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: 13
86
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
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 .


The only no no you keep committing over and over is never providing any source material. You link an occasional picture, but never any creditable sources like we do. Just opinions over and over in a debate of facts.You saying something like "heat insulation could have helped blah blah" but don't show anything to back it up. What the fire proofing is made out of, how it reacts against steel vs in dust form over fire etc. You just grab wild ideas out of the air and talk about them like they are legitimate. There not, nothing you argue is.


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




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


You know what , I am just about tired of your sarcasm and smart-ass replies to several of us in this thread .

I posted visual evidence of structural steel collapsing due to fire and you just keep coming back with your little " I know more than you do " tantrums .

You are killing this thread with your smug attitude , crass remarks , insults to other posters , name calling , and overall general rudeness .

I have posted what I feel is valid material , just because you don't agree with me on that , gives you no right to act as though everyone but you is an imbecile . One more insult from you , and I will use the ALERT function .

Now , please tell me why you don't agree that the material I posted about the Windsor is relevant . Without the attitude .



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:29 PM
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.







I can explain that for you. You actually answered the question yourself without realizing it.



the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be easily extinguished with water, although enough water will remove heat and stop the reaction.


Since it is an oxide it does not require oxygen. If this is insulted below a 1/6 mile deep pile of rubble, it will not lose it's heat fast, allowing for a long reaction, and weeks of molten material from the thermite. I do believe the actual theory and claimed evidence is of thermate* a military grade version of thermite that burns out quicker.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


It seems to me any heat caused by this presumed thermite is easily dissipated by the columns. The thermite used would be enough to melt the steel it is supposed to, which is just a small section just large enough to cut the columns in halve. But to melt a whole column would require a huge amount of thermite. Once the reaction is over, which is within seconds, no more thermal energy is generated. So all residue heat from the small amount of molten steel is dissipated by the columns, which act like large heat sinks.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Ciphor
 


You know what , I am just about tired of your sarcasm and smart-ass replies to several of us in this thread .

I posted visual evidence of structural steel collapsing due to fire and you just keep coming back with your little " I know more than you do " tantrums .

You are killing this thread with your smug attitude , crass remarks , insults to other posters , name calling , and overall general rudeness .

I have posted what I feel is valid material , just because you don't agree with me on that , gives you no right to act as though everyone but you is an imbecile . One more insult from you , and I will use the ALERT function .

Now , please tell me why you don't agree that the material I posted about the Windsor is relevant . Without the attitude .


Lol ok. Why are my posts not edited by mods then? Huh bud? You say you are sick of sarcasm? I am sick of you not reading and replying. You think I am the only one who sees that? Do you really? Ask yourself why the mods are not editing my posts. Go ahead, ask. Why don't you address my questions first, like why you didn't read a word of my posts yet had a mountain of questions for me that were already answered. You say you post valid material? You don't. I have shown that over and over, and every time I do show it you ignore it and change subject. A web based image is not evidence. It is not valid. It is subject to edit. It is, worthless. Honestly after your first post to me, where I had to pick apart how asinine the whole post was given what I posted previously. I filed you off as not worth my time. At this point I'm entertaining myself.

Until you reply to my original reply to you, I will not give validity to a single word from your mouth. As you have still yet to give it to me. Your just not on my level and your trying to be. Leave me alone, don't ask me dumb questions that I already answered because you don't want to read, and you will be fine. I made this clear, what are you struggling with?

You expect me to be civil and kind to you when you refuse to even pay me the common courtesy of READING what I type? You were offensive first, you just can't comprehend how offensive it is to not read my posts and criticize me for them.

You ask for me to respect your wishes, and absolutely ignore mine. You think that's ok? Get over it.


Learn, and move on. I am polite to plenty. Just not those who are rude to me first.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum
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



kJ/gram is a measure of heat output. 1 calorie is 4.187 Joules. Heat release per unit mass of thermite is much lower than common fuels because the thermite contains its own oxidizer, which is part of the measured mass. Fuel burning in air uses the oxygen in the air as its oxidizer. This is not measured as part of the mass. Thermite releases 3.9 kJ/gram and wood releases 15 kJ/gram, give or take, based on the species.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
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.


Once again the answer is in your inquiry. "then cools"

It is dependent upon how fast the heat can escape. It is molten iron. If heat cannot escape, it's not going to cool as the heat will be trapped, and the oxide can feed itself, it does not need fresh air like a fire to sustain high temperature.



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


Thank you for the link. I am aware of these reactions and did most of them in the past. Using thermite as an igniter is awkward because a little moisture will make it difficult to ignite. Better igniters are perchlorate/aluminum dust and barium peroxide/aluminum dust. This latter is often used to initiate the thermite reaction and will get it going when other things won't.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
Once again the answer is in your inquiry. "then cools"

It is dependent upon how fast the heat can escape. It is molten iron. If heat cannot escape, it's not going to cool as the heat will be trapped, and the oxide can feed itself, it does not need fresh air like a fire to sustain high temperature.


So let me get this straight.

He thinks that molten steel/iron from thermite reactions couldn't possibly stay that hot for that long, but somehow, fires could make steel/iron stay molten for that long.

If it were really just planes and fires then I would be surprised to see much of any fire at all survive those buildings exploding out in all directions and free-falling through the cool air, which undoubtedly cooled, busted up, and separated anything that had been burning beforehand.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by beijingyank
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.


