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: 18
86
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Originally posted by Varemia
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.
...
This molten material will, I would think, continue to be molten and increase in heat,

I don't understand your logic here. The measured temperature is from heat that was energy that came from somewhere. Where did this energy come from? Energy just doesn't appear over time.


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.

Keep in mind that aluminum is silvery in color at its melting point and would not be mistaken for molten iron. Aluminum can get to temperatures that mimic the color of molten iron but these temperatures are extreme for office fires. This here is a problem either way regardless of what molten material we see dripping out of the south tower.


1000 degrees (celcius)... will not just dissipate into the rubble like in air.
Ever hear of conduction? It is a process by which heat is transferred through solid material and in so doing actually does dissipate over time.

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.

It appears to me that you are attempting to conjure up some energy that causes this heat to increase over time. My question is where does this energy come from? Temperatures do not just increase over time without a source of energy. Are you suggesting that office fires continued under the rubble, devoid of oxygen, yet created extreme temperatures that melted iron?


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.

So your claiming that covering a fire with dirt will not put it out?
The reason molten material was found underneath all of the rubble after such a long period of time was due to energy that came from somewhere. If burning jet fuel and office equipment could not produce sufficient temperatures initially then how could this be done under the rubble pile? What was the cause for such high levels of heat measured (and please don't say friction)?



edit on 9/25/2010 by Devino because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
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.


Or, it got so hot initially that, being covered by the collapsed remains of the tower, it took months to cool.

IMO it could only get as hot as it did if there were small demolition nukes placed in the bases of some of the the lift wells.
These would funnel enough of the blast force upward to prevent great damage to the bathtub, and would then collapse back over the explosion, trapping the heat in and minimising detectable radiation.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Iron is dense. This is why it was able to sustain it's molten state for weeks while being buried under the rubble, which acted as insulation. The dense iron, coupled with the dense insulation, allowed heat escape to take a lot time.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


I don't know. That's what I keep asking, is "how" it happened. I just don't know. We know that in at least the one tower that there was a massive battery room. But honestly, even if it was explosives, I don't know of any explosives that would cause this to happen either.

reply to Kailassa

Also... seriously, nukes? With absolutely ZERO even close to suggestion of nukes, that is just ridiculous! Also, with the construction of the towers, a bottom up collapse would be the worst idea. The loads were not placed throughout the floors, but on the outside walls and the inner core. Blasting the base would require severing the walls and base at the bottom completely, which would then potentially lead to a pivot with the ground and a complete tipping and falling over of the towers onto the city.


edit on 25-9-2010 by Varemia because: fixing who I was addressing



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
Iron is dense. This is why it was able to sustain it's molten state for weeks while being buried under the rubble, which acted as insulation. The dense iron, coupled with the dense insulation, allowed heat escape to take a lot time.


Dense insulation is not an asset and would tend to conduct heat away. The office contents provided sufficient fuel for the underground fires. Further, oxidation of the aluminum cladding and hot corrosion of the steel provided additional heat. Without additional heat input, the steel would have solidified as it heated the concrete and other steel beams.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Although you do bring up a good point about the molten materials, and heat trapping, one more alternative should be thrown in as well.

It is known that when iron or steel rusts, it also produces heat. In small amounts, its almost unnoticable. However, in very large quantities, the temperatures can rise dramatically. Also, increased temperature of the iron helps speed up the rusting/oxidation of the iron. So when temps rise, the oxidation rate increases. More oxidation means more heat. In effect, it sort of becomes a giant loop. Since there was quite a bit of steel heated by the fires, that would have helped start the oxidation of the steel. Then as more steel oxidized, more heat would be released. Adding water to the mix also creates more oxidation and its a never ending cycle. Throw in the sulfuric acids, sulfur dioxide, salt water, etc, and you have a recipe for major corrosion, as well as some "melting" of said steel. And this is not including aluminum and the rest of the metals in the WTC debris. there is a whole list of chemical reactions that could have all been present in the pile.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
Iron is dense. This is why it was able to sustain it's molten state for weeks while being buried under the rubble, which acted as insulation. The dense iron, coupled with the dense insulation, allowed heat escape to take a lot time.


Look Ciphor,
It has been explained in several different ways and examples, (horseshoe, pan of water, knife in flame, to name a few of mine),

This is the reality.

What heat the building brought with it to the ground should have and would have dissipated and transferred itself to the surrounding unheated substances. It would have cooled quickly, given also the fact that copious watter was hosed onto the pile before the dust settled.

There were at best 8 floors which had "HEAT" in them when the building fell. Out of a total of 110 stories.

That is less that 8% of the mass of the building being heated. This eight percent did not and will not heat the remaining 92% of the mass lying beneath and some on top to any noticable temperature increase. BY ITSELF.

It had to have a tremendous source of energy to give most of the mass the level of heat experienced, as a method as well of bringing the buildings to their demise.

That tremendous source of energy is as yet an uninvestigated mystery.

The source of that temendous energy is what I am looking for.

I suspect the blatant CRATER which used to be builing six.

CNN broadcast the video of smoke rising up from building six at 904 am about sixty seconds after the south tower was hit. A powerful explosion inside WTC6 propelled smoke and debris 170 meters, 187 yards, 561 feet into the air.








The source of this crater is indubitably the same device that eliminated WTC 1&2


edit on 25-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: The source of this crater is indubitably the same device that eliminated WTC 1&2



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


With this idea we could eliminate all the junk/salvage yards in the world.

Heat up some of the steel/iron in the junk yard, throw some chemicals on it and get it to oxidize and come back next week and the iron/steel salvage yard is cleaned up.

That dog does not bark in my backyar.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Its a pity really, when one does not even bother to do any research, instead, relying on the tried and true, "it cant happen cause I say so" clause.

Well at least I can kick start your research with this first:

Iron Burns

Then go on to this:

Combustion Chemistry

Then a childrens magazine explaining oxidation and some dangers:

Oxidation!

Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat. But rusting is a slow process that gives off very little heat. It becomes a fire hazard only when a lot of iron is allowed to rust in a closed-up space.


A document on shipping iron ore safety and fire danger from oxidation of iron ore:
www.midrex.com...
coupled with information on what is DRI:
en.wikipedia.org...


CHARACTERISTICS OF BURNING DRI (Direct Reduced Iron)
Interesting aspects of burning DRI are:
Neither the fuel, which is iron, nor the products of combustion, which are iron oxides, are gaseous. So, there is no flame. Burning DRI is similar in appearance to burning charcoal, red hot, but without a flame.
• A hot spot propagates very slowly. It may take days, sometimes more than a week for it to propagate through a stack. This allows ample opportunity for action to be taken to prevent further damage.
• Temperatures can become sufficiently elevated to partially fuse the iron.
• Temperatures can also become sufficiently elevated so that water sprayed onto hot DRI might evolve hydrogen. (The hot metallic surface of the DRI can catalytically dissociate the water.) With sufficient concentration of hydrogen and with a heat source (the burning DRI) available, of course the hydrogen will burn. This leads to a remarkable situation. Burning DRI has no flame, but if a light spray of water is added (light enough to avoid quenching the combustion) a flame develops!


Also one incident where rusting iron ore caused a ship to explode and sink:
www.register-iri.com... 0Sinking%20of%20MV%20YTHAN%2004%20March%202004.pdf#search=iron

www.register-iri.com...
(its a microsoft word document so it opens to MS Word)

And as a finale, what happens when mixing sulfur with iron:
jchemed.chem.wisc.edu...

See I came to this conclusion and idea while doing some research. I gave you quite a list to read, so encourage you to look through it, and then get back to me later, and explain how this is no way possible.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Oops! almost forgot, one more article on safe handling of iron ore and DRI:

www.hbia.org...

Geeze, if iron ore was so safe then why all the precautions and safety measures from fire occuring from rusting iron????



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


sure general,
these are

"handling, maritime carriage, and storage of Hot Briquetted Iron (HBI) and high
moisture (up to 12 percent) Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) Fines. The guides are intended for use by ship
owners, operators, and charters, as well as anyone handling or storing HBI and DRI Fines."

www.hbia.org...

this is completely different situation that the 200,000 tons of steel in WTC 1 WTC 2 rubble piles.

you have done research on iron oxidation.

the steel in the rubble piles did not continue to heat up and increase in temp by themselves, they had help.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 



Originally posted by slugger9787
It had to have a tremendous source of energy to give most of the mass the level of heat experienced, as a method as well of bringing the buildings to their demise.

That tremendous source of energy is as yet an uninvestigated mystery.

The source of that temendous energy is what I am looking for.

I suspect the blatant CRATER which used to be builing six.

CNN broadcast the video of smoke rising up from building six at 904 am about sixty seconds after the south tower was hit. A powerful explosion inside WTC6 propelled smoke and debris 170 meters, 187 yards, 561 feet into the air.
...
The source of this crater is indubitably the same device that eliminated WTC 1&2


I keep looking back and seeing that people are still trying to convince themselves that friction or trapped, heated metal caused the molten steel magma under the towers. I'm glad to see that you're still fighting hard to get the nuke option considered seriously as IMO it is the only option.

The only point that I'd like to take you up on is this idea that the crater in WTC 6 was from the same device that eliminated WTC 1&2. There is sufficient evidence to support multiple nuke detonations and argue against one nuke causing all of the damage.

Have you noticed that there's also a tendency to view the "dust" as just pulverized concrete when the presence of iron spheres clearly indicates pulverized steel as well. (The dust will also have contained pulverized humans, office equipment and various other building materials.) I know that Steven Jones has explained the iron spheres as evidence of nano-thermite which is a convenient distraction once you realise that nano-thermite is just a red herring. The iron sphere's tend to get thrown out with the thermite instead of standing on their own.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


So there was no oxidation going on in the pile? Really?



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


there ae no particulate miniscule metals confined to air tight holds with a moisture content of 12%.

was there oxidation going on in the pile at wtc.

yes close example is that which goes on after a train wrect or a fifty car pile up on interstate.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I think it is also very importantly worth noting that if there was oxidation of the iron, then amounts of thermite would be found, because thermite happens to be a chemical reaction between aluminum and rust. This actually could potentially discount all the thermite arguments for controlled demolition AND explain some of the heat.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I can agree to let it satisfy your curiosity and the esteemed generals to satisfaction.

It does not come close to satisfying my questions.

of course if the metal was oxidizing it produces thermite and that would accoult for the heat.

do you know how difficult it is to ignite thermite?



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


John, from day one when I watched the towers fall, I had flashbacks to Nov. 23, 1963.

I never believe the OS, do not believe the OS, and am beginning to understand that there are people who want opposition to OS to shut up.

The nineteen hijackers are Lee H. Oswald.
The NIST, 911 investigations are a mirror of Warren Report.
The airplanes are to 911 as exhibit CE399 is to the Kennedy assassination.

The rifle LEE used was a noisy distraction to the real weapons which killed Kennedy
The planes on 911 are the distraction to what really destroyed WTC and 3000 people.

The minute particles of iron in the dust would be evidence of sublimating steel.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


I don't really follow you. First you say "What heat the building brought with it to the ground should have and would have dissipated and transferred itself to the surrounding unheated substances." and then that some sort of device heated up the building so that they collapsed? But, if that heat was dissipated after collapse, that would not be a good explanation. Unless the device remained active weeks (months?) after collapse. For what purpose?



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


There is no eidence to support "nuke detonations." There was no shock wave, EM pulse, gamma, x-rays, light, residual radiation, or any other effects related to nuclear weapons.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join