IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Some Reflections On Molten Steel, Probability of finding molten steel weeks after 9/11

hiram
post Jan 15 2009, 04:18 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 4-May 08
Member No.: 3,273



[font="Verdana"][/font][size="4"][/size]

Some reflexions on molten steel

This little paper tries to examine the possibility of finding "molten metal" (steel) in the rubble heap at Ground Zero several weeks after 9/11.

Let us start with the postulate that red hot steel (some say it was in a molten state) was found in the debris of the WTC.

It has been established by numerous authors and NIST itself that the fires in the towers where not able to melt steel.

Most used proposition : someone managed to put energetic Thermic Devices which did melt part of the supporting framework and helped cause the ruin of the buildings.
The so-called Thermite-Thermate theory.

The following computations are for a rought quantification and don't pretend at any real description of what happened.
I suppose that Thermic Devices were used to cut the 47 core columns on each floor above ground, not necessarily the best choice but convenient and rather unconspicuous for this purpose. Unless they were molten-steel addicts it was not useful nor wise for the "perps" to melt too much steel .

For 1 tower, metric units (comma for decimals, dot for thousands)

How much molten steel ?
Total mass of Core Columns (CC) steel 22.929.000 kg
Number of floors 116
Mean mass of CC /floor : 22.929.000 kg / 116 = 197.663,7931 kg
(Sections of columns vary from bottom to top of the towers but for my purpose it's enough).

Mean volume of CC /floor : 197.663,7931 kg / 7.850 kg/m = 25,1801 m
(at a steel density of 7.850 kg/m)

Let us suppose the "cut" was 2 cm wide (@ 0,78 inch), this makes :
(25,1801 m / 3,6576 m) x 0,02 m = 0,1377 m of molten steel /floor
(3,6576 m is 12 ft, mean floor height)

Let us suppose that columns from floor 3 to 110 were cut, this gives a total
of 0,1377 m x 107 = 14,7325 m molten steel by tower. (1) (@ 520,58 cu ft) or
14,7325 m x 7.850 kg/m = 115.650,125 kg (2)

What amount is it ?
For visualisation purpose I suppose that all molten steel somewhat managed to go in the foundations and :

a- molten steel pools in a zone equal to the core area (@ 1.111 m), this makes :
14,7325 m (1) / 1.111 m = 0.0133 m (0.5221 in) or a steel plate @ inch thick and 12.000 sq ft

or

b- molten steel flows at the foot of each column and covers 20 m (215,2782 sq ft),
this makes :

The section of the exterior 23 CC was @ 2 x that of the 24 interior CC, this gives a respective weight of 0,6571 for Ext CC and 0,3429 for Int CC.

Ext CC : (14,7325 m (1) x 0,6571) / 23 columns / 20 m = 0,021 m (0,8286 in)
23 steel plates, 0,83 in thick, 215 sq ft
Int CC : (14,7325 m (1) x 0,3429) / 24 columns / 20 m = 0,0105 m (0,4143 in)
24 steel plates 0,41 in thick, 215 sq ft

or

c- all molten steel flows inside the columns and fills their bottom. (In fact impossible, there are baseplates !) Let's take a heavy one as if the "pipe" was continuous: Exterior section : 52"x24"x7"
Interior section : 38"x10" or 0,2452 m
This fills:
(14.7325 m (1) x 0.6571) / 23 / 0,2452 m = 1,7169 m or 5,633 ft or
1,7169 m x 0,2452 m x 7.850 kg/m = 3.304,2785 kg (@ 3,6423 tons)

What do we see ?
As we can infer from the numerous photographs and videos which depict more or less accurately the removal of the WTC debris, none of the 3 cases here before mentionned happened. Despite someone said he saw "metal flowing like in a foundry" and another "they showed us fascinating slides"which we didn't see, nobody found or came with evidence of heavy metal plates, columns filled with molten steel or sizable metal blobs. (You can also imagine other means of disposing of molten steel.) We are shown basically the same 4 or 5 rather bad photographs, and one video of flowing molten metal. By contrast, a lot of crisp photograps show core columns with no trace of melting and still straight as if they snapped like bamboo sticks.
One can suppose there exist more visual evidences of molten metal but they are not in the public.
Steel cools
Molten metal was thus dispersed in the whole rubble and put some compressed furniture and a lot of plastics to a smoldering fire and began to cool.

How long ?

The computation of the energy balance of this catastrophic event ( WTC + Planes ) can be summarized as such :
WTC : Potential energy (partially transformed in heath following deformations of components) and thermic energy (calorific load of building and contents for the parts that were on fire.)
Planes : Cinetic energy (partially transformed in heath) and thermic energy (mostly jet fuel).
Thermic Devices of unknown make and power.
The heath that wasn't evacuated in the atmosphere (hot gases, smoke, dust, radiation) landed on GZ.
For more on this, see <http://www.takeourworldback.com/911/> (3). No author cited, too bad.

