Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

reply to post by Varemia

You know I was reading stuff too, you know, that stuff happens, like, buildings sometimes, you know, they just fall! I mean, really, people, buildings sometimes just fall.
I am with you Vremie, we can't know stuff, I mean, buildings are complicated, they are built by people with torches and things that nobody has ever told me how they work, and that is a conspiracy right there!!
Right There!!!
Nobody is talking about THAT conspiracy, how they build stuff without telling us how it is done, so it don't suprise me at all that the whole thing could come down like that, not at all.
Whew. I am with you Verime.

reply to post by Varemia


What did you just say in reply to
the fire on the eleventh floor in 1975.

It does not make sense to me, I cannot interpert it solo.

But I have no means of helping you dislodge
the leech of the OCS from your central sulcus.

The thought I put into things is literally just pointless when it comes to you people. Really... You're willing to discount all the damage, the extremely unusual circumstances, and compare it to things that are completely different.

The buildings were not brought down by fire alone, and keeping it civil after your crap comments is difficult. Think for a moment and stop just believing what the conspiracy theorists give you on a silver spoon. You should be smarter than that. Think it through! If you put any thought whatsoever, you would see that it makes a lot of sense what happened that day. Unfortunately, you just run around jumping on laser lights that are being held by a metaphorical guy who is just laughing at you. EVERYTHING you post gets refuted and debunked, shown the logical side of and easily explained. Yet EVERY single time, you turn around and just chide. No rational thought at all, just mob mentality.

It makes me sick, and it makes me want to leave this forum.

Originally posted by Varemia
The thought I put into things is literally just pointless when it comes to you people. Really... You're willing to discount all the damage, the extremely unusual circumstances, and compare it to things that are completely different.

mirroring my thoughts exactly, knew there would be trouble with you due to your being disingenous about wanting to be convinced other than the OCS

The buildings were not brought down by fire alone, and keeping it civil after your crap comments is difficult.

I have been learning Everything I wanted to know about 911 from you.

Think for a moment and stop just believing what the conspiracy theorists give you on a silver spoon.

Instead, start believing the preemptive enviromental superfluity the OCS has been giving on a silver spoon.
I went through three colleges, no loans, no parental spoon feeding, just the sweat off my back.

You should be smarter than that. Think it through! If you put any thought whatsoever, you would see that it makes a lot of sense what happened that day.

Fortunately I got through college without being indoctrinated with the pablum spoon fed children today.

Unfortunately, you just run around jumping on laser lights that are being held by a metaphorical guy who is just laughing at you.

It does not affect my psychological stability to have someone tickle my nonexistant fear of ridicule.
I am well read on the various theories explaining the WTC disater.
I have had suspicions since 7 years old when JFK was shot, and upon looking into it when I got older, discovered that the USA faction in control then lied. The moment a Gov. lies to its citizens, de facto it is no longer their Gov. Especially about very big issues. 911 is a big issue, it will not go away.

EVERYTHING you post gets refuted and debunked, shown the logical side of and easily explained.

More disingenuity, because EVERYTHING does not get DEBUNKED.
See, the pablum that OCS attempt to feed non believrs is preemptive environmental superfluity.

Yet EVERY single time, you turn around and just chide. No rational thought at all, just mob mentality.

It is mob mentality that swallows the OCS.

It makes me sick, and it makes me want to leave this forum.

Do not do that, the OCS is believable to you due to the paradigm that you have.
There is enough corruption in USA today, that it makes me SICK.

reply to post by slugger9787


Problem with you is that when questions or arguments become too hard you resort to personal attacks or the standard "you believe everything the OS says", instead of coming with counter arguments. For me it isn't about the OS at all, I don't care about the OS, I don't care about the USA (I am not an American), I care about what is correct and what is is not. If you can point out where the OS is incorrect, I accept that. But instead you only try to insult and discredit people. Do you really think you achieve anything with that? Why don't you answer questions like "Where is the nuclear explosion", "Where is the shock wave", "Where is evidence that shock waves can pulverize steel".

The only person being disingenuous is you, else you would address the issues at hand, instead of coming with this drivel.

For example, I haven't taken out any loans yet as a college student. I got into college on my own by working toward scholarships. I work constantly on volunteer projects and shifts in dining to pay for anything and get a good looking background. Every day I wake up and think about what I have learned.

9/11 isn't that complicated. We all know it happened. Some just argue about the exactness of what happened. In this thread the focus is about how there was molten steel in the rubble. People wanted to know what it might imply about the collapse. Many theories were presented, and during my research I discovered an interesting link that showed reactions in aluminum and rust, both of which there could easily be plenty of, considering that the builders of the WTC's were not gods, and how the molten aluminum from the planes is what easily set off a chain reaction.

Apparently finding that to be a plausible explanation, even though I don't recall ever reading about it in the OS, is still making me an OS blind follower. Thanks for giving me the credit for my thought. It makes me feel so warm and welcome when you choose to single out things I say for ridicule.

reply to post by -PLB-


"Where is the nuclear explosion",
in the basement
"Where is the shock wave",
it travled up the tower
"Where is evidence that shock waves can pulverize steel".
i never said it could, i said sublimate

reply to post by Varemia


Think it through! If you put any thought whatsoever, you would see that it makes a lot of sense what happened that day. Unfortunately, you just run around jumping on laser lights that are being held by a metaphorical guy who is just laughing at you. EVERYTHING you post gets refuted and debunked, shown the logical side of and easily explained

if you believe exothermic reaction
could generate that amount of
heat for that long of time, I aam
not going to try to dissuafe you.
shalom.

Originally posted by slugger9787
mirroring my thoughts exactly, knew there would be trouble with you due to your being disingenous about wanting to be convinced other than the OCS
...
Instead, start believing the preemptive enviromental superfluity the OCS has been giving on a silver spoon.
I went through three colleges, no loans, no parental spoon feeding, just the sweat off my back.

I thought this was a basically bog standard complaint response to someone being rational about the subject until you claimed that a nuke of all things was used in the towers.

I'll assume that by 'college' you mean the US term, over here a 'university'. This would mean you have a least 3 degrees in subjects, an exceptional achievement.

However, I find it hard to reconcile this with the fact you believe a nuke was involved in the WTC and it was covered up.

I don't intend to call you a liar, but I am interested in what three subjects you have a degree in, and how exactly you have applied this knowledge to determine that a nuke was detonated. Thanks.

reply to post by slugger9787


Where is the evidence of it. Or explain why there is no evidence of it. Show us the physics that shock waves sublimates steel columns up to 350 meter away without any other visible effects of this shock wave. Explain why the collapse didn't start at the base where the effect would be strongest. Explain why many of the core columns were still standing to up to 100m after the collapse where they should be sublimated according to you theory.

None of the evidence supports your theory. Most of the evidence discredits it. Why should I take it seriously? Explain that.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by -PLB-

 

"Where is the nuclear explosion",
in the basement
"Where is the shock wave",
it travled up the tower
"Where is evidence that shock waves can pulverize steel".
i never said it could, i said sublimate

Sublimation is the process of a solid going directly to vapor without going through a liquid phase. Look at the phase diagram for iron and see if you can determine the conditions where it might sublime. www.mrl.ucsb.edu... It loooks to me that the lowest temperature of 1000C requires about 10^-12 atm; think about a vacuum found in space. hypertextbook.com...
Shock waves do not "sublimate" metal. They plastically deform it. The concept of underground nukes causing the collapse of the WTC by converting it to dust is pure entertainment and a sad commentary on the lack of technical knowledge by many "truthers."

Sweet mother of speculation... nukes? I really dislike truthers, speculators and disinfo agents destroying the movement. You are not scientists. None of you.

The fact is molten iron was present. End of discussion. Prove how with science and logic, yet to be done. Stop arguing this irrefutable fact.

AKA (new investigation by experts needed. e x p e r t s Not a buncha bureaucrats~

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

Please show how nuclear weapons, or any shock wave, can convert steel into dust without vaporiziing and recondensing the metal. This mechanism would have been noticed and, given the energies required, would have also unavoidably flattened many more buildings and killed many more New Yorkers.

Thanks to the magic of Internet, I have found a few references to support your point about the shock wave resulting only in plastic deformation. I didn't need any references to see many of the other flaws in the Russian's otherwise damn fine theory most notably the idea that the towers melted into the underground cavity - which clearly they did not.

...The steel-to-dust from a shock wave is pure fantasy. Apparently but will you now argue that steel-to-vapour is pure fantasy? I'm still concerned about where so much steel disappeared to and what happened to the ultra-strong top floors after they destroyed the rest of the tower.

...Nukes without heat and radiation do not exist; that is what they are designed to do. Directional nukes are another technology that doesn't exist and has no application. What does or does not exist is not for you to say. None of us knows everything that the government gets up to.

...If you think nuclear explosives downed the towers, you should look at a few nuclear weapons test videos to get an idea of what it would look like, and compare them with the collapses. Using 30+ year old videos as evidence of the state-of-the-art in nuclear demolition isn't logical. Perhaps we should think that a 1970s model telephone is proof that my mobile phone doesn't exist?

What would be useful is turning your great intellect on explaining the evidence that we saw on 9/11 instead of trying to make it fit within the OS. Whether or not nukes were used in the demolition of a number of WTC buildings is really for the independent investigation to determine.

reply to post by Ciphor

Originally posted by Ciphor
Sweet mother of speculation... nukes? I really dislike truthers, speculators and disinfo agents destroying the movement. You are not scientists. None of you.

The fact is molten iron was present. End of discussion. Prove how with science and logic, yet to be done. Stop arguing this irrefutable fact.

AKA (new investigation by experts needed. e x p e r t s Not a buncha bureaucrats~

edit on 1-10-2010 by Ciphor because: #%$#@$

Ciphor - if anyone is discrediting the "movement," it's you with your better-than-thou attitude. You slate the non-scientists as though that were a criteria to enter a discussion on ATS and then show your own prejudice by claiming that molten iron is an irrefutable fact. There is very little about 9/11 that is irrefutable as evidenced by the multitude of eyewitness statements that are ignored because they don't fit with a specific viewpoint.

If you want to shut up the nuke discussion, come up with a non-nuke explanation for one 2.1 and one 2.3 magnitude earthquake directly relating to the collapse of the tower 2 and 1 respectively.

Th shock wave as scientifically evidenced by seisomograph readings happened shortly before the collapse of the towers.
The shock wave followed almost instantaneously by the intense heat pulverized the concrete and wallboard, and people, vaporized anything containing water.The neutron blast super heaed the steel and turned it into spagetti .
Nothing is holding the tower up so down it comes. Look a the dislay piece of steel bent in a horseshoe shape, with no cracks, or other distortions. he steel had to be very hot for hat to occur.
Exothermic, thermite did not do that. thermite in tower did not do that, only intense heat does that.

What steel does not sublimate, that from say the 70 th floor upwards is still heated to extreme temps.
this steel was very thick at its base, and it has disappeared for the most part. Into dust.

An underground nuke buried at the ideal depth will become a directional nuke. Plus being in the building itself is like being underground.

provide the links that say that thermonuclear nukes only plasticify steel.
Look at what the heat did to two Japanese cities, and those were first/second generation nukes.

You having put nuke underground have all but eliminated the bright flash, the overpressure, and have focused the blast directly upwards.

reply to post by slugger9787


How can a shock wave directed upward have been registered by ground based seismographic sensors far away? Why did the collapse not start at the base where the heat was by far the highest? Why did a large part of the core columns still stand after the collapse if they had turned into spaghetti? Why was the ground around the WTC not severely displaced by the blast of the nuke moments before collapse?

reply to post by -PLB-


I suggest watch this video
it explained it to me, but I not suree it will for you.

www.bannedfromyoutube.com...

reply to post by slugger9787


Correct, it didn't answer any of the questions. I guess some people are just easily fooled. Or just trolling, not sure about you.

reply to post by -PLB-


when an explosive is coupled to the earth,
in intimate contact with the earth,
and it is big enough of a blast,
that is how it get registered on a seisomograph.

underground nuclear blasts are big,
relative to a claymore of hand grenade.

Originally posted by JohnJasper
reply to post by pteridine

 

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

quote]
...The steel-to-dust from a shock wave is pure fantasy. Apparently but will you now argue that steel-to-vapour is pure fantasy? I'm still concerned about where so much steel disappeared to and what happened to the ultra-strong top floors after they destroyed the rest of the tower.

...Nukes without heat and radiation do not exist; that is what they are designed to do. Directional nukes are another technology that doesn't exist and has no application. What does or does not exist is not for you to say. None of us knows everything that the government gets up to.

...If you think nuclear explosives downed the towers, you should look at a few nuclear weapons test videos to get an idea of what it would look like, and compare them with the collapses. Using 30+ year old videos as evidence of the state-of-the-art in nuclear demolition isn't logical. Perhaps we should think that a 1970s model telephone is proof that my mobile phone doesn't exist?

What would be useful is turning your great intellect on explaining the evidence that we saw on 9/11 instead of trying to make it fit within the OS. Whether or not nukes were used in the demolition of a number of WTC buildings is really for the independent investigation to determine.

Steel to vapor was never a fantasy. At atmospheric pressure, iron boils above 2750C [there are various values provided from 2750 to 2880]. You would have a hard time viewing the iron without eye protection. There is no chance that the iron boiled to cause the collapse.
The entire concept of nuclear weapons is heat and blast [or heat and neutrons]. There is no alternative version. State-of-the-art just means smaller and more efficient much like your mobile phone as compared to a 1970's phone.