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.

 

Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

page: 11
86
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand27
I know the truth behind 9/11.......GET READY.... Two planes crashed in to the World Trade Center......The only conspiracy is the one perpetrated by Al Quada. The level of stupidity on this topic never ceases to amaze me.


That's easy enough to say, and I agree two planes hit the WTC. Beyond that, well, not even you had much to say, huh....




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
Otherwise I don't really get your point... No coal was found in ground zero and to my knowledge, no coal like substances were found either. Sulfur and oxidization is the only real possibility and it has been proven that sulfur alone does not suffice.
I think you'll find that the coal that burns at 1700 degrees C underground doesn't burn at 1700 degrees C above ground. Here is a picture of coal burning at 850 degrees F which is only about 450 degrees C. The photographer says the normal combustion temperature for coal is only 700-1000 degrees F so 850 degrees is a typical value in the middle of that range.

nepacrossroads.com...


So what temperature does coal burn at? It can vary from 370-500 degrees C above ground to 1700 degrees C underground. The reason it reaches a higher temperature underground is the heat is trapped and has difficulty escaping. Also I'm not claiming the underground fire got to 1700 degrees C, all I said was I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Wood, paper, and coal are essentially derived from plant material, like cellulose, is largely carbon, and all of them can burn at different temperatures and rates depending on the condition of the fire. Not only were there wooden desks, paper and other materials with a carbon based plant source like coal, but there were other flammable materials, each with different burning properties above ground compared to below ground. Unfortunately I can't give you a source showing what temperature a bunch of desks, papers, electrical wire insulation, office plastics, and other flammable materials would burn at in an underground fire because while underground coal fires are common, underground office fires are extremely rare. But you can't quote temperatures of aboveground fires and say that the temperatures will be the same underground as the coal example illustrates since the fire temperatures underground are much higher as the heat doesn't escape like it does in aboveground fires.


First, are you implying that hundreds of eye witness are not creditable as sources? Not only are they witnesses, they are FIRE FIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS.
They aren't metallurgists testing the piles of molten metal they see, so if they say they see a pile of molten metal I believe them, if they see it's steel I ask how they know it's steel and not some other metal.

That pdf you linked to over and over again doesn't show molten steel, it shows corroded steel, believed to be corroded by some kind of sulfuric compound, which by the way, sulfuric acid is used in lead acid batteries in uninterruptible power supplies, so I wouldn't rule out the UPSes as a source of the corrosive sulfur that caused the corrosion in the photo of the corroded steel.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Gaderel
 


Precisely how much air has to be moved to allow for this bonfire of paper and plastic to blow off the top of the towers, melt through fire rated beams and cause multiple explosions in the lower floors?
I went to one of the de-bunking sites and they showed the ten photos that truthers hate.

layscience.net...

Photo 2 shows the top of the tower being turned into dust and following a parabola indicating that tremendous force had blown it outwards. I find that to be just a proof of the contentions expressed by the critics of the Commission.

No. 3 of the photos shows that building one was knocked silly by the collapse of the towers. Therefore Bldg. 7 was also mashed. The problem with this is that 7 was photographed from all four sides and had limited fires IN the building on LOWER floors. Same reply.

Nos. 4 and 5 photos prove nothing. These are not photos of any of the buildings under discussion.

Photo 8 shows 83rd floor sagging. Sagging on the side of the building where the freaking airplane struck! Proves nothing except that even after the fire has settled in after structural damage caused by an aircraft collision, it didn't collapse.

In No. 9 is one shot of the iron worker slicing a beam allegedly. I can tell there is something going on but he could have been spray painting fof all you can see. You certainly can't see the angled cutting alledged to have been performed.

And ten proves that the explosion which tore off the top of the building preceded the collapse of the tower.

So what did this smug chuclehead prove?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by largo
 


Originally posted by largo
reply to post by Gaderel
 

So what did this smug chuclehead prove?
Who are you calling a "smug chuclehead"? The guy who describes the 10 pictures or the person whose post you replied to (Gaderel)? I don't see anything wrong with the description of the 10 photos, though they may not prove what you want them to prove, it's only 10 photos.

So I don't see why you would call him a "smug chuclehead".

I also find the poster you responded to credible, and is making the same point I am that the temperature of a fire is not a single number but can be affected by many different factors. So the fact that they melted iron with wood even though the melting point of iron is above the burning temperature of wood doesn't surprise me at all, though I think some people in this thread may claim he used thermite since the wood can't burn hot enough to melt iron.


