Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

page: 32
86
<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
This is ridiculous ! It is not like the same guy getting struck by lightning twice in a day. There were two planned attacks.

You are assuming that the logical reaction of high rises struck by airplanes is to collapse. Thus, two planned attacks, two skyscrapers collapsing. Now THAT is ridiculous.

A one time in a million anomaly occurring once is possible. Twice, on the same day? Choreographed.




posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jambatrumpetChoreographed.


By the terrorist. DUH...



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by jambatrumpetChoreographed.


By the terrorist. DUH...

If you are implying that the 'terrorists' planted the charges causing the controlled demolitions...well, I guess that is a possibility...

If you are implying the 'terrorists' choreographed the collapse of two high rises by flying airplanes into them...well, that is just ridiculous...

Your complete argument is that, because airplanes started the fires, the buildings themselves acted differently than any high rise has ever behaved before. Twice, in a very short period of time.

I cannot believe I hear the phrase:

'ya, but nobody flew airplanes into buildings before!'

As the justification to discount what we all witnessed on 911: A classic controlled demolition of three buildings.

I am constantly amazed at people's willingness to believe the 'exception', the 'leap of faith', over the obvious...

Anybody who claims the 'logical' conclusion of airplanes flying into skyscrapers, is to cause them to collapse into their own footprint, is simply speaking fiction.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


Actually, to be more politically correct, the towers were not designed like every other high rise, the World Trade Center 7 was even built on an older foundation, the planes didn't JUST start fires (in fact causing a great deal of structural problems... something about load bearing and heat problems... you know, I even saw a video of the collapse that showed the initial collapse area SPRING backward, as if the steel had been bending it and it snapped backward when it broke. Weird, huh?), the terrorists to the best of my knowledge did fly planes into the towers, and the collapses were hardly traditional. Only World Trade Center 7 only appears on first glance to be a traditional demolition, and that is only if the collapse is limited to the failing of the exoskeleton of the building.

I think I covered all my bases there. Varemia out!



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I think I covered all my bases there. Varemia out!

I love it how you guys 'pat yourselves on the back' after presenting ones opinion....

Damage at the top third of a building will not cause complete, simultaneous failure of the bottom two thirds..

But, you have been presented with all the facts before...so there is no reason to argue...

You have already decided to believe a fairy tale over reality...enjoy your fiction!!!



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


I can tell you have virtually no idea of the way the WTC Towers were built. Because if you had some sense of understanding, or knowledge of it, you wouldnt be making such a comment.

The tube-in-tube design of the WTC with light steel trusses for floors is the reason why the top 1/3 managed to destroy the bottom 2/3s. It pretty much telescoped in and there was nothing to top the moving mass of the top section towards the bottom. The floors (ie the light steel truss supported section) was not designed for large dynamic vertical movements.

okbmd put it best in his comment to you a few days ago:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 11/6/2010 by GenRadek because: added post



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by okbmd
 

...
This thread has veered off course anyhow, and I'd like to re-address the original issue. It is known from eyewitness reports and imagery of dripping metal that something was molten in the debris pile. According to what I've heard and read, it was located mostly in the basement many weeks after the event. Given enough time, fires will do this (I'd think). It's difficult to find information on it because when I do a google search ALL it brings up is 9/11 and it gets ridiculous. I've tried exclusionary searches and there are no comparative sites about how unfought underground debris fires get. Now, this isn't saying it's necessarily steel that is melting, because there are a lot of other metals, but it definitely supports, say, softened steel underground, and maybe red hot.


Varemia,

Is it too late for you to get a refund on your college fees because you're apparently wasting yours and the institution's time. I've noticed that over time your debunk arguments are diminishing to the level of most of the other regular debunkers but I couldn't help laughing at your conclusion that given enough time, fires will result in a molten pool in the basement.

It might be a bit of a stretch but from the lack of comparative information about how hot underground debris fires get, you might conclude that the possibility of an underground pool of molten anything is pretty unlikely!

There is a nice reference to molten concrete but that was in connection with Chernobyl. Certainly that's only coincidental as we know that there were no nuclear explosions involved on 9/11.



Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia
The smoldering graphite, fuel and other material above, at more than 1200 °C, started to burn through the reactor floor and mixed with molten concrete that had lined the reactor, creating corium, a radioactive semi-liquid material comparable to lava.


