Merged Molten metal observations

triforcharity said:
Absolutely it did. I was in the EOC one afternoon, doing an inspection, or something, and recall seeing a closet about the size of my living room, full of UPS supplies.

I will research it a little more, and see if I can come up with some exacts. I know one of the people who worked in the EOC back then, so I will drop him a line.

Cheers!
Click to expand...


Cool, thanks! Were you at the old Building 7 EOC pre 9/11, or the new one?

Before answering further, please consider the possibility that information about the specific current capabilities and equipment of the EOC might be sensitive. (You would know that better than I do.)

@Java Man -- there you go, a source of the large quantities of battery acid you inquired about. It appears that even your own strawman arguments are more plausible and better supported by evidence than your thermite claims.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Cool, thanks! Were you at the old Building 7 EOC pre 9/11, or the new one?

Before answering further, please consider the possibility that information about the specific current capabilities and equipment of the EOC might be sensitive. (You would know that better than I do.)


Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Yes, the old one, pre-911. It really was an incredible place!

And yes, there are some things that I cannot discuss about the EOC, unless you have the NWO TS Clearance card.


I haven't been in the new one, as I moved to Florida before the new one opened.

Cheers!
 
Clayton Moore said:
Java, their basic premise that fires, jet fuel/kerosene or office could be hot enough and of one location long enough weaken huge steel beams that would immediately conduct/disperse the heat throughout the entire length of itself(the beam) is insane.
Click to expand...
NOTHING conducts heat 'immediatly'. YOUR premise here would fly in the face of the fire engineering principle of putting insulation on structiral steel in the first place.
Whenever a 911 conspiracist insists that steel conducts heat so efficiently as to make it impossible for office fires to heat the steell to weaken it , it justs underlines how utterly ignorant they are.
(that would be you Clayton)

Their subsequent premise that damage, weakening of steel beams, to a very limited area of the buildings could cause a building destroy itself by global collapse is even more insane. More insane because they have been grandiosely dubbed as gravity collapses which had heretofore been the domain of collapsed stars and the birth of the universe.
Click to expand...
Wow, just wow,, you looking for a stundie?
What do you call a Caucasian adult under 4 foot 10 inches?
White dwarf?, nahhh couldn't be!



I thought I'd show everyone how hot a flame must be to cut steel. White/blue hot.
Click to expand...

Where does NIST say that the steel was severed by the heat?
 
Myriad said:
It is also very likely, though I don't have absolute proof, that the Emergency Operations Center in Building 7 would have used battery backup systems in quantity.

The current EOC, described here, is basically a hundred computer workstations tied in with communications networks. The 2001 version was probably not as elegantly laid out (probably more like traditional office desks, maybe cubicles) but still had the same basic functions and needs. We know the EOC was still receiving calls (and therefore, still powered up to be able to receive calls) after the mains power went down, so it must have had backup power of some kind. It's highly likely there was a backup generator, but the last thing an emergency operations center (intended to deal with, among other possible emergencies, widespread blackouts) would want is all the computers crashing just as the power fails during the few seconds it takes a backup generator to kick in. Or for them to be damaged by power surges just when they're about to be needed. So UPSs for the equipment are a necessity, either a large bank (what they probably have now) or just an individual one at each desk (what they probably had then), doesn't matter because you have about 200 liters of H2SO4 on hand either way.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Also any reasonably sized company these days has three or four servers per office, all with UPS (If they've got any sense). Multiply that by the number of companies housed in a building that size. That's a lot of sulphuric acid lying around waiting to be liberated from it's plastic containers.



Java Man said:
Confused? Really? Why do you think that?
Click to expand...

And on next weeks show. How to bring down an office building with thermostats, thermocouples, and burning thermal underwear...
 
Last edited:
drewid said:
Also any reasonably sized company these days has three or four servers per office, all with UPS (If they've got any sense). Multiply that by the number of companies housed in a building that size. That's a lot of sulphuric acid lying around waiting to be liberated from it's plastic containers.
Click to expand...

Our cable hub site has two medium sized UPS. Each one contains 12 lead-acid 12 V batteries. Each one takes up about the same volume as a large household refrigerator
 
Nobody answered my question. How does a subject this stupid get 5 posts an hour for a whole month? I suspect botting.
 
MNBrant said:
Nobody answered my question. How does a subject this stupid get 5 posts an hour for a whole month? I suspect botting.
Click to expand...

Because you didn't post a question?

Your only post in this thread is
MNBrant said:
Wow all this comment about something I never cared about.
Click to expand...

So, two questions.

1-Why are you in this thread if you don't care about the subject,
2-Why are you complaining about nobody answering a question, when you posed no questions?
 
Java Man takes three fail swoops

Java Man said:
W.D.Clinger said:
That's before we take into account the fact that your estimates are for the temperature of the fire, not the temperature of the steel. The WTC towers would have collapsed long before the temperature of the structural steel could reach 800º, because steel loses about 80% of its yield strength by 600º.
Click to expand...

That is in disagreement with NIST:

"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

"

They seem to claim that unprotected steel could very easily reach 1000º (room temperature). So who is correct? You or NIST? Please clarify.
Click to expand...
Both. There is no contradiction between what I wrote and the passage you quoted. NIST and I agree that an unprotected chunk of steel that happens to be lying around in the office space could easily have reached a temperature of 800º to 1000º C.

NIST and I also agree that load-bearing structural steel would have failed long before it could have reached those temperatures. NIST gave a temperature at which steel would have lost 90% of its strength. I gave a temperature at which steel would have lost 80% of its yield strength. There's no contradiction between our numbers.

