|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Picture #1 shows fire, but nothing at all "molten." Molten means liquid, and while there could be something liquid there, the picture doesn't show it. Sorry.
Picture #2 shows a lump of something, and it needs to be analyzed. It is a good puzzle, and more investigation is warrented. However, it doesn't prove anything until it is studied. We cannot say by looking at a photo what the materials are. Many materials rust and many materials melt. This is a composite, and we cannot be sure that all of the items were ever melted or just aggregated together with other items that were melted.
(You find rocks in hardened concrete (called aggregate). During the creation of the concrete, the rocks were never liquid although the concrete mix of portland cement was liquid (with solids in suspension).
Picture #3 shows firemen, not metalurgists. There are no verified eyewitness accounts of liquid steel (molten steel). The firemen have all been discreditied as things they called molten steel turned out to be neither steel nor molten.
#4: Saw the video. All old stuff. The FEMA guy is correct. None of the pictures show molten steel. There are no actual eyewitnesses to molten steel. And no evidence by Dr Quack (Steven Jones) is admissable. He is an incompetent, fired for being unqualified, and nothing he says is evidence of anything. He doesn't follow the scientific method and has no qualifications in engineering or chemistry. He's just an old quack who got some attention, liked it, and kept babbling on.
Last edited by ontheway on Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Picture #1 shows fire, but nothing at all "molten." Molten means liquid, and while there could be something liquid there, the picture doesn't show it. Sorry.
are you kidding me?
| Quote: |
| Picture #2 shows a lump of something, and it needs to be analyzed. It is a good puzzle, and more investigation is warrented. However, it doesn't prove anything until it is studied. We cannot say by looking at a photo what the materials are. Many materials rust and many materials melt. This is a composite, and we cannot be sure that all of the items were ever melted or just aggregated together with other items that were melted. |
if you read the slide, you would have noticed that it was tested. it has a high IRON content. aluminum as you know, doesnt rust.
| Quote: |
| Picture #3 shows firemen, not metalurgists. There are no verified eyewitness accounts of liquid steel (molten steel). The firemen have all been discreditied as things they called molten steel turned out to be neither steel nor molten |
its not a picture, it is a video clip.
more witness accounts
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains."
A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel
A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.
A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:
Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen�s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8
A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based.
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9
The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage:
... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10
A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
that should just about do it..don't you thinK?
surfuce temperatures of the rubble piles also support witness testimony.
you make your claims like they are fact...can you link me to your resources?
| Quote: |
| #4: Couldn't see anything. Have to try again later |
it is buddy from NIST denying any witness testimony of molten metal.
send me a link to where you got your facts from. k?
thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Saw the video. All old stuff. The FEMA guy is correct. None of the pictures show molten steel. There are no actual eyewitnesses to molten steel. And no evidence by Dr Quack (Steven Jones) is admissable. He is an incompetent, fired for being unqualified, and nothing he says is evidence of anything. He doesn't follow the scientific method and has no qualifications in engineering or chemistry. He's just an old quack who got some attention, liked it, and kept babbling on. |
and the true colors come out....geez....
anyone else able to discuss matters without pulling the above? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
---
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:47 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Firemen are not metalurgists. They only know they are looking at some hot liquid. They cannot verify even that it was liquid metal, let alone steel. They do not constitute eyewitnesses.
The pictures do not show molten steel (that is all the various pictures, dozens of them posted by the truthers). Some show fire. Some do show something flowing out of the towers, but we cannot be sure that it is even liquid, let alone metal, and it doesn't look like liquid steel in any case.
Metalurgical chemistry and strengths of materials engineering, both coursework and labwork, are required in the study of structural engineering. Without that background, a person would be unqualified to see what the pictures show or to understand everything that is being discussed here.
Those pictures do not show what the truthers claim, and none of the truthers are qualified.
Further, out of the list of 204+ "architects and engineers" those who are actually qualified seems to number less than 10 and there is no evidence that any of that 10 are actively involved other than having their names on a list. We would have to verify if those people are real, do they actual have the credentials listed, and have they actually contributed to the truthers' evidence or analysis. Right now it appears the answer to the last part at least is "no."
The architect who started the group is not a structural engineer, not a metalurgist, and is not qualified in any area required to make any of the claims he makes. Another grandstanding quack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Firemen are not metalurgists. They only know they are looking at some hot liquid. They cannot verify even that it was liquid metal, let alone steel. They do not constitute eyewitnesses.
