FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

I know at least person on this forum who cannot tell the difference between the process of evaporation and that of molecular dissociation, and who also claims that O2 is split into two atoms of oxygen upon entering human body during normal breathing. Have you by chance encountered this extremely ignorant person on these threads?

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

Indeed -- as your behavior so amply demonstrates.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I know of at least one poster who has trouble staying on topic. And, instead, is consistently driven to engage in red herrings and ad hominem comments. What are your legitimate points of argument wihile staying on topic?

reply to post by OrionStars


Wait a sec, I was addressing the points you made in your own post one by one, and you are saying I'm staying off topic? If this is the case, your post was off-topic itself, to begin with... So do you or do you not know the person who presented such outlandish, false and ignorant claims about physics and chemistry, all the while claiming to possess adequate education on the subject? Just let me know.

energetic reactions take the path of least resistance.
so, for friction to be responsible for melted steel(or comminution of concrete), the steel which is being rubbed must have no other way to release it's potential energy, ie. momentum transfer(bouncing), elastic deformation(bending).

i do believe the report said the steel was 'evaporated'.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Maybe they found no sufficient evidence that the steel, while hot, was indeed melted.

Have you read the FEMA report that this thread is about? Which states
molten steel? Not only states it, but has scientifically analysed it.

but it doesn't guarantee that it did.

See what I'm getting at here?

Even you are now claiming that "it doesn't guarantee that it did (melt)".

2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7.

From the OP FEMA report.

FEMA states CLEARLY that at least some steel melted.

Yet, read this thread and see how many debunk by saying that we don't know if the molten metal is steel or not. Or that we don't know for sure that the steel melted.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

p.s. What is it about molten steel that has you guys' panties in a bunch? To go so far as to deny its very existence?

[edit on 1/4/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 1/4/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
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?

Well, gypsum isn't the only sulfur source. Plastics, wood, carpeting, etc..... nearly everything there has sulfur present. SO2 would be produced at temps over 600C, with maximum occuring around 900C.

Aluminum and wallboard - but only if it's pulverised - also can have some interesting reactions that result in temps able to melt steel. Over 3000F.

NIST didn't test every conceivable avenue because by their methods, they ruled out the possibility of a CD, so there was no reason to test for thermite/ate, explosives, or anything unusual. I know that's not an answer you like, but it's what they did. BTW, your need for scientific proof, testing, etc, is also sorely lacking from scientists in the CT crowd also, so the gate can swing both ways there. They seem to rely on theories, using proof that you would NOT find acceptable from NIST.

NIST is not here to test every idea that comes down the pike from the CT crowd. Their job is to examine what happened. I, for one, definitely don't want my tax dollars spent on answering every crackpot idea that comes from the CT crowd.

Perhaps a better way would be for the CT crowd to hire a lab to examine their theories, and to disprove ideas about things like this. Little Jimmy Walters has spent big bucks on the promotion of his CT theories. His money would be better spent on these avenues.

Unless anyone has been in the WTC buildings where raging fires are alleged to have occurred, no one knows what the WTC buildings held for office equipment and fixtures or decor.

These facts are certain:

1. Carpet is not normally laid in commercial buildings used for business. WTC complex would no exception.

2. Plastic melts and adds a great deal of carbon smoke and toxic gases but no significant thermal energy heat away from all that melting.

3. Wood burns and adds a great deal of smoke, but as anyone with a fireplace can tell anyone else, the thermal energy is going to be used more on burning and sending out smoke, than actually producing any high thermal energy far away from the wood that is burning.

4. Kerosene uses more thermal energy burning itself off, and emitting massive clouds of carbon smoke filled with poisonous gases, than building significant amounts of thermal energy heat.

All the "official" reports were intended to mislead. When they gave people some unproved thermometer reading of outside flame heat, many people were unaware they were not guesstimating thermal energy heat instead. Inside the flames determines how much thermal energy is being released. What is shed from smoke and burning out impurities takes away from the thermal energy heat building process - the energy needed to actually begin to compromise steel.

Just because a flame can burn skin off bones, does not equate to being able to compromise steel. Particularly structural steel rated over normal standards used in other high rise buildings, as was the case in both twin towers.

Aluminum melts but never pulverizes.

How does anyone rule out somthing never considered?

Originally posted by OrionStars
Aluminum melts but never pulverizes.

Pulverized wallboard and molten aluminum (600C) produces that energetic reaction.

Originally posted by MikeVet
Well, gypsum isn't the only sulfur source. Plastics, wood, carpeting, etc..... nearly everything there has sulfur present. SO2 would be produced at temps over 600C, with maximum occuring around 900C.

Good info. If you would (as I'm lazy...lol) can you site this? I'm not saying it's false, but just to have for my own personal knowledge base.

Aluminum and wallboard - but only if it's pulverised - also can have some interesting reactions that result in temps able to melt steel. Over 3000F.

Also with this. It would be nice to know the schematics of this. Thanks in advance.

NIST didn't test every conceivable avenue because by their methods, they ruled out the possibility of a CD, so there was no reason to test for thermite/ate, explosives, or anything unusual.

What I'm getting at though is:

From an engineering standpoint, I'd like to know if the wall board (gypsum) that me or my company specifies (each day) is a health and/or safety factor. Why were the neccessary tests not completed?

I know that's not an answer you like

Sorry to agree to disagree, but no I do not like it.

BTW, your need for scientific proof, testing, etc, is also sorely lacking from scientists in the CT crowd also

I can totally agree with this statement though.

They seem to rely on theories, using proof that you would NOT find acceptable from NIST.

Don't get me started on some of the "truthers" methods. I'm one of em, but even Dr. Jones is suspect in my paranoid mind.

NIST is not here to test every idea that comes down the pike from the CT crowd. Their job is to examine what happened. I, for one, definitely don't want my tax dollars spent on answering every crackpot idea that comes from the CT crowd.

I can agree with this except for the fact that NIST is taxed with finding out these things. At least you can agree with me that from an engineering standpoint and someone who specifies gypsum board in buildings, that this would be a major contribution to the engineering world at large? No?

Perhaps a better way would be for the CT crowd to hire a lab to examine their theories, and to disprove ideas about things like this. Little Jimmy Walters has spent big bucks on the promotion of his CT theories. His money would be better spent on these avenues.

Would it matter? Just like you guys like to say that nothing that comes out now will be accepted by "us", the same can be said about "you guys"? No?

Look into the recent findings of Dr. Jones (even though I am sceptical myself) and his new findings of possible unused thermate chips in the WTC.

reply to post by MikeVet


First, someone had to prove it was 600 degrees C, or F, inside either tower. NIST personnel could not possibly have done that. Assuming any planes entered the WTC, when it cannot be proved any did, is not legitimate forensic science methodology.

There was no visibility of the walls, once massive fireballs of flame and dense black carbon smoke erupted as viewed on TV sets.

A lot of those statements come from one of your fav guys - Greening. But while his whole "energy to pulverize concrete" paper can be somewhat discounted, he is a chemist, so more weight should be given to what he says here.

www.911myths.com...

NIST is NOT taxed with investigating CT theories. They are taxed with finding out the causes of disasters like this and investigating ways to prevent them from happening again.

Actually, I would like to see an independent investigation too. If they can back up what CTs like to say, take your pick, I'd listen. It's just that every paper or video that backs up the CT crowd is always preceeded with a political statement about the official story is wrong, they lied to get us into a war that will enrich the secret banking societies, it's all about establishing a NWO, etc. I find these sources to be biased right off the bat.

Dr Jones - well, his previous theory about the dust having thermite residue, etc was all wrong. It was proven to have an exact chemical footprint as smoke/dust/fly ash from any incinerator found. But he backed this as the holy grail to there being proof to thermite for years. To me, rather than being a neutral truther, he sounds like a guy who has come to a conclusion - namely CD, and now is grasping at any straw he can find to fit his theory. This is the reverse of what he should be doing, eh? Examine the evidence, try to debunk it yourself, and if none can be found, THEN put out a theory. I highly suspect that the chip avenue will be shown to be another red herring, and another example of him starting with a theory, and then cherry picking evidence that fits his view, while ignoring evidence and quote mining sources to back him up.

Quote mining like this :

In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

However when you look at the link he uses

www.newsday.com...

You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet

 

First, someone had to prove it was 600 degrees C, or F, inside either tower. NIST personnel could not possibly have done that. Assuming any planes entered the WTC, when it cannot be proved any did, is not legitimate forensic science methodology.

There was no visibility of the walls, once massive fireballs of flame and dense black carbon smoke erupted as viewed on TV sets.

First - Ultima like to post a link, saying that the fires most likely didn't get over 1200-1300F. That equals around 700C. So if you have a problem with that, take it up with him.

But anyways, I believe Griff and I are discussing the steel found underground. Remember the NASA infrareds showing 1200C temps?

reply to post by MikeVet


Why should energy required to pulverize concrete be dismissed? Weight of consideration should not be given to a chemist with expertise?

What you are presenting is exactly what I pointed out when people start leaving pertinent factors out of their equations. That is called playing the statistics game, in order to deliberately, falsely present a far more postive picture desired for personal gain. That is highly subjective, which makes automatically makes it dishonest.

reply to post by MikeVet


C or F? Yes, it does make a extreme difference as to outside and inside therometer degrees being gauged. The flames never got hot enough to create enough thermal energy to being to compromise steel. True heat is measured at the levels of colors self-evident in flames. True heat is not what registers on a thermostat.

No one holds a thermometer on the skin to check their internal body temperature, do they?

Heat from inside the body is true thermal energy heat reading, not the outside of the skin. Same with measuring true thermal energy heat in flames. There is no way NIST personnel could have measured it. They again guessed at it. They certainly and deliberately over estimated the fuel source potential for thermal energy and anything left to catch fire inside the building. Most of the building was steel, concrete, and one or more of these - granite, marble, ceramic, glass (all non-flammable).

reply to post by MikeVet


Who is Greening?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by OrionStars

C or F? Yes, it does make a extreme difference as to outside and inside therometer degrees being gauged. The flames never got hot enough to create enough thermal energy to being to compromise steel. True heat is measured at the levels of colors self-evident in flames. True heat is not what registers on a thermostat.

No one holds a thermometer on the skin to check their internal body temperature, do they?

Heat from inside the body is true thermal energy heat reading, not the outside of the skin. Same with measuring true thermal energy heat in flames. There is no way NIST personnel could have measured it. They again guessed at it. They certainly and deliberately over estimated the fuel source potential for thermal energy and anything left to catch fire inside the building. Most of the building was steel, concrete, and one or more of these - granite, marble, ceramic, glass (all non-flammable).

Here's Ultima's link/quote. CTerz are saying that these temps were achieved. That's around 700C. Take it up with him if you disagree.

www.globalresearch.ca...

But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F”

Yes, marble and granite are much cheaper building materials, and easier to install/work/repair than concrete. This is a very common practice in office buildings. Never in my life have I seen carpeting used as a floor covering in an office building. It is always preferable to have employees walk around on the bare concrete floors.

reply to post by MikeVet


Since I have no idea who Greening is, or would not have asked, please stop deliberately misinterpreting what I stated of asked. It is obvious, since I have no idea who Greening is, I could not have read his paper, in order to agree or disagree with anything you state Greening wrote. I asked my qestions based on your incorrect assertions, not anything written by someone named Greening.