It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Why the "Molten Steel" Argument Needs to Stop.

page: 11
4
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by albie

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.

The metal only needed to be softened so much before the tremendous weight of the upper floors bent it.

Your calculations don't take that massive weight into account.

Nor do they show any imagination.

posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:14 AM

Softened evenly in all the right spots? Along every floor in the tower to produce freefall speed?

Oh yes...I really am having to use my imagination to envision that.

posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by albie
The metal only needed to be softened so much before the tremendous weight of the upper floors bent it.

Yes, and this softening requires heating of the steel to a temperature of around 600+ C at the bare minimum. It doesn't happen otherwise. Refer back to my last post so I won't have to repeat myself elaborating.

Your calculations don't take that massive weight into account.

No, but given that the structural engineers who designed the buildings did, and that they stood for 30 years without a problem up until then, I would say that "the massive weight" was amply provided for by the given support structure on any given floor. They're called loads, and skyscrapers are generally built to take much bigger loads than are realistically expected, meaning the columns below that "massive weight" were built not only to hold it, but to hold much more in addition without yielding.

Without heating or some other damage, nothing is going to happen with the "massive weight" (which is NOT massive by comparison to the rest of the building, but less than 1/10th of the total mass for WTC1, for example, slightly more for WTC2 probably).

Nor do they show any imagination.

Imagination is fine until it comes down to putting something on paper and figuring out if it actually happened or not. But I can understand your frustration.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by bsbray11]

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:09 PM
Though that you would be interested in seeing some original WTC construction pics.

And finally the sun shining and silhouetting the core of the building.
Quite a sight

Does this change anyones opinion ?

Feedback appreciated

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:32 PM
Looks pretty damn hot to me

Any good calculated guesses to what the temp of that is?

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:33 PM
Sorry Justin, the Zeroth law states that any system not in equilibrium with it's surroundings (temperature hotter or colder) will eventually reach equilibrium with its surroundings. Equilibrium will take some amount of time based on a number of things, like the temperature differential (or delta) between the system and its surroundings, heat being added to the system, the thermal conductivity of the item (system and surroundings), etc. For instance, the Sun is far hotter than the space around it, but some day it will be at the same temperature. It won't be for a few dozen billion years but it will be some day. This is what the Zeroth law is stating.

You should do a few more google searches to really understand these concepts before posting and telling people they are wrong. Nothing I said contravenes any of the laws of thermodynamics, in fact, they are similar to thought exercises my first Thermodynamics teacher in engineering school used to make us understand the concepts. I studied Thermo for 2 years getting my BSME. Why do you think that water doesn't boil instantly when you put it on the stove? You have to add energy to the water to raise the temperature over time. Once enough heat energy is added to the water it boils. If it is contained in a pressure vessel, you can keep adding heat energy and it becomes superheated steam, far hotter than the temperature water boils at in a pot.

Originally posted by justin-d

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, 29 2007 @ 03:45 PM
This whole argument is a straw man.

First, you're deliberately confusing the law of Thermodynamics and using an example that is inapplicable to the scenario in question (a building falling down vs metal being agitated to the point of breakage due to friction).

If what you said of the law of Thermodynamics were true, and all potential or kinetic energy ONLY converted into heat energy, the following would also be true:

- Any piece of metal dropped from extreme altitude into the ground would immediately splatter (and likely explode) into molten liquid as the kinetic force of the impact was converted into heat energy, and any single other object would immediately combust or vaporize (almost every single airliner wreck to date conflicts with this theory, as well as numerous examples of things falling from great heights - people committing suicide, machinery falling from skyscrapers, etc).

- Every bullet to ever strike a target would liquify into molten material (or, again, probably explode. Hardly true of conventional slugs).

- Your fist would recieve second or third degree burns every time you wound-up and belted someone really hard with it (and they, likely, would be scorched).

The fact is that deformation, as well as numerous other energy sinks already listed for you (in the case of WTC, tossing cars, flattening people, tossing powerdized concrete all over the city, shaking the ground, wrecking it's own superstructure) make the notion that there was any substantial amount of unspent energy from the tower for melting it's own steel quite ludicrous.

I studied Thermo for 2 years getting my BSME.

You and every other anonymous internet denizen I've met, whose academic record cannot be scrutinized to confirm the veracity of the claim.

I won't and can't make such a claim. My arguments, instead, stand on their own.

Why do you think that water doesn't boil instantly when you put it on the stove? You have to add energy to the water to raise the temperature over time. Once enough heat energy is added to the water it boils. If it is contained in a pressure vessel, you can keep adding heat energy and it becomes superheated steam, far hotter than the temperature water boils at in a pot.

Yes, but you do need to keep adding the energy (in otherwords, continue to increase the temperature of the stove). If you left a kettle on a stove, and the stove was not set at a sufficient power level to raise the water in the kettle to boiling point, the water would never boil - regardless of how long it sat on the stove (consider fish tank heaters. If left at a safe power level constantly, will it eventually cause the water in the fish tank to boil?). Similarly, you would never get superheated vapor if your energy output was not sufficient to get the water to that point, regardless of how long the steam was in the container.

The fact that the water does not immediately boil and convert to steam is due to the fact that the stove actually needs time to heat up, as well as the fact the energy needs to to be transferred from the stove, through the kettle and throughout the water. If you were to drop the water itself directly onto a sufficiently hot element, you will see that it immediately enters a state of violent boiling.

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 07:43 PM
please humor me. I am trying to understand the debunker's viewpoint.

airplane fuel, which is known not to burn hot enough to melt steel, created some form of molten metal dripping out of the windows. It burned out in 20 minutes (source in someone's quote in the first page) managed to weaken steel to the point of melting/powder point/destructive failure in an hour ... at all levels, when only a few levels were affected by the actual fire.

Then, because the steel was weakened, it caused the concrete surrounding it, to vaporize as well, as it the top of the building fell.

Oh, and, people that were within the general area of the impact, that did escape, didn't die from the fire, because, they must have been quite lucky.

Even though one of the planes didn't even really hit the center structure, which is a majority of the building ... it was a weakening force.

The molten metal at WTC7 must have migrated from the 1 & 2 buildings, since 47 stories doesn't fit into the same theory as the over 100 story kinetic energy theory ... and those office fires ... they always bring down large buildings, even though the Oklahoma City bombing took out about 1/3 of the structure and it was still standing. And WTC7 was the office for a lot of government offices, including the mayor's bunker, so that must have been a crazy fire to destroy a government official's bunker, whether or not you believe there was molten metal. It is amazing how much better built the other surrounding buildings were built and fireproofed in relation ... ones that took huge chunks of metal.

Those who say there was no molten metal, say so, because you know those firefighters ... they only risked their lives in the building and searching the devastation afterwards (breathing asbestos and going through a very hazardous situation) are not the most trustworthy bunch ... since they are on video talking about molten metal and bombs going off.

The fact there is siezmic (sp?) evidence as the towers BEGUN to fall that was bigger than the planes hitting and the final collapse by several times over, must have been one of those good old new york earthquakes at very coincidental times.

The puff of smoke beside the plane and explosion just before hitting seen on other sites ... must all be manipulations, done on the highest level of skill.

It was just pure coincidence that the person who bought the twin towers, in a losing proposition, including needing to upgrade the buildings ... managed to insure the buildings and turn a huge profit in less than a year. Coincidence that the Enron files and lots of other big money documents were stored in WTC7. Coincidence that a Bush relative was hired as the security crew that worked on the building before the incident. Coincidence that even to this day, some of the people listed as the terrorists aboard, are alive and well. A stroke of luck for the terrorists that even though they couldn't fly a small plane, they executed maneuvers that would make Maverick sweat on Top Gun.

I will give you some credit. It takes a lot of guts to speak your opinion against great opposition. You have my respect ... but with my IQ, reason, and independent thought, I cannot come to the same conclusions. The evidence outweighing the official story is just too strong. The same things for you bring your conclusion ... only time will tell who is correct.

What would be proof for me? Well, complete government disclosure. All the videos, pictures, statements, audio ... EVERYTHING be released and made public record from all the events of that time. Any secrecy involved this far into the game with video evidence only hammers another nail on the coffin of deceit, lies, and corruption.

Please give me an intelligent and sincere response ... anything else will be ignored. No more clothes hangers ... if you are mathematically inclined, prove it. I took Physics ... I have some advanced math. Please prove to me with facts, not smoke and mirrors.

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:25 PM

Looks pretty damn hot to me

Any good calculated guesses to what the temp of that is?

I'd say maybe 1500C. Also nice pics of the contruction, it gives you a sense of what happened that day from the inside of a steel structure that just falls to the ground in less than 15 seconds.

Hard to imagine all that steel failing to at least slow the callapse down.

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:26 PM

created some form of molten metal dripping out of the windows

Just FYI, I would be EXTREMELY cautious with this comment. It is very likely that the molten material actually seen dripping down the side of the building is molten aluminum from the aircraft (aluminum has a relatively low melting point among metals, and it is not uncommon to see aircraft bodies being melted by their own flaming jet fuel after a crash).

This becomes most probable when one considers the texture of the molten material when it solidifies against the side of the tower. Bright silver (iron is typically black. See the images of the cut support beams as an example).

On the other hand, given how quickly this material cooled and solidified, as well as the fact that such a large amount of it drizzled out of the building, it's very unlikely that huge volume of high temperature molten metal underneath the rubble was somehow 'also' aluminum from the airplane. Occam's Razor provides us with a fairly clear conclusion when one considers all of the wedge-cut support beams that feature vastly too much molten residue to have been the product of a plasma torch cutting operation, the way in which the tower collapsed, the testimony by rescue workers of the conditions in the basement under the rubble and the thermal readings of ground zero. Something that creates enough heat to liquify industrial grade steel was used to cut WTC 1 & 2's support beams, resulting in the failure of the structure.

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:44 AM
The dripping metal might also be explained as lead from the many backup batteries stored in this area of the WTC as explained in other threads.

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by GrinningMoon

created some form of molten metal dripping out of the windows

Just FYI, I would be EXTREMELY cautious with this comment. It is very likely that the molten material actually seen dripping down the side of the building is molten aluminum from the aircraft (aluminum has a relatively low melting point among metals, and it is not uncommon to see aircraft bodies being melted by their own flaming jet fuel after a crash).

And why should he be cautious about this comment? I have a question for you, if the fuel was hot enough to melt the steel enough to collapse the building, Then are you suggesting that the floor below the aircraft was strong enough not to collapse? And nobody knows for sure what was pouring out of the side of the building, so maybe you should be cautious about your statement as well. just FYI.

And while im here, Ill ask the same question that has been presented and not answered, How do you explain the 45 degree angle cuts on the steel at the base of the building? nobody seems to want to address this issue. Look in one of my previous post here and you will find the pictures of it. And if you watch the video of the collapse, You will see the top portion of the building start to lean right before the collapse. But within a few seconds it corrects itself and falls inward. The same as controlled demolitioned buildings. I think i have posted some good arguments and would hope for some feedback. When i dont get anybody disputing these claims i tend to think that they are being avoided because there is no good argument against them. So please once again i ask, prove me wrong!

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:27 AM
Here's a simple reply from a simple mind:

1. The greatest amount of heat was below the ground, not where the million of tons of metal was thrown.

2. Your theory states that if a close hanger gets hot after bending rapidly, then imagine what a billion times more metal would do. However, a billion times more metal would disperse the heat a billion times more than a hanger.

3. There were exposed metal supports that had very uniform cuts, not signs of rapid bending.

4. And no metal structures were bent back and forth rapidly. The collapse occurred in 10 seconds.

Mark

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 11:31 AM

Originally posted by CaptAvatar
Sorry Justin, the Zeroth law states that any system not in equilibrium with it's surroundings (temperature hotter or colder) will eventually reach equilibrium with its surroundings.

You should do a few more google searches to really understand these concepts before posting and telling people they are wrong. Nothing I said contravenes any of the laws of thermodynamics

You proceed from the assumption that my knowledge comes from google searches - it does not. I am a physicist and engineer by profession - my knowledge comes from experience and scientific texts, not a cursory google search.

The zeroth-law more specifically states that any two bodies brought into contact will eventually reach thermal equilibrium and your argument does indeed stand in contradiction to this law. You seem to have argued that, given enough insulation, a flame of arbitrary temperature can heat an object to an arbitrary temperature. If you consider a flame as having infinite temperature and a fixed rate of energy release then this is true, but for a flame of finite temperature, as all real flames are, you can only heat something as hot as the flame and no hotter.

For example - the chemical combustion reaction of hydrocarbons in air (this is most wood, petroleum fuels, furniture, plastics, paper, etc) can only reach a certain maximum temperature at atmospheric pressure. The heat is generated from the breaking of chemical bonds and, at atmospheric pressure/composition/temperature/etc, is limited in temperature by the rates of new fuel into the flame and the expulsion of heat and waste products from that same region.

The part of the flame which is visible is an excited plasma which is at such a high temperature that the outer electrons can be freely ejected from the atom and give off light when they are recaptured (radiative transition/capture). The temperature of this plasma represents the ultimate temperature which the flame can heat an external object to - full stop. Such a hydrocarbon fire is physically incapable of heating anything to steel-melting temperatures, regardless of the conditions of thermal insulation. When the surroundings of the plasma reach the temperature of the flame and there is nowhere else for the heat to go, the combustion reaction simply stops, since the thermodynamic sink (the environment) part of the heat-engine becomes non-existent.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by justin-d]

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:14 AM
So here are three things I want to add to this thread.

1. Dynamics of Combustion.

2. Iron is melted with coal fires and made into pig iron.

3. Magnesium is used in Airplane Construction.

Feel Free to attack me for my stupidity and lack of knowledge in the field