The pictures do not show molten steel (that is all the various pictures, dozens of them posted by the truthers). Some show fire. Some do show something flowing out of the towers, but we cannot be sure that it is even liquid, let alone metal, and it doesn't look like liquid steel in any case.
Metalurgical chemistry and strengths of materials engineering, both coursework and labwork, are required in the study of structural engineering. Without that background, a person would be unqualified to see what the pictures show or to understand everything that is being discussed here.
Those pictures do not show what the truthers claim, and none of the truthers are qualified.
Further, out of the list of 204+ "architects and engineers" those who are actually qualified seems to number less than 10 and there is no evidence that any of that 10 are actively involved other than having their names on a list. We would have to verify if those people are real, do they actual have the credentials listed, and have they actually contributed to the truthers' evidence or analysis. Right now it appears the answer to the last part at least is "no."
The architect who started the group is not a structural engineer, not a metalurgist, and is not qualified in any area required to make any of the claims he makes. Another grandstanding quack. |
i see. can you link me to your resources for debunking the 'myth' that molten steel was found under the trade centers?
oh, and here is a structural engineer who is active in AE911truth/
William Rice
| Quote: |
| Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11 |
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
in addition, pieces of 'vaporized' steel was found. so it seems like steel was melting
and it was tested by FEMA investigators
| Quote: |
Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1
The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon. |
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
sorry to burst your bubble, but that research was performed by FEMA, not quacks.
and i would still like to see your link to the resources you used to support the claimed fact that:
"there are no eye witness reports of molten steel" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks bud...if you actually read the material you posted, you would realize that it has nothing to do with what i posted, except that theoretical energy calculation.
read your links first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Firemen are not metalurgists. They only know they are looking at some hot liquid. They cannot verify even that it was liquid metal, let alone steel. They do not constitute eyewitnesses.
. |
I'm sure a structural engineer knows what molten steel is.
| Quote: |
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8 |
(previously cited) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Loose Ends:
re: your links.
Read them.
William Rice does NOT say he agrees with the "truthers." He does call for a new investigation. So, do I. It is also obvious from his letter that he only wants to someone to study the collapses, but that he has not. His information is repeated from various skeptics but shows he has not actually thought about it in detail. If he had, he should have realized that neither of the towers fell 110 stories for purposed of calculating fall speed. One fell 80 and one fell 95. Maybe everyone has missed this. It should be part of the new investigation.
2nd link says this:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
So, even FEMA wants more studies.
We need to find out answers to intelligent questions. We should not listen to nutty, unqualified "truthers." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Firemen are not metalurgists. They only know they are looking at some hot liquid. They cannot verify even that it was liquid metal, let alone steel. They do not constitute eyewitnesses.
. |
I'm sure a structural engineer knows what molten steel is.
| Quote: |
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8 |
(previously cited) |
I've read this report. They were, however, quoting hearsay evidence about the molten steel. When traced back, there are no eyewitnesses to actual molten steel.
And firefighters rubber boots will melt at temperatures well below the melting point of steel.
The only qualified person ever quoted, later revealed that he was never on the site, but was quoting others.
The firemen do not seem to know the meaning of "molten" and only saw some hot liquid that could even have been hot, dirty water.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MOLTEN OR LIQUID STEEL.
It's time to admit the "truthers" are liars and quacks, and get on with a new, honest re-investigation of the twin towers collapses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Loose Ends:
re: your links.
Read them.
William Rice does NOT say he agrees with the "truthers." He does call for a new investigation. So, do I. It is also obvious from his letter that he only wants to someone to study the collapses, but that he has not. His information is repeated from various skeptics but shows he has not actually thought about it in detail. If he had, he should have realized that neither of the towers fell 110 stories for purposed of calculating fall speed. One fell 80 and one fell 95. Maybe everyone has missed this. It should be part of the new investigation.
2nd link says this:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
So, even FEMA wants more studies.
We need to find out answers to intelligent questions. We should not listen to nutty, unqualified "truthers." |
so we agree then. however i don't believe the truthers are as nutty as you believe.
also, you are right that the towers didn't totally collapse completely initially.
however a few seconds later the rest fell. Destruction was all the way into the basement.
the bottom section of the core remained for a bit, and then crumbled.
so my question then, who should conduct the next investigation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
also,
you haven't posted any links suggesting the firefighters don't have the ability to identify molten steel.
you say a proffesional is needed yet you make claims yourself. unless you are a proffesional....your point is meaningless unless you back it with the proffesional opinion you demand from the truthers.
so where is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
