The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Analysis of events and conditions between impacts and onset of collapse.

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby newton » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:28 am

i don't think those oxygen tanks could survive for an hour in the fires.
nor do i think they would have survived the impact.
not to mention, i don't think that the relative volume of them is enough to be significant.
i do think the batteries are an issue in getting the whole picture of what may have happened, even if merely because of the weight and reinforcement factors which should be considered.
i agree that the batteries would start flowing when they were still silver, and there is little chance that the lead could be heated to glowing temps without finding a hole to drip through.
newton
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:58 pm

 

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Matt » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:32 am

You know, above I said something to the effect of "the closed room would act like an oven." I think it's safe to say that the walls would have been blown open.

The starboard engine of UAL175 flew out the NE corner "window" on the 81st floor.

Image
Matt
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:03 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby newton » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:37 am

Image

BIG OOPS!!

this picture is the molten lead flowing SILVER at the smelter. the other picture of the glowing yellow molten stuff is the SLAG from the smelting process.
newton
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby femr2 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:15 am

Matt wrote:You know, above I said something to the effect of "the closed room would act like an oven." I think it's safe to say that the walls would have been blown open.

The starboard engine of UAL175 flew out the NE corner "window" on the 81st floor.

I draw your attention to my previous comment re entry angle of 'Flight 175'.

The aircraft impacted in a ~zero degree orientation, as shown clearly by the study performed by P1, and easily confirmed.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/nist-s-ua175-impact-simulation-wrong-t181.html

Could you re-assess the post once you have digested the linked thread please.
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Dr. G » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:02 pm

Femr2 + Newton:

The starboard side of the fuselage of UAL 175 missed the core columns of WTC 2 so I suggest it is quite probable that the cabin O2 cylinder survived the crash. Besides, arguments from incredulity are not very convincing.

Also I am not convinced that the impact angle was zero degrees. The engines do not appear to impact the south face at the same instant. I would also ask what are your error bars on "zero degrees"? I would guess at least +/- 2 degrees .....
Dr. G
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby peterene1 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:22 pm

Ehm, I'm not sure about the error, but I would guess that it is somewhat lower then your +/- 2°estimate (we have to wait on femr2)

the point is that things do change it's trajectory after a collision, so the perimeter columns could have a big impact on the later trajectory

anyway, I saw you throwing numbers on the thermitic thread, but now......., you've just conveniently forgotten this tactics now

we have less then 10kg of oxygen avilable!

we both know that a few kilograms of oxygen would have done next to nothing in regard to the tons of the dripping material



"The engines do not appear to impact the south face at the same instant"

Have you seen some highspeed 1080p video from 9/11 with some correction?

you see, everybody does dirty stuff, even here :lol: :twisted:
peterene1
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:24 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby femr2 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:30 pm

Dr. G wrote:Femr2 + Newton:
The starboard side of the fuselage of UAL 175 missed the core columns of WTC 2

How do you know this ? NIST 'guesstimate', based on the impact orientation 'guesstimates' ? (I also suggest terming as 'Flight 175')

so I suggest it is quite probable that the cabin O2 cylinder survived the crash.

Even 'if' the O2 cylinder missed the core columns, why would it survive every other impact it would be subjected to in the crash zone ?

Besides, arguments from incredulity are not very convincing.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate ?

Also I am not convinced that the impact angle was zero degrees.

It is clear that the impact angle was near 0 degrees. Perhaps not 'exact', but a lot closer to zero than the 6 degree +-2 vertical, 15 degree +-2 horizontal chosen by NIST. I have begun rendering of accurate scaled models to highlight the discrepancies between aircraft orientation suggested by NIST and video of the actual event, and will update the other thread as and when:
Image

The engines do not appear to impact the south face at the same instant.

Not 'exactly', but the image above should raise a few alarm bells.

I would also ask what are your error bars on "zero degrees"? I would guess at least +/- 2 degrees .....

You will have to ask peterene that question I;m afraid, as he performed the initial study. As I have indicated, I'm also looking at the impact orientation, from a different calculation perspective, so if the results match up there should be greater acceptance. I'll be able to provide margins of error only when I've completed by own study.

I should highlight that the NIST figures are all +-2 degrees for some reason, though why the error is so large given available footage it a bit, odd.

It should also be considered what a 2 degree difference to all impact axes would have on the initial assertion that the CO2 cyclinder did not impact a core column.
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby peterene1 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:35 pm

"How do you know this ? NIST 'guesstimate', based on the impact orientation 'guesstimates' ?"


The piece of the fuselage was found on top of WTC5, I belive,

of course, that does mean nothing........

Also I am not convinced that the impact angle was zero degrees.