Unfortunately, there is no "peer reviewed paper about nano Thermite in the dust." There is only that paper that Jones paid to have published in a vanity journal. Had the paper been submitted to a real journal, it would have been peer reviewed....and immediately rejected due to poor protocols, lack of scientific method, self contradictory results and illogical conclusions. Unimpeachable fact? What are you babbling about?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Ciphor
 


It seems to me any heat caused by this presumed thermite is easily dissipated by the columns. The thermite used would be enough to melt the steel it is supposed to, which is just a small section just large enough to cut the columns in halve. But to melt a whole column would require a huge amount of thermite. Once the reaction is over, which is within seconds, no more thermal energy is generated. So all residue heat from the small amount of molten steel is dissipated by the columns, which act like large heat sinks.


You may be right PLB and you bring up some valid points. I personally do not believe the thermite/mate theory as I just have not seen enough evidence of it. I think it is a possibility and a good one, but definitely not proven yet.

It's actually going to be near impossible to prove certain aspects, as reconstructing a test to answer certain questions would require 2 of the tallest buildings in the world. Nothing has ever happened like this and more then likely wont again.

Maybe we should start a thread on ideas for making good tests for some of these theories. I saw one on youtube of a guy attempting to disprove the presence of sulfur caused by some of the building materials. He wrapped the steel girder in all these materials, dumped fire over etc. Was an interesting experiment.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


How is that a "vanity journal"? The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a real, peer-reviewed and respected scientific journal, cited in many prestigious universities. Are you claiming that it is a "vanity journal" because you don't agree with a study that has been peer-reviewed by the experts and published therein? Deny ignorance, don't propagate it.

Furthermore, it was peer-reviewed and you have just been caught in a lie, which is tells us a lot about your credability. The sad truth of the matter, is that the Open Chemical Physics Journal is a real and respected scientific journal and Jones' paper was peer-reviewed and in turn, published by it. I think a pool of experts in the field in question, is much more credible than an anonymous poster on an internet discussion board. Your claim of his paper not being reviewed is lie, plain and simple. Furthermore, your claim that the Open Chemical Physics Journal
is a "vanity publication", is just about equal to the "born-again" Christians claiming that modern educational institutions are the work of the devil and don't teach the truth as the truth is in the bible. LOL. It is your credability that suffers when you are caught lying. Deny ignorance.


--airspoon





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



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Underground fires burned for almost three months after the collapse www.cbsnews.com...

Given the energy per unit mass data in a previous post, there would have to be many tons of intact thermite charges under the wreckage going off sequentially. As I have shown, wood has about 4 times the energy of thermite and polyethylene more than 10 times the energy.
Of course a few thousand tons of thermite could have been smuggled into the buildings slowly, over time, so when they were not needed for demolition, they would survive the collapses intact and burn in th erubble for three months.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Underground fires burned for almost three months after the collapse www.cbsnews.com...


Not hard to believe given how extremely hot molten iron is.


Given the energy per unit mass data in a previous post, there would have to be many tons of intact thermite charges under the wreckage going off sequentially.


Or just a bunch of embers falling to the ground with the buildings, apparently?


You only think in one direction, huh? Or else you'd see you're debunking your own explanation.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If it was me, i would try and provide an alternate to A, with B, rather then just try and disprove A, if A is the best theory so far, which it is.

The presence of molten iron and a 2700+ deg. F phenomenon is already confirmed. I think we could have a more enlightening conversation coming up with alternative possibilities to this, rather then just pick apart the best one presented so far. Just my 2 cents.


Most people don't think like me tho bsbray


P.S. my second thought almost sounds like I am attacking you with the question, I could not for the life of me find a way to word it that did not, It's aimed towards everyone.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by pteridine
 


How is that a "vanity journal"? The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a real, peer-reviewed and respected scientific journal, cited in many prestigious universities. Are you claiming that it is a "vanity journal" because you don't agree with a study that has been peer-reviewed by the experts and published in it?

The sad truth of the matter, is that the Open Chemical Physics Journal is a real and respected scientific journal and Jones' paper was peer-reviewed.


--airspoon


Ony if "peer reviewed" means peering into the envelope to review the amount of the check. I am claiming it is a vanity journal because it is. No primary journal would publish that paper as it is written. Why did the "highly engineered" demolition material self extinguish? Look at Fig 20 in the paper. Why are the energy balances inconsistent and too high to have been thermite or any combination of thermite and high explosives. See Fig 30.

The paper is crap. Jones and crew worked to get their predetermined answer and can only fool those who have no background in analytical chemistry. They are not scientists, they are charlatans.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


How much thermite do you think was under there causing the heat? Read up on heat flux and get back to me.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
How much thermite do you think was under there causing the heat? Read up on heat flux and get back to me.


How many burning embers falling through the air from the buildings would it have to be equivalent to?




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


You are making the accusation that the experts published that paper for money because you either don't agree with it or don't understand it. That's pretty ignorant and a shame on a board with the motto of "deny ignorance". Certainly, you can see your own folly. Maybe you should bring this accusation to the universities and scientists who either publish through the journal or cite it in various research and/or educational capacities.

Maybe you should bring your complaints to the experts who reviewed the paper, however your claim doesn't hold water so they probably wouldn't even respond. Maybe if you had evidence of the journal accepting money to publish, the experts to review or even if it was known as a "vanity journal", you would have legs to stand on.

--airspoon



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Bentham Science Publishers is a joke. If you don't believe me read this.

www.newscientist.com...


edit on 18-9-2010 by waypastvne because: Spelin




top topics



 
86
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join