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: 9
86
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
If not I think both the truthers and debunkers can share a conclusion that the molten iron phenomenon is genuine and indeed needs re-investigated.


At any rate, if they continue to deny the molten steel/iron, they are in disagreement with the very "story" they are trying to defend.




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by etcorngods
 


I am guilty of playing devils advocate lately on these threads. But my intentions are good and only to express the errors in our ways. I know egotistical of me. I still feel we have way more then enough evidence to discuss that is legitimate and creditable, without resorting to speculations and web image observations.

I was grasping purely to show that something was there to grasp.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
reply to post by etcorngods
 


I am guilty of playing devils advocate lately on these threads. But my intentions are good and only to express the errors in our ways. I know egotistical of me. I still feel we have way more then enough evidence to discuss that is legitimate and creditable, without resorting to speculations and web image observations.

I was grasping purely to show that something was there to grasp.


I have no Idea what you said. I presentad a well researched conclusion about 911. You guys have been going around for 9 years and haven't solved anything. Look at my solution -- it is the only one that is true. Perhaps hard to take. It is the same God that wipes out island with hurricanes and floods.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Ciphor
If not I think both the truthers and debunkers can share a conclusion that the molten iron phenomenon is genuine and indeed needs re-investigated.


At any rate, if they continue to deny the molten steel/iron, they are in disagreement with the very "story" they are trying to defend.


I think anyone with half a brain can read the read FEMA document. Unfortunately more then half a brain is required to admit you are wrong and move on.

I don't want to say "stubborn like an ox" because that would be a gross understatement

What I don't get Bsbray is how they can source FEMA's initial investigation on one topic as creditable, then dismiss it all together in another. Is that double think on some level? I think it might be.

I don't know about you guys but I am yet to see one person in the last 2 threads bring up one piece of creditable information to dispute the facts that we have presented. The only thing I have seen is word manipulation and sheer denial even.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by etcorngods
 


I was replying to comments of grasping that you commented on as well. My apologies for confusion. I agreed with a lot of what you said.


I'd never tell someone to try and dismiss spirituality with science. They are Yin to Yang and eternally opposite of each other.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
reply to post by etcorngods
 


I was replying to comments of grasping that you commented on as well. My apologies for confusion. I agreed with a lot of what you said.


I'd never tell someone to try and dismiss spirituality with science. They are Yin to Yang and eternally opposite of each other.


Not true -- everything falls under "GOD/UFO/ET/Alien". Hang around me and you will find out.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
I think anyone with half a brain can read the read FEMA document. Unfortunately more then half a brain is required to admit you are wrong and move on.

I don't want to say "stubborn like an ox" because that would be a gross understatement


Agreed...


What I don't get Bsbray is how they can source FEMA's initial investigation on one topic as creditable, then dismiss it all together in another. Is that double think on some level? I think it might be.


Right. Well like I told someone else on another thread, I can take a report and agree with one thing in it and disagree with another as long as I have good reason in either case. Appendix C is fairly straightforward inasmuch as they are simply describing something they were totally unable to explain.

In other parts of the FEMA report, they introduce what would later become NIST's theory, except they contradictorily show both buckling inwards and bowing outwards as viable mechanisms, which suggests to me that they couldn't find enough evidence to favor one over the other, so it must not have been too damned obvious as many like to claim the "buckling" was.

Here they are suggesting both motions, inward and outward, at the same time:




Totally contradictory motions eh? Yet they apparently couldn't find any more evidence for one than the other.



I don't know about you guys but I am yet to see one person in the last 2 threads bring up one piece of creditable information to dispute the facts that we have presented. The only thing I have seen is word manipulation and sheer denial even.


From here until justice is served that's probably all there will be, and a lot of kicking and screaming and dragging of feet.

Nuremberg, here we come.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by etcorngods
It is the same God that wipes out island with hurricanes and floods.


On one level I agree with you but at the same time you know we have sciences that deal with the formation of hurricanes and floods such that we can monitor them and predict what they will do with a certain degree of accuracy. You can't say "God" hasn't set up discernible patterns in this universe, not least of which the actions of men who are themselves truly to blame for this destruction.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I don't know of anything that we would expect in an office tower OTHER than molten steel that has that characteristic "red to yellow" hue. At it's hottest it can become white.
You seem to have some grasp of the color properties of heated metals so I'm not sure why you refer to a "red to yellow" hue as a sign of molten steel, it's a sign of HOT steel. See the source I posted on page 1 for a chart of steel temperature versus color, the steel starts glowing red far below the melting temperature.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Molten steel has a much brighter color closer to the white you mention, like this photo of molten steel from the WTC:

www.illinoisphoto.com...


Workers from the Amite foundry pour molten steel recycled from the World Trade Center, into the mold of the bow stem of the Amphibious Transport Dock ship USS New York (LPD 21).