Uhm, yes.You just can't belive that those arabs had such a remarkable flying skills, can you? :shock:
peterene1
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:24 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby newton » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:47 pm

dr.g, the NIST and purdue simulations both show the plane being shredded like paper.
i don't buy into the accuracy of either, but you do.
hardly any of the plane came out the other side. there is no way in hell that the valve would not have popped off. you can knock one off with a mild hammer blow. a friend of mine saw an (welding, the tall ones) oxy tank fly about a half mile through the air after it merely tipped over.

here's an accidental explosion of one on a plane....

http://www.wings900.com/vb/1-1-civil-aviation/37108-pics-qf30-oxygen-tank-explosion.html

if you could convince me the oxy tanks were made out of middle eastern passports, i might reconsider the possibility, lol!

i edited this post because i spelled 'valve' as 'vavle'. the second edit is to explain the first. i don't want anyone to think i like to rewrite history.
the third edit is because i spelled 'valve' right both times in my explanation, lol! ie. "valve" as "valve".
"whachu wanna do today, pinky? NARF"
newton
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby peterene1 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:29 pm

The silence is deafning.

Somehow, all of the cca 8kg of O2 was released just prior to the collapse and burned with a few kilograms of paper and plastic, the resulting heat made a few tones of molten aluminium with t>900°C.

:shock:

Dr.G pls, clarify your opinion.
peterene1
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:24 am

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby femr2 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:00 pm

newton wrote:the NIST and purdue simulations both show the plane being shredded like paper.

My quick study of the Flight 175 impact orientation is becoming more accurate and showing more and more clearly that the NIST figures are at best 'badly wrong', and the more checking of their documentation on the subject I do, the more it appears to be deliberate use of bad values.

The Purdue simulation is a fudged cartoon, and should have no place in any of these discussions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYpRaoEUPuI
(Just one of many blatant and unforgivable issues with the simulation)
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby OneWhiteEye » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:30 pm

peterene1 wrote:The silence is deafning.

Somehow, all of the cca 8kg of O2 was released just prior to the collapse and burned with a few kilograms of paper and plastic, the resulting heat made a few tones of molten aluminium with t>900°C.

:shock:

At least he took a stab at explaining it. I have to join the chorus of doubters, though, when it comes to the survivability of the tank. Nevertheless, oxygen was not the only chemical mechanism to create elevated temperatures Dr. G suggested.

Dr.G pls, clarify your opinion.

peterene1, clarify your opinion, if you will. I may have missed it earlier. What is your mechanism for the formation of a swimming pool of lava?

This is probably a measure of how dense I can be, but can anyone explain to me the significance of a few degrees variation in the impact entry angle? I do get the business about the ejecta on the opposite side at the mechanical floor, but is there anything else?
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby newton » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:35 pm

i also see a thin piece of aluminum skin slice through a column, and then a piece from farther back passes right through a horizontal column as the columns sink down (why would they sink, lol?).
the narrator must say "physically accurate, high fidelity, state of the art animation" every second sentence, ....seems like he's compensating and hoping the power of suggestion will hoodwink the viewer.

where are the wing spars modeled? the cargo? the landing gear? the undercarriage? it looks like they modeled the plane as a shell of nearly indestructable paper, three sacks of liquid, and two titanium shafts. i wonder how that flies?
newton
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby Major_Tom » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:49 pm

This is probably a measure of how dense I can be, but can anyone explain to me the significance of a few degrees variation in the impact entry angle?



I see the argument like this:

These dudes from Al Qaida handled the descent and the last second bank as if they were fighter pilots.

Say you don't really know how to handle a plane like this and you are approaching the building. Wouldn't you just aim at the center of the building?

Instead, this dude approaches the building in a steady trajectory which would actually miss the building with tha fuselage if he were to continue going straight. And then, at the last seconds, he cranks the plane with a sharp left to make an almost perfect impact at close to zero degrees.


Then comes NIST. They claim the angle of impact is quite different from something that femr could disprove after a rather simple examination of the wings in publicly available video.


OWE, it took me a couple of days understand what the Achimspok video was trying to say. It made more sense to me when I thought about how the pilot approached the building.

I, personally would have been sweating, trembling and just aiming for the center of the building from far, far away.

Maybe that pilot was just a show-off.
Major_Tom
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

Re: WTC2 Molten Metal Drip

Postby newton » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:57 pm

OneWhiteEye wrote:
This is probably a measure of how dense I can be, but can anyone explain to me the significance of a few degrees variation in the impact entry angle? I do get the business about the ejecta on the opposite side at the mechanical floor, but is there anything else?


yeah. NIST is lying again. why do they lie so much?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o

i know you've seen that, but thar be lurkers who need to know.
newton
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:58 pm

PreviousNext



Return to WTC1 and WTC2 - Post Impact to Pre Initiation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred