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: 17
86
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


some energy had to be developing and
creating energy for the piles to be so hot for so long.
it can be explained no other way.




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Now, imagine if you will


No. How about you provide evidence. You completely avoided my reply, typical.


Originally posted by Varemia
Does this make sense?


None at all actually.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Okay , I'm gonna try this one more time with you . Do you think we can get through this without you feeling the need to shout everyone down that you don't agree with ? Without the name-calling and general rudeness and insults ? Probably not but , here goes .

Take a look at the image in this link and tell me that you could accurately identify it if you didn't know what it was : www.scientificamerican.com... .

Glass is neither a liquid , nor a solid ., it is somewhere between the two , and is known as an amorphus solid . When it is made , it is quickly cooled from it's liquid state but it doesn't become a solid when it's temperature drops below it's melting point . In order for it to become an amorphus solid , it has to be cooled even further , below what is known as the glass-transition temperature .

In modern-day glass , lime and soda are added , resulting in sodium and calcium oxides .It also contains other oxides . The glass-transition temperature occurs at about 550 degrees celsius . Minimun occurence begins at about 270 degrees celsius .

In some types of glass , metallic oxides are also added to improve thermal and optical properties .

The material in the clamshell looks strikingly similar to the molten glass in the link I provided , does it not ?

The underground fires could have kept it in a molten state .



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Look, I'm not a physicist, and it seems neither are you, so please just try to think about the science involved here.

-There is definitely molten metal in the tower at the time of collapse. This is an indisputable fact.
-The towers collapsed into a pile of rubble. This is an indisputable fact.
-Something had to happen to the molten metal. This is an indisputable fact.

What we are disputing is what exactly happened to the molten metal. You seem to be insinuating that it would cool off or stay the same temperature underground, having no effect on the highly damaged steel in the rubble with it.

I am trying to say I don't see that happening. A lot of heat coming from already molten material [which if aluminum constitutes a minimum of about 1000 degrees (celcius) Temperature chart: www.westyorkssteel.com... ] will not just dissipate into the rubble like in air. It will continue to heat the rubble, like if you had an open flame on a pan. It doesn't reach a high temperature instantly, it continues to get hotter over time, and the longer you have, the higher the temperature gets. So as the molten material continues to heat everything, because it is in a confined space and the heat is basically not going anywhere, the temperature can only rise, keeping the metal (aluminum) molten and leading to the subsequent melting of the steel.

We really should find a geothermal physicist to help explain this point. I think a mental comparison would be kind of like how magma will crust over on the outside but remain molten on the inside.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Varemia, you ae incorrect about the molten steel, iron aluminum or galss or whatever increasing its temperatire while in contact with cooler surfaces. exclusively in the absence of any external applied heat source.

did you see the molten, _________ )insert what you think is dripping out of the tower here), cooled rapidly on its descent thriugh the air. The molten substance COOLED as it fell due to it being in contact with a cooler medium AIR.

Underground the molten substance would have been in contact on all sides, top and bottom with things that were COOLER that the molten substance was, and therefore due to the laws of thermodynamics it would have cooled and solidified.

the logic being observed: if you heat up a knife blade on the kitchen stove to red hot, as soon a you take the knife blade out of the fire, it begins cooling due to being in contact on all sides, top and botton, with a medium AIR that is COOLER than the knife blade.

a self sustaining heat source under the basement of WTC 1-2 would provide heat to keep the substances molten but by themselves the molten substance will unequivocally cool when external heat source is removed,
.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Yes. I suppose it is possible that the hot floors collapsed with the molten metal, and it became a self sustained heat source due to the heat not having enough transmission loss to cool down. Potentially, it could take months to cool down without being dug up. (I think). Like I said, we really need an expert here.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Okay , I'm gonna try this one more time with you . Do you think we can get through this without you feeling the need to shout everyone down that you don't agree with ? Without the name-calling and general rudeness and insults ? Probably not but , here goes .

Take a look at the image in this link and tell me that you could accurately identify it if you didn't know what it was : www.scientificamerican.com... .

Glass is neither a liquid , nor a solid ., it is somewhere between the two , and is known as an amorphus solid . When it is made , it is quickly cooled from it's liquid state but it doesn't become a solid when it's temperature drops below it's melting point . In order for it to become an amorphus solid , it has to be cooled even further , below what is known as the glass-transition temperature .

In modern-day glass , lime and soda are added , resulting in sodium and calcium oxides .It also contains other oxides . The glass-transition temperature occurs at about 550 degrees celsius . Minimun occurence begins at about 270 degrees celsius .

In some types of glass , metallic oxides are also added to improve thermal and optical properties .

The material in the clamshell looks strikingly similar to the molten glass in the link I provided , does it not ?

The underground fires could have kept it in a molten state .


As long as you read my posts, and don't go off on a rant because you miss-read, we have no problems. This post is better. You did a little research I can see. One problem with your theory of glass is sustainability (and this is not the only problem, really this idea is absurd man). It cools far to rapid and is not nearly dense enough for this type of prolonged molten state. It's an idea, just not very feasible. For something to remain in that state it really requires density. Glass would cool very rapidly once exposed to air. The rescue workers had to stop working for several hours in some cases to allow the molten iron to cool and be lifted out. Glass would have cooled within minutes of open air exposure. Also I think you have completely forgot the simple fact that molten iron was recovered and identified. I hate to have to keep referencing it but please read the FEMA lab work. This was molten Iron. Your stretching really far and hard to try and convince people otherwise, with theories, ideas, and far fetched possibilities, when the obvious is already proven.

Your attacking the witnesses because you know damn well you cannot attack the FEMA lab work. If you want to disprove molten iron, why don't you attack the strongest point if you are so confident in your opinion.

Why are you stretching so far? It was iron. Nothing else at ground zero was dense enough.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Look, I'm not a physicist, and it seems neither are you, so please just try to think about the science involved here.

-There is definitely molten metal in the tower at the time of collapse. This is an indisputable fact.
-The towers collapsed into a pile of rubble. This is an indisputable fact.
-Something had to happen to the molten metal. This is an indisputable fact.

What we are disputing is what exactly happened to the molten metal. You seem to be insinuating that it would cool off or stay the same temperature underground, having no effect on the highly damaged steel in the rubble with it.

I am trying to say I don't see that happening. A lot of heat coming from already molten material [which if aluminum constitutes a minimum of about 1000 degrees (celcius) Temperature chart: www.westyorkssteel.com... ] will not just dissipate into the rubble like in air. It will continue to heat the rubble, like if you had an open flame on a pan. It doesn't reach a high temperature instantly, it continues to get hotter over time, and the longer you have, the higher the temperature gets. So as the molten material continues to heat everything, because it is in a confined space and the heat is basically not going anywhere, the temperature can only rise, keeping the metal (aluminum) molten and leading to the subsequent melting of the steel.

We really should find a geothermal physicist to help explain this point. I think a mental comparison would be kind of like how magma will crust over on the outside but remain molten on the inside.


I agree with some of this, however you left out some facts that did not serve your purpose so I will update you with this. If you wish to challenge these facts I request you please provide evidence or source material as I can easily provide it to you. Most is in this thread already from the OP

-FEMA Lab work analysis of several corroded girders showed that the steel was melted and reduced to molten Iron, this is an indisputable fact.
-I'm no physicist but It is pretty common knowledge how cooling works with any substance. It is 100% dependent on 2 components. How quickly the heat can escape to the surrounding environment, and fuel. Fuel can get a bit convoluted, as several factors determine fuel requirements, density and oxygen are the 2 largest factors. This is an indisputable fact.