Notice also that when it's molten, it's molten, it runs and doesn't have solid shapes like we see in some of the photos. When we see molten red stuff pouring out of the building, it's probably something other than steel since steel isn't molten at a red color temperature according to the color chart I posted.

Also maybe burning jet fuel in the open doesn't get hot enough to melt steel, but underground coal fires get hot enough to melt steel, and there was a lot more than jet fuel burning underground, like paper, wooden desks, etc which could burn at the same temperatures as coal. So finding molten steel underground wouldn't really surprise me, though I still haven't seen any evidence of molten steel, just witness statements about molten metal that wasn't tested to find out what kind of metal it was.

www.abc.net.au...


Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams, Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, in northeastern New South Wales. The burning coal seam extends from the main coalfields of the Hunter Valley.

The fire burns 30 metres underground, moving at the slow rate of one metre south every year. The lack of oxygen underground means the fire burns slowly, and with 6 km of burnt area, the fire is estimated to be about 5,500 years old.

The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.


So even though I haven't seen any molten steel, why should I be surprised if I did? 1700 degrees C is more than hot enough to melt steel and if that's the temperature of an underground coal fire, why couldn't the underground fire at the WTC get just as hot?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You reference coal. Coal has properties few other materials do in it's ability to burn long and hot. Since coal was definitely not present at ground zero, can you elaborate on this more as to which materials in ground zero would react in the manner coal does? Assuming complete combustion of the anthracite coal, 4770 deg. F to 4910 deg. F, can you please provide something that is equal or close to this as it is the bases of your entire argument. Paper, wood desks etc DO NOT burn over 2000+ deg F. That is foolish. You support your initial claims on metal color when heated, I appreciate that. Can you please follow suit and provide evidence for this claim as well.

Otherwise I don't really get your point... No coal was found in ground zero and to my knowledge, no coal like substances were found either. Sulfur and oxidization is the only real possibility and it has been proven that sulfur alone does not suffice.

Also you said

though I still haven't seen any evidence of molten steel, just witness statements about molten metal that wasn't tested to find out what kind of metal it was.


First, are you implying that hundreds of eye witness are not creditable as sources? Not only are they witnesses, they are FIRE FIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS. Highly creditable in establishment eyes. Crap dude! There are a LOT of people locked up in prison wrongfully because of eye witnesses, we better hurry up and pardon them before people find out eyewitness accounts are not evidence in the court of law!!!11!!! lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Where is your logic for this? Do you even have any?

Again, and again, and probably 400 times more, the FEMA initial reports show examples of the severely melted steel and collected samples of molten Iron. How can you say it wasn't tested to find out what type of metal it is when it states this VERY CLEARLY. Are you in denial much? Or always only researching the first half of your post and make up the second part?


Figure C-7 illustrates the deep penetration of the liquid into the steel's structure. In order to identify the chemical composition of the eurectic, a qualitative chemical evaluation was done using energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX) of the eutectic reaction products. Figure C-8 illustrates the results of the analysis


-From the FEMA document

www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...

Big block of linkage. NO ONE should post about this till they read it ya? Ya....






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




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I think you should have read a little more about the coal used to melt steel vs other coals before you leaped into this one head first.

www.readinganthracite.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

5 minutes of online research dismisses this as an absolutely absurd comparison.

I also couldn't find one article stating any wood can exceed the temperature of 1400 deg. F. Even when insulted it is just not possible. Probably why office fires are understood to only burn at their hottest, 1400... Think that is coincidence?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


" Do any of you debunkers have anything, anything AT ALL to debunk the presence of molten metals ... "

I'm still not convinced this was indeed molten steel . The photo of the firefighters peering over into a pit of "molten steel" seems ludicrous , to say the least . Show me just ONE photo of mill workers displaying the same fortitude and careless disregard by placing themselves that close to a blast furnace or a vat of molten steel .

Also , I was up until 4am this morning , searching for a source that would validate the "molten steel" being excavated by the clamshell . I searched dozens of websites and several files I have stored . I actually viewed around 300 pictures of the cleanup at ground zero .

I found ZERO matches for this photo , and I have some pretty good images stored , that I've not even seen posted here on ATS . My search was diligent and I came up with nothing that matched this photo . And this was looking through files and sites that included the clam shells in better than 95% of the photos . I found that to be very curious .

Maybe someone could be kind enough to post the ORIGINAL source for that photo ?

My search also showed that at least 99% of the columns at ground zero broke along the welds , none having shown any signs of a cutter charge or other form of cut .

After my thorough search , I can say in all honesty that I saw NO photos or images that even remotely resembled molten material .

So , where is the original source for these images to be found ? Please note , I said ORIGINAL source .



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



True lol. this post was purely me getting bent out of shape.


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



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


S&F


This is a wonderful thread airspoon. Thank you for posting it!