Anyway he's not a "smug chuclehead" either. Some people in this thread could learn something from him. I think Gadarel provided a good example of how misleading "fire temperature" numbers can be.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by largo
 


I have cut plenty of heavy metals over the past 40+ years . There is nothing sinister or abnormal about that type of cut . And no , a 90-degree cut is not always the most efficient choice . The angled cut is used to control the direction in which the standing member will fall .

The angled cut also causes the beam to gradually lean away from the kerf , opening it , so as to prevent the slag from building up inside of it .

I could fell a beam of that size , applying the angle cut , in half the time it would take you to bring it down using a 90-degree approach .

Any welder/ironworker worth his salt will tell you the same thing .

That beam was cut with a torch .



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


You have no way of proving that, sir.. and you know it.

I guess they figured a massive beam like that would need to be chopped down since it might somehow fall over, due to fires ?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


" ... the fire temperatures underground are much higher as the heat doesn't escape like it does in aboveground fires. "

Thank you very much . I can't understand why people can't comprehend this . Especially when you take into consideration that the entire complex was blanketed with tons of concrete dust .

But wait ! There's more ! The entire complex was also blanketed with tons of fireproofing from the collapsed towers .
Fireproofing ? Oh yea , that stuff that was applied to the steel as INSULATION . That's right , the stuff that was used as a HEAT SHIELD .

Oh my goodness , I have just posted another no-no . Not to worry tho , this will be ignored just like all the other logical explanations I have posted in these threads .

Truthers don't want the truth . They are lying when they say they do . The truth could waltz right up and slap them in the face and they would swear up and down that the government did it .



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


And you have no way of dis-proving it . Like it or not , what I am saying is a fact . That beam was cut with a torch . There are images of the ironworker , with torch , at a beam with that type of cut . There is the video where the foreman clearly states his guys made those cuts . What exactly , do you have that would prove this wrong ?

And , your second line was a hoot . That should get you a few stars .



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


" I said "eyewitness accounts ARE NOT evidence"...

NO , this is what you said :

" First, are you implying that hundreds of eye witness are not creditable as sources? Not only are they witnesses, they are FIRE FIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS. Highly creditable in establishment eyes. Crap dude! There are a LOT of people locked up in prison wrongfully because of eye witnesses, we better hurry up and pardon them before people find out eyewitness accounts are not evidence in the court of law!!!11!!! lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Where is your logic for this? Do you even have any? "

Maybe you could break this down to where I can understand just what the hell you are saying ?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
The "molten steel" image is a fake:

Fake:





Original:








notice how the firefighters are in the exact same positions.


Thanks for providing those photos, that's very interesting.

Does anyone happen to have a source for the 'fakes'?



edit on 17-9-2010 by wcitizen because: text moved



If you have a look at this clip :-

www.youtube.com...

from 1:50 on, you can see the video the firefighters pic was taken from. Note that they are actually moving the flashlight around.

If there is good evidence for molten steel at the WTC it makes me wonder why people feel the need to fake stuff.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Just another thought on this "thermite" claim.

We've established that thermite carries its own oxidant - yes?

And we've also establised that a reaction could spark if thermite is exposed to heat to trigger it - yes?

And I think we ought to establish that once the reaction is triggered, nothing is going to stop it from happening because - as is noted - thermite will react even if it is exposed to water.

What no one has explained is why - if as claimed by some - thermite was used - the supposed reaction became self sustaining.

It wouldn't be. It would ignite, oxidise, burn out and then begin to cool in one go as soon as all the oxidant was used up - and anything sufficiently far enough away from the heat source would never reach temperature to ignite anyway.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Just another thought on this "thermite" claim.

We've established that thermite carries its own oxidant - yes?

And we've also establised that a reaction could spark if thermite is exposed to heat to trigger it - yes?

And I think we ought to establish that once the reaction is triggered, nothing is going to stop it from happening because - as is noted - thermite will react even if it is exposed to water.

What no one has explained is why - if as claimed by some - thermite was used - the supposed reaction became self sustaining.

It wouldn't be. It would ignite, oxidise, burn out and then begin to cool in one go as soon as all the oxidant was used up - and anything sufficiently far enough away from the heat source would never reach temperature to ignite anyway.



Nor has anyone explained how the thermite caused the building to be reduced to dust? Where did all the energy come from to pulverize the building?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
People post fakes because they feel the need to participate in something, anything, bigger than themselves.



I worked in Heat treating companies, welding, tool and Die Shops, engineering and design firms, metallurgical and metal working industries. Ive read this thread, there is a lot of discussion but little experience with metals, engineering, and how they react under stress, pressure and Heat.

BTW, temperature and heat are completely separate but related terms, and are not interchangeable when discussing stress and material behavior. For example a single log will burn at a particular temperature, adding more logs does not raise the temperature much but will increase heat substantially.

It seems that people believe the trade towers were made from solid steel....they were experimental designs, thin support skeleton made from A36 and A441 Steel, very common mild steel. The towers were built to withstand Wind forces, not shock of a jet hitting them.
There was initial shock to the beams, and the weight of the towers ABOVE the section hit was shifted to redundant load bearing beams systems on the floors that were hit, this was by design. The problem is the 90,000 liters of fuel, which ignited and burned unevenly the rest of the section that was hit. The remaining beams were exposed to large and sustained amounts of HEAT.
This uneven heating led to the steel softening, ( annealing is the proper term), as the steel softened it lost ability to support the floors above, and a ten story section of the Tower collapsed down. The floors beneath, already weakened, could not support this added stress of collapse, and in turn their pancaked down upon the floors beneath, like dominoes.

The towers collapsed straight down as they are 96% air by volume. There is simply not enough Mass for them to go anywhere but straight down, and because of their inherent design the planes unfortunately initiated a series of events that caused them towers to collapse in on themselves.

It is a terrible event, but there are no conspiracies or secret teams of spies placing thermite charges on key locations. Any engineer or metallurgist can review the design, materials, stress and metal fatigue that occurs when A36 Steel is exposed to high heat for sustained period.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ariel bender

It is a terrible event, but there are no conspiracies or secret teams of spies placing thermite charges on key locations. Any engineer or metallurgist can review the design, materials, stress and metal fatigue that occurs when A36 Steel is exposed to high heat for sustained period.



You may have worked in those places, but from your words, you are no engineer, trained in the theory of such things. Many engineers and metallurgists have looked at the facts and they disagree with you. The facts simply don’t support your statements.

The 911 events couldn't have happened, but they did.



edit on 18-9-2010 by etcorngods because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


This reply is not directed solely at neformore, rather it is meant to address everyone, though I simply sprang it from the reply button in neformore's post.

People seem to be taking the properties of normal thermite and using those properties to explain how thermite wasn't used on 9/11. Most truthers aren't trying to claim that thermate canisters were strapped to the columns of WTC1&2 or even 7 with people running around pulling the pins on those canisters. In fact, we aren't even suggesting that conventional thermite was used. I agree that the evidence doesn't point to thermate or conventional thermite used.

If you read the OP, you would see the sourced material linked underneath on the study of nanoaluminum powders and how they can be engineered to different states and added to explosives for different properties and processes. In fact, the US Military and other government depts. have been hard at work studying the advantages, uses and properties of the different states of nanoaluminum powders that can be engineered. It is these advanced engineered nanoaluminums and combinations thereof that we are arguing the usage of.

OCTs like to address only the conventional properties of thermite, then use those properties to "debunk" that thermite could have been used. The problem with that, is that no serious researcher, architecht, engineer or scientist is claiming that conventional thermite was or could have been used.

Please read the following:

Military Reloads with Nanotech

Smaller. Cheaper. Nastier. Those are the guiding principles behind the military's latest bombs. The secret ingredient: nanotechnology that makes for a bigger boom.


PDF:

DETONATION PROPERTIES OF EXPLOSIVES CONTAINING NANOMETRIC
ALUMINUM POWDER


Nanometric aluminum powder is known to react more rapidly than
conventional, micron-size aluminum grades in propellant and explosive
compositions. Defence Research and Development Canada - Valcartier
(DRDC-V) and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO)
are collaborating to assess the potential of nanometric aluminum powders
in explosive compositions. Various plastic-bonded explosives (PBXs) and
TNT-based formulations have been developed to compare ultrafine and
conventional micron-sized aluminum.


Explosive performance was
determined by VoD measurements and plate dent depth tests. The study
was also complemented by air-blast tests to evaluate the difference in
energy release in the far-field. It was found that for PBX compositions, no
significant differences were observed between formulations containing
micron-sized and nanometric aluminum. For mixes of TNT and aluminum,
an improvement was noted in the velocity of detonation and in plate dent
depths using ultrafine aluminum. Aquarium tests were run on TNT/Al
blends to confirm the improvement observed, to evaluate the relative
performance of the different sizes of aluminum and to qualify the behavior
of the aluminum in such an explosive.


Most of us are familiar with thermate. I know I am, as I used it extensively in the military, however most of us aren't familiar with the breakthroughs coming out of Los Alamos and other government laboratories. These nanoaluminum powders can be engineered to very the energy release states and applied to explosives or other reactive processes, ultimately getting different properties.

If you have ever worked in the field of science or academia or if you have gone through graduate school, you know how difficult it is to get a paper or study published through the peer review process. You can't just come up with a good idea, test it and then have that idea published. Rather, you have to maintain certain standards, then have your work scrutinized by experts in the same field as your work. It is a pretty rigorous -and difficult- process that many criticize for various reasons relating to the difficulty of getting scholarly work through the process.

A peer reviewed scientific paper has been published, by Prof. Steven Jones, describing the thermitic material found in the dust from the 9/11 tragedy. It would be presumptuous and arbitrarily poumpus of us to assume that we know better than a community of experts in this very field of study. So, with that and without our own respective studies on that material, it would hard to credibly argue against such material. If we can humble ourselves enough to agree with that, then we can at least agree that the material was found and there is at least a high probability that the study is accurate,

Remember, we don't have to prove this to be the case (that's what an investigation is for), only that it has a certain probability of being the case, which should in my opinion, at the very least, warrant an investigation into the use of demolitions being used on the WTC complex. If there is a doubt to the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory) or the official explanation and an investigation was not done to cover that possibility, why would it be so wrong to conduct one? Why resist one, if for nothing else than to silence the people who seem to care? Unless we have done a study ourselves, it is pretty hard to argue against a peer-reviewed and published study and it is even harder to argue against an investigation based on that study. Am I right?

Now, when you add Jones' study on the thermitic material itself to the eye-witness testimony and other evidence of molten metals in 'the pile', yet there is no official investigation into the possibility of demolitions itself, we have to ask ourselves why we would even argue against such an investigation. If an investigation is done and is transparent, researchers like myself and many others would be satisfied with the outcome, whatever that outcome may be, so long as certain questions are either answered or adequately addressed. Simply ignoring the possibility, especially when claiming a mystery to the WTC7 collapse, won't do. Since we do we advocate ignorance? When we ignore a possibility, especially when we still can't find an adequate answer to the WTC7 collapse, we are in fact advocating ignorance, as opposed to denying it.

Of course we can't say for sure whether thermitic material was used, because we aren't given access to the materials, people and backgrounds that an official investigation would have access to. All we can really do, is ascertain a probability based on what we do have access to and according to that probability, urge an official investigation into what or why that evidence was found. Why on Earth would anyone advocate the ignoring or ignorance of such a possibility? That is what we are doing, when we suggest that an official investigation into planned demolitions isn't needed (even though it was never even considered in the first place), we are advocating ignorance.

So, if there is even a possibility of controlled demolitions, never mind any evidence found, then why ignore such a possibility, even when we struggle to find a plausible explanation. When you add evidence, as has been the case, then it becomes even more absurd to continue to ignore such a possibility. We don't have to prove what happened, we just have to give a more probable scenario as to what could have happened and I think that has been achieved or could easily be achieved with a transparent and official investigation, to where the access to resources is on par with the camp that is going out of their way to ignore any possibility that goes against the OS, such as NIST.

Please read the the two sources linked up top before replying. I don't want to argue the properties of conventional thermite, as I agree that conventional thermite was most likely not used. Thanks.


--airspoon



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ariel bender
 

There are several glaring problems with your casual dismissal of the abundance of information that disputes your analysis. The main points, to me, are:
1. The vast majority of the fuel burned in the initial blast, causing the fireball. There was little fuel left to burn, and what was burning in the tower was what was ignited by this blast. Office fires, no matter how large, do not bring down skyscrapers.
2. The supporting structure would not have been weakened in any significant way, certainly not enough to allow a free fall collapse of the relative few floors above to completely destroy the remaining.
Physically impossible, you have to know that.
Additionally, we had enormous spontaneous fires and explosions in the other buildings, unexplained, as well as ground level and below explosions, unexplained.
Care to take a stab at those?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ariel bender
 


Hi, I work for NASA and I am an aeronautics engineer. man, I can't go any further 'cause I am LMFAO. I know that is BS myself. Anybody can lie on a message board. I have been doing message boards since (god can't remember) and I have always seen people lie just to give them credibility. Nobody has credibility on a message board. this is the only message board I have seen where people trying to make some credibility.

If you say you are right , then go talk with Ae911truth.org of your so called experience and see what they say.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 



Originally posted by airspoon
There has been some debate as to whether molten steel was found in the WTC rubble, with most official conspiracy theorists arguing that molten steel is a myth. It would seem that it is pretty difficult to debunk the issue of molten steel, so instead of even considering it, ignoring it and/or denying it seems to be preferred.
...
A common argument made by most OCTs (Official Conspiracy Theorists), is that we can't claim both thermite/thermate reactions and explosions, since thermite doesn't explode. They argue that we must pick one or the other, as both certainly wouldn't be used.

My simple rebuttal is that there is no reason to suggest that both processes couldn't be used or even combined.


Airspoon - you're packing some heavy punches with no end of great threads. Keep it up but don't forget to come up for oxygen every now and then!

I'm on board with your reasoning here but want to add that any serious investigation into the 9/11 conspiracy must include possibility of nuclear demolition even if just to intelligently rule it out (which I don't!)

I've read/watched the presentation of cases for nuclear demolition by a number of individuals, some who make extremely good arguments and others who seem to go off on strange tangents. If you can get past the bits that painfully stretch the imagination too far, there's enough solid food for thought and a basis for further research.

In any order, I suggest the following reading and viewing:

The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Center
166-page report of evidence supporting an "underground secret nuclear reactor" theory

Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC
plus the Original Report
(multiple micro-nukes used on the day)

911 WTC nuclear demolition Dimitri Khalezov (this video keeps getting knocked off youtube for various reasons but keep trying to chase it down)
(nuclear demolition built into towers as condition for build approval)

911 Eyewitness 1 of 3 (and follow links to 2 and 3) for evidence of multiple explosions and timings

Google Video Link


TruthTheory.org - 9/11 Mysteries Important documentary and eye-witness testimonies

Bali Micro Nuke - Lack of Radiation Confuses "Experts"
(Another micro-nuke attack with a nod towards Canary Wharf, London Docklands)

YouTube - 1996 London Docklands bombing (Who knows?)


As an argument against, here's Dr Stephen Jones' Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf. He argues (unconvincingly IMO) that the nuclear demolition theories are disproved based on a number of points. Judge it for yourself.

If you've heard the cases as presented you'll be in a better position to pass judgement on them.

POSER: If you drop tons of metal on top of a building, how do you end up with a deep, empty hole? (WTC 6)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by neformore
 


Rather, you have to maintain certain standards, then have your work scrutinized by experts in the same field as your work. It is a pretty rigorous -and difficult- process that many criticize for various reasons relating to the difficulty of getting scholarly work through the process.

A peer reviewed scientific paper has been published, by Prof. Steven Jones, describing the thermitic material found in the dust from the 9/11 tragedy. It would be presumptuous and arbitrarily poumpus of us to assume that we know better than a community of experts in this very field of study. So, with that and without our own respective studies on that material, it would hard to credibly argue against such material. If we can humble ourselves enough to agree with that, then we can at least agree that the material was found and there is at least a high probability that the study is accurate,

Unless we have done a study ourselves, it is pretty hard to argue against a peer-reviewed and published study and it is even harder to argue against an investigation based on that study. Am I right?



No, you are not right. One problem with your argument is that Jones' paper was either not peer reviewed or was reviewed by the Theology department. Vanity journals can't afford to be rigorous. I have reviewed papers for chemistry journals for many years and I have reviewed Jones' paper, piecemeal, in several ATS threads. I showed the unscientific approach, poor analytical protocol, self-inconsistencies, and invalid conclusions of Jones' paper. The "community of experts" you describe are disingenuous blunderers who work to arrive at a predetermined conclusion and would fail an undergraduate analytical chemistry course.
For those of you who are non-technical folk but have some common sense, I have something for you to consider. If you still think red paint is "nanothermitic" and a "highly engineered" demolition material, have a look at figure 20 in the paper. You will see photographs of red chips that were partially combusted in the DSC furnace. The key word is "partially." The chips started burning and then, when the heat was removed, WENT OUT. The super thermite will not stay lit. This is the first example of a self-extinguishing nano-thermite and to call it a demolition material is ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Two articles that bring to light that there was underground access to the twin towers on 911 and even afterwards

spotted.heraldtribune.com...

also:


Perspective From Below Ground Zero...ecmweb.com...
Nov 1, 2001 12:00 PM, By Joseph R. Knisley, Senior Editorial Consultant

The N and R subway lines, which run along the east side of the WTC, are back in service.
However, it could take years to rebuild an 800-ft-long stretch of the 1 and 9 IRT subway tunnel, which lies several feet below Ground Zero. Depending on the final reconstruction plan for the site above, rebuilding could include a new alignment of the tracks and station. Restoring service on the flooded PATH tubes to New Jersey

->largely depends on rebuilding the collapsed station in the middle of the basement of the WTC.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join