For tower 1 which burned longer, the part that was on fire was @ 10% of the whole. I suppose, for simplification sake, that it reached a uniform temperature of 300 c at the moment of collapse. Refering to the above declarations on hot metal, it was found everywhere in the rubble heap, this leads to believe that the debris were more or less mixed. (I found nothing on that subject on the net.) After a while, if the accumulated heath had been "equalized" by conduction radiation. An estimate of the resulting t can be roughly calculated :
Normal t : 25 c
(573 K x 10 + 298 K x 90) / 100 = 325,5 K or 27,5 k above normal

To be in accord with the postulated Thermite scenario, I must add the heath it produced.
Mass of molten steel : 115.650,125 kg (2) at 1700 c (no mean to guess a better estimate)
to be mixed with 247.966.800 kg (mass above ground of 1 tower) at 25c
(1973 K x 115.650 + 298 K x 247.966.800) / (247.966.800 + 115.650 ) = 298,8 K or 0,8 K above normal (given this feeble supplement, different specific heath omitted) rounded at 1 K.
Other source of heath comes from the kinetic energy of the falling building, I found an estimation in the above paper (3), probably overstated (it takes the whole height of the WTC for the fall instead of the centre of gravity.) let us round it at 5 K.

Total augmentation of t : 27,5 + 1 + 5 = 33,5 K above 25c

Obviously, it went not so, heath didn't spread evenly and there were hot spots but this level of mean t shows how far we are from finding steel melting by virtue of residuous heath.

What couldn't melt steel in the fires cannot do it later if you don't bring a lot of oxygen or an outer source of energy.

Molten steel solidifies
In the above "idealized" © case, I got a 3.304 kg , 1,72 m high column of molten steel (highly improbable). How much time to solidify ?

I found on the internet a paper by V.Grozdanic (3 dimensional math model of the solidification of a large steel ingot) in which he calculates the striping time (when the metal is cool enough to be lifted out of its mold). The ingot had a 1.2 m diameter and a 3 m lenght, weighted 20 metric tons. The striping time was 12,5 hours.

If a 20 t ingot is sufficiently rigid to be lifted after 12.5 hour, how can molten steel continue to flow after weeks ?

Another article by D.A. Litvinenko (Improvement of the technology of cooling of rolled material suceptible to flake formation) in which the author studies the rate of cooling and the means to use to avoid defaults. The rate of cooling for blooms (section 190x220 mm, equivalent to a WF 14x16-219 lbs/ft ) covered with a 5 cm thick sand layer is between 6 and 12 c/hour.
Let us take a cooling rate of 9 c/hour; it makes 9 c x 24 h = 216 c/day. After 3 days, such a bloom loses 648 c.
If we start with a very hot bloom e.g. at 2.000 c, after 3 days it comes to 1.352 c, still very hot but well below solidification point.
Ramblings on Thermic Devices
To stay in line with my postulate, there remains the possibility of a differed activation of some misfired Thermic Devices inside the rubble heap, but were the temperatures high enough to ignite the compound ? (Prof.Jones states that Thermite ignites above 900 c)

The above computation uses a rather modest "cut" trough the columns. Provided a more generous use of Thermic Devices one could have obtained bigger "ingots" hence a longer solidification time, the "perps" could have overdone it, just to be sure

By the way, if I can read a paper by Mr Jerry Lobdill "Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite " it states on page 8 that 1gr of thermite can cut (melt) 1,68 gr of steel at 1700 c

Steel cut/tower 115.650,125 kg (2 cm wide) (2)
Weight thermite : 115.650,125 kg / 1,68 = 68.839,36 kg to be divided in 47x 107 = 5.029 charges (individual loads vary) if you decide to chop all core columns.

One of the difficulties to place the charges out of view is to find access to some core columns and in the case of bulkier Thermic Devices (by comparison with Linear Shaped Charges). The presence of thick plaster boards and/or fire proofing complicate their correct placement. Such a "Thermite Op" must have taken a lot of resources and a rather long time.


Conclusion : in spite of the studies of Prof. Jones and others, the testimonies of various persons, some aspects of the "Thermite theory" seem hard to explain. The scientific approach of Prof. Jones is beyond my scope and I can't or will not contest it. There remains a lot of facts to explain.



