- ignacio -
Regarding this term "liquefy" - the original context was me saying: "amazing how often the word liquefy is used." - This in relation to the post by dominic "the wings liquefied" (off abovetopsecret) - and my quote above "
Bob Leverknight, an active member of the Air National Guard and correspondent with Somerset's Daily American, told AFP at the newspaper's office, "It [the ground] liquefied."
So - I developed that - as it is so unbelievable - "the wings liquefied, the ground liquefied" - and within that context "the WTC liquefied" - which is essentially what "they" are trying to tell us. I developed this within the context of the "facts" as I saw them, ie, fuel capacity of plane, amount of steel in building, etc., within the context of what I saw with my own eyes on the day (cnn) - and the other absurdities of this issue - primarily temperature, construction, weight of jet, sprinkler system, etc.
Realise that I know (or assume) nothing - this thread is as much exploration as anything else. Yes, I paid attention to LG's thread - and I looked at reports and video, etc. Essentially though I post all this in regard to the pentagon video - that is so unbelievable - let's look closer at the rest. - And of course - when you do it is a mess - largely prompted by your own posts to MIT and NIST (wish, may, think, assume, etc.) Credible information to you - and posted in your full assumption of its correctness - then when I go and look it is cr#p. And of course - then - we all continue digging.
And - sorry for the lengthy post - but I would like to post some of my "quotes" in regard to this:
The basic oxygen steel-making process is as follows:
The lance blows 99 % pure oxygen onto the steel and iron, causing the temperature to rise to about 1700°C.
So - in a smelter - a specific built object - they "induce" steel to rise to 1700°C. But WTC they expect us to believe that "pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C)" On the basis of burning drapes, desks and papers. Tell me - who is deluded here?
Jet Fuel = Ignition Point = 425°C
Steel smelter = 1700°C
WTC = 1000°C = building melted, pulverised (425°C?) Oh yeah, the drapes burning.
The officials don't really have a story. They surmise - to explain the phenomena - twice in one day - within an hour and a half (based on 24 000 gallons of fuel)
-
To review - ignacion cites two credible links MIT and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) I quote these credible links back to him:
NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure.
"However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member.
"It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said.
Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations.
Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage.
Fires resulting from the aviation fuel spread widely through the impact zone and ultimately led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.
- off MIT
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly
evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
-
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel.
The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes; what did burn over the next hour, or hour and a half, was much of the contents of the buildings, according to the lead investigator of the NIST investigation. (desks, drapes, and papers!)
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
We start with the fact that large quantities of
molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero:
And WTC? - "Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower just minutes before its collapse:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11. Photographs capture the same significant event, clearly showing liquid metal dropping from the South Tower, still hot as it nears the ground below" (video is available at google).
... and wrapped up in:
Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.
and
ignacio #144
"We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.
You guys may have dealt with this (but I haven't) - equally absurd.
@ mooK (no comments from the peanut gallery - pleeaze!) 