It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the "Molten Steel" Argument Needs to Stop.

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I think OP is very wrong about the molten steel, at least it's funny but thats it. If i did understood well he implies that the steel melted because the energy tranfer from the impact plus the energy of the free fall and friction of the air created molted steel????.. now this should be funny at least but that's it. If this was true then how in hell did Lunar module go to earth without any major molten titanium( i think they use this on the lunar module, of course it melts on higher than steel but its the same principal) Having a rocket on back of the module and the friction of the air doesnt = to molteen titanium or steel.

Have you ever seen a parachute guy burning in the air just by the friction of the air against him at more altitud than any skycraper in the world and with less protection because of the fabric its made his clothes??? No isnt...did you see people that trow themselves from The towers gething molten and burned from that high??...No isnst... the human body burns fastaer than any pooor steel in the world...

Now if i did understand what this OP said that what exactly happen to get molten steel (plus the fire of the plane that it burn out all the fule on the impact)..goshh i think he is very wrong.......

My humble opinion....




posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Well, after reading all these posts there is no doubt that there was molten steel after the collapse.


For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

www.gcn.com...


Quick, but safe decisions regarding where to put the cranes had to be made, inspection of the slurry wall and water in the basement were conducted, while numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. Cars - both burned and pristine - were suspended in the air balanced on cracked parking garage slabs.
www.globalsecurity.org...




Love this video.................
video.google.com...

Take a look at the hot spots and temps on this site pubs.usgs.gov...



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptAvatarWell, you are right on some things. However when you are trying to prove something you use the scientific method, only a part of which is mathematics.


Well, he was clearly going for the scientific method - making hypotheses and trying to prove them, compare with theory, etc. But without calculating anything, it's not science. That was my point


I also am not sure where you are coming up with specific numbers - you would need to know specific mass and velocities to calculate this, which only could be wild guesses.


They're from rock-crushing industry numbers (mining, demolition, landfill, etc) - these guys know how much energy it takes to crush to a certain size of particle for different materials because it saves them money to know the most efficient way (and thus the minimum energy needed) to do such. You don't have to calculate everything from first principles.


...but these buildings were not demoed. It takes months to set up a building for demolition, and you have to cut holes in walls and cut specific structural members. People would have noticed all the detcord and jackhammers in their offices.


This is not a logical argument. It is loaded with several assumptions, namely that one must always demolish a building in the way that it has been done before, especially when circumstances are extremely different.

Consider the alternative. Consider whether or not it would be possible to do the demo without first cutting the steel supports - how would you do it? Thermate cutting charges? That's what I would do. This was also 2001 - an age when wifi technology was practically breaking into the novelty-pet-food-accessory-items market. I posit that there is no good reason, therefore, to assume that the most rich, powerful, and above-the-law people in the US government do not have access to wireless detonation technology. Is this a foolish assumption?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Guys, the steel was melted by the fires. Think about all the material that was in those hundreds of rooms. How many toilet rolls, wooden chairs, clothes, carpets, money, food, wigs, plastic comedy hands...etc etc.

Imagine how much stuff was in that building.

And THEN take time to imagine how UNQUALIFIED you are to even be thinking about this.

Now go and have a cigarette.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie
Guys, the steel was melted by the fires. Think about all the material that was in those hundreds of rooms. How many toilet rolls, wooden chairs, clothes, carpets, money, food, wigs, plastic comedy hands...etc etc.

Imagine how much stuff was in that building.

And THEN take time to imagine how UNQUALIFIED you are to even be thinking about this.

Now go and have a cigarette.


This is a joke post, right?

Burning toilet paper, carpet and nose-glasses created the molten steel? Why didn't we all think of that before?

Sheesh! (Slaps head.) Ok, never mind, we can all rest easy. We have the answer now.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Albie said:


Guys, the steel was melted by the fires. Think about all the material that was in those hundreds of rooms. How many toilet rolls, wooden chairs, clothes, carpets, money, food, wigs, plastic comedy hands...etc etc.
There is no way the fires that day were hot enough to melt steel.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by albie
And THEN take time to imagine how UNQUALIFIED you are to even be thinking about this.


Or you can try to imagine how little you know about what any of us know.

Everything you listed burns in the temperature range of about 700 C, and certainly no hotter than around 800 C max, whereas steel only begins to have its yield strength lowered significantly around 600 C, and that's when the STEEL is 600 C, NOT the fire. To get the steel that hot requires the fire to be hotter than that, and it also requires a length of time for the necessary heat to actually transfer. None of the things you list could melt steel just by burning on their own.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The buildings "pancaked." There was no horizontal motion to cause friction let alone enough motion on a single axis such as in the coat hanger metaphor to snap the steel. As the buildings fell the steel would be supporting the same amount of weight or less (unless there were horizontal forces exerting more pressure, but again that would have caused a sideways fall), remaining in design parameters, and therefore should not have snapped. How far are you bending the hangar? 90 degrees back and forth? The amount of motion needed to cause this should have been readily visible and recorded on camera. The forces described as the cause of the failure in this post should have caused at least one of the two buildings to fall to the side rather than straightdown.

I guess we'll never really know though as the collapsed building materials that would have provided an evidence based answer were destroyed.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Where is all of the steel from the towers ? Where are all the public reports on the chemical analysis of the metal from the WTC? Oh yes thats right...its been shipped out of the country. .. No testing was done weeks later the rubble was still molten...how did that happen?www.journalof911studies.com...
"The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks
after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a
relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground
location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long
time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well
insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well
have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high
temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials
entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would
tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter
charges which did not ignite during the collapse would also contribute to the prolonged heating." Steven Jones PHD

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Stanley06]

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Stanley06]

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Stanley06]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
No doubt there was a lot of energy expelled during the collapse. And, it no doubt did cause a increase in heat of the collapsed structure. But, enough to create molten steel?

Remember we're talking about steel here not some cheaply produced, easily malleable metal. In your coat-hanger example the wire is continually bent back and forth, weakening the metal at the same point each instance and building up heat and energy in that same exact spot every time. Whether it took 5 bends or 20 bends, the energy your body is exerting to make those bends to such degrees each time is a contributing factor to the energy/heat expelled to the wire.

Now take the energy expelled by your hands and arms that it took to make that tiny piece of wire snap and compare it proportionately to the energy it would take to bend and heat steel to a point of snapping. The only point at which the towers experienced that type of energy was the initial impact of the planes.

I think the destruction suffered by the tops of the towers was concurrent with what should have happened when that amount of energy/heat and concussion create an inferno that is capable of heating and warping the steel above the impact zone. It practically disintegrates into a million pieces as it tips sideways. I don't believe the floors below suffered enough expelled energy to snap the steel that was supporting them, even if the steel was warped and weaken by the blaze above.

I understand your theory and it's a very good explanation. However, I disagree that the same mechanics apply to what transpired with the collapse of the towers.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I posted a reply with a link to Steven Jones 911 Report PDF..It seems to have been removed..I'll post it again[url]www.journalof911studies.com... The observer (second video) notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddishorange
some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat
conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in
an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and
molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then
kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite
reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at
very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various
materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions
which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any
thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse could also contribute to the
prolonged heating." Steven Jones PHD

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Stanley06]

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Stanley06]

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Stanley06]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Originally posted by tyranny22





Now take the energy expelled by your hands and arms that it took to make that tiny piece of wire snap and compare it proportionately to the energy it would take to bend and heat steel to a point of snapping. The only point at which the towers experienced that type of energy was the initial impact of the planes. I understand your theory and it's a very good explanation. However, I disagree that the same mechanics apply to what transpired with the collapse of the towers.




Very tactfully put tyranny22. Personally I would have phrased it differently but that would have got me post banned. This thread was beyond a breathable atmosphere on the moon. Thanks again.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
With regards to the original post, The coat hanger theory was an example of friction turned to heat. Now the fact is that it would produce heat but the thing that you have to look at is did the energy go straight down? The fact is that the energy didn't just go straight down through the building as it fell. It also went outward. So to say the energy caused the heat in the basement to heat up enough to melt steel would only be assuming that the energy went straight down.

There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.

This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents. here is the link:
www.debunking911.com...

First ill point out that when the towers fell, the energy pulverized just about everything to dust on its way down and the energy that was created was moving outward not just downward. So to say that it traveled down with enough force to melt steel would require that it was contained and couldnt escape. But we will look at what the witnesses had to say.

www.911review.com...

and then theres the woolworth building. Here is a link that shows something entirely suspect to the final events of the collapses. This is something that you dont hear a lot about. To many questions, not enough answers.

www.orbwar.com...

After looking at all the hundreds of testimonies and videos. I would just say that i will never believe that this was an act of outside terrorism. But most definite an act of our own government setting these events in motion for there reason to go into iraq. Here is another link that i think supports this.

www.axisoflogic.com...

Please pay close attention to the dates and events in this link. Because no matter what you believe, This is a good review of what the powers that be are looking to fulfill. And if we didnt have the events on 9/11. than this plan would not have been so easy for them to initiate.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   


If that did not happen, what happened to the energy? Maybe it was magically whisked away by invisible dancing elves?


I knew it! It was the damn elves again!


That building came down in approx. 10 seconds! There was no backward and forward bending, it wasn't there long enough.


How long was it in between the aircraft hitting the building and it coming down (ill just focus on one building cause im thinking that the theory is the same)

Aircraft hits, boom, wipes out about 3 floors worth of support structures and starts to heat the surrounding ones.

Now, when the aircraft hit, the energy slammed the building across, that amount of energy would have wrenched the steel supports further than they should.