You seem to be insinuating that it would cool off or stay the same temperature underground


I'm not insinuating anything. I'm stating facts. Molten iron if well insulated will remain molten for a long duration. No other substances at ground zero have the characteristics to do this. Irons density is very key and seems you guys are not understanding why. Heat escapes far slower, and in a heavily insulated environment such as this one...

Someone earlier mentioned how the concrete pillars would act as heat syncs, and that so far is the best counter I had heard, however this does nothing to explain the FEMA lab working proving molten iron was present (our main point here being temperatures exceeded 2700 deg F. so really this whole discussion is moot, but I will humor you guys). Also, given the massive amount of concrete pulverized into dust leaves the question of, how many concrete pillars were still intact to allow for a good heat sync?











edit on 22-9-2010 by Ciphor because:
edit on 22-9-2010 by Ciphor because:
edit on 22-9-2010 by Ciphor because:
edit on 22-9-2010 by Ciphor because: #%$@#$






posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


I will agree with these statements. What I want to know is what you believe it proves? I am not completely sure what view you are supporting with the evidence of molten iron.

As it is, if iron was molten, other stuff must have been. Whether the chicken or egg came first is up for debate, I suppose, but since aluminum has a much lower melting point, it would be more logical to assume it went first, and then the iron. But the question also comes up as to when the iron melted. Unless we were to have thermal sensors placed in the towers during the event, it would seem pointless to try to prove anything (aside from the indisputable knowledge that "something" was molten in a tower just before it collapsed, due to the video of the collapse showing that dripping of molten metal). All we know for certain is that molten iron (and logically other molten material as well) was found in the rubble of the towers. The fires are estimated to be around 1000 degrees F, according to a fireman's report I read, which, if true, contradicts another source I found that says aluminum needs to be about a thousand degrees C to become brightly melted. At 1000 F, it would be approximately 550 C, which is not enough to make it brown hot.

Source: vincentdunn.com...
and www.drjudywood.com...


Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.


Now, this may be a typo in which he was just thinking the number and assumed it was F, or it is C, and if it was a mistake, it reduces the man's credibility. If it wasn't, then it reduces the credibility of the assertion of molten anything under the current understanding of circumstances.

Honestly, I need more information.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Sounds like a fair comparision. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess the point I was trying to make though was does it really matter either way. Perhaps I was trying to defend Judy, although I don't subscribe to 'space beams' as such the fact is a massive amount of energy went into these materials which she is correct about. The term energy weapon really does encompass dozens of possibilities without resorting to the use of 'beam weapons from outerspace'.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
What I want to know is what you believe it proves? I am not completely sure what view you are supporting with the evidence of molten iron.


It proves that temperatures exceeded 1400 deg F. Plain and simple. Since the OS states that these were normal office fires, these leaves a question. How did temperatures reach the melting point of 2700 deg. F? I don't make assumptions, I, like most, have ideas, but they cannot be substantiated without expert investigation. I don't pretend to be an expert by any means. I simply restate the facts.


Originally posted by Varemia
As it is, if iron was molten, other stuff must have been.


"If" is not correct. Again FEMA lab work proved it was molten iron. There is no speculation here, it was proven. Of course other stuff was melted. This however does nothing to address the main point that steel was indeed reduced to molten iron.


Originally posted by Varemia
Whether the chicken or egg came first is up for debate, I suppose, but since aluminum has a much lower melting point, it would be more logical to assume it went first, and then the iron. But the question also comes up as to when the iron melted.


When the steel reached 2700 deg F. is another moot point. It is the fact it occurred at all that is what is eluding you. It is a good question, so you agree this needs re-investigated? Because that is all we are saying and I sincerely hope you do not believe I am here to peddle theories. I deal in facts and logic.


Originally posted by Varemia
Unless we were to have thermal sensors placed in the towers during the event, it would seem pointless to try to prove anything


I don't understand how you feel the time at which the melting occurred is the only thing relevant. Figuring out what time it happened still sheds no light on the main point, that it even happened at all!


Originally posted by Varemia
All we know for certain is that molten iron (and logically other molten material as well) was found in the rubble of the towers.


I'm confused by this. In one sentence you say "if" molten iron occurred, and in another you say it is "certain" it occurred.


Originally posted by Varemia
Source: vincentdunn.com...
and www.drjudywood.com...


Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.



I keep seeing this name, but this person I have seen say some pretty asinine things, I find this Dr. Judy to have dissolved all her creditability with some of her statements. And the one above is just another example of how little this person knows. Steel can under no circumstance melt at 1200 deg. F.


Originally posted by Varemia
Honestly, I need more information.


Ditto dude. Exactly what all the truthers agree on, we need more information, this picture is incomplete and has huge unanswered questions. Some truthers like to speculate, and I feel this really hurts our cause, but plenty of us understand how damaging it is, and prefer to stick to facts without speculation



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Yes, I know. I was using "if" as a hypothetical "if, then" scenario. I understand that it is indisputable that molten iron was recovered and was just stating that naturally, there must be other molten material besides iron when iron is, in fact, molten.

Also, the time at which it becomes molten is rather critical in an examination. If it became molten while in the towers before the collapse, then that indicates a severely higher temperature than in any of the reports I've read. If it becomes molten after the collapse while underground, then it becomes due to time, pressure, and a lot of pre-existing heat that in simple terms, climbed with no relief. Embers in a fire will remain for a very long time and flare up once exposed to air. I recall this being an exact observation by firemen.

As for the quote, it was from a fireman's analysis, not from Dr. Judy Wood. She, I believe is an extremely illogical thinker when it comes to this, and the only reason I quoted a page from her site is that it proved that when aluminum heats up enough, it does indeed become red and white hot, with the traditional "molten" look to it. Other people I have encountered try to say aluminum is silvery when molten, and this is simply not true except at the very lowest molten temperatures of aluminum.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
In closing and to sum up everything in a short sweet easy to understand statement...

How does steel reduced to iron by temperatures of 2700 deg. F. fit into the original story that explains all 3 buildings only encountered office fire temperatures?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Yes, I know. I was using "if" as a hypothetical "if, then" scenario. I understand that it is indisputable that molten iron was recovered and was just stating that naturally, there must be other molten material besides iron when iron is, in fact, molten.

Also, the time at which it becomes molten is rather critical in an examination. If it became molten while in the towers before the collapse, then that indicates a severely higher temperature than in any of the reports I've read. If it becomes molten after the collapse while underground, then it becomes due to time, pressure, and a lot of pre-existing heat that in simple terms, climbed with no relief. Embers in a fire will remain for a very long time and flare up once exposed to air. I recall this being an exact observation by firemen.

As for the quote, it was from a fireman's analysis, not from Dr. Judy Wood. She, I believe is an extremely illogical thinker when it comes to this, and the only reason I quoted a page from her site is that it proved that when aluminum heats up enough, it does indeed become red and white hot, with the traditional "molten" look to it. Other people I have encountered try to say aluminum is silvery when molten, and this is simply not true except at the very lowest molten temperatures of aluminum.


I'm not saying the time it occurred is not critical, it is indeed. I am saying it is not critical to the point of the topic, that the molten steel occurred at all. A far more critical question, and foundation for your question. I would not consider a firefighter an expert in metallurgy. Whoever said that, was out right wrong. Judy supporting it shows she has zero creditability. Anyone can google search steels melting point rather easily.



The properties of steel vary widely, depending on its alloying elements.

The austenizing temperature, the temperature where a steel transforms to an austenite crystal structure, for steel starts at 900°C for pure iron, then, as more carbon is added, the temperature falls to a minimum 724°C for eutectic steel (steel with only .83% by weight of carbon in it). As 2.1% carbon (by mass) is approached, the austenizing temperature climbs back up, to 1130°C. Similarly, the melting point of steel changes based on the alloy.

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1130 °C. Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1492 °C (2720 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1539 °C (2802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1130 °C (2066 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1315 °C (2400 °F).


The steel used at WTC was a highly corrosion resistant structural steel, alloyed primarily with carbon, chromium, and manganese, as well as many other trace elements found in most structural steel girders from what I understand. It had a known melting point of 2790 deg. F.

I may be off some slight details here, but this is pretty much accurate.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


I have nothing else to add here. I agree with your logic.

The only thing I can say is what I've said before, and it's that I really don't know. There are too many free variables right now to determine whether this was malicious or natural.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I am trying to say I don't see that happening. A lot of heat coming from already molten material [which if aluminum constitutes a minimum of about 1000 degrees (celcius) Temperature chart: www.westyorkssteel.com... ] will not just dissipate into the rubble like in air. It will continue to heat the rubble, like if you had an open flame on a pan.

The flame under your pan can keep heating because of a chemical reaction caused by the combination of fuel source and oxygen which creates it. This reaction causes the electrons in the pan to move faster, which is what heating is.

With the molten material under the towers, where is the rapid oxidation reaction coming from to increase the heat? Where is the oxygen, where is the fuel source?

Saying the molten metal will just naturally get hotter as it heats the solid iron is as silly as saying your coffee will get hotter after you pour cold milk into it.


We really should find a geothermal physicist to help explain this point. I think a mental comparison would be kind of like how magma will crust over on the outside but remain molten on the inside.

Unless the magma has an energy source to heat it, it will not heat further. It will gradually cool down.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by PookztA
 


I dont care what anyone says...Directed Energy is what brought down the 2 towers or some kind of whacked out nano-technology. WTC 7 was controlled demolition I agree with.

The towers were shredded from top down.

Only other way is to dismantle the structure...never in history has there been a controlled demolition of a structure of such magnitude ever. I invite anyone to try and reproduce the same effect..I'll even allow thermate-thermite to be used to help. Guaranteed any demolition team wont be able to recreate it I don't care how brilliant the engineering team is



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Well it had to heat somehow. So far I haven't heard anything solid. Either it heated in the towers or it heated in the ground. Maybe there was some kind of material in the towers that was combusting in the rubble? Honestly, we just don't know. The simple fact is, however, that there was molten metal and that it had to get there somehow. My analogy was not a perfect one, btw. Also, certainly the rooms that were on fire weren't cold once they hit the ground. They would have still been quite hot, and the molten metal would probably still be in the middle of this hot area, meaning that once enclosed, the heat could only rise, albeit very slowly.


edit on 24-9-2010 by Varemia because: spelling



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


take two pans or pots. set one on the kitchen floor in front of the stove.
fill the second one with water and put it on the stove and heat it to boiling.
the water in this pot will represent the "hot stuff" on the towers before they fell.
the pan/pot on the floor will represent the "bathtub" where the towers fell into.

that the boiling water which represents the hot / heat in the tower and pour it into the pot/pan on the floor.

Immediately the hot water begins cooling rapidly.
just like hot stuff in the towers sholld have began to do immediately after they hit the ground.

BUT they did not start cooling did they?

So their had to be one of two things 1. the steel in the building was heated to unheard of temperatures as the means to demolish the towers and retained that heat for months, i am talking about temps in the range of 6-8000 degrees F. or 2. there was some energy below the towers heating the steel up.

my supposition is thermonuclear heated steel to 6-8000 degrees and it "sublimated" for a long time.
hence the smoke coming from the pile and the heat of the pile.

The steel while falling through the air is erailing "steam/smoke" which is really steel sublimating from solid to gas as it travels through the air on its way to the earth.

Thermite cannot heat the volume of steel necessary to keep the pile of rubble hot like that for months.




edit on 25-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: temperatures as the



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


by the way we do not need an expert to discuss
general transfer of heat of 3 rd grade science lessons.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join