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: 12
86
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


And again I ask - how does it become a self sustaining reaction?

Once it begins, it oxidises. Once the oxidisation reaction is complete, it stops. Then cools.

Thermite, nano themite, super thermite, high tech wonder thermite, call it what you want, its still going to follow the same laws of chemical reactions, and its not going to self sustain.

The only self sustaining reaction I am aware of sits approximately 93 million miles upwards from us.




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 
Have not replied in awhile,BUT!this post brought me to post.

okmd! You have no clue about steel working ,or you would not, have said what you said, quote
("And no , a 90-degree cut is not always the most efficient choice") . With working with steel ,UNLESS you are you are a demo crew, will you ever cut a beam that way."(The angled cut is used to control the direction in which the standing member will fall . ") Only in demolition are are angled cuts used,yes to make the building ("walk") www.sharpprintinginc.com... www.mindsing.org... , not to let the beam just fall lol. For .. 1) its the longest way threw the beam. 2) It uses more gas and man power to make angle cuts then horizontal cuts .3) it waist the end of the beam for latter use.Clean up and salvage crews don't just willy nilly make cuts as they see fit (LOL). The American Welding Society engineers, tells them how and where to make cuts . The beams would be cut but, attached to a crane (LOL) You don,t cut a ((( 30,000 )))pound beam like a TREE and JUST let it fall where it may!! REALLY!? LOL!!! Very dangerous wow really think about that lol. Most clean/salvage crew cut beams ,during clean up for later use,unless it is to be melted for later,they try to salvage what they can. And i am just saying lets be factual for people who don't know how steel working really works ,so when they come here they can be informed not misinformed by people who think they know,or assume to know,working with steel is not like cutting trees down.It takes lots of energy to work with steel.Just think of all the energy that went into making the towers??4 years of welding,bolting,moving,lifting,driving,hauling,ect..ect.. Remember nothing comes for free,think of all that stored potential energy, innately built in to the structures,(think real hard here and look in your minds eye of thousands of truck,welders,cranes,concrete,yada yada yada,ect,ect, NOW imagine what could take all that stored energy that took 4 years to put all that energy together into a homogeneous mass....What could cause all that energy to release in just under 12 seconds?? ,What has that much energy stored inside itself, to release that much energy that fast??



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


You are correct. After reaction, it cools. The only long term heat source was the underground fires. The amount of thermite required to provide the heat that was observed would be many times the mass of the material fueling the fires. Wood [15 kJ/g] has about 4 times the energy per mass of thermite [3.9 kJ/g] and polyethylene [45kJ/g] has about 10 times the energy.

The theory that thermite provided the heat is a fantasy perpetrated by those who have watched too many action movies and played too many video games.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


The principal of entropy
predicts tht suns are not self sustaining in the end.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


I stand by what I said . And , I have decades of experience .

If you are attempting to fell a vertical member , the most efficient manner would be to make an angled cut . Making a 90-degree cut will take you longer , using more fuel , simply because the weight of the member is maintaining a constant downward pressure , ever forcing its weight into the kerf , and causing your slag to remain in your kerf .

An angled cut eliminates these problems .

I have more than just a clue , I have years of experience . Take it or leave it , I know what I'm talking about .



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

KJ is a measure of work done,watts,calories,is heat out put which is what he wants ,not the amount of energy it can move.How much heat energy and how long or how much is needed to sustain that long of a burn?? if i understand correct?Wouldnt it be better to ask what heat energy is released in 1g of thermite/thermate versus 1 g of wood ??

just saying



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

And,
If you want to efficiently fell a large number of huge vertical members, fly a plane into it.
'

Pure genius I tell ya.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

LOL then I would have to say ,then keep on going thinking that, that's your will , but i would never ever hire you for a job ,when it comes to working with steel,but who really cares about that anyway huh??

But what ever you believe, go ahead ,see that's what wrong with people today ,they think they know from pictures and info, from websites ,but you can tell from what people say and think , if they really know what they are talking about and actually have hands on experience . AWS would never let any company at any job site ,do that to many safety issues ,that you surely have no clue about.Beams 6 inch thick cut with a torch will always never ever be cut clean all the way through,the slag will harden and it will leave a hanger ,hence the crane to pull it apart.The cutter would be at to much risk with a 30,000 pound piece of steel beam ready, to fall on him when the cut is done.We are not talking some 1/4 inch thick steel ,6 inch thick box beams that cant just be tossed around LOL

But whaterver dude its all good just saying



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 





I've only heard truthers get into secondary explosives etc claims after their thermite argument falls apart.


