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: 16
86
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
And yes, I work at the world's largest independent R&D company founded for the advanced study of metallurgy.

And you?




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


LOL thats a good one, extreme heat underneath a pile of stuff that has fallen, generated by the act of falling itself,

Maybe the towers were so tall they burned up in the atmosphere on the way down...

Metallurgy huh, show your credentials, should be great for a laugh, funny how all other buildings that have fallen never had such heat, whatever dude.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


I think his point was that the basic law of friction still applies in the scenario. If there was anything that could burn, it would burn. In most controlled demolitions, flammable and explosive things tend to be removed prior to detonation for safety and ease of clean-up.

Fire can be derived from many sources. Just look at WTC 7. It was hit with falling debris and some decent fires started as a result. There are a lot of things that just catch fire when being traumatized by a lot of mass and speed.


edit on 20-9-2010 by Varemia because: corrected a word



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 

I have a particular question about the observed molten metal and thought I would post it before I read the rest of the pages in this thread. Sorry if it has already been asked and/or answered.

We know there was molten metal seen in at least one tower before and after the collapse. The question has come up that this might be something other than steel. I think that this is simply grasping at straws in the attempt to try and explain it in a way that is favorable to the official story, but let's look at this a little closer.

Could this be molted aluminum?

Additional link.

How about molten lead?

Another link.

Now lets look at what molten iron looks like.

Another link.

Now lets look at thermite reactions

Google Video Link


Which of these looks similar to this?


What other metal could this have possible been? That was a redundant question as I feel these explanations are grasping at straws. This is evidence that explosives were used, not definitive proof but simply evidence. This, along with many other pieces of evidence in favor of explosives, is good reason to investigate the theory that explosives were used. The fact that such an official investigation has not yet been done is very suspicious.


edit on 9/20/2010 by Devino because: (no reason given)




edit on 9/20/2010 by Devino because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Aluminum is only silvery at its lowest melting points, once the temperatures get up to over 1000 degrees, which the fires in the trade centers were proposed to, its color changes to a far brighter red hot look. Evidence:
www.drjudywood.com...

Also, there are explanations why one tower had it while another didn't. A lot of the aluminum from the plane was bunched together in the corner of that building, making it so that when the fires got intense enough over time, the aluminum melted and became red hot.

Also, let's not forget that at those particular temperatures, the steel in the immediate area would be weakened up to 50 percent due to being softened from the heat.


edit on 20-9-2010 by Varemia because: changed a word to better reflect the content of the website



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Devino
 

Aluminum is only silvery at its lowest melting points, once the temperatures get up to over 1000 degrees, which the fires in the trade centers were proposed to, its color changes to a far brighter red hot look. Evidence:
www.drjudywood.com...
I think that reddish color fits aluminum better, steel is weakened when it's reddish, but not molten. Here is molten steel from the WTC and it's almost white:

Source www.illinoisphoto.com...




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Why isn't the truth movement doing this kind of investigation? Why not recreate the conditions of the WTC and see what thermite looks like and what other molten metals, like aluminum or lead, look like at several temperatures while falling down. Maybe throw some other materials in the mix also.

It would make a much more convincing case if it can be shown that any other option doesn't look like the videos we have.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
A lot of the aluminum from the plane was bunched together in the corner of that building, making it so that when the fires got intense enough over time, the aluminum melted and became red hot.

What I see is molten metal that looks much like iron. If you look at the comparison I gave between thermite reaction, molten iron and the stuff dripping out of the south tower then I hope you can understand my point here.

We can speculate that aluminum from the plane could have accumulated here. We can also speculate that the fires melted this aluminum and it then somehow stayed in its liquid form inside the fire getting hotter, up to 1800-2000° F, causing it to appear like molten iron. Even if all of this aluminum could remain inside the fires in its liquid form the temperatures still don't seem right.


Aluminum is only silvery at its lowest melting points, once the temperatures get up to over 1000 degrees, which the fires in the trade centers were proposed to, its color changes to a far brighter red hot look.

I don't know what temperature it takes to make aluminum appear that color so I'm using the chart from your link. The problem is that this temperature is well over the burning point of jet fuel and normal office fires. The chart from your link shows that aluminum needs to get to around 1100-1200° C (or over 2000° F) before it looks like the material in that video. Surely the office fires alone could not get this hot.

Keep in mind that this is just the video confirmation of molten material, possibly iron. There are also eyewitness reports of molten material, possibly iron, on the ground seen by the cleanup crew.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Are we looking at the same molten material? I see mostly yellow stuff dripping out of the south tower. Another question is even if aluminum could get that hot in an office fire how quickly would it cool down once it hit the outside air? Notice that this yellow hot material falls quite a long ways.