The the top bends while the closer to the bottom you get, the more the bend is noticeable.

Now, you have a straight tall building where its bottom supports have bent out of shape. Its stability has been compromised, at the same time fires are spreading halfway up the building. at a place where the support has been completly knocked out.

Like a sheet of shattered glass each second passing means the weight of the top of the building is more evident. The loss of support halfway means more stress is being pushed downwards.

Down onto bent supports. They dont even need to bend much, just enough though.

Eventually the weight passes the point. The 3 levels where the supports were taken out collapse under the weight from above. This shock slams down the building and hits the bent supports, The bend suddenly bends much much further, the entire building weight probably would have wrenched it 90 degrees.

So the timeline is

-Shock hits the supports at the bottom of the building, bending it slightly.
-
-
-
-3 levels collapse on the airplane wreckage. Shock destroys the bottom supports.
-the entire building hops downwards a few metres due to the destroyed supports, doesnt seem like much but all of a sudden each level crushes the one below it.
-building implodes and grinds itself to dust on the pavement.

I dunno about Molten Metal, but i know that this scenario seems to follow what i saw on TV that morning.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
Aircraft hits, boom, wipes out about 3 floors worth of support structures and starts to heat the surrounding ones.


Neither plane knocked out even one floor's worth of structure. In fact, both of them knocked out only 15% or less of the perimeter columns in either building, and it's a similar figure for the core structures, over a 4- or 5-story range.

If you want to exaggerate the forces and damages involved so badly, we could say anything brought them down.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Sorry, but consider the thermal system in this case to be the the inside of the building. The burning materials add heat to the system at a rate (units of thermal energy per unit of time). Some heat escapes, but much of it wouldn't, it is trapped within the building. As heat energy is released via the chemical reaction of burning materials, the temperature of the system will increase far above the temperature of the burning materials since the heat lost to the surroundings is less than the heat being added to the system. It isn't correct to say that the steel could only be as hot as the fire.

Think about this, you must have been in a well insulted, overcrowded room room without ventilation at some point. Over time, the heat added to the room from just the bodies of people will make the room get extremely hot, and the air temperature will climb to a point higher than 98.6 F, which is the temperature of your bodies. So in this case, the bodies are adding the heat and the room air temperature climbs above the temperature of the heat sources. It is the same with the fire sources inside the trade centers.

CaptAvatar


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by albie
And THEN take time to imagine how UNQUALIFIED you are to even be thinking about this.


Or you can try to imagine how little you know about what any of us know.

Everything you listed burns in the temperature range of about 700 C, and certainly no hotter than around 800 C max, whereas steel only begins to have its yield strength lowered significantly around 600 C, and that's when the STEEL is 600 C, NOT the fire. To get the steel that hot requires the fire to be hotter than that, and it also requires a length of time for the necessary heat to actually transfer. None of the things you list could melt steel just by burning on their own.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptAvatarSome heat escapes, but much of it wouldn't, it is trapped within the building. As heat energy is released via the chemical reaction of burning materials, the temperature of the system will increase far above the temperature of the burning materials since the heat lost to the surroundings is less than the heat being added to the system. It isn't correct to say that the steel could only be as hot as the fire.


Yes, it is correct. Your argument is in direct contravention of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics and also confuses the concepts of "temperature" (which is an extensive property) and "heat" (which is intensive property). It is in contravention to the zeroth law since bodies in contact must always come to the same temperature. One body is the steel and the other is the hot plasma in the combustion plume. It is easy to measure the hottest temperature of that combustion plume by simply taking a small thermocouple and passing it around the flame. At the hottest point of the flame of an air-fuel fire, using kerosene from a jet tank or any of the items you have mentioned, one does not ever find temperatures near hot enough to melt steel. If the flame can't get hot, the steel can't get hot.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Why do you even bother to argue with them?

Anyone on the net trying to debunk 9/11 truth is a moron or a dis info agent.

According to NIST there was no molten Steel yet this post which is clearly intended to back the GOV'S fable directly contradicts the official report.
video

Also if anyone has the video of the giant hands bending the towers back and forth please let me know where I can see it.

Don't waste your time with them!

Use you time to wake people up not convert those who know but will never admit.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptAvatar
Some heat escapes, but much of it wouldn't, it is trapped within the building.


The smoke didn't have any problem escaping from all around the impacted floors, and black, sooty smoke carries away a lot of heat with it on its own. Lots of open windows, drafts, etc.


As heat energy is released via the chemical reaction of burning materials, the temperature of the system will increase far above the temperature of the burning materials since the heat lost to the surroundings is less than the heat being added to the system.


This is unfounded and nothing more than an assertion, because the assumption you made about the heat being trapped wasn't necessarily shown to the case. You simply stated it to be the case, and then made a couple of analogies.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I have just oneee word, and it ends with .jpg







[edit on 23-7-2007 by T0by]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join