January 2009 - Rev1

Joseph Bodart
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 15 2009, 04:30 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Although I'll wager that the author of this treatise was European-educated, do we have any verifiable sources on any of the assertions, constants, values, equations, etc. used?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Jan 15 2009, 09:36 PM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



i think i understood the assertions.

if i didn't, excuse me.

but, as i have said for many years, if steel could be melted by superficial, short-term exposure to kerosene, at ambient atmosphere, nucor, gerdau, mittal, ussteel, et alia would have adopted that methodology decades ago. can you imagine what that development would have done for their profitability?

can you imagine what it would have done to the steel industry?

so, let us not be stupid. the desire for revenue[profit] drives the steel industry. if steel could be melted with small amounts of kerosene[jetA] at ambient atmospheric chemistry, then it would have been done on a commercial scale.

when will reality re-assert itself?

this is my argument with robert fisk. he takes a position concerning the events of 11/09/01 on what can only be considered a foundation of industrial ignorance. and a foundation of ignorance that he has preferred to preserve.

not to pat myself on the back, but in my lifetime, i have managed entities that made things. using steel. using nickel. using precious metals. using aluminum[and its precursors]. i visited most of my suppliers. i saw cold-drawn merchant quality bars being produced. i watched chq nickel being produced.

in my view, anyone who believes the "official" story about that day in september hasn't a clue as to how the transformation of raw materials works.

and on this score, i shall not say that "i might be wrong". i am accurate. and anyone considering the catastrophes of 11/09/01 who failed to interview the likes of me was engaged in promoting a series of prevarications. prevarications so grotesque that i continue to be astonished as to how it has been that so many engineers, metallurgists, have kept their mouths shut.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 15 2009, 11:42 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



While I will readily defer to albert on matters of steel production, refining, and processing operations, I personally have at least 2 decades' worth of experience building/assembling/designing/machining/welding (and sometimes recycling/destroying) structures made of presumably albert's products (and likely those of his competitors'), including many of the "exotics."

I concur with nearly all of what he said above.

That said, some might want to look at my "structural beams and columns" thermographic post #31:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10742210

as well as the more metallurgical post #36 on the same thread:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746484

"7.49 EFFECT OF HEAT ON STEEL
A moderate rise in temperature of structural steel, say up to 500 F, is beneficial in that the strength is
about 10% greater than the normal value
. Above 500 F, strength
falls off, until at 700 F it is nearly equal to the normal temperature strength. At a
temperature of 1000 F, the compressive strength of steel is about the same as the
maximum allowable working stress in columns.
"

Building Design and Construction Handbook, 6 ed., Frederick S. Merritt (Deceased) Editor,
Jonathan T. Ricketts Editor, 2001, McGRAW-HILL

http://www.amazon.com/Building-Design-Cons...07041999X#cited

Of course, 500 F = 260 C
700 F = 371.1111111111 C
1000 F = 537.7777777778 C
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jan 16 2009, 10:30 AM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 14 2009, 02:42 AM) *
"7.49 EFFECT OF HEAT ON STEEL
A moderate rise in temperature of structural steel, say up to 500 F, is beneficial in that the strength is
about 10% greater than the normal value
. Above 500 F, strength
falls off, until at 700 F it is nearly equal to the normal temperature strength. At a
temperature of 1000 F, the compressive strength of steel is about the same as the
maximum allowable working stress in columns.
"

Building Design and Construction Handbook, 6 ed., Frederick S. Merritt (Deceased) Editor,
Jonathan T. Ricketts Editor, 2001, McGRAW-HILL

http://www.amazon.com/Building-Design-Cons...07041999X#cited

Of course, 500 F = 260 C
700 F = 371.1111111111 C
1000 F = 537.7777777778 C

Oh! Gawde! I do wish folk would get used to the idea of quoting temperatures in o C, or better still K.

Thank you at least for the tail piece there.

It would really help commentators to at least have a brief exposure to tracts [1] on the production, processing and use of materials especially metals and grasp the beauty of equilibrium (phase) diagrams. So many words and muchy hot air would be saved. This particularly applies to the those involved in the production of Popular Mechanics (Feynman would have wiped the floor with those guys).

[1] An excellent example of which is:

Materials for Engineers and Technicians by Raymond A Higgins which has seen many editions.

Edit. Emphasis

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jan 16 2009, 10:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 16 2009, 01:45 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Jan 16 2009, 08:30 AM) *
Oh! Gawde! I do wish folk would get used to the idea of quoting temperatures in o C, or better still K.

Well O892, several/many books are still written in the good ol' British system (as was this one). That "degree" symbol isn't that easy to obtain on my US keyboard either, but I often type the text-based "deg_C," especially in Excel charts.

500 F ~ 260 C ~ 533.15 K
700 F ~ 371.11 C ~ 644.26 K
1000 F ~ 537.78 C ~ 810.93 K

But just for the above post, I'm going to give you Rankine too. wink.gif

260 C ~ 959.67 R
371.11 C ~ 1159.67 R
537.78 C ~ 1459.67 R

Although my library is at another location, here are some free eBook references from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Unfortunately, you are likely to find "the King's units" in use over there too.

http://www.aisc.org/content.aspx?id=2882

I assume there is a British equivalent, but this is one of 3 "bibles" that I use- an invaluable book that engineers/students have been known to steal, Machinery's Handbook. There are a few other very good (if extremely expensive) books on this link, too.

http://www.amazon.com/Machinerys-Handbook-...s/dp/0831127007
-----------------
My brief search suggests that the 2007-ish UK standards appear to fall under ISO (which was a membership-only service last time I checked there). Some relevant documents may be referenced in this Welding & Joining Society PDF, if that would help locate them.

http://www.steelconstruction.org/static/as...tion%20form.pdf
---------------------------------
EDIT: Thanks to O892 and the Wiki (on that degree or ordinate symbol),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_symbol

"Input

* See Alt code and Unicode, section "Input methods" for general information on entering characters like this. The Unicode code point is U+00B0 (176 decimal), and the code point in CP437 etc is 0xF8 (248 decimal).
* On many Mac keyboard layouts, the character can be found on Option+Shift+8.
* The HTML entity &deg;.
* On Linux and other Unix-like systems, many keyboard layouts allow typing the degree sign with AltGr+Shift+0. Others allow typing it with the “multi-key” or “compose” key, as Compose o o.
* On Windows PCs, you can type in alt+0176 to make it appear.

Due to a similar appearance in some fonts in print and on computer screens, some other characters may be mistakenly substituted for it: the "masculine ordinal indicator" (U+00BA, ), the "ring above" (U+02DA, ˚ , which appears on a Mac keyboard layout at Option+K), "superscript zero" (U+2070, ⁰ ), superscript zero proper ( 0 ) or superscript letter "o" ( o ), and the "ring operator" (U+2218, ∘ )."


Testing: &deg; [&deg;]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Jan 17 2009, 02:38 AM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



of course, the issue of the structural steel reaching softening/melting temperatures is not the salient issue.

one of the more salient issues is that in all three wtc events the softening/melting occurred with such unique symmetricity. virtually impossible. especially concerning wtc 1,2. with short-term, low temperature fires on high floors i think it impossible that the towers could fall into their basements. symmetrically.

and it goes without saying that the the symmetrical collapse of wtc7 into its basement was an impossibility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jan 17 2009, 10:48 AM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Jan 15 2009, 05:38 AM) *
one of the more salient issues is that in all three wtc events the softening/melting occurred with such unique symmetricity. virtually impossible. especially concerning wtc 1,2. with short-term, low temperature fires on high floors i think it impossible that the towers could fall into their basements. symmetrically.

Abso[bloody]lutely! I have always thought this.

This is the most fundamental aspect of the events at WTC that those who agree with the OCT either avoid or fail to grasp. I do not recall seeing any OCTist counter this argument with anything other than evasion or obfuscation. Maybe others have.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jan 17 2009, 10:57 AM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 14 2009, 04:45 PM) *
Well O892, several/many books are still written in the good ol' British system (as was this one). That "degree" symbol isn't that easy to obtain on my US keyboard either,

Alt/0176 on numeric keypad in Courier font.

But then I used the superscript, bold and Fontsize 2 options from the message compose tools.

QUOTE
but I often type the text-based "deg_C," especially in Excel charts.

500 F ~ 260 C ~ 533.15 K
700 F ~ 371.11 C ~ 644.26 K
1000 F ~ 537.78 C ~ 810.93 K

But just for the above post, I'm going to give you Rankine too. wink.gif

260 C ~ 959.67 R
371.11 C ~ 1159.67 R
537.78 C ~ 1459.67 R

Heh! Heh!

I figured that a response like this would be forthcoming. biggrin.gif

My point was to indicate how commentators (media talking heads) talk temperatures without stating the units. This can be from ignorance on their part or attempts to cloud the issue.

Thanks for the ref's. salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Jan 17 2009, 04:50 PM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



The US Customs Building, Building 6, had a store of weapons in which were encased in melted concrete.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9-11guns/DSC_7411.html

Now why would an ordinary office fire melt and encase the guns? They build nuclear power plants out of concrete and here is an explaination of a meltdown.
QUOTE
Suppose the reactor to be of average size, 1GW (1 Giga watt, or 1000 Million Watts). Since electric power plants are typically about 33% efficient, tossing 67% into the cooling towers and the water passing through the condensers, a 1GW power plant will need 3GW of heat energy to be released in the core.
The 7% of full energy that is initially produced by the radioactivity of the fission products (page 208) lasts only briefly, but 1% lasts a day, and % declines to % only after 11 days. Assume we are down to 1% when the reactor vessel releases the molten mass to the floor.
1% of 3GW is 3x107 or 30,000,000 Joules per second. In one day this produces 2.5x1012 Joules. It would take another 14 days at % of 3GW to completely melt the concrete slab. The heat required to transmit a temperature sufficient to produce steam at the critical temperature (370o) in the supporting moist earth would, according to these calculations, occur in 3 days. To melt a hole in the concrete slab 25 feet across at the top and 12 feet across at the bottom would take 10 hours.