Underground coal fires apparently can get quite hot but I've yet to find any reference to any molten materials being found in connection with them and yet one fire has possibly been burning for 6000 years in Australia's Burning Mountain.


Coal seam fire - Wikipedia
Extinguishing underground coal fires, which sometimes exceed temperatures of 540°C (1,000°F), is both highly dangerous and very expensive.


In several documents that I read dealing with fires in basements, there was no mention of melted or molten anything which implies that they're not considered significant hazards in these situations. As an example, here's one such [url=http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/381213.pdf]_/url].

But never mind what I think. If you're right and the top 1/3rd of the building did destroy the bottom 2/3rds and then, in it's final act of defiance against the laws of physics, destroyed itself, it would have generated tremendous heat that could easily have melted any metals in the basement. It makes perfect sense. Why are we even having this discussion?



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


I can tell you have virtually no idea of the way the WTC Towers were built. Because if you had some sense of understanding, or knowledge of it, you wouldnt be making such a comment.

The tube-in-tube design of the WTC with light steel trusses for floors is the reason why the top 1/3 managed to destroy the bottom 2/3s. It pretty much telescoped in and there was nothing to top the moving mass of the top section towards the bottom. The floors (ie the light steel truss supported section) was not designed for large dynamic vertical movements.

okbmd put it best in his comment to you a few days ago:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Nice one, GenRadek!

That's quite a magician's trick to telescope in on itself and then, poof, disappear into nothing! Whether it's a pancake or a telescope, you should still have a pile of floors on top of each other. You should have flattened desks, computers, people, elevator cars, etc. Did they also telescope into themselves and then disappear?

Why do the ground zero photo's not show this compacted building ready to be dismantled and carted off?

It's pure fantasy and I suspect that you're well aware of the fact.
edit on 6-11-2010 by JohnJasper because: Mis-spelled username



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


I note that you and others like to speak of the "laws of physics" being violated but you never detail how the collapses violate such laws. There is handwaving based on generalities and feelings that things didn't happen the way some people expected them to but no actual calculation showing the inconsistencies.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Oh but there was! Plenty of it. Perhaps you missed the demolition and construction workers who were there that said they saw floors compressed down into sizes a fraction of the original size. Perhaps this one picture will help you see out of the haze created by the TM:



Even the "meteorite" is four floors compressed:




posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


I'm sure it's of little importance, but I'm not going to college to study building collapse dynamics or engineering. I'm studying Anthropology. History buff, you know?

Now, one thing specifically about your post bothered me. It was your use of the term "pool" of molten whatever you have desired. I never said I thought there was a pool of molten metal, and I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever to support it. There were reports of dripping metal and flowing metal, but not pools of it. Many of the metals contained within the tower debris had a low enough melting point to do that with underground fires. I remember reading a survivor's story of how the broken gas lines were creating rolling fireballs underground in the rubble. That's just a small explanation for a lot of the initial hotspots from thermal imagery.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


I'm sure it's of little importance, but I'm not going to college to study building collapse dynamics or engineering. I'm studying Anthropology. History buff, you know?

Now, one thing specifically about your post bothered me. It was your use of the term "pool" of molten whatever you have desired. I never said I thought there was a pool of molten metal, and I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever to support it. There were reports of dripping metal and flowing metal, but not pools of it. Many of the metals contained within the tower debris had a low enough melting point to do that with underground fires. I remember reading a survivor's story of how the broken gas lines were creating rolling fireballs underground in the rubble. That's just a small explanation for a lot of the initial hotspots from thermal imagery.


Call it a pool or a puddle, the OP's first link states "At ground zero, steel was still found in liquid form weeks after 9/11." Certainly you can forgive me for assuming that liquid steel would collect into a puddle or larger whenever it reached the lowest point.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Oh but there was! Plenty of it. Perhaps you missed the demolition and construction workers who were there that said they saw floors compressed down into sizes a fraction of the original size. Perhaps this one picture will help you see out of the haze created by the TM:



Even the "meteorite" is four floors compressed:



Perhaps you missed the ironworker talking about not finding desks, phones, computers, any office equipment (starts at 1:25) (Yes, I did notice that you side-stepped this little point!)


