Why was ground zero so hot for so long?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
whatreallyhappened.com...

Why was ground zero so hot for such a long time. What could have caused that?




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
whatreallyhappened.com...

Why was ground zero so hot for such a long time. What could have caused that?


Perhaps it was the burning aviation fuel that caused it




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Gee I don’t know Reagan. I came to this thread to learn and all I seen was a one lined sentence from you asking us. Why don’t you enlighten us to the subject?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by Cassius666
whatreallyhappened.com...

Why was ground zero so hot for such a long time. What could have caused that?


Perhaps it was the burning aviation fuel that caused it



Well what does the NIST report say?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


and furthermore why were there pockets of molten metal in buildings where no burning jet fuel was ever present?


kix

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The high temps recorded and the long time and water it took to extinghish the fires of the WTC, cannot be from the jet fuel or fires.

Like 7 years Ago someone said that a High energy weapon was used to vaporize the metal and the underliying structure of the WTC, hence the complete obliteration of the buildings and cars and objects melted in adjacent blocks.

I was at Ground Zero last Nov 6, and its incredible that they are not constructing in the same place, the new building is right to the side towards Broadway.

The original poster said that nothing could be built there because there were remanants of the weapon used.

I dont know if its true because quite frankly its sounds totally wacko, but after seeing with my own eyes, I guess there should be some truth to this far feched theory...



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


i read an interesting article that went intot he chemistry of how aluminum reacts with materials used in the WTC buildings. it was in someones signature so hopefully they will post on here. basically it went into extreme detail of how aluminum can react high temps while in contact with certain materials that were found in the WTC. the article showed how aluminum can react with water under the right circumstances to actually seperate the hydrogen and oxygen from the water that was in the rubble pile which prolonged the smoldering.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
My theory is Gravity caused the smoldering. An incredible amount of mass was forced in to an impossibly small area (the rubble pile should have been much higher).

So, this caused a singularity in the middle of the rubble pile which released an incredible amount of heat as it disposed of the evidence.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Burning debris aka office furnishings from 2 110 story buildings . It smouldered for 3 months until December

Fuel was composed of office furniture along with thousands of tons of office paper. Was very dangerous when
cranes moved pieces of steel out of way fresh air would hit smouldering fire and would burst into flames

Temperatures were measured at some 1700F

The fire had many simularities to a mine fire which can burn underground for years.
Witness Centralia Pennsylvania where coal seam under town been burning since 1962! Got so hot and toxic
fumes began seeping into homes that town was abandoned



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You all do realize that there was a lot more to that fire then simply jet fuel, correct?
You had severed underground gas lines all over the area, shorting out underground high power lines, the buildings had boilers that would have exploded, you had materials that had been exposed to high amounts of friction and energy released through heat, etc…

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 11/17/2010 by defcon5 because: tagging error



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
So gravity just magically worked differently this time than it has ANY OTHER TIME? really?

what caused it to be so hot was the MOLTEN STEEL that POOLED throughout the wreckage and was STILL MOLTEN A WEEK OR TWO LATER ...

Now these VERIFIED POOLS of MOLTEN STEEL in a rubble pile that supposedly NEVER HAD ANY FIRE HOT ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING BUT WEAKEN STEEL ... well NIST just IGNORED THEM because it would be DAMN HARD TO EXPLAIN THEM with the storyline they are trying to say happened.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Bottom line is OS people REFUSE to even acknowledge the POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL.

so if you are looking to get an answer from them... well you won't.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by roguetechie
So gravity just magically worked differently this time than it has ANY OTHER TIME? really?

what caused it to be so hot was the MOLTEN STEEL that POOLED throughout the wreckage and was STILL MOLTEN A WEEK OR TWO LATER ...

Now these VERIFIED POOLS of MOLTEN STEEL in a rubble pile that supposedly NEVER HAD ANY FIRE HOT ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING BUT WEAKEN STEEL ... well NIST just IGNORED THEM because it would be DAMN HARD TO EXPLAIN THEM with the storyline they are trying to say happened.



I am pretty sure he was just being sarcastic. No need to be hostile me thinks, if OS people want to believe in UFOs and bigfoot and the OS and wear their tinfoil hat, let them. It aint like they make your taxes or something.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by roguetechie
Bottom line is OS people REFUSE to even acknowledge the POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL.

so if you are looking to get an answer from them... well you won't.


Agreed.

Another point is OS followers always say when you point out that jet fuel can't melt steel is "It didn't melt it, the jet fuel burns hot enough to weaken it though."

Well let me ask you.. If jet fuel burns hot enough to structurally weaken steel.. Then how are they able to burn it in a jet engine, which burns the fuel at it's most efficient possible air-fuel ratio, IE it's hottest potential.. Why isn't a jet engine structurally compromised every time it is run?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
That may be true defcon, but for me the question is did it set a precedent, or was it yet another one of 9/11's "never seen before...never seen afterwards" coincidences??

All buildings have gas lines running under them, yet Ive never seen an accident site being doused with water months after the fact....

No....I dont believe this was a normal occurance....and clearly a cover-up....and I sense your clutching at straws with comments like "friction from materials etc"....
edit on 17-11-2010 by benoni because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Burning debris aka office furnishings from 2 110 story buildings . It smouldered for 3 months until December

Fuel was composed of office furniture along with thousands of tons of office paper. Was very dangerous when
cranes moved pieces of steel out of way fresh air would hit smouldering fire and would burst into flames

Temperatures were measured at some 1700F

The fire had many simularities to a mine fire which can burn underground for years.
Witness Centralia Pennsylvania where coal seam under town been burning since 1962! Got so hot and toxic
fumes began seeping into homes that town was abandoned


Its utterly amazing that thedman would even post something so ridiculous. How could anyone not see how absolutely ridiculous this sounds? Was this an "official" explanation?


Oh well, not any more ridiculous than this official explanation I guess.
edit on 11/18/2010 by budaruskie because: get out my bidness



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Yes, of course, now I get it! A combination of office furniture (anybody see anything that resembled office furniture in that rubble?), paper (most of the paper shown in videos had not caught fire) and the clincher, Centralia PA, explain why there was an enormous amount of heat coming from the rubble several months after the attacks.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Burning debris aka office furnishings from 2 110 story buildings . It smouldered for 3 months until December

Fuel was composed of office furniture along with thousands of tons of office paper. Was very dangerous when
cranes moved pieces of steel out of way fresh air would hit smouldering fire and would burst into flames

Temperatures were measured at some 1700F

The fire had many simularities to a mine fire which can burn underground for years.
Witness Centralia Pennsylvania where coal seam under town been burning since 1962! Got so hot and toxic
fumes began seeping into homes that town was abandoned


Its utterly amazing that thedman would even post something so ridiculous. How could anyone not see how absolutely ridiculous this sounds? Was this an "official" explanation?


Oh well, not any more ridiculous than this official explanation I guess.
edit on 11/18/2010 by budaruskie because: get out my bidness


Heat signatures showed the temperature to be that high. But its easier to call everyone else ridiculous. At an rate, pulling out red hot steele out of the rubble months after the attack is more than sufficient to boil your coffee.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Hundreds of thousands of tons of flammable material buried in the remains of the building. Why is that such a mystery? Are you not familiar with fire?





top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join