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

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

This is an example of the uselessness of discussing anything with you. You arrive at a conclusion based on inductive reasoning but then wave it as though it were carved in stone. In your favour, for once you've at least provided a source to back up the initial premise.

Whether or not the iron boiled is an unknown at this time. The lack of a bright flash or reports of high levels of radiation weigh against it. The lack of sufficient iron/steel to account for 208 floors worth of WTC counterbalance and the near free-fall collapse weigh in favour of it.

There is no reason for me to accept your authority as to the state-of-the-art of nuclear devices. A short study of anti-armour weaponry reveals the ingenuity of the military-minded scientist and I wouldn't claim to have any idea of their limitations in the nuclear field. Considering that they've already (unintentionally) launched a steel plate weighing several hundred pounds into flight from an underground detonation (pascal b), I'll keep an open mind until the eventual declassification comes.

The world's first underground nuclear test had been fired in the previous NTS series (Plumbbob Ranier), and this series introduced underground testing as a routine procedure. The intention was to reduce the fallout effects of the testing, which were raising great concern, but the "underground" testing procedures were still relatively primitive. Many of these shots were conducted in "unstemmed" holes, that is, holes not back-filled and sealed prior to testing. These shots were called "roman candles" since the incandescent gas from the fireball was ejected as a jet from the mouth of the shaft. Obviously fallout containment was much less than perfect, but most of the fission product was nonetheless deposited in the shaft instead of escaping, and the radiation that did escape was not lofted so that it could travel far downwind. Hardtack Phase II still released some 3,140 kilocuries of radioiodine (I-131) into the atmosphere (about equal to the Trinity test), only ~5% as much as the previous test series (Plumbbob). This radiation also did not nearly spread as far, only about one-millionth as much radiation exposure occurred to civilians. The total civilian radiation exposures was a mere 160 person-rads of thyroid tissue exposure. The odds are about 20-1 against this producing even one additional cancer case. Chart of fallout exposures from "Hardtack Phase II" (51 K, 539x577). From National Cancer Institute Study Estimating Thyroid Doses of I-131 Received by Americans From Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Test, 1997. To go to the National Cancer Institute and get the full report, click here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONE MILLIONTH as much radiation. The radiation for the most part is contained in the underground cavity and the sides of the shaft.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

Finally a successful full yield test of the XW-54 primary! Predicted yield was 5-9 kt. Similar to the Lea device. Device dimensions: 11.7 inches in diameter, 15 inches long, weight 58.1 lb.

58 pound bomb in 1957, the size of an old desk top phone of the 1960's.

Another attempt at firing a full yield version of the XW-54/Gnat system puts in a disappointing showing. Similar to the Catron and Mora devices the 2.2 kt yield was below predictions. Device dimensions: 11.3 inches in diameter, 15 inches long, weight 66 lb.

66 pound bomb.

reply to post by slugger9787


But once more, how can you prove that a nuke was used? A proof of concept does not mean proof of usage in a particular situation. It also fails to account for the failure beginning at the point of impact on the towers, or the failure of only part of the WTC 7 before the complete collapse.

reply to post by Varemia


the shock wave is different from the thermonuclear heat.
the shock wave would have ulverized the concrete and wall board, and since that is inside the outer walls it will not show.

The conical shaped TN heat would remain inside the perimeter walls until say about 70 th floor at which time it would start propelling and throwing the outside wall panels.

Since the outer perimeter walls were intact to the 70th floor, they would hav supported and concealed the internal damage to the building.

But the central support columns were superheated, evaporating and along with the pulverized dust from concrete and wallboard concealed the heat.

There were no central support columns, due to complete vaporization up to the 40th floor, the remainder were in various stages of degeneration and deterioriation.

It explains the failure at the point of impact precicely.
With no central columns in existence from below where would the weakened stucture first begin to apparently come apart?

Besides that you cannot use conventional demolition to fell a steel framed sky scraper.

The CD's on the net are old concrete supported structures.
You have to use CONTACT demolitions to bring them to earth.
Vertical steel supports do not lend themselves to contact charges.

Originally posted by JohnJasper
reply to post by pteridine

 

This is an example of the uselessness of discussing anything with you. You arrive at a conclusion based on inductive reasoning but then wave it as though it were carved in stone. In your favour, for once you've at least provided a source to back up the initial premise.

Whether or not the iron boiled is an unknown at this time. The lack of a bright flash or reports of high levels of radiation weigh against it. The lack of sufficient iron/steel to account for 208 floors worth of WTC counterbalance and the near free-fall collapse weigh in favour of it.

There is no reason for me to accept your authority as to the state-of-the-art of nuclear devices. A short study of anti-armour weaponry reveals the ingenuity of the military-minded scientist and I wouldn't claim to have any idea of their limitations in the nuclear field. Considering that they've already (unintentionally) launched a steel plate weighing several hundred pounds into flight from an underground detonation I'll keep an open mind until the eventual declassification comes.

The measured temperatures were insufficient to boil iron. Hot corrosion accounted for some of the metal loss but I have never seen a measurement that shows a significant loss of metal. Anti-armor weaponry is the prime example of the lined cavity effect. Nuclear weapons have no need of directionality because their total energy swamps the target.
Did the steel plate launched by the shock wave turn to dust on the way up?

reply to post by pteridine


it was propelled by the air pressure travelling at seven times the escape velocity of earth gravity.
Plus it was placed as a cap on top of the bore hole.
And it was far enough from the heat, to not be vaporized, they even said that in the article at the link.
It would not be any more damaged than a pop bottle cap on 2 liter empty bottle with aluminum and muriatic acid in it when it explodes.

However it is debatable whether the Russians had the first object orbiting the earth on hind sight.

reply to post by slugger9787


What about the fact that the core columns still stood for a moment at the base before collapsing amidst the debris? Plus, stating that something would be completely concealed does not offer proof that it happened. It is like saying that the proof of God is that he is invisible.

yes i saw the videos of the core columns "STANDING"
But, standing while they vaporized, remember the debris pile after all the dust had settled was what 5-6 stories tall.
And no do not deflect by arguing the height of the debris pile, the debris pile was miniscule in comparison to what it should have been.

Yes,, and when a hand grenade explodes 40 yards in front of your position, even though you stare directly at is, you really do not "SEE" the grenade go off.

Besides if you were shot at 100 yards with a 3400 fps FMJ .222 cal, and it went through your thigh muscle, you "REALLY DID NOT SEE THE ROUND did you, so it must not have happened.

When you pour drain cleaner down the sink to remove a clog, you really did not see it so it could not have worked, could it?

Do not try to play that with me Varemia.

reply to post by slugger9787


So, in other words, you have no evidence to support your hypothesis about a nuke. I have read that the debris was 30 stories high, but it seems unsubstantiated in light of my attempts to find a source. A whole lot of it did collapse into the basement of the towers. That's a fact. Also, I thought that the steel would vaporize in the initial explosion, not in the aftermath of the collapse.

I don't know, you just aren't making rational sense. You say that something exists, and then you assert that it happened, supporting your assertion with claims that it is not possible to see what happens during your asserted scenario.

reply to post by Varemia


The debris was 3 stories tall.

My having NO evidence is your humble opinion.
I explained why there was scant concrete and wallboard, and scant human remains.
Where the water on top of the towers vanished into thin air.
Why the pile was so hot for so long.
You are not interested in any dialogue, you are too dismissive.
And I do not have to prove anything to you, lol.
I know enough that three towers do not vanish into thin air in the blink of an eye. That temps in the building fueled by office equipment and furnishings and kerosene do not produce those rcord temperatures.
Look, Exhibit CE399, fooled lots of people for a while, but in the end, we know what happened.

reply to post by slugger9787


See, I proved my points just as well. However, it means nothing because all that has been done is to prove the possibility, not the actuality.

reply to post by slugger9787


So wait a minute, a nuke detonating in the basement, causes the WTC to collapse from the top down, but at the same time leaves the core standing for another 15-20 seconds, which then proceeds to collapse from the bottom up? no wait it "vaporizes" later as its collapsing.

Ummm I'm pretty sure this is not how nukes work.

reply to post by slugger9787


You do not have to prove anything at all. You can't prove a nuke without any evidence. The top down collapse eliminates any basement bombs. The underground fires account for the heat lasting weeks. No nukes required.

reply to post by pteridine


Varemia, Pteridine, GenRadek, you have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt.
That a small nuke was used.

I never said WTC was a top down demolition, never said it was a bottom up demolition.
I said it was perpetuated by a thermonuclear device in basement.
Shock, heat and blast are manifestations of underground TNE.

Shock wave began in basement and traveled upwards through building.
invisible to human eye.
Heat wave traveled up through center of building and terminated at @ 70 th floor.
invisible to human eye
Blast went up to the plane damaged section.
by the time it got to the 600 foot level it has pretty much slowed down.
visible due to fountain effect of collapse.

I hope this helps

reply to post by slugger9787


Where was the shock, heat and blast? You convinced yourself of a nuke just as Judy Woods convinced herself of a DEW without any evidence for such. Your arguments have convinced many that nukes are out there with Judy's DEW.

reply to post by pteridine


So what do you want me to do?
Join the team?
Disintegrae my thinking process?
I have been making some good points,
and admit I do not have a full
understanding of the scope of
nuclear demolition of sky scrapers,
but I think I am in the ballpark.

Why, it seems there is concerted focus on reeling me in.

It might have been both a nuke and a DEW for all I know.

In fact, I have a suggestion:
Let's ask Controlled Demolitions CEO, because they have the patent on "Nuclear Demolition of Skyscrapers."

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by pteridine

 

So what do you want me to do?
Join the team?
Disintegrae my thinking process?

Why, it seems there is concerted focus on reeling me in.

It might have been both a nuke and a DEW for all I know.

In fact, I have a suggestion:
Let's ask Controlled Demolitions CEO, because they have the patent on "Nuclear Demolition of Skyscrapers."

I am not trying to disintegrate your thinking process. I am trying to focus your theory by asking you to provide some evidence. You don't have anything but speculation; much like Judy Woods.
Controlled Demolitions may have the patent on "Nuclear Demolition of Skyscrapers" but their experience is limited on application of the patent. They must have needed a patent because it is difficult to imagine where this would be applied and who would apply it. This would be dangerous overkill and "controlled" is hardly the word for it. They would have no way of knowing what the demolition would look like.

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine

I am not trying to disintegrate your thinking process. I am trying to focus your theory by asking you to provide some evidence. You don't have anything but speculation; much like Judy Woods.
Controlled Demolitions may have the patent on "Nuclear Demolition of Skyscrapers" but their experience is limited on application of the patent. They must have needed a patent because it is difficult to imagine where this would be applied and who would apply it. This would be dangerous overkill and "controlled" is hardly the word for it. They would have no way of knowing what the demolition would look like.

Please allow me to jump in at this juncture and just point out that, once again, you're making statements that are opinions and not facts. Controlled Demolitions may very well have performed the necessary testing to prove the concept as part of the patent application or could be relying on knowledge garnered during the many years of known underground testing or possibly via undisclosed testing. We don't know (unless you just happen to have insider knowledge of both the military's nuclear testing and CD's inner workings.)

Yes, Judy Wood was speculating but doing it from an evidence-supported base. Was her speculative theory easier to disprove than the OS? Not in my humble opinion.

www.henrymakow.com...

Again, nicro nukes being advanced as underlying cause of WTC disappearence.

1. Three Massive WTC Craters - See us government LIDAR proof: - Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. It's 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue - ZERO ANOMALIES.

letsrollforums.com... -

2. Five Acres (1.2 Billion Pounds = Weight of Residue of 3 WTC Buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 6)) of WTC Land Brought to Seering Temperatures in a Few Hours by an 'Anaerobic, Chlorine Fueled "Fire" - Impossible by Basic Laws of Physics. See us gov Thermal Images proof - Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. It's 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue - ZERO ANOMALIES.

letsrollforums.com... -

www.rense.com...

The article goes on to say the Tritium Levels 55 Times (normal) Background Levels
3 billion pounds of matter, 2 billion turned into dust.
Craters from LIDAR
16 inch columns, repeat SIXTEEN INCH, columns gone.

Originally posted by JohnJasper
reply to post by pteridine

 

Yes, Judy Wood was speculating but doing it from an evidence-supported base. Was her speculative theory easier to disprove than the OS? Not in my humble opinion.

The concept of disproving a theory is what has confused you. The idea is to prove a theory with evidence. If we ask you to disprove the theory that magic was responsible, you cannot do it because we can counter every argument you make with "special magic."
Look up logical fallacies.