Check out this video which clearly shows the lack of a telescoped or pancaked building. (starting at 0:16)


And although the meteorite may be made up of parts of four floors compressed, it certainly doesn't account for 110 compressed floors plus all the contents!



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
"Oh but there was! Plenty of it. Perhaps you missed the demolition and construction workers who were there that said they saw floors compressed down into sizes a fraction of the original size. Perhaps this one picture will help you see out of the haze created by the TM:"

Can you explain why Building 7, a 47 story building, appeared in photos to have a higher rubble pile than the two Towers combined (220 stories)? Since, according to the official fairy tale spinners, all three buildings collapsed in a pancake manner, how can two buildings which are five times larger in height, NOT have a much higher rubble pile than the smaller Building 7?

Can you explain how 500 miles of steel magically compressed itself into a fraction of its original size? What was that steel made from, marshmallow candy? Where did the numerous and massive elevators go? Where did the pipes and electrical wiring go? What happened to the tens thousands of computers, desks, chairs, filing cabinets, lighting, vents, machinery, etc.? Just the contents of the two towers alone should have created a rubble pile much higher than what we saw.

The only haze here is being created by the treasonous perps who pulled off this deception and the morally corrupt individuals who are doing a rather lousy job of attempting to turn this fable into reality. Sorry for not drinking the Kool Aid and converting, but not everyone believes the redundantly offensive garbage they see and hear on TV.

When you are arrogant enough to continue insulting people's intelligence, sooner or later, it will probably end up backfiring on you.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


I note that you and others like to speak of the "laws of physics" being violated but you never detail how the collapses violate such laws. There is handwaving based on generalities and feelings that things didn't happen the way some people expected them to but no actual calculation showing the inconsistencies.


I'm sure that I wouldn't be able to explain the violations sufficiently to satisfy you but I have supplied references in the past to support this point.. I submit this one technical document as a token reference and will leave others to do the higher maths. The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis (journalof911studies.com).



As the figures and graphs above clearly show, any impulsive load would have required a high
deceleration, which would have shown itself very prominently in the velocity curve derived from
the measured data. The fact that no such negative change exists in the roof’s actual velocity
curve reveals that no major interruption or significant abrupt deceleration, and therefore no
amplified load, could have occurred during the fall of the upper block. How can this be? If RB-
12+ fell with a jolt on the rest of the building after a 12 foot drop (one story), the deceleration, as
shown above, would have revealed itself clearly, and if RB-12+ fell more than one story, the
deceleration would have been even more dramatic. If RB-12+ fell 72 feet—all the way through
the six damaged stories—we would see powerful evidence of a jolt during the measured 114.4
foot fall of the roof. It would be dramatic precisely because the velocity and therefore the
momentum would be high, and any change more discernable. But there is no evidence of major
impact and deceleration either early or late.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

I note that you and others like to speak of the "laws of physics" being violated but you never detail how the collapses violate such laws. There is handwaving based on generalities and feelings that things didn't happen the way some people expected them to but no actual calculation showing the inconsistencies.

I am quite sure, especially in the case of WTC7, that the collapse violates basic physics. Freefall acceleration is acceleration of an object acted on only by force of gravity. WTC7 collapsed at pure freefall for around 8-10 floors and the only way for that to happen is if all the structural components are removed on each floor simultaneously ahead of the collapse wave. Of course, after freefall was admitted NIST went straight back to the drawing board and claimed the inside of WTC7 had collapsed before the façade by a good 8 seconds, apparently, NIST must have some sort of technology that grants them retroactive x-ray-vision because they knew precisely what was happening inside WTC7 and show us it with nice, fancy-looking computer simulations (which inconveniently bares no resemblance to the collapse). I don't find NIST's theory particularly convincing, not just because it flies in the face of physics and common sense, but because they don't really have any evidence to back up their claims, just computer models and pen and paper calculations which do not comprise of real evidence.
edit on 6-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Actually you can physically see in videos of the WTC 7 collapse that the penthouse caves in seconds before the building begins to fall. Inner collapse + damage to the facade = collapse as-seen-on-TV

Do some research and discover that things are not cut-and-dry like truthers want you to believe.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
What i find astonishing is that the official investigation didn't search for explosives because, they claim, that the idea was absurd and a waste of time to entertain even.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by tortillawraps
 


Well, think about it. A man is shot, bleeds internally and externally for an hour, then dies after falling down an elevator shaft, all on national television. Do investigators search for a poison and something that pushed him down the elevator shaft, or do they search for the bullets and go after the person who shot him? (don't take the metaphor too far. It is just to put things into perspective a little bit.)



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by tortillawraps
 



Originally posted by tortillawraps
What i find astonishing is that the official investigation didn't search for explosives because, they claim, that the idea was absurd and a waste of time to entertain even.


It's not so astonishing when you realise that this MO of "non-investigation" has been used for centuries going back at least to the assassination of Abe Lincoln. Then there was the non-investigation of the Lindbergh baby murder.

Everywhere you look you find non-justice at work such as this air crash non-investigation that I ran across while researching the Contras:


December 12, 1985: Plane Crash in Canada Kills 256; Evidence Suggests Links to Iran-Contra and BCCI Covert Operations
On December 12, 1985, shortly after takeoff from Gander, Newfoundland, Arrow Air Flight 1285 stalls and crashes about half a mile from the runway. All 256 passengers and crew on board are killed, including 248 US soldiers. The plane was coming from Egypt and refueling in Newfoundland before continuing on to the US. At the time, the crash is widely reported to be an accident, caused by icing on the airplane wings. Official US and Canadian investigations will also support that conclusion. However, information will later come out suggesting the crash was not an accident:
-- Members of Islamic Jihad, a branch of the Hezbollah militant group (and not to be confused with the Islamic Jihad group headed by Ayman al-Zawahiri), immediately take credit for the crash. In one call to the Reuters news agency in Beirut, the caller knows details of the plane flight not yet mentioned in the press.

(non-investigation - JJ)
-- Within hours of the crash, Maj. Gen. John Crosby arrives at the crash site and reportedly tells maintenance workers he wants to “bulldoze over the crash site immediately.” The White House also quickly publicly claims there is “no evidence of sabotage or an explosion in flight,” despite the fact that Hezbollah had just taken credit for the crash and the investigation is just beginning. While the site is not bulldozed, there is no effort to meticulously sift the wreckage for clues, which is standard procedure for such air crashes.
-- An FBI forensic team flies to Newfoundland within hours of the crash, but then merely sits in a hotel room. After 36 hours, the team accepts a declaration that terrorism was not involved and returns home. The FBI will later claim the Canadian government did not allow their team to visit the site. [Time, 4/27/1992]

-- In 1988, the nine-member Canadian Aviation Safety Board will issue a split verdict. Five members will attribute the crash to ice formation, and four members claim it was an explosion. A former Canadian supreme court justice is appointed to decide if there should be a new investigation. He concludes that the available evidence does not support ice on the wings as being a cause, let alone a probable cause, of the crash. But he also rules against a new investigation, saying it would cause more pain to the victims’ families. [Time, 4/27/1992; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 12/12/2005]
-- Later declassified autopsy reports show that soldiers had inhaled smoke in the moments before they died, indicating there had been a fire on board before the plane hit the ground. [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 12/12/2005]
-- Five witnesses in the remote location where the plane crash will sign sworn statements that they saw the plane burning before it fell.
-- An examination of the fuselage will show outward holes, indicating an explosion from within.
-- Four members of the refueling crew will later assert there was no icing problem before the plane took off. The plane crashed about one minute after take off.
-- Six heavy crates had been loaded into the plane’s cargo bay in Egypt without military customs clearance. Witnesses will later claim that weapons, including TOW antitank missiles, were being stockpiled in Egypt near where the plane took off. At the time, the US was secretly selling these types of missiles to Iran as part of an arms for hostages deal.
-- In the wake of public exposure of the Iran-Contra Affair, it will be revealed that Arrow Air is a CIA front company and was regularly used by Lt. Col. Oliver North to ship arms.
-- Most of the crash victims were US Airborne troops returning from multinational peacekeeping duties in Egypt, but more than 20 Special Forces personnel were also on board. They were from elite counterterrorist units often used on hostage rescue missions...


The story goes on and is pretty interesting reading! The main point here is that despite all the evidence pointing to pre-crash fire, TPTB were determined to write this off as being caused by ice on the wings right from the start.

Keep looking and these situations will jump out at you at almost every turn.





top topics
 
86
<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant