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

page: 5
86
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Couple corrections

No molten steel was found. Only molten Iron, this is important as the higher temperature alloys and carbon were removed indicating a very high temperature. Saying it is molten steel is like calling a puddle of water molten ice. It's water now and has undergone a change. That is Iron and no longer steel, it under went a change.

The stream of liquid coming out of the side of the building is debatable. It is possible it is aluminium. The argument that aluminium does not glow bright is one of strong ignorance as it definitely does, it can get as bright as any molten metal, and is almost white when near boiling temperatures.

You link a well known piece of disinformation and I don't know why. That beam sticking out of the ground with a perfect slant cut is from the rescue workers getting things out of the way so they could save people. Images of the other end of those beams being hauled away to their home town are all over the web, very little research is needed to debunk that image. You can even see the "snap" point of the cut on the beam. Like when you cut a tree you don't cut it 100%. You cut it 95% and gravity finishes the work for you. Look at the image. This way your not still cutting when it comes down.

I am on your side, trust me I am. We need another investigation, everyone knows it even if they deny it. They are playing devils advocate is all. But you should have done your homework. You give open platform to being disproved by linking things without doing proper research. The proof is in the pudding. Look at what everyone has focused on now? Do you see one debate about the fact the temperature of the fire was not hot enough to reduce the steel to molten iron? Even one person debating that? Nope. I see reply after reply debating the things that are rightfully debatable. Images without research.

You did not need all that extra "evidence". The facts do the job all by themselves and need no further assistance.

The temperature requirements and eye witness testimonies stating it was seen for a week+ at ground zero is more then enough.

Same problem different day eh. People on the side of good defeating themselves by playing into enticing disinformation. You meant well, I commend you for that.

edit on 17-9-2010 by Ciphor because: Why do I have to explain my edit?




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Gaderel
I do note that your temperature curves are based on underground fires... you dont get alot of airflow in one of those.


Subways.


The subways were sealed off after the WTC collapses for obvious reasons. They covered very little total area and weren't very deep underground in the first place, only within the first couple levels beneath the lobby. They were also flooded with water and filled with debris.

I appreciate the imagination but you haven't put much thought into this.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
The stream of liquid coming out of the side of the building is debatable. It is possible it is aluminium.


I honestly think lead is a better excuse than aluminum. Aluminum doesn't glow bright orange that like in broad daylight, at those temperatures. Molten aluminum still appears silvery where exposed to cool air, and gives off much less light energy when heated than steel and other metals. There are many examples of this online if you look up molten aluminum. The only time you'll see it glowing is in dark foundries where the surrounding air is warm.

If it was molten aluminum, it most definitely would have turned silvery as it began falling through the cool air in large droplets. It didn't.


The argument that aluminium does not glow bright is one of strong ignorance as it definitely does, it can get as bright as any molten metal, and is almost white when near boiling temperatures.


Only when you have it in a dark and warm environment. Just melting aluminum isn't going to produce what you're looking at, I promise. I've seen it many times myself, there are videos online of people melting it, Steven Jones melted it and poured it for comparison, etc.

If you think people are pulling you leg when they say it doesn't look the same then you really need to look into it further.

Let me put it another way.

Is this molten aluminum?



From this website: www.westcoastcastings.com...

The answer, of course, is "yes."

Now the second and more important question which I'll leave to you to answer:

Why does this aluminum appear silvery?

When you figure it out, you'll realize why the molten material falling through the air at the WTC could NOT have possibly been molten aluminum.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


airspoon ,

While I will be one of the first to admit that you have a knack for putting together some great threads , I still must disagree with you on your position in this one .

The photo of the firemen over the glowing hole has been satisfactorily debunked , IMO . The angled cuts have also been proven , many times over , to have been made by iron workers with torches .

The question you raise as to having safe access to make the cuts is explained by the fact that sky-lifts (cherry-pickers) were utilized in the cleanup process , to place the iron workers in the positions they needed to be to make the cuts .

As for firemen on the scene , there were firemen on the scene for several months , throughout the cleanup process .

These are facts , airspoon . These are not just claims I am making without anything to substantiate them .

Please take the time to peruse the following link in it's entirety , as it answers most , if not all , of the questions you raise in your last post .

There's a video in the link , where one of the foremen being interviewed , clearly states that his guys made those cuts . The camera pans in on the columns he is pointing at while making the statement . They are angle cuts , he is pointing at while stating that his guys made those cuts . That is pretty cut-and-dried .

Why would he lie about that ?

There is even a photo of an iron worker , in a sky-lift , making an angle cut .

If you disagree with the material in this link , I would sincerely like to know why .

Alex Jones has been proven to be a liar , time and time again . He has hurt the TM a hell of a lot more than he has helped it .

www.debunking911.com...

edit on 17-9-2010 by okbmd because: ETA link



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


So out of my entire post, thats the only thing you want to reply to? Im not even sure what your reply means, it being a one word sentence.