WTF melted the concrete. Thermite would have no reasonable application in the WTC 6. It was not an important building to the destruction of the 2 towers such as WTC 7 that might hold clues to the perpetrators, just a casualty of the situation. Encasing the weapons in melted concrete would have had to been an immediate reaction to an event during the destruction of the towers, draw your own conclusions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 17 2009, 07:47 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Jan 17 2009, 01:50 PM) *
The US Customs Building, Building 6, had a store of weapons in which were encased in melted concrete.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9-11guns/DSC_7411.html

Now why would an ordinary office fire melt and encase the guns? They build nuclear power plants out of concrete and here is an explaination of a meltdown.


WTF melted the concrete. Thermite would have no reasonable application in the WTC 6. It was not an important building to the destruction of the 2 towers such as WTC 7 that might hold clues to the perpetrators, just a casualty of the situation. Encasing the weapons in melted concrete would have had to been an immediate reaction to an event during the destruction of the towers, draw your own conclusions.


The words "super critical", come to mind.

The vaporization of steel takes even more energy,
I'm thinking of the spire.

There seems to be some distinct gradients of energy
(hot)melted iron,
(hotter)melted concrete,
(hottest)vaporized steel.

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html

QUOTE
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Evidence of Advanced Fusion Devices at the WTC

The evidence is quite compelling, as abhorrent as the idea may be:


imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 17 2009, 09:26 PM
Post #12





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Albert!

QUOTE
but, as i have said for many years, if steel could be melted by superficial, short-term exposure to kerosene, at ambient atmosphere, nucor, gerdau, mittal, ussteel, et alia would have adopted that methodology decades ago. can you imagine what that development would have done for their profitability?

can you imagine what it would have done to the steel industry?


An excellent point that this Pittsburgh sonuvasteelworker never thought of. You need much higher temperatures and have to concentrate that heat. An excellent reductio ad adsurdium to add to "why don't Coleman Heaters and car and plane engines melt?".

Symmetrical + straight down + free fall + massive dust clouds +small easily loaded and removed parts = controlled demolition. Just watch it on film. I can only speculate why you see it, but that's what you see. In the two years before 911, I watched two CD's from a vantage point 400 feet above and less than 1/2 mile away. The first was a 20 story office building with a large sports hero mural (Lemeiux, Clemente, Bradshaw) that provided great entertainment for my son's birthday party in May 1999. The second was Three Rivers Stadium in February 2001. That's what they looked like.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Jan 18 2009, 01:05 AM
Post #13





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



when i ran my blog, forensic metallurgy, and discussed 11/09/01 issues, i was attacked as if a sheep amongst wolves.

these wolves were always inaccurate. they disputed any truths that i revealed. oddly, they followed me from a daily kos acolyte blog, the left coaster[steve soto], when i disputed the validity of the invasion of afghanistan. amongst virtually all of the purportedly progressives, the underlying excuse for the invasion of afghanistan was the involvement of afghanistan in the events of 11/09/01. of course, afghanistan had nothing to do with the events of that day.

amongst these individuals, the events of that day are not to be questioned. when i questioned them, and the role of the israeli intell services in the events of that day, i was hounded to the point i finally abandoned the blog. and that is how i came to end up here.

clearly, there are individuals within the us dod, israeli intell, who have been given the mission to discredit all who question the official story[ies] concerning the events of that day. and as some of you might imagine, i am certain that all sites dedicated to that questioning are routinely monitored. mine certainly was. and i am certain that i have encountered "student pilots" who have been charged with disrupting this board.

year after year, i continue to be amazed at how much i take for granted concerning my fellow citizens' knowledge, intelligence. i have been blessed over the years to have been able to train a group of individuals into the realm of what we think of as common sense. that we now recognize as uncommon sense.

i caught a speech by griffin the other day. he was attempting to explain why it was that the us citizenry refused to question the bushit fictions of 11/09/01. his conclusions were remarkably benign. perhaps he styled them that way so that he wouldn't risk losing his audience.

without spending much more time on this subject, i have come to a different conclusion. and if you caught what i had to say about robert fisk, you will understand my pov.

lastly, because the amerikan populace is so demented as revealed by how they accepted the nonsense of 11/09/01, this country will never be extricating itself from the "crooking" of the elites. the experiment is over, i fear.

and this new fervor the rockefeller's mulatto is a bad sign. the populace keep looking for that new adolf - a man on horseback. monte carlo, anyone?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 18 2009, 04:54 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Jan 17 2009, 12:38 AM) *
and it goes without saying that the the symmetrical collapse of wtc7 into its basement was an impossibility.

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2873776548.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hiram
post Mar 1 2009, 02:59 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 4-May 08
Member No.: 3,273



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 15 2009, 05:30 PM) *
Although I'll wager that the author of this treatise was European-educated, do we have any verifiable sources on any of the assertions, constants, values, equations, etc. used?


Complement on reflexions on molten steel

I shall try to meet some legitimate remarks by dMole and add some further reflexions.

* First, he won his wager, I am european-educated and still happy european, my mother tongue being French as one could have guessed.

* The postulate that "red hot or molten steel was found in the debris of the WTC several weeks after 9/11" is not an assertion but a work hypothesis. In fact, I don't know of anybody which has come with a clear and complete explanation of how the towers fell.