@ bsbray11
You are doing a great job in here!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by samhouston1886
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Do you ever wonder if they are going to use the truth about 9/11 to "crash" America?
Dont get me wrong, I want answers, we deserve them, I am seeing the truth get out a little more each day.

Given the fact that same people still run the show, I am very suspicious of all of the press 9/11 truth has been getting.


9/11/01 and all that happened was designed to crash America -
IMO, I think 9/11/01 was a giant heist. Guiliani said that millions in gold and silver were missing from the WTC. So IMO it was all an inside job.
Rumsfeld was about to announce a huge DoD shortfall of money and was going to launch an investigation until 9/11/01.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Why do you feel the need to respond with such hostility and bad manners when I am remaining civil ?

I have posted legitimate sources and have asked valid questions .

What causes you to feel like you need to "rip me a new one" ?

Throughout this thread , you have called for logic and civility and now you resort to this type of response . Why ?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Oh geeze where do I start. There is so much wrong here I guess the first sentence...


Originally posted by okbmd
The photo of the firefighters peering over into a pit of "molten steel" seems ludicrous , to say the least . Show me just ONE photo of mill workers displaying the same fortitude and careless disregard by placing themselves that close to a blast furnace or a vat of molten steel .


How about you figure out first why the hell you are asking me this when I stated many times over and over that web based image evidence is a horrible choice of debate for truthers. Dude half this thread I have been saying web based images are not real evidence and should be dismissed Where have you been? Short term memory loss maybe? Quote... from me... on page 7... addressing the exact image you are asking me to support when I stated I don't.


Originally posted by Ciphor

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
The "molten steel" image is a fake:

Fake:





Original:





notice how the firefighters are in the exact same positions.


EXACTLY why using images off the web as evidence is such a horrible idea.



Originally posted by okbmd
I'm still not convinced this was indeed molten steel


So if an expert working for fema performing chemical analysis on the molten metal, and identifying it as just that does not convince you, then please. So that I know just what I need to provide, can you tell me what it will take to convince you? MY APOLOGIES for assuming you were a normal logic thinking person. I should have assumed you are not and figured out something else.


Originally posted by okbmd
My search also showed that at least 99% of the columns at ground zero broke along the welds , none having shown any signs of a cutter charge or other form of cut .


Dude. Why did you decide to address me with this? Read my freaking posts man, this is annoying. Quote... from me... page 5


Originally posted by Ciphor
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.


Everything else you posted was about photos. EVERYthing else. Are photos all you can accept? You think these threads are coloring books that need no words just pictures for easy processing? I have done nothing but repeat tirelessly that photos are a terrible choice of evidence when they are received from the web. Who knows who posted/edited them.

Let me make this clear. I DO NOT SUPPORT 1 IMAGE FROM SEPT 11th AS EVIDENCE FOR THE MOLTEN IRON. I SUPPORT THIS CLAIM BASED ON THE EXPERT RESULTS POSTED HERE --> www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...

got it? Everyone got that link?

www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...
www.fema.gov...

Can we move on with the understanding that this is the evidence that we are asking you to challenge?

www.fema.gov...

Ok?

www.fema.gov...

You read it this time?

www.fema.gov...

I can just keep posting it, but you guys keep ignoring it and going back to photos.

I can be equally kind and harsh. Do your research, even a little.. then talk to me. DO NOT COME AT ME WITH BULL. I will get upset. You wont like me when I'm angry, I'm much more pleasant when you read before you write.





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



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DaWhiz
 


Rumsfeld had already announced on Sep 10th, that $2.3 trillion (with a "t") USD was "unnaccounted" for in the Pentagon budget. Please don't mistake this for the black budget, as that is something entirely different. Furthermore, CBS ran a piece about how 25% of the entire Pentagon budget goes missing on an ongoing basis. Considering that the US has a bigger military budget than all other countries of the planet combined, this is a lot of money that is in effect, "disappearing". More money goes missing at the Pentagon every day, than most countries spend on their entire defences in a year.

It sure is awfuly convenient that he announced this money on the 10th of September and after the attacks, it was pretty much excused and forgotten.

--airspoon

p.s. run a google search on the missing money and a CBS source should top the list. That's the CBS piece I'm talking about.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


" There are a LOT of people locked up in prison wrongfully because of eye witnesses, we better hurry up and pardon them before people find out eyewitness accounts are not evidence in the court of law!!!11!!! lol. "

You are correct , there are indeed a lot of people who have been incarcerated wrongfully due to eyewitness testimony that was accepted as evidence in courts of law .

PROVING that not all eyewitness testimony is accurate and valid .

Self-defeat is a real bummer , is it not ?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


When steel is heated it expands.

When it reaches a certain temperature it softens and begins loses its load bearing capability. If it has and has a load on it, it will bow.

Whats so hard to understand about that?




top topics



 
86
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join