Originally posted by -PLB-
Why isn't the truth movement doing this kind of investigation? Why not recreate the conditions of the WTC and see what thermite looks like and what other molten metals, like aluminum or lead, look like at several temperatures while falling down. Maybe throw some other materials in the mix also.

It would make a much more convincing case if it can be shown that any other option doesn't look like the videos we have.

I have seen some youtube videos of people attempting to do just this thing. Personally I don't think any of them were done very well and therefore I didn't pay much attention to them. I think that whatever this material is that we see falling out of the south tower is molten material that got much hotter than normal office fires. We are talking about temperatures of up to at least 2000° F and more likely well over this.

In the end, does it really matter how much evidence people bring up that contradicts the official story? This is like beating a dead horse. It has been well proven along time ago that a new and complete investigation is needed but we are left with all of this speculation and unanswered questions instead.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


I do know that a small campfire with some wood reaches temperatures of at least 850 degrees Celsius (~1600F), at least, thats what my thermocouple said when I measured it. That wasn't a specifically hot fire though, I have also made fires you can't even approach at 10 meter distance because of the heat, using only an old couch. Windows at about 5 meter distance just cracked because of the heat.

I have molten aluminum easily in small campfires, without any effort. I also have melted glass in campfires, which requires temperatures of 1500 degrees Celsius according to Wikipedia.

All in all those kind of temperatures don't seem that unlikely.


edit on 20-9-2010 by -PLB- because: added unit



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand27
reply to post by Ciphor
 


I cant believe I am even dignifying you with a response......Why do you say it is impossible for the iron to melt? How can you know that temperatures only reached 1400 degs? Has somebody done an experiment that I dont know about where they crashed a plane in to a large building and had the bulidng wired with thermocouples and proved without a doubt that the iron wont melt? Are you trying to tell me that it is more likely that somebody snuck in to a building and put explosives in it?

I think it is far more reasonable to assume that a plane crashing into a building would be enough to cause a builidng to collapse. As the building is collapsing it is going to create a tremendous amount of force, and that force is going to generate friction, pressure, which could very easily melt iron. I agree a fire alone would not melt the iron, but a builiding collapsing on itself is more than enough force to melt a lot of things.

The building was designed to withstand the impact of a smaller airline plane. It is a testament to the engineering that the building stood as long as it did.



Are you talking to me? Sure you quoted the right person there bud?

1) I don't assume anything about what caused the collapse. I am here to talk about the topic. The molten Iron that could have not been caused by office fires as we know iron requires a temperature no less then 2700+ to be melted.

"As the building is collapsing it is going to create a tremendous amount of force, and that force is going to generate friction, pressure, which could very easily melt iron."

LOL no reply. You keep thinking that. I do have a recommendation however. Please get an education. Lol friction melting iron. Your serious too.

Small planes only huh? Maybe you should so some research about the size of the plane that hit WTC previously. hooooommmeeewooooork.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Ciphor
 


" The rescue workers and first responders conspired these false statements? "

No , that is not what I am saying at all . What I am saying is this : If those rescue workers had said they saw a molten 'material' , I would have absolutely no problem with that .

For any of them to say that they saw molten ' iron ' or 'steel ' , well I have a big problem with that .

My entire point is this , how does a fireman , policeman , EMT , or anyone else , for that matter , know what a molten material consists of simply by looking at it ? How would any of them be able to say it was molten steel simply by seeing it in its molten state ?

What I'm getting at , is that this entire line of reasoning needs to be removed from these 9/11 debates about this molten material .

Not one of those witnesses knew for a fact what the molten material was that he/she was looking at .

Just because they saw a molten material does not validate they saw molten steel .

To retain these eyewitness accounts as credible evidence is a fallacy .


1) I said you are implying, not saying. To say what you say is to imply that they conspired. Common, keep up. You miss key words, which leads to you completely miss-understand my statements. Also stop context clipping me.

2) I never said they said it was molten iron. Stop twisting my words and pay attention. Geeze man, seriously. I already said this too. They were witness to molten metal for weeks. there is only one type of metal that could remain molten underground for that duration...iron The evidence is a combination of items, not one exclusively. Step your game up, this is bordering on sad now. Eyewitness + lab evaluations + samples on file = __________. Witness statements by them self would be less sufficient. Coupled with the lab work, it paints a more clear picture. So if you have 1 piece of evidence by itself, it is usually not enough to support a claim, however when you have 2, it is more concrete. I said it in like 3 ways, to improve my chances of you understanding what I am saying this time so my posts are not constantly correcting your misinterpretations of what I said. I'm fairly certain given your track record however that my next reply to you will again be me having to point out what I actually said instead of how you misinterpreted it.

I really hope not. It would be less frustrating if this whole post was not the same information as my last post.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by slugger9787
 


There was also tons of aluminum and glass in the towers .

How many policemen are trained at the academy to identify molten material simply by looking at it ?

How many of those firemen had ever encountered molten 'steel' in the numerous fires they had fought ? How did they know it was 'steel' in those fires , if they did ?

And , if they saw molten 'steel' in those other fires , and it was proven to be molten 'steel' in those other fires , then was therm*te also used in those other fires ?


Molten aluminum and glass is not dense enough to sustain it's temperature even when heavily insulated underground It would not have enough oxide.

It is the duration the molten metal was observed that leaves the conclusion that it is iron. If you feel strongly another substance is questionable... please support your claims with evidence and not just an opinion kthxbyenow.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   


Just a minor point about this image, but who's to say that the hydraulics weren't broken, or stopped working shortly after taking the photo?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
And yes, I work at the world's largest independent R&D company founded for the advanced study of metallurgy.

And you?


So you are saying in your line of work you reduce iron to a molten substance with... friction. Are you a physicist as well? You do understand friction and how it works? That to reach high temperature with friction it requires build-up, and constant applied pressure. You do realize that would require more then 9 seconds? And that the objects creating friction would have to have constant contact in the same spot rubbing against the whole way down?Your saying 9 seconds, of random collision friction generated heat that created 2700+ deg F. temperatures to steel that caused massive warping, massive melting? They found tons and tons and tons of molten iron. It was a serious hazard for the rescue workers and if you read their testimonies you would know they had to stop working everyday to allow molten iron to cool and be removed.

Lol. Did you even look at the images of some of the pieces of steel recovered from ground zero? Read the FEMA report? I'd guess not, but you will say you did.

I have one link for you and your job. en.wikipedia.org...

If you worked in this field you would never suggest something so asinine. You are definitely an obstruction to intelligent debates. Welcome to ignore!



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


They did not develop those temperatures while they were falling. The temperature accumulated under the massive pile of rubble over time. Time, pressure, and heat...

Try to use logic here.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Ciphor
 


They did not develop those temperatures while they were falling. The temperature accumulated under the massive pile of rubble over time. Time, pressure, and heat...

Try to use logic here.


So the pressure created 2700+ deg. F temperatures for weeks? Weird, I am using logic, and mine tells me that as they lifted the rubble over time as you say, that pressure would be relieved and they would not keep encountering fresh molten iron. Where is your logic? Are you saying the rubble created pressure to cause 2700+ temperatures, and even as they removed the rubble it did not effect the pressure? Also I use facts, not just logic. I will accept this as a possibility ONLY when you can provide evidence that shows this is feasible. So lets see your math, lets see some sources to back this.

As my logic, apparently different then yours, tells me not to believe something just because some random person on a forum says it's so. So, Mr. Logic, let's see how you came to this conclusion.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


a blacksmith holds a red hot horseshoe with a pair of cee tee pliers and moves it over to the anvil.
the horseshoe is to pliers as glob of molten steel is to backhoe bucket.
the black#h pounds on the steel for two minutes while his gloved hand is still holding the pliers which are stil firmy grasping the red hot horseshoe.

why does the blacksmith not have first second or third degree burns on his hand.

figure that out and you will grasp (no pun intended) how a backhoe bucket can pick up a glob of molten steel and continue to function properly.

A female would be unable to comprehend this but a guy, certainly can comprehend it.


edit on 21-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: spelled horseshoe correctly



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


that is impossible Varemia, if you think it is possible then when two cas collide head on why does the metal not heat up and cause the cars to catch on fire.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Because there is significantly less mass involved, and the cars did not have thousand degree fires melting some material to begin with.

The idea is that "something" definitely became molten in the towers. The most likely answer is the aluminum from the plane, since reaching temperatures high enough to melt steel in one hour is nigh impossible. Plus, there was an abundance of aluminum from the plane in the building, as well as a lot of flammable office material.

Now, imagine if you will, there is molten material in the towers as they fall. Naturally the fires won't withstand the damage very well, but the material is still molten. Now, the material is covered by tons of heavy debris with no outside air to cool itself down, but enough pockets of air to continue to have bursts of new very hot flame. This molten material will, I would think, continue to be molten and increase in heat, with the heat having nowhere to go but the metal and such around it. As the heat climbs over time, it reaches a point where it does, in fact, melt steel.

Does this make sense?

Edit: Think about a fire-pit the day after the fire is out and ash is all that is left. The embers inside continue to burn for a long time until they are exposed to air.



edit on 21-9-2010 by Varemia because: Elaborated on a comparison.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join