fire not hot enough to melt steel at wtc ? here's proof

Again, your still talking about a conventional nuclear weapon.

I understand a nuclear device emits radiation & EMP however what if there is such a thing as a hybrid nuke? What if it uses a different type of technology to produce the same physical damage as a nuke?

Maybe as you say, if such a weapon exists, its not then nuclear its conventional, so be it. As with a neutron bomb, a weapon that kills any living thing but doesnt destroy physical buildings, could the reverse of that exist in the form of a weapon? I dont know but I cant say for sure it does or doesnt exist. But one would have to say its 'possible'.

Originally posted by bsbray11
A case could be built for each of those but I would bet anything that you would contest each one for petty and illogical reasons, saying "this doesn't mean that", which is a lame argument because it could easily go either way even if you offered alternatives that made any sense, and yet rather than be on the fence, you would still firmly state the case to have been impossible and/or mock and laugh at the idea. Why? I bet you think we're still in the 1960's as far as nuke tech goes. And I bet you think if we weren't, you would know about it, as if someone has an obligation to keep you informed of classified weapons developments.

You mean like the "truth movement" does?

I KNOW we're not in the 1960s as far as nuclear weapons tech goes, and I know that there are things out there that I know nothing about, and are classified. But since the 1940s, until the 1980s nuclear weapons were built in largely the same way, and had the exact same effects. In 40 years about the only differences were yield, and electronics size. Other than that the cores were built the same, the materials to build the cores were the same, and most of the DESIGNS were the same. Now suddenly after having no nuclear tests for 20 years, and having independent verification of our nuclear stockpile by the Russians, we've come up with some radical new design of nuclear weapon that has NO radiation, and NO EMP? Oh right, covert military explosives.

Show me the radiation poisonings from ground zero, and I don't mean cancer months later. Show me the EMP that trashed electronics all around Ground Zero, and I'll admit that you have a case for a mini nuke. You haven't, and all I ever hear is "covert military explosives" and "the military can do anything with what they have."

I don't have an alternative to your mini nuke theory because I don't know enough about buildings to explain something, but I do know weapons, and I have studied nuclear weapons. You don't just suddenly come up with some radical new weapon after decades of not even testing the ones you have designed already.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Because until the 757/767 EVERY plane that flew had DU counterweights. In fact most people STILL think that the 757/767 have DU in them. Even though it's been shown that they don't. And I'm talking about people that know aviation, not just every day people.

But Boeing stopped using DU in the later models of the 747 just because of possible radiation problems in an accident.

Originally posted by Griff
Good point. But, who were these people and what were their qualifications? Just asking so we know the whole story of who the government had "declare" these things. Like the "air is safe" declaration that the EPA was forced to make.

From: "Dr. H. D. Sharma"
[Physicist]
It does not matter whether the planes that hit the World-Trade Towers and the Pentagon have DU or not as long as DU does not catch fire. If DU catches fire -- most likely it will just like in the case of the El-Al plane that caught fire outside Amsterdam (Netherland), it will form aerosols of uranium dioxide. Inhalation of the aerosols can be harmful to human health depending on the quantity inhaled.

Also found this note.

PS
there are rumours the walls of the Pentagon are made radiation-proof with reinforced concrete mixed with depleted uranium particles to keep the radiation out in case of a nuclear attack/accident.




[edit on 7-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

That's why I said every plane UNTIL the 757/767. Meaning that until they came along DU was used. However many people didn't realize that the 757/767 used Tungsten instead of DU.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I know that there are things out there that I know nothing about, and are classified. But since the 1940s, until the 1980s nuclear weapons were built in largely the same way,

"Largely" makes absolutely no difference here.

You might as well say "none of them would work because most of them probably wouldn't."

Show me the radiation poisonings from ground zero, and I don't mean cancer months later. Show me the EMP that trashed electronics all around Ground Zero, and I'll admit that you have a case for a mini nuke.

What do you consider "a case"? A possibility, or 100% hardcore proof?

I don't 100% believe a mini-nuke was used myself, why should I convince you of that?

The fact remains that untouched cars were set afire a block away. Now let me think. What does that? I say a burst of electrons frying the circuitry most certainly could. Whay says you? An arsonist? Consider the amount of electrons necessary (relatively small to any EMPs produced by 1960's nukes, I bet we would agree on that). Also consider what "soaks up" electrons in such an environment, thus providing shielding. There was nothing in the way but air between the height of the North Tower and the said parking lot. What a convenient coincidence for my proposition.

And once again, there have been no studies on Ground Zero sickness, which is most certainly not simply "cancer months later", as you misleadingly put it.

I don't have an alternative to your mini nuke theory because I don't know enough about buildings to explain something, but I do know weapons, and I have studied nuclear weapons.

Why do people give themselves so much credit? You just finished saying this, which is MUCH closer to the truth of the matter:

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I know that there are things out there that I know nothing about, and are classified.

Sam Cohen says we have pure fusion, for Christ's sake. Tell me how much you have on old Sam Cohen. When's the last time you developed the neutron bomb?

I'm not saying the man's opinion is fact, but Jesus, if you want to talk about knowing your nukes...

[edit on 7-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Vinadetta
I have no idea how you can believe this and still support the offical story?

"If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."

Okay okay, so the paychecks only go to the few actually charged with "proving" the official story, but let's be serious, money talks.

Also, believers are paid in piece of mind. Just click your heels together and repeat after me. "The government loves me."

Okay, bad jokes aside, NO ONE has addressed the molten steel pouring out of the building in the video on the first page.

Originally posted by Vinadetta
Show me the radiation poisonings from ground zero, and I don't mean cancer months later. Show me the EMP that trashed electronics all around Ground Zero, and I'll admit that you have a case for a mini nuke. You haven't, and all I ever hear is "covert military explosives" and "the military can do anything with what they have."

Please stop gunning down the straw men.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That's why I said every plane UNTIL the 757/767. Meaning that until they came along DU was used. However many people didn't realize that the 757/767 used Tungsten instead of DU.

Boeing began using tungsten counterweights in 1984, so its been a while. And as stated it would only take a quick 30 second search to find the 757 and 767 does not use DU.

I realize this, and I'm not saying they didn't use Tungsten in the 757/767, but most people didn't bother to look to see what they used, because they ASSUMED that it was DU, because they've been using it for awhile prior to that.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I realize this, and I'm not saying they didn't use Tungsten in the 757/767, but most people didn't bother to look to see what they used, because they ASSUMED that it was DU, because they've been using it for awhile prior to that.

But if someone wanted to make a important professioanl judgement about radiation i think they would try to find out what was on the planes so they would know what they were dealing with.

But then again as unprofessional as some of the other agencies were acting that day i guess it could pass as professional not to do any research before making a critical health decision.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
Okay, bad jokes aside, NO ONE has addressed the molten steel pouring out of the building in the video on the first page.

Bingo.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

Originally posted by Vinadetta
Show me the radiation poisonings from ground zero, and I don't mean cancer months later. Show me the EMP that trashed electronics all around Ground Zero, and I'll admit that you have a case for a mini nuke. You haven't, and all I ever hear is "covert military explosives" and "the military can do anything with what they have."

Please stop gunning down the straw men.

It seems like it is almost done to distract us. Eh?

From NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11th World Trade Center Disaster - FAQ

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

I would respectfully suggest that everyone interested in this subject read the above document, you may find a lot of your "unanswered" questions have in fact already been dealt with in the official report.

For more on the question of the flowing material seen exiting Tower 2, the following link should be extremely helpful:

Molten Metal

A number of interesting points from the above link:

One of the glaringly OBVIOUS pieces of evidence is the place the flow is coming from. It just happens to be where the airliner crashed to a halt. You can tell by the way the perimeter columns look. They're bowed out like a catcher's mitt

...

The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

...

Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.

"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said.

...

NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4
Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.

...

Close up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit

...

The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.
Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.

I have only provided a few snippets from the source. Please read the full article above for a very thorough attempt at analysing the original question regarding the molten material.

Cheers,
Zep

The bit about molten aluminum + organics = orange glowing is completely wrong.

Not only did Prof. Jones melt aluminum with organics thrown in and scientifically show that the above doesn't happen, but to even suggest that it could happen shows a complete ignorance of why metals glow in the first place. Organics would have NOTHING to do with it.

Here is Jones' experiment, though, if you want to see what molten aluminum + burning organics actually looks like:

911review.com...


It's amazing what people will believe unquestioningly when the right source says it.

Right back at ya, bsbray... right back at ya.

