Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

Why do you think there was a shortage of iron, sulphur and oxygen? They are three of the commonest elements on the planet and plentiful in buildings, too. Expose steel to the other two and you get a mixture that attacks the steel at much lower temperatures than you need to melt steel.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just wilful ignorance on your part. You've had years now to educate yourself on the difference between melting and intergranular corrosion, but you'd rather parade your confusion for all to mock.

Unfortunately for you I understand the process fine and it is written plain and simple in the FEMA study: intergranular melting”. You only try to confuse and obfuscate the issue with your personal invention/word games above: “intergranular corrosion”? No – the intergranular melting is a form of corrosion.

What this means, is that whilst the elemental iron did not melt, grain boundaries within the structural steel did, causing it to weaken and fall apart. Should this process occur rapidly, or be held in such a state over time, the observation would be a glowing hot dripping metal from the steelwork (which is perhaps not so coincidentally what many eyewitnesses described).

And pffft... still talking about that "detailed study" which you have not even read? Sisson’s hypothesis and experiment to replicate the phenomenon through natural corrosion failed to determine the time necessary to reach state of the WTC steelwork and therefore is inconclusive. Everyone knows the simple fact that corrosion occurs, but it needs to be determined how long natural corrosion would take to reproduce the WTC effect (hint: it would be longer than a few weeks, in which timeframe the WTC steel was recovered) and then compared to how thermite fares in replicating the phenomenon.

Either way, melted steel at the WTC is confirmed - not melting of the elemental iron, but melting of the steelwork.

Anyhow, we’ve been through the argument on this thread, no need to rehash it: -

http://www.unexplain...05#entry4625635

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll leave that to Prof. Sisson, one of the people who descovered the phenomenon. Here he is talking to the BBC:

Sisson: Well, it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis, we actually identified it as iron a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen. You can see what it does is it attacks the grain boundaries, and then this bit would have eventually fallen out, and it would have continued the attack.

Narrator: Professor Sisson says that it didn't melt. It eroded. The cause was those very hot fires in the debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel for weeks. The sulfur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverized and burned in the fires.

Sisson: I don't find it very mysterious at all that if I find steel in this sort of high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect.

The point is that jetfuel and gravity cannot produce such energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that jetfuel and gravity cannot produce such energy.

Jet fuel can start fires that can weaken steel to the point of structural failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been duped Sky. Wake up and smell the napalm! :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, melted steel at the WTC is confirmed - not melting of the elemental iron, but melting of the steelwork.

Tjhere was no confirmation. Structural engineers and investigators stated for the record they found no evidence of molten steel at ground zero nor at the salvage yards. On another note, what happens when aluminum drips upon a "cherry hot" steel beam whose temperature is high enough to melt aluminum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been duped Sky.

On the contrary, conspiracist were duped. :yes: That is why after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced implicating the United States in the 911 attacks. I might add that the steel structure of the Windsor builiding collapsed due to fire and it wasn't struck by an aircraft.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any ideas on where that liquid slag might have come from? Either from you or Sisson?

Not from me. Take a look at this photo where it was claimed the photo depicts molten steel and tell us why that claim is obviously false.

70_131.jpg

What do you see in the following photo? Bright reflective silvery droplets?

0.jpg

What do you see in the following photo? Dark molten steel?

x_Dsc03650_z.jpg

Which by no means, look at a
"cherry red"
steel beam.

GZ_4144_fema-resized_molten-metal-on-beam.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for you I understand the process fine and it is written plain and simple in the FEMA study: "intergranular melting". You only try to confuse and obfuscate the issue with your personal invention/word games above: "intergranular corrosion"? No – the intergranular melting is a form of corrosion.

Wow, you have finally got the message. The two processes are different. One is melting the other is corrosion.
Either way, melted steel at the WTC is confirmed - not melting of the elemental iron, but melting of the steelwork.
But you still try and claim that the two processes are both melting.

Amazing.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that jetfuel and gravity cannot produce such energy.

There are plenty of things in a large building that can burn. The energy available is enormous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of things in a large building that can burn. The energy available is enormous.

Tortured thinking Swan.

Jetfuel and gravity cannot generate such energy, nor can the potential energy contained in the structure be so focussed as to keep steel molten for 6 weeks.

The "plenty of things" all comply with the fire code, which means they do not burn well. They resist burning. Jetfuel and gravity cannot provide the energy we saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jetfuel and gravity cannot generate such energy,....

Yes they can!! What caused these steel structured buildings in Thailand to collapse?

The Kader Toy Factory Incident

It is reported that buildings numbers 1-4 were four story buildings constructed with an unprotected steel structure. (Unprotected means that the steel was not insulated against heat and looses its strength at high temperatures such as those generated in a structural fire.) The floor of the four buildings were prefabricated concrete. The fire completely destroyed three of the four large buildings.

The buildings themselves were death traps, constructed from un-insulated steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes.

https://sites.google...turalsteelquick

...

...nor can the potential energy contained in the structure be so focussed as to keep steel molten for 6 weeks.

There was no molten steel at ground zero and no one saw molten steel at ground zero because there was nothing there to generate temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Burned buildings in Hinton could smolder for days

HINTON, W.Va. -- Hinton Fire Chief Ray Pivont says five apartment buildings destroyed by a fire could smolder for days.

http://www.dailymail...fs/201302280030

Compost fire continues to smolder near ABIA

A spokesperson for the water treatment plant says the fire could smolder for several more days.

http://austin.ynn.co...older-near-abia

Fire at Yuma-area packing shed to smolder for days

A fire that destroyed a group of produce packing sheds east of Yuma is expected to smolder for days as piles of burned cardboard cools and foam building insulation continues to send up smoke.

http://www.myfoxphoe...molder-for-days

You might recall reports of buckling of the WTC buildings as they began to flow in just prior to the collapse of those buildings.

The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

Callan's warnings about the north tower, WTC 1, reached the Office of Emergency Management, OEM. Other people learned from OEM that the WTC buildings were going to collapse. EMT Richard Zarrillo was told to deliver the message. In an Oct 25, 2001 interview Zarrillo explianed, "I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out. ... I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down." 9110161.PDF http://nistreview.org/histories.php

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

Jetfuel and gravity cannot provide the energy we saw.

Of course they can and in fact, the whole world watched as fire and gravity caused the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tortured thinking Swan.

Jetfuel and gravity cannot generate such energy, nor can the potential energy contained in the structure be so focussed as to keep steel molten for 6 weeks.

The "plenty of things" all comply with the fire code, which means they do not burn well. They resist burning. Jetfuel and gravity cannot provide the energy we saw.

Yeah, sure, all the paper in an office building is incapable of burning, as are the furniture and furnishings, the plastics, the paints, the fuel for the generators. Building fires never happen because everything in buildings meets the fire code.

After your experience with disbelieving the evidence for aluminium, you should be more cautious in promoting indefensible arguments.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Swan, I forgot to include paper fires as a source of energy. Like phone books and such. Yeah, when you add in the paper, I think you're right--it was all the office furniture burning that kept structural steel molten for 6 weeks.

Yes, that's the ticket. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I forgot to include paper fires as a source of energy. Like phone books and such. Yeah, when you add in the paper, I think you're right--it was all the office furniture burning that kept structural steel molten for 6 weeks.

Nothing new.

Sawdust fire could smolder for weeks or longer

A sawdust fire on the plateau could take weeks or longer to put out. It started this weekend in Cumberland County near the Mayland community. The Cumberland County Fire Department has determined the cause of the sawdust fire was spontaneous combustion.

http://www.wbir.com/...weeks-or-longer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Grampians fire contained, expected to smoulder for weeks

THE fire that has been raging for almost two weeks in the Grampians is effectively under control, with more than 300 firefighters managing to get the blaze within containment lines over the weekend.

Horsham incident control centre public information officer Chris Carey said ground crews contained the Victoria Valley complex fire on Saturday night, but the blaze would continue to smoulder away within the contained area for several weeks.

http://www.standard....lder-for-weeks/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Old Sanders factory still smoldering nearly 2 weeks after fire

HIGHLAND PARK, Mich.

It went up in flames nearly two weeks ago and is still smoldering. People who work and live around the old Sanders factory in Highland Park want to know why the fire is still not out and how long it will burn.

The Highland Park Fire Department is out daily to quell the hot spots, but there is still smoke. We asked the chief why is it taking so long put out.

http://www.myfoxdetr...e#ixzz2NqZ1e6vB

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Swan, I forgot to include paper fires as a source of energy. Like phone books and such. Yeah, when you add in the paper, I think you're right--it was all the office furniture burning that kept structural steel molten for 6 weeks.

Yes, that's the ticket. :whistle:

If you don't think the contents of a building can be a fire hazard, how exactly do you think that buildings ever burn down?

If the debris pile of a small hotel can burn for three days and that of an opera house for fifteen, what's to keep a large office building's debris burning much longer?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recall that the fires were fairly well confined to the area of the airplane strike, NOT the bowels of the buildings.

Yet a month later intense heat and molten steel were still bubbling away in the bowels.

I understand how buildings "burn down". In this case they did not "burn down". The burning of office furniture and phone books and whatever else you want to throw into the equation CANNOT generate sufficient heat to keep steel molten for weeks, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recall that the fires were fairly well confined to the area of the airplane strike, NOT the bowels of the buildings.

And, the points of impact are where the collapse of the WTC buildings initiated.

Yet a month later intense heat and molten steel were still bubbling away in the bowels.

There was no molten steel and fires that smolder for weeks are nothing new. Observations of people who are not experienced in identifying molten metal cannot be used as undeniable evidence. After all, you misidentified aluminum on the WTC buildings as stainless steel.

I guess you overlooked this message.

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire."

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recall that the fires were fairly well confined to the area of the airplane strike, NOT the bowels of the buildings.

Yet a month later intense heat and molten steel were still bubbling away in the bowels.

I understand how buildings "burn down". In this case they did not "burn down". The burning of office furniture and phone books and whatever else you want to throw into the equation CANNOT generate sufficient heat to keep steel molten for weeks, sorry.

Are you claiming that if a building which contains a fire collapses, the fire miraculously goes out? That none of the hot debris comes into contact with any thing from elsewhere in the building that can burn?

You seem completely ignorant of exactly how much material in a typical office will burn. It's over 200 kg per occupant. Now multiply that by the number of workers in the buildings and compare the total to the mass of the jet fuel. You'll see that office contents is the much bigger energy source.

Incidentally, you're the one claiming molten steel, I'm only claiming molten aluminium, which is well within the temperature range of typical building fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Swan, I'm not claiming what you said.

200kg per occupant seems rather an arbitrary number. How was it determined? Some buildings are heavily occupied, others not so much.

It seems that some report that the WTC towers were fairly LIGHTLY occupied. I don't know, but you still cannot prove that office furniture and phone books kept iron molten for 6 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which in no way should imply that the only Qualified People on this subject are on the 'debunk' side. There are some very real questions here...Just watch the North Tower collapse...and as your watching ask yourself...How did THAT happen? No debunking of anything...within your own heart and soul...how did that happen. How does a building of that size come down so quickly in a pile of dust...leaving behind virtually nothing? How are large concrete projectiles blown 600 feet away from a 'collapsing' building? Is it really possible for two buildings to fall almost identically an hour apart? And for WTC7 to fall 'the exact same way' when it wasn't even touched by any aircraft at all? And...why didn't any other buildings then fall in the same manner?

These are real questions Socrates. They demand real answers. Do you have any?

Exactly.

''Read this passage from bladdy bla bla.... ''FRED 1 SANDRA 1240 All hell is about to break loose bla bla bla''

Bollox.

I'm with you Joc btw................... >'.'<

Edited by kitty81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that some report that the WTC towers were fairly LIGHTLY occupied. I don't know, but you still cannot prove that office furniture and phone books kept iron molten for 6 weeks.

First of all, there is no evidence that molten steel existed at ground zero. Secondly, I have posted references where fires have smoldered for days and weeks, which is nothing new. Seems you've missed post # 1137 and #1140.

Thirdly, there was no means to generate molten steel at ground zero other than torches and wands, which were used by clean-up crews.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, there is no evidence that molten steel existed at ground zero.
No evidence, except multiple eyewitness accounts...lol :rolleyes:
Secondly, I have posted references where fires have smoldered for days and weeks, which is nothing new. Seems you've missed post # 1137 and #1140.
Was the fires at WTC smoldering? Or where they "Raging", "Infernos" or "like a volcano"??
Thirdly, there was no means to generate molten steel at ground zero other than torches and wands, which were used by clean-up crews.
You have absolutely no idea if there were means to generate molten steel, posting surface temperatures and estimates of people at GZ doesn't prove your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No evidence, except multiple eyewitness accounts...

Accounts from untrained eyes and inexperienced people do not count. After all, Babe Ruth misidentified aluminum of the WTC facade as stainless steel during his visit in New York. I didn't need to be present to determine that he was incorrect.

Was the fires at WTC smoldering?

Yes, which was clearly evident.

Or where they "Raging", "Infernos" or "like a volcano"??

What do you think would happen as the rubble was opened to oxygen? What do you do after you put out a camp fire and why?

You have absolutely no idea if there were means to generate molten steel,...

There was no steel foundry at ground zero, however, aluminum will melt at the temperatures recorded at ground zero. How many tons of aluminum was used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the construction of a typical B-767?

...posting surface temperatures and estimates of people at GZ doesn't prove your case.

Internal temperatures beneath the rubble was well below 2000 degrees which was evident as the workers raised glowing "cherry hot" steel beams. Using the temperature chart provided, what is the temperature of "cherry red" steel beams?

Temperature-color-chart-small.jpg

A "cherry red" steel beam is by no means, in a molten state, however, the temperature of "cherry red" steel beam is above the melting point of aluminum but well below the melting point of steel, which explains why the "cherry red" steel beams were not in a molten state as they were pulled from the rubble. Aluminum in contact with "cherry red" steel beams will not remain in a solid state very long because the temperature of "cherry red" steel beams is above the melting point of aluminum, so what do you think will be dripping off those "cherry red" steel beams since the temperature is above the melting point of aluminum?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that some report that the WTC towers were fairly LIGHTLY occupied. I don't know, but you still cannot prove that office furniture and phone books kept iron molten for 6 weeks.

You might want to read the following information.

Recovery at Ground Zero

The operation became a search and recovery effort on October 9, after only six people had been pulled from the wreckage alive, all on the first day of rescue. The intense fires that bent structural steel were most likely fueled by paper and office furniture within the wreckage. Flames were finally out by December 20, 2001.

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/groundzero.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.