What are you babbling about?

Scientific peer reviewed paper about nano Thermite in the dust make the argument an unimpeachable fact.

I suspect indictments are in the cards for the jokers at NIST when they finally post their thirty million pieces of silver explanation. This, you can take to the bank.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 
And know i am still on the fence for thermate thermite and such but this is a test for info only if you need diferent kinds of mixtures, just adding man is all,

and this has nothing to do with 9/11 just info

www.nakka-rocketry.net...



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:25 AM
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.


Since I am so stupid, can you explain to me "intelligently" how molten iron that requires a temperature of 2700+ occurs in a fire with temperatures only capable of 1400 max?

If you say because there is none, can you please explain why the FEMA investigation of it is stupid too?

Irony is awesome. Who thinks his comment was ironic?


edit on 18-9-2010 by Ciphor because: why do I have to explain my edits?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by neformore
 


The principal of entropy
predicts tht suns are not self sustaining in the end


It technically has nothing to do with "entropy". The sun has a finite amount of fuel and it will run out of hydrogen in 5 or 6 billion years, after which the fun begins as it fuses helium and then its remaining heavier elements but those too will run out.

I digress. A star IS a self-sustaining reaction (nuclear fusion) that, once started will indeed sustain itself (in that it requires no outside influence to keep going), until it runs out of fuel. So, in other words, it is a self-sustaining reaction, just not infinitely self-sustaining.

www.merriam-webster.com...



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



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


What are you talking about? His research was peer reviewed and published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. It was not done by theologists, you are probably mixing him up with Prof. Griffin, the theologist. We are talking about Prof. Jones, the physicist who had his paper peer-reviewed and published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

Are you trying to suggest that it wasn't published in the OCPJ or that this particular journal is not worthy? That's a bold claim to make, as this journal is well respected in the field of science and features research and papers from some of the brightest minds in science.

--airspoon



reply to post by neformore
 


I'm not exactly following you here but I think you are suggesting that a self sustained thermitic reaction would need to occur for molten metal to exist long after the demolitions have done their job. Am I right?

There could be a number of reasons that the metal would stay molten, to include insulation. For example, if the thermite were to melt the steel into pools of molten iron and then those pools were to be insulated, the heat and sheer amount of iron that is molten could stay heated due to that insulation.

In my prior military career, I have used thermite on a number of occasions, to include disabling vehicles or heavy weapons. For instance, when you "popped" a canister on the hood of a vehicle, the metal would melt and drip down through the vehicle and would cool accordingly. The metal wasn't only molten when the reaction was occurring and instead needed the air to cool, as is evident by the molten metal drops all over the ground. The metal is only going to cool according to its environment variables.

--airspoon



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by largo
reply to post by dereks
 


The Figure Three photo shows a 45 degree cut. For a controlled demolition to control the path of the collapsing structure a 45 degree cut is made on principle supporting members. This is one of the really big beams that 'failed'. If you wish to cut a piece of steel with a torch after a demolition you burn straight across.
It's far more efficient to cut at 90 degrees when you are cutting anything. You don't do miter cuts for trashing something.
I saw the full photo of this back in '04. It convinced me that this was an op by insiders.
Perhaps someone out there can prove me wrong? Someone who cuts heavy metal for a living preferably would do so.
Thanks.


You are making assumptions. You can see another beam next to it cut exactly as you said, straight across, it is possible that there was a reason they had to cut that one in a slanted manner. I guess I am making assumptions here too, but I fairly certain that is slag coming off the end of the cut that is cooled, and also fairly certain that down towards the bottom of the cut you can see where they stopped wielding to allow it to (TTTTIIIIIIMMMMMMBEEEERRRR). You see that spot on the end where the cut stops?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by beijingyank
[Scientific peer reviewed paper about nano Thermite in the dust make the argument an unimpeachable fact.


Except it was not peer reviewed, nor very scientific - that is why it was published in a pay to publish vanity journal!



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.


I really don't have the energy to completely prove you wrong again so I will make it quick

1) you obviously did not read the PDF. it was not sulfuric acid, it was SULFUR. Get an education so you can understand the massive difference, or don't talk about it like you understand, you clearly do not.

2) it was not just a warped steel beam. Did you even read my post because I quoted them saying exactly what it was. Is English your primary language? Seems to not be these days on these forums.

3) There is only 1 type of coal that can melt steel and iron. I linked you TONS of information on it

4) Am I surprised you read none of this? Nope, your another picture book generation kid who lacks the patients it takes to actually research something, you just like giving an opinion and arguing. Everyone who reads basically has to sit here and argue with people who don't.

If you want to continue, how about you go back and actually read the source material that disproved every word of your post, instead of replying with this non-sense.

Or just do what you do best.en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by beijingyank
[Scientific peer reviewed paper about nano Thermite in the dust make the argument an unimpeachable fact.


Except it was not peer reviewed, nor very scientific - that is why it was published in a pay to publish vanity journal!



No, you are wrong. The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a real peer-reviewed journal, with some of the brightest minds in science publishing to it. Research in the journal is featured at universities all across the globe, to include Yale, Georgetown, Tulane, etc...

Think again, as those tactics aren't effective to those who choose to deny ignorance. It's almost the same thing when "born-agains" claim that satan has infested MIT for astrophysics dept. and they are wrong because the bible is right, plain and simple. It's almost laughable to hear people pass off those rumors because they heard them somewhere on YouTube and so are only repeating them to propagate ignorance.

I do have to say that it is quite effective at steering the sheeple away from the truth, as is evident by it being repeating, though it does hamper truth and proliferate ignorance. I believe that tactic goes something like this:

Place a seed of doubt in those exposing the truth, that way people who either fail to research on their own or think for themselves, will believe that such a seed of doubt has any kind of grounding in truth or reality. Many people however, do choose to think for themselves and do research past "hear say" and thus can easily conclude that you are either repeating lies and ignorance or starting lies for ignorance. Either way, it only hurts your credability.



--airspoon





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



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So what temperature does coal burn at? It can vary from 370-500 degrees C above ground to 1700 degrees C underground.



hahahahahahaha, sorry. Your a funny guy. Do you just make numbers up in your head? You were talking about underground coal fires, and coal that melts steel. Can you link the source where you got 1700 degrees even for regular coal? Did you just guess? You were waaaaay off. Good research bro. Hey there is sulfur in coal too, better be careful it will burn your skin LOL!

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
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 ?


Anyone else have trouble understanding that? I don't think I can explain this in words you could understand. People, stuff, things... 9-11? I promise you my Grammar is not that bad. Maybe try reading it slower.

Does a clue help you? "Sarcasm"

I can't believe you are arguing something like this. You look a damn fool man.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Indeed much unanswerable things went on that day, those buildings do not in any way resemble a collapse at all, but a total obliteration, and indeed what is left of the debris piles, ( and that isn't much)... has largely been wrecked in ways that confuses indeed.

All of the material appears to have been changed and scorched in ways that are not possible due to fires, the cloud of dust shows that all of the concrete was completely turned into the finest powder...there are random spots of fires all over the place for no apparent reason...

The basement of the wtc 1 and 2 appear to have relatively intact areas...?????

The building 7 just lets go like it was never there at all...

I am realizing that this nuclear discussion holds merit, and certainly explains why regular communications were not working like they should have...

The amazing heat, the incredible amounts of water it took to calm the scene down for months after,, materials continuing to disintegrate, the firefighters that i know that were there, all retired and sick with bizarre diseases...

But best of all, WHY DO THEY CALL IT GROUND ZERO !!

I have seen this in one other thread and it was largely ignored, but it appears this is a kind of sick joke being played on us all, by some in the "Know".

Look up any link as to what GROUND ZERO refers too...

For instance: en.wikipedia.org... The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the use of the term in a 1946 New York Times report on the destroyed city of Hiroshima, defines ground zero as "that part of the ground situated immediately under an exploding bomb, especially an atomic one."




top topics



 
86
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join