I did specifically ask that the whole article be read at the link I posted above and there was a reason for that. I had already seen the link you posted and guessed someone may post it as a contra argument.

For one thing, the "experiment" conducted by Jones (not a source I have an ounce of confidence in I might add - his "work" has been shown to be fundamentally flawed) is absolutely not relevant to the events in question on 911 and only tries to deal with a specific sentence in the NIST report. It would also be nice to see the results of his experiment via the two links he has on the page. Alas, they no longer work...

Anyway, back on to what may be the cause for the flowing material at Tower 2. From the link I posted in my previous post but not quoted above, written by mechanical engineer Stephen D. Chastain (emphasis added):

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

I know which sources I will place my trust in thank you very much

Cheers,
Zep

Not read the rest of the posts since page 1 but I think if a plane damaged the structure it already will weaken the building, heat rises too and the impact would probably have taken off any surface protection off too.
I have to go against some conspiracies in order to think it through again, I don't really believe bombs were the cause they could have fallen them selves, even if 30 floors fell that is enough weight for the build up of weight to come crashing in. You guys know more stories of course as i have stopped thinking about it.

Hasn't it been shown that thermate was used??? It is the only thing that could get close enough to melting steel like that. It is dripping out of the tower.

Originally posted by Zep Tepi

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions.
[...]
The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow.

Is he assuming foundry temperatures and pressures were present? Just curious, because it looks like he's suggesting that heat melted all of these things together (says glass in a "plastic" state would be "likely entrained" into the aluminum -- what temperatures would this require?) and glass doesn't melt until 1700C. Maybe this is why he says "coals of whatever trash" would be necessary, because that heat is unlikely.

This reminds me of HowardRoark saying the sulfidated steel was the result of drywall burning next to the steel, when sulfidation itself requires temperatures well beyond the range of office fires.

molten aluminium is silver not red-yellow
so theres no way that the molten materials seen coming out of the WTC's were aluminium.
there is such a compound that can melt steel almost instantly,
not sure if anyone already said this, but THERMITE, is fully capable of doing this.

thermite and RDX cutting explosives are widely used for controlled and precise demolitions

funny how the WTC's fell so perfectly, i thought they were gonna fall over and squish some other buildings

Thanks for the info Zep. I have seen this before about the molten aluminum, but need to look over what you have there.

One question I have is that I don't think that is the corner of the building where the plane came to rest as they describe. It was the corner that the second plane hit nearest to, wasn't it? That was where the collapse first started.

I will have to look into it later. At work now.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Hasn't it been shown that thermate was used???

Nope. Ridiculous theories that do not stand up to scrutiny have been presented, but that's to be expected in this out-of-control field of 911 "Research".

Cheers,
Zep

Originally posted by bsbray11
Is he assuming foundry temperatures and pressures were present?

I find this a very odd question to ask, the context of what he is saying can clearly be seen in the rest of that paragraph: (Emphasis added)

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum.

Originally posted by bsbray11
This reminds me of HowardRoark saying the sulfidated steel was the result of drywall burning next to the steel, when sulfidation itself requires temperatures well beyond the range of office fires.

Hmm, introducing strawmen now to try and support your view?
I take it you haven't read the massive amount of information available that clearly shows this occurred as a result of the steel cutting process employed in the recovery/cleanup operation?

I apologize if my tone offends by the way, I'm just sick and tired of the abject nonsense and bs that is constantly presented by the supporters of these ridiculous theories.

Let's take the mindblowing thermite claim as an example:
Where is that molten material flowing from? Examine the location not too closely and you will see it is right near where a huge feaking fuel-laden Boeing 767 slammed into the tower at over 500 miles an hour. The proponents of the thermite theory claim that it was used to cut through the steel in order to bring down the towers. Again, examine the location where that material is flowing from then tell me how in the blue blazes any kind of thermite device could have survived being so close to that impact zone. Next tell me how thermite can be used to cut metal horizontally! I sense another wild claim about to hit...

The majority of the leading people who are promoting this bs are doing it simply because they have an agenda to push. They are not interested in finding out the truth of what happened on that terrible day and anyone who thinks they are are being extremely naive. The really sad thing about it all is how many people are willing to simply follow what they say without doing any independent research or simple fact checking along the way.

People are being deceived alright!

Cheers,
Zep