Fire weakens, compromises and eventually melts steel & iron given enough fuel, air and time. If it didn't, we wouldn't be covering it in insulation every time we erect a construction!!!

You don't need thermite, secret missiles or super explosives to explain the collapse.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


ahh friend =(

You should always look at both sides. If you close your mind to others arguments and dismiss them you miss an opportunity to learn.

I will be as humble as I can. First Periodic tables are easily available online. www.chemicalelements.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Aluminium has an extremely low melting temperature of 1200 in comparison to the other metals that melted in that building on that day. If office fires alone can reach 1400, then what does this tell you? In a normal office fire we can expect to see molten aluminium. With me so far? Now. We know because of the molten iron that temperatures were far exceeding aluminium's melting temperature of 1200.

What happens to aluminium when you pass it's base melting temperature and start to climb towards its boiling temperature?

If I am to try and understand your side of the debate, are you implying that the aluminium could only have reached it's base melting temperature and not have exceeded this?

To clarify my stance, I am not saying I believe it is aluminium. I am saying I believe it is some molten substance, that is all I can conclude from images alone. I was simply showing how this is a poor point for debate as it leaves open to much debate. You cannot prove anything with a image alone.

To clarify one last thing. This is by no means an expert explanation. This is horribly novice at best. Metals can vary so drastically depending on their make-up. To try and explain elements in such a simple manner is impossible.

College papers explain it better if you care to take the time and truly be educated on this subject mater.

ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw...

I'm fairly certain I could melt soda cans in my backyard, but would have a much harder time melting the aluminium from the side of the WTC buildings 1 and 2 in the same manner. Food for thought.

edit on 17-9-2010 by Ciphor because: Why do I have to explain my edit?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Before this goes any further stop all thought process and think about this.

My point is not to debate the points, it's to debate the choice in points.

This is a war patriots. A war on our minds. Hate to coin alex here because the guys a fear monger, but an information war is fitting.

Now riddle your head with this. If this is a war then it has weapons. What weapons are you bringing to the battlefield today? When I go to war I would bring only with me weapons that ensure my survival and have the best chance at defeating my opponents. Why then do we keep bring flimsy weapons that can be easily fought off when you have a stack of strong superior weapons available?

To put it in other words, why are you leaving the freshly cleaned M16 on the ground and picking up a rusted 6 shooter? Just toss that rusty 6 shooter aside, pick up your M16 and shoot them till they are dead. Don't think because your first 10 shots only wounded them that you need to switch weapons, stay the course. Your M16 will win in the long run vs their sword. And believe me friends, they only have swords vs your long ranged rifle, you will win the battle in time.

We spent our entire lives being trained to think the wrong way.

Never underestimate, your enemy or yourself =)

edit on 17-9-2010 by Ciphor because: Why do I have to explain my edit?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks



probably molten lead - that floor had the backup batteries


I have told you before,
molten lead is silver/grey colour

Molten steel is straw/yellow.

PEACE,
RK



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
Aluminium has an extremely low melting temperature of 1200 in comparison to the other metals that melted in that building on that day. If office fires alone can reach 1400, then what does this tell you? In a normal office fire we can expect to see molten aluminium. With me so far?


Right but it would just have melted, if at all, and would still appear silvery, because of fire.


What happens to aluminium when you pass it's base melting temperature and start to climb towards its boiling temperature?


Then you start reaching temperatures that would be absurd for a hydrocarbon fire and whether or not it was iron or aluminum would suddenly become irrelevant because it wouldn't have been the fires causing it either way.


So why do you think the aluminum posted above appears silvery?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Gaderel
 


Sorry. I totally agree with every thing you stated in your post. I was just pointing out the source of O2 to feed the fires after the collapse. If you take the aerial thermal image taken a few days after 911 and compare the hot spots to a map of the subway system its obvious.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


Do you have any evidence to support that lead does not glow bright when super heated?

education.jlab.org...

Not saying that is lead. Simply asking you to support your claims. Please understand that I fully understand that lead does not glow at its melting temperature. You can melt lead on a stove top.

I am more curious about leads characteristics when it is exceeding its boiling point. A boiling point which is immensely lower then steels. Again as above, are you implying it was not possible for lead to exceed these temperatures on this day in these buildings?

I looked for research papers on leads characteristics when super heated. Not an easy claim to support I'm afraid as super heating lead serves no industrial purposes, hence why there is a massive lack of information on the subject.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
For the OP: Great video and excellent points made. I personally chalk it all up to the magic fire that burned so hot that it can bring 2 massive steel structures crumbling to the ground like a house made of matchsticks, then jump across the street and bring down a third building, all while leaving the closer buildings still standing to some extent.

If someone could tell me where those clips come from with the first responders it would be greatly appreciated. I have been looking for the source and thus far have not had much luck.

As far as this thread goes I couldnt make it past page 2 with all the bickering and nonsense. When will some of you simply grow up? I seriously questioned the age of some of you posting in this thread, you literally sound like school kids. "Your a nutjob"- "What do you mean I am a nutjob?"

There are some OS Believers who are worth the time to debate. They will do some research and bring something to the table that is open for discussion, for those who do that, I say thank you. Then we have some others who really bring nothing to table for discussion and simply insult and act all sarcastic, while putting others down for having a different viewpoint. Im sorry but that is just childish. Some of you, on BOTH sides of the issue, really really need a grow up.

edit on 17-9-2010 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So why do you think the aluminum posted above appears silvery?


It's elementary my dear Watson. The image you linked is of aluminium that has only been brought to its base melting point of 1200. This is proved further by your picture as the man holding the pot is wearing nothing but a leather glove. If that was heated anywhere near, let's say 2000, he would need a lot more then a leather glove.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Then you start reaching temperatures that would be absurd for a hydrocarbon fire


Now here is a point I wouldn't even try and challenge. I think we both agree these temperatures far exceeded a hydrocarbon fire.




edit on 17-9-2010 by Ciphor because: Why do I have to explain my edit?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Ah i am with you now. When you consider heated materials would be blanketed in a nice insulating layer of concrete dust, I would be surprised if it WASNT still hot a few days after the collapse.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor

Originally posted by bsbray11

Then you start reaching temperatures that would be absurd for a hydrocarbon fire


Now here is a point I wouldn't even try and challenge. I think we both agree these temperatures far exceeded a hydrocarbon fire.


Then just to be clear, you agree this molten material wasn't caused by the fires? Because they were hydrocarbon fires. Those fires max out around 800 C in perfect conditions and flashover temperature (which is only brief combustion of gases, rather than the hydrocarbons, that collect near the ceiling from combusted materials) is around 1000 C or so. And those aren't the temperatures the metal would have been, because the metal is always heated to a temperature less than the actual temperature of the fires. That's thermodynamics for you.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Let me give you another analogy.

If plastic retains color when melted, let's say blue plastic. Then yes when you melt it it is blue. Now if you take that plastic and put it in a 2500 degree fire, do you think at these high temperatures it will char black or remain blue? This same principle can be applied to our debate.

You are using the color of aluminium (or lead) at its minimum melting temperature in a debate where you have already admitted the heat had to have been far greater. This defeats itself.

You have already answered this question: What color is aluminium when it is melted?

You need to answer this: What color can aluminium turn if you continue to heat it past being melted?

When you have answered this question, this debate can move forward.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
You are using the color of aluminium (or lead) at its minimum melting temperature in a debate where you have already admitted the heat had to have been far greater. This defeats itself.


No, to be clear, I said if it were aluminum it would have had to have been heated to a ridiculous temperature to glow so brightly in broad daylight, at which point honestly it probably would have been a brighter color anyway. The heat was obviously far greater than what the fires could account for.


You have already answered this question: What color is aluminium when it is melted?

You need to answer this: What color can aluminium turn if you continue to heat it past being melted?

When you have answered this question, this debate can move forward.


Aluminum can glow white and even evaporate at the right temperatures, but what I'm telling you is that those fires would not have caused this. Agreed?

edit on 17-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I'm going to throw a real spanner in the works...

Pictures Prove Mini Nukes Caused 9-11 Devastation
www.henrymakow.com...

A picture paints a thousand words - I urge everyone to take a look at these - let the debunking begin..


PS: Not trying to derail the thread but...



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   


Aluminum.





Lead



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Ciphor

Originally posted by bsbray11

Then you start reaching temperatures that would be absurd for a hydrocarbon fire


Now here is a point I wouldn't even try and challenge. I think we both agree these temperatures far exceeded a hydrocarbon fire.


Then just to be clear, you agree this molten material wasn't caused by the fires? Because they were hydrocarbon fires. Those fires max out around 800 C in perfect conditions and flashover temperature (which is only brief combustion of gases, rather than the hydrocarbons, that collect near the ceiling from combusted materials) is around 1000 C or so. And those aren't the temperatures the metal would have been, because the metal is always heated to a temperature less than the actual temperature of the fires. That's thermodynamics for you.


I'm no more an expert then you. I could only guess. The only thing I can tell you for certain is you have an image there of a molten substance pouring out of the side of WTC. The image tells us nothing further, and anything beyond that is purely speculation. I would rather avoid it, and agree that another investigation (by experts) is needed.

If it was this simple people would not be attending 4+ year colleges. These things simply cannot be answered by googling alone.

I did not pick up this debate to debate the merits of the claims that are being made. I picked it up to show that it is a poor choice for a weapon in this debate when there are better weapons available.

I am on your side. I'm simply asking you to throw that away and pick up another, stronger weapon.

You must see how people always pick up the debatable items and never touch the ones that can't be debated. If for one thread, we ignored all these speculations and stuck to purely the hard facts, it would last 3 pages tops.





top topics
 
86
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join