Let's recap:
  1. First you ignored specific heat and the distinction between moles and kilograms.
  2. Then you ignored the difference in units between specific heat and heat of fusion so you could claim that the latter is "540 times larger".
  3. Then, after I had again pointed out that the specific heat requires as much energy as the heat of fusion even under your own impossible assumptions, you quote a passage in which NIST makes the same point I had made and pretend that salvages your argument.

A legitimate calculation would eschew your impossible assumptions while accounting for the energy required to heat the thermite itself and its reaction products. As Sunstealer pointed out, that calculation has already been performed by a truther more capable than Java Man:
Sunstealer said:
Oh man that is priceless. Infact iirc a truther did do the calculations, there's a paper somwhere - I've quoted it before because the calculations are correct.

This one isn't the original but the calculations are included. Ignore all the rubbish and just look at page 8, fig 3 and page 10 for calculations - remember this is theoretical and not real world so there will be heat losses and not all reactants will react etc. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf Max is 2Kg of steel melted per Kg of thermite, however, that is never going to be reached - see graph. In the real world a 1:1 ratio is more likely.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Sunstealer.
 
triforcharity said:
Yes, the old one, pre-911. It really was an incredible place!

And yes, there are some things that I cannot discuss about the EOC, unless you have the NWO TS Clearance card.
Click to expand...


I think I do have one of those, because every time I tell my NWO handler I need information, she says "TS!"

A dedicated UPS room -- not just e.g. a cabinet between every pair of desks -- certainly makes sense for any EOC. (Above all, an EOC is a facility where "the lights stay on" regardless of what happens elsewhere. Backup generators would be the main system, but a large ups can cover for hours while generators are under maintenance or repairs, as well as helping deal with surges, transients, switching loads and other short-term issues.) And that raises the ante as far as available quantities and local concentrations of reactive sulfur compounds are concerned.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
I think I do have one of those, because every time I tell my NWO handler I need information, she says "TS!"

A dedicated UPS room -- not just e.g. a cabinet between every pair of desks -- certainly makes sense for any EOC. (Above all, an EOC is a facility where "the lights stay on" regardless of what happens elsewhere. Backup generators would be the main system, but a large ups can cover for hours while generators are under maintenance or repairs, as well as helping deal with surges, transients, switching loads and other short-term issues.) And that raises the ante as far as available quantities and local concentrations of reactive sulfur compounds are concerned.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I don't recall there being UPS's between each seat. Floorspae is very valuable in a place like that.

Now, I am no electrician, but from what I understand a generator produces "dirty" power, meaning spikes and lows in the voltage. Electronics do not like that kind of power. So, a UPS fixes that problem.

Heck, I have one installed myself. I have a generator in my shed for emergencies. (Remember, Florida here. We can lose power with an afternoon storm.) I have a UPS to plug any sensitive electronics into.

So, in conclusion, yes, there is a great source of battery acid.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Let's recap:
  1. First you ignored specific heat and the distinction between moles and kilograms.
  2. Then you ignored the difference in units between specific heat and heat of fusion so you could claim that the latter is "540 times larger".
  3. Then, after I had again pointed out that the specific heat requires as much energy as the heat of fusion even under your own impossible assumptions, you quote a passage in which NIST makes the same point I had made and pretend that salvages your argument.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Then show us the correct calculations.
 
Java Man said:
Simply put, to ask that question you have to admit that Harrit's thermitic material was found. Do you accept that?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if I accept that. You seem to believe that thermate is a possibility here, so it matters if YOU believe that any kind of thermite has been found or not.
So: Do YOU accept that Harrit's thermitic material was found?
(For the record: No, of course I don't accept that; Harrit found paint. There is zero evidence for any kind of thermite, and that is a huge problem you have to deal with)



You forgot to answer my other question (why did you cut it out of the quote? Too inconvenient?):

1. A thermate charge, especially a NANO-thermate charge, would burn off in seconds, or less. Would that be sufficient time for the sulfur to diffuse intergranuarly and cause the kind of slow corrosion that was seen?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
NIST and I also agree that load-bearing structural steel would have failed long before it could have reached those temperatures. NIST gave a temperature at which steel would have lost 90% of its strength. I gave a temperature at which steel would have lost 80% of its yield strength. There's no contradiction between our numbers.
Click to expand...

Oh no. The contradiction doesn't lay in the yield strength statements. It lays in the max temperature statements you then make. That the steel couldn't be as hot, thus requiring more energy to reach melting point. But this is typical of your camp. You rephrase things to match the current argument while disregarding the big picture. Unfortunately the big picture is NIST this time around.
 
Oystein said:
It doesn't matter if I accept that.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it does. To challenge the presence of sulfur with that point would be acceptance of thermite in the area. The whole discussion would be over before it even started and you would thus be supporting the existence of a conspiracy to bring down the towers.
 
Java Man said:
Oh yes it does. To challenge the presence of sulfur with that point would be acceptance of thermite in the area. The whole discussion would be over before it even started and you would thus be supporting the existence of a conspiracy to bring down the towers.
Click to expand...

You are saddling that horse from the wrong side. You try to argue thermate, and must thus present any and all evidence for it. That would include the alleged findings of Harrit's teams. You must have an assessment on that.
Besides, I already gave you my answer: I do not accept that Harrit found thermite.
So, what is your answer to that question: Do you accept that Harrit found thermite?



You are still dodging the following - will you answer this eventually:

A thermate charge, especially a NANO-thermate charge, would burn off in seconds, or less. Would that be sufficient time for the sulfur to diffuse intergranuarly and cause the kind of slow corrosion that was seen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom