread covers why temps hot enough to melt steel were not recorded, because the TIC's couldnt read that high. Re solidified samples have been presented in this thread. There were eyewitnesses that reported the steel. There is at least one picture of red hot steel in this thread with molten steel dripping off of it.

If you want to debate the legitimacy of those things be my guest. If you debate their existence there is nothing constructive that can possibly be said to you.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I hope you don't mean this fake picture :-

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:79

Fact is that not a sliver of evidence has been presented in support of molten steel at the WTC. Molten metal OK but molten steel dream on.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1


I hope you don't mean this fake picture :-

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:79

Fact is that not a sliver of evidence has been presented in support of molten steel at the WTC. Molten metal OK but molten steel dream on.


Your opinion is noted as well as the fact that it comes without reading the thread.




top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join