Use of alumino-thermic devices
"They" could have cut the heaviest columns every 3 stories with linear shaped cutting charges, or use a mixed solution e.g. : cutting charges-alumino-thermic devices. Not to speak of cutting the horizontal-diagonal bracings (it seems that on numerous photographs - see FEMA hereunder, the main columns are clean-broken at the horizontal welds without any trace of burning or explosives) which could also lead to the ruin of the building by column buckling. (I doubt the composite floors working as diaphragms were rigid enough to brace the core columns).
My purpose in using that postulate and trying to find the origin of these "findings" is to help clean the debate on this aspect of the collapse.

It doesn't deny the use of weakening devices on the WTC steel.

* Values on the mass of columns steel was found on

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/urich/MassAndPeWtc1.htm

see 4. Results ; 4.2 Detailed results an XLS file "CalcMassAndPeWTC1.xls" compiled by Gregory H Urich.

* I supposed a 0.78 inch wide cut to stay on the "economy" side of the endeavor but as I have suggested in the paragraph "Ramblings on Thermic Devices" one have could be more generous with thermite-thermate leading to more steel molten . This could lead to longer cooling time.

Under
http://www.physics911.net/thermite

DP Grimmer produced calculations ont the possible use of thermite to melt sections of the WTC Core Columns in which he fills a box column with thermite and found it wouldl be sufficient to melt 100 % of the steel with a thermite packing density of 0.68. He has not calculated how much tons of thermite needed. That's obviously not what happened. (Had all the core columns melted it makes 22.929.000 kg : 7.850 kg/m = 2.921 m of steel, a solid 1.000 m steel plate, 2,921 m thick (0.2471 acre, 9.5832 ft)
Sections of columns were found in the NIST documents.


Predisposed explosive charges
That is a possibility, but for how long ?

In Europe, some countries where "invasions" occured on a regular basis, got into the habit of readying their "ouvrages d'art" i.e. mostly road and railways bridges for the next one. Some mine chambers or holding crates were build into pillars, end abutments or members of briges but nowhere with live explosives, these were stocked as "prefabricated" charges in the next munition depot and were periodically renewed. In Germany a lot of roads also were mined awaiting the Reds assault.

As for the concrete-C4 mix used in place of a more reliable one it is probably the best attempt to fool thoses inquisitive explosives-sniffing dogs.

One of the frequent contributor to this forum, Christofera, states in a #65 post (feb 23-2009) that 3" diameter rebars were used in a "steel reinforced concrete core" in one of the WTC towers. I didn't find anything bigger than #18 steel bars (2.257" or 57,33 mm ), perhaps they got a bigger number in the late sixties ?
He also let us believe that those steel bars could have been explosives-coated, if true, that casts an entirely new vue on the adherence of big steel bars on concrete.


* I think I made a mistake in the c- hypothesis by writing that "there are baseplates", I didn't find proof of too many of them. Having looked at some of the ends of core columns, it seems the welds were not too robust (horizontal or vertical). The blueprints I have seen are not "shop plans" nor assembly details which could be of great interest.(That's were the devil hides.)

The photographs.
I shall not come back on the lack of satisfying photographic evidence of molten metal. There is a severe critic of the Cilecchia photograph and others at Sharprintinginc.com (see farther)

For what we are told, the authorities (Mayor Giuliani, the FBI etc.) limited the access to the site, (which is normal) and also forbode all photography.

Beside the ones wich worked for the police, FBI, FEMA etc. some managed to obtain the right to take shots.One of them is Jol Meyerowitz in his book "Aftermath" wich documents GZ.(No publicity intended.)
He writes in his books that almost everybody managed to take shots.

He tells us he was there 9 months, from the beginning to the end of the rubble removal. Mr Meyerowitz says he made more than 8000 photographs which are deposited at The Museum of the City of New York. Save those in his book, I could not have access to them. I hope concerned New Yorkers have a better chance.
We see lots of interesting facts, fumes and vapor but no red hot metal nor molten steel.

It could be that all the "official" imagery was duly censored.

For FEMA photographic documents go to
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...photo_search.do

and put 3169 as "Disaster number"
Interesting photographs on core columns : nbr 3920, 4114, 4118, 4144, 5381, 5396.

On
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/
Site with the titles WTC Demolition Analysis-Photographic Evicence Repository-Evidence Based Research in section - Core box column damage- some other documents.Though interesting, I don't endorse the complete contents of their analysis especially the mean critics of Dr Jones 's thesis

An interesting and very informative photograph is the NOAA high definition image of the WTC site on the 23 september 2001. It shows were the debris fell, long sections of core columns and the intriguing demolition of WTC 7 between The Verizon and The Post Office buildings. Be patient it's a very big file and my MS Photo Editor can't take it (Choose another.)

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg

The witnesses
I have read some "disqualifying appreciations" (debunkings) of different testimonies, of the same vein that I have found on P4T relative to the testimonies of people who have "seen" a 757 plane crashing in the Pentagon. That is not my purpose.
I try to examine the content of the declarations and compare them with accepted facts.

Some testimonies :

Paramedic Lee Turner arrives at the World Trade Center site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. While at Ground Zero, he goes down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground. There he reportedly sees, in the darkness a distant, pinkish glowmolten metal dripping from a beam. [US News and World Report, 9/12/2002

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe OToole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, was dripping from the molten steel. [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002]

New York firefighters recall heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel. [New York Post, 3/3/2004]

* If a beam was melted on the 11/9 (certainly not due to the fire) is it possible that it could continue to drip for 24 h ? Be pink hot that's possible (medium cherry red is 760 c ) if it were hotter on the 11th. If it was melted on the 11 th it began to drip or flow and then cools and drips no more. It could drip molten steel from an other source (metal flowing along the beam but that means a source running during a certain time ) To melt steel (or Aluminum) and keep it molten, you need carbon and a lot of oxygen, electricity as in electric ovens, radiations (lasers, nuclear reactions) or a vigorous exothermic chemical reaction (thermite-like ) and a more or less insulated container. All I can imagine, is of pieces of aluminum cladding, heathed by red hot steel melting and flowiing along.

* How do you preserve steel in a molten state for 5 months ? (Even large quantities)
At some metallurgical sites in Europe (and probably in the USA) steel-works are not at the same place as the blast furnaces which produce iron. Between them, molten iron is moved in 100 to 250 t (110.2 to 275.5 tons) thermo railcars. I know of a place in Lige -Belgium where it is done on 20 km (12.43 mi) but they have not days before delivering their load to the steel-works or they get an 100 t plus solid ingot on wheels. (In fact as something goes wrong in the steel-works, they simply pour the content out of the thermo-container in some hellish place and reuse it after breaking it in pieces.)
Here an image of such operation :
http://haut-fourneau06.skyrock.com/photo.h...46486&rev=0

* If the witnesses have really seen what they describe, it means that an enormous quantity of steel must have melted and/or that the heath source(s) e.g.alumino-thermic devices, must have survived the collapse.
What still lacks is proofs of blobs of solidified molten steel.
The "Meteor" saved at JFK airport seems to be a big compression of steel, concrete and possibly of molten plastics. For what we see, steel has not melted.
Concrete bursts under heath and some of its components can melt at temperatures analogous or higher then steel.

T of the fire stricken part of the WTC.
I took 300 c as a mean final uniform t of the 10 % which is arbitrary. Let's put 600 c instead of 300 and see what evolves :

(873 K x 10 + 298 K x 90) / 100 = 356 K or 58 K above normal 25 c.
It leads to 58 + 1 + 5 = 64 c above 25 c instead of 33,5
Not astonishing as 90 % of the upper part building was not on fire.
Heath was not evenly spread in the rubble mass and a lot of materials (paper, plastics, wood, carpeting) could burn for a long time but at a low rate by lack of oxygen. (Try to burn a phone book with a match). As observed by a lot of people when smoldering parts came to light, there was a burst of smoke and dust. No flame reported or seen in the photographs.

A more realistic case : I suppose that the 10 % of the total mass of the towers at 600 c were mixed with an equal mass of debris, another 10 % at 25 c. Heath spreads by conduction and radiation in the compressed pile it gives :
(873 K x 10 + 298 K x 10) / 20 = 585,5 K or 312,5 c
This pretty high temperature is unable to make steel blush but don't try to put your booted feet on it (behalve you have special metallurgic gear and you run fast). Add water and it makes a lot of steam before cooling down.
This temperature is good enough to :
-ignite paper, natural fibers, wood, most of plastics and synthetic rubbers and
-melt Lead (327 c) but not Aluminum (660 c) , Copper(1084 c or Zinc (419 c).
As Pr. Jones has explained, Al (nor Pb or Zn) don't glow red when melting. It probably looks reddish at very higher temperature but that needs a container and a corresponding heath source.

* Aside from the firemen and policemen, one of the most numerous trade on GZ was Ironworkers (welders or cutters). They worked continuously to free steel from the rubble and clear the way for grapplers etc. I am curious to know how many tons of Oxygen, Acetylene, 3/8 " steel tubes (for oxygen lances) were used on the site. It could give an approximation of added molten steel (and heath) though too small to drip for long.

There remains some intriguing facts :

A big section of a core box column bent without cracks seen in a video on

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm

the wmv file is "wtc_horseshoe.wmv)

Photographs and a video of Dr Astaneh inspecting what seems to be burned, corroded and deformed steel pieces

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...n_astaneh_asl_1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyRw7gEKpBQ (Astaneh on a scrap yard with traces of explosives, though without comments)

Contra Costa Article on the WTC:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/search/ci_...acostatimes.com no more available it is a report on Dr Astaneh's sharp 2007 conclusions on the design of the WTC.


Towers so strong
The almost "free-fall" speed of the WTC collapse is still unresolved.
Leslie Roberston (one of the main structural engineers of the WTC) declares in 2002:

"Another structural innovation was the outrigger space frame, which structurally linked the outside wall to the services core. This system performed several functions. First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated. Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness. Finally, the weight of, and the wind-induced overturning moment from the rooftop antenna (440 feet tall) was distributed to all columns in the building . . . adding additional redundancy and toughness to the design."

It seems it is not the case, by beeing a non-redundant concept. Once one of these elements failed the others couldn't continue to assume their function.
As for the design requirements, has somebody asked that this buildings withstood such attacks ? As you design an automobile one doesn't hope it to come clean from under a bridge collapse unless you have a tank in mind. Designing and building higher and higher towers can be an exciting task and a technical feat but the results are not people-friendly. This latter quality should be the goal of every architect or engineer.

* The general opinion of the corporation of professionnals and of Mr Robertson in particular is that they have saved thousands of lifes through sound design.One doesn't expect of them of "cracher dans la soupe"(spitting in the soup).It could be one of the reasons why NIST had not examined what happened after "collapse initiation".
Some fire chiefs have another view which I share.
Thoses high-rises were economically designed and used all the sophisticated tricks available at the moment. The light composite floors were not rigid enough and the outer skin composed of thousands of bolted panels have rapidly loosen all resistance. (If you look at almost all the outer columns-panels they persished by rupture or bending of their assembling bolts.)

* Another curious thing is that they designed the towers to resist the impact of a plane, still Mr Robertson speaking :
"The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field)"
and they forgot the fuel, for if a plane seeks a landing field, his tanks must be almost empty
For my part I, consider the fact that all vertical core partitions (lifts, stairwells) were not made of reinforced concrete as criminal.

* For the anecdote, I have heard an audio (in french) about the WTC collapse by an engineer named Geoff ROOKE who works in France and has made a lot of appearance. Alas I'm not able to find it anew. Just plain "Offical Version". He explained in his presentation given before a non specialized audience that the trade unions were responsible for the fact that no concrete was used in vertical walls, partitions or columns. The workers would not tolerate the presence of another trade above their heads (concrete workers against metal workers !). If it is true,these have probably good reasons (bad safety conditions).

Hiram
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 7 2009, 09:59 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Some related threads are at:

Molten Steel at Ground Zero
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=50

Wtc Steel Found Buried At Ground Zero, But will they test it???
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4495
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jun 8 2009, 04:31 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 841
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



This page

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

contains

QUOTE
Results of Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations show the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the area in and around the World Trade Center on September 16 and 23, 2001.


Has anybody seen the following diagram



amended to include the outlines of the various WTC buildings? I did a trawl of the net but found nothing so far. I'd be happy with a similar thing for this image instead



Cheers,
KP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Jun 21 2009, 03:47 AM
Post #18





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



See how large piece of steel has been bent and it has square cut in it and strange line running through it, could this be the work of some sort of demolition charge or does it look more man made?

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...ails.do?id=4179
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jun 21 2009, 06:39 AM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



Just wondering what folks here think of this picture.

http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/gallery/270.../10697258/Large

It is one of the few that I've ever seen, that shows evidence of steel that had been melted to a liquid state.

Plus one more interesting image, where this section of GZ looks more like a barbeque pit then a pile of steel. Apparently, the steel they are pulling out is still hot enough that they are hosing down the grapple to cool the steel down.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...vate7.jpg?sdfew
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hiram
post Jun 27 2009, 12:35 PM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 4-May 08
Member No.: 3,273



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 21 2009, 06:39 AM) *
Just wondering what folks here think of this picture.

It is one of the few that I've ever seen, that shows evidence of steel that had been melted to a liquid state.

Plus one more interesting image, where this section of GZ looks more like a barbeque pit then a pile of steel. Apparently, the steel they are pulling out is still hot enough that they are hosing down the grapple to cool the steel down.


Thanks DoYou and Paul for the interesting pictures.

Picture with the dog: If we take the date for true, its an early photograph of GZ but (that's a general remark) you never know over what and when the cutters operated.
The rectangular cut in what seems to be a box column is indeed man made(for what purpose ?). The line running from the cut seems to be an assembly of 2 steel plates either not welded or unwelded.
The long side of the web seems also to have been teared along a rather thin weld.
In the background, the end of the box column shows traces of thermal cutting (?)
In opposite to a widely purported claim, you can identify many objects (carpeting, wires, a plastic grid) and a lot of dirt (light concrete, gypsum panneling...all was not pulverized)

Picture with the yellowish jagged edge : IMHO it looks more like the effect of chemical corrosion than of melting. Melted steel is often darker and the edges are a bit rounded. I associate it with the pictures and comments by Prof. Astaneh.

Hiram
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th December 2014 - 07:14 PM