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: 19
86
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I believe that there was hot material in about ten floors of WTC1.

I believe that that quantity of heat was woefully insufficient to produce the heat in the rubble pile.

I believe the buildings were demolished with 3-4? gen thermonuclear devices.

I believe those devices upon detnation superheated the steel in WTC1.

Some of the steel evaporated immediately, the rest being super hot sublimated while under the pile of rubble
.
So the fires caused by kerosene, office equipment did not cause the demolition of WTC1.

These thermonuclear devices were used on WTC6 and 2 as well.

I do not have to think about oxidizing steel, sulfur, and other things to heat up the steel in WTC1.

Thermonuclear device did that fine to about 6-8,000 degees F.

This instantaneous heating explains the complete pulverization of any matter which contained water (human, concrete, wall board, wood) and that is why paper was left unburned as it has no water content.

I blieve that the (shaped charges) devices were aimed upward from the basement and this is what registered on the seisomograph records at about 2.2-2.5.

I see striking similarities in Oklahoma City, and Bali to name a couple others.

Hope this clears it up for you.




posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


ye I know pterdine,
except radios and cell phones quit working.
seisomograph records found spikes in their readings.
the radiation would be very short in duration.
my contention is the device was detonated in nearly the center of the center support columns, which for all practical purposes in like being about 1000 feet underground.

I already went round with you in the past.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Why would anyone in his right mind who wanted to pull off 911 use nukes? Untested for demolition and so very likely causing side effects that gives it all away. Who is even capable of predicting the exact effect nukes will have in such a situation?

This theory is way too far fetched, and doest even explain the molten metal.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


plb, Why would anyone in their right mind
do something like 911?

I did not research the budget for nuclear weapons/research and the like.

Why dont you and hen get back to me? okay?

research and testing has been gong into nuclear for over half a century.

btw Controlled Demolitions has the patent for using nuclear devices to demolish buildings.

operation plow share.

there has been enough testing of nuclear to 1. reduce radiation signature. 2. make them smaller.
3. weaponive them .

It is the most plausible explaination for the results of the destruction of WTC that i have been exposed to so far.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Detonating a nuke underground wouldn't explain the collapse starting at the top of WTC #1 and 2. The void space from an underground detonation would be obvious as would the shock waves, residual radiation, and all those other buildings that would have collapsed from it.
No chance of a nuke.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


you believe what you want to believe.
there are several nuclear professionals who conclude otherwise.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by pteridine
 


you believe what you want to believe.
there are several nuclear professionals who conclude otherwise.
Who? Got any names?

If so, please post some references/sources.

I guess every town must have an idiot and every profession must have at least one lunatic, but I really find this claim about nuclear professionals hard to believe so I'd appreciate it if you can back up your claim



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Rejecting something that has absolutely no evidence to back it up, and is even contradicted by existing evidence, is not a believe.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


I would like to note that the link you posted holds no evidence whatsoever. It is just a Russian man making claims and saying they're true. He doesn't do anything to back them up.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


okay varemia.
you started a post a short while back and in the post opening statement shard you were in college.

lets just stick with one fact, and wok on it.
There is molten steel in the pile of debris.
You say it came from metal melted by fires in the towers before they fell.
You say this molten metal then did not cool off, but instead grew in size and scope while lying on the ground under tons of debris.

I say there is molten metal in the towers.
I agree with you and if that is the only source of energy (heat) available then:
I say that this molten metal would have cooled off very rapidly lying on the ground with tons of debris on top of it.

How are we doing so far?

We differ in that you believe the molten metal continued to increase in temperature, over time, and even involved more of the metal.
I believe that when the steel hit the ground it was already totally heated by an undetermined source of energy (heat).

You counter that the gravity collapse would generate more heat.
I say it wont.

You say gravity threw 40 ton piece of steel 600 feet.
I say it wont.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I just found these two pages after doing research on how much molten material was present in the rubble of the towers:


This is a 2006 page that explains how thermite, and the molten everything got there, even explaining any explosions that might have been heard in relation to the collapse:
www.911myths.com...

This page is an article posted a couple months after 9/11 that explains why no molten steel was present in the towers due to fire, and a reason why the steel would fail anyway:
www.tms.org...


The page about the reactions molten aluminum has would actually explain away a lot more than one might think. The violent nature of the thermite would potentially launch debris much farther than normal forces would take it.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
okay thank you varemia.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I understand that in one tower there amounted to 60,000 pounds of aluminum.
I could agree that 20,000 pouunds or less was at the molten stage.
That is equal to 40 each five hundred pound automobile engines.

I would also agree that the reactions described were in fact happening while the tower stood.

Here is where we part ways unfortunately.

The tower collapses and literally spews, propels the matter and content of the tower in a very wide and dispersing type manner.

This will cause all these various and sundry reactions of aluminum on various objects to be completely disintegrated and so instantly cease to occur.

Then the mass and contents fall for fifteen seconds, giving the aluminum a opportunity to cool.

Once all remaining mass was upon the ground the possibility of the aluminum being contained in a concentrated small area, while present is overshadowed by the probability that that did not happen.

The aluminum melting is plausible, while continuing its reactions, after cooling during the fall and probably the majority of it coming into contact with relatively cold ground, does not seem possible or probable.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 

Where did you ever get the idea that terminal velocity of parts of a building is 125 mph???
Everything has a different terminal velocity. It can be computed by taking the square root of (2 times the mass of the object times the acceleration due to gravity, divided by the density of the air times projected area times the coefficient of drag of the object.) Terminal velocity for a skydiver close to the surface is about 125 mph, which may be what you're thinking of, but Joe Kittinger freefell at 614 mph. If you do the math, you'll find that's about the same v sub t for a steel beam falling longitudinally.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Actually, one of the key attributes of a thermite reaction involve smashing aluminum against rust. I'm pretty sure that the tower collapsing would be enough force for that to happen, which would then NOT allow those areas to cool down and severely increase the heat AS the tower falls.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


bull.
He free fell from what 60,000 feet where there is no air.
for all practical urposes free fall speed is 125 mph for the
height of manmade objects, especially this close to the surface of the earth.

if a steel beam from he towers fell at 600 mph, that means it was travelling at colse to 900 feet per second, which is about how tall the towers were.
does that compute for you?
me either
so an object falling from 1200 feet will accelerate to 187 fps and that is terminal velocity.
a bowling ball and a bb hit the ground at the same time from that height.
a connon ball fired horizontal to the top of the tower and a bb will hit the ground at the same time



edit on 28-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 

You know that's wrong, come on.
What is your source. Wikipedia references a test done by the military of a free falling 30-06 bullet, the speed one could expect it to achieve dropped from a high rise, with the understanding it takes some time to even approach free fall speed that bullet may not even get to 200 mph.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


with 60,000 pounds of aluminum cladding on the sides of each building in direct contact with the steel, which is primed and painted, by the way, usually red, you would be able to fantasize that thermite reactions had been slowly occurring the entire time the buildings stood could you not.

the steel was painted which prevnts oxidation of the steel, do you not think?




edit on 28-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: spell do you not think?



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Varemia
 


with 60,000 pounds of aluminum cladding on the sides of each building in direct contact with the steel, which is primed and painted, by the way, usually red, you would be able to fantasize that thermite reactions had been slowly occurring the entire time the buildings stood could you not.

the steel was painted which prevnts oxidation of the steel, do you not think?




edit on 28-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: spell do you not think?



That's a duh statement. The reactions occurred because maybe a plane hit the building, started fires, and caused a physical collapse? A thermite reaction occurs when enough kinetic energy is present. I happen to remember "from high school physics" that heat is kinetic energy. Enough of it, and with a lot of protective cladding taken off upon impact, I can definitely see thermite happening.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join