FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7

reply to post by gottago



well, in reading my original post (again) i can see where you would have had room to interpret what i said the way you did.

let me assure you that while i can see where it could have been seen as a backhanded slap to the ENTIRE truth movment that was not my intent.

there are those of you within "the movment" that i honestly have genuine respect for despite the fact i disagree with many of you on many points.

the one area i DO agree with strongly is that the government is not telling us everything but where i imagine i DISagree is their motives for that. (so i guess in the broadest of senses im also a "truther" lol)

thats a discussion for another thread another time.

so thank you for explaining your position and please accept my apology for any insult on my part.

also please accept my apology for the tone of my last post, i should have taken a while to respond and i should have contacted you via u2u before posting. id say i was frazzled as well but since im always frazzled adn dont tend to post that way, i really have no excuse i would care to share in public.

hope everyone had a happy holiday.

Originally posted by MikeVet
that when the fires moved to that particular steel, the drywall would be oxidized by the fire and the residue deposited onto the steel to give Jones the impression that thermite/ate was used.

Does that make sense?

Yes, if you can supply the needed reproducible scientific data to back this up.

Also, I'm not talking about Steven Jones here. This is from a FEMA report.

reply to post by Griff


Back what up?

I was agreeing with you that it could have come from the gypsum.

Originally posted by MikeVet
Back what up?

I was agreeing with you that it could have come from the gypsum.

Proof that gypsum can sulfidate and evaporate steel like that.

Everything in science (except for 9/11....go figure) has to be reproduced in order for a theory to become more than just a theory.

I could say that the steel melting could have been from Allah, but without scientific and reproducible proof of that theory, that's all it is.

See what I mean?

The point is: No one has tested the theory of gypsum doing that (not even NIST). I would think this would be a very important issue for the engineers and architects out there that have to spec gypsum, don't you think?

[edit on 1/4/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Proof that gypsum can sulfidate and evaporate steel like that.

The point is: No one has tested the theory of gypsum doing that (not even NIST). I would think this would be a very important issue for the engineers and architects out there that have to spec gypsum, don't you think?

I do not have a theory about how the steel got sulfidated, etc.

But you seem to have a theory that steel was evaporated. Care to back that up?

Sulphur in the WTC debris:

forums.randi.org...

It turns out that the gypsum sheetrock in the WTC (which was obviously used in massive quantities) is pure hydrous calcium disulfate

Originally posted by MikeVet
But you seem to have a theory that steel was evaporated. Care to back that up?

My bad in saying evaporated. The correct term is corroded. Corrosion is more of a chemical process where evaporation is more of a heating something into vapor.

reply to post by buddhasystem


And this is new information?

I want proven scientific analysis that shows that gypsum heated next to and onto steel can have this effect on the steel.

Not just someone's Hypothesis as to how it happened.

See where NIST would come into play here?

Originally posted by Griff
I want proven scientific analysis that shows that gypsum heated next to and onto steel can have this effect on the steel.

And I want to be driving a chocolate Rolls Royce in a company of two or three supermodels. Just a reality check.

There was basic chemistry presented at the link I posted. Read it.

What I'm getting at here is that IF gypsum does this to steel in fires, we would know about it by now and not be using gypsum board to build buildings and use gypsum board as fire retarders.

Fire testing of drywall assemblies for the purpose of expanding national catalogues, such as the National Building Code of Canada, Germany's Part 4 of DIN4102 and its British cousin BS476, are a matter of routine research and development work in more than one nation and can be sponsored jointly by national authorities and representatives of the drywall industry.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, if drywall sulfidated and corroded steel, wouldn't these national authorities of the drywall industry be telling us that it does? Especially since drywall has been used for quite some years now and has been tested to see its fire rating? Meaning that if it had the property of doing this to steel, it wouldn't be used anymore.

That would be like building your house out of straw or sticks instead of brick when you know that a big bad wolf (fire) can blow your house down (sulfidate and corrode steel).

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There was basic chemistry presented at the link I posted. Read it.

Stoichiometric equations are all well and good. Where's the proof? I.E. where is the testing to verify that this sulfidation and melting of the steel came from gypsum?

BTW, this thread was NOT started to discuss the sulfidation causes, but to stop the arguement that there was NOT melted steel in the rubble piles.

Even if the gypsum DID melt the steel, the steel still melted.

Since drywall was used during initial construction, any assertions drywall melted steel were put to rest in 1975. That is when WTC 1 had a fire, which started on the 11th floor, and worked its way through walls and into the center core through 6 floors (9 to 14).

The fire fighters described it as a blowtorch type fire. It took at least three hours to confine and extinguish it. Upon examination of the center core and all supporting steel, there was no compromising of steel in any way.

That building stood for over 30 years later, through a bomb in the parking garage in 1993, and winds that could rage 100 or more mph on a highly consistent basis.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And I want to be driving a chocolate Rolls Royce in a company of two or three supermodels.

Is that what a proof of this is comparable to?

You know, someone from NIST once suggested in a short press release that the molten metal running out of the corner of WTC2 was molten aluminum with burning hydrocarbons mixed in. Molten aluminum is silvery in almost all conditions (save the very dark with very high ambient temperatures). And you know what burning hydrocarbons (like wood chips, some plastics) look like.

Turns out, when you mix them, they still look the same as they do individually, except mixed together. This was actually physically tested, video-recorded, and put on the internet by Dr. Steven Jones. And if you look up the relevant scientific theory, regarding black body radiation and the photons emitted from heated metals, you'll find that there is nothing to suggest that adding hydrocarbons to molten aluminum will make a consistent orange/yellow/white substance.

It was an awfully simple explanation, but it was not tested, and it was WRONG.

A real scientist/engineer does not sit and tell you what will happen in any given scenario, when there is no testing or precedent AT ALL to back what they say. They may have some slight intuition or a guess, but they can't sit there as a supreme scientific authority and tell you what is or isn't and expect anyone else to take their word for it. Not even Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein could do that (and turns out even both of them made simple mistakes in some of their work just from being uninformed). It's arrogance. You need to test this stuff, or accept the fact that it is invalid as any reliable explanation until it IS tested. Simply saying that it is so, is not the scientific method. It's a very human fallibility.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
A real scientist/engineer does not sit and tell you what will happen in any given scenario, when there is no testing or precedent AT ALL to back what they say.

Unless we're talking about 9/11 and this "huge unprecedented occurance". Which nothing that happened that day is unprecedented really.

We've had plane crashes (even into buildings). We've had steel skyscrapers on fire. We've had gypsum fire tested with steel.

NOTHING that day is unprecedented. Unless you start talking about a CD scenario.

reply to post by Griff


Would you say that only the cause and effect as reported by "official" reports was unprecedented in the recorded history of the principles and laws of science and chemistry?

reply to post by Griff


I only addressed the issue of the sulphur present in samples of steel taken from the WTC debris, and it apparently is to your satisfaction. I did not address the issues as to why steel melted. Since I don't have a model for it, I won't bore you with my theories that some amount of steel could be molten due to the energy released in the catastrophic collapse, but let me quote a few numbers:

you divide the energy (4*10e10) which is the approximate potential energy release, by heat of fusion for iron, 13.81 kJ/mol, and claculate the mass that could be molten under ideal conditions.

It is apprximately 10 tons of molten steel right there.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Would you say that only the cause and effect as reported by "official" reports was unprecedented in the recorded history of the principles and laws of science and chemistry?

What I'm saying is that the sum of all these causes and effects may be unprecedented, but the parts that make up the "whole" have been known for decades.

The only unprecedented thing that happened on 9/11 is someone flew a jumbo jet deliberately into a steel skyscraper. Everything else should have been able to be explained by science.

Why can't we explain it almost 7 years later?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It is apprximately 10 tons of molten steel right there.

Then why do all debunkers claim no molten steel period? If it's so easy to come up with the answer (friction, gypsum, etc.), why do all debunkers claim "there's no proof that any steel melted"?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It is apprximately 10 tons of molten steel right there.

Then why do all debunkers claim no molten steel period? If it's so easy to come up with the answer (friction, gypsum, etc.), why do all debunkers claim "there's no proof that any steel melted"?

Maybe they found no sufficient evidence that the steel, while hot, was indeed melted. Who knows. My calculation based on a completely conventional premise of energy conservation establishes that at least there is a possibility of steel melting, but it doesn't guarantee that it did.

reply to post by Griff


I came up with at least four applicable answers for why all the confusion almost 7 years later.

1. The way the "official" reports describe cause to effect completely suspend the laws and principles of physical science.

2. 99.9% of all evidence was ordered hauled off by the Bush adminstration via FEMA, and recycled in India and China. That done prior to any forensic investigation by the FBI and any independent experts in their fields. I found it far too coincidental that FEMA just happened to roll into NYC on 9/10/2001, for "anti-terrorist" war games scheduled for 9/11/2001. A series of same type games involved using commercial jetlines and crashing them into tall buildings.

3. Most people are not familiar with how to practically apply the priniciples and laws of physical science they learned in either elementary school and/or high school and/or university/college.

4. When people cannot practically apply science, they normally tend to buy into anything anyone calls science, when it is nothing but pseudo-science.

All of the above had no choice but to lead to general, massive confusion concerning all that took place. People capable of practically applying science and logic vs. those who can or do not know how always leads to massive confusion and discord among people. While people are fighting among themselves, those in power are doing exactly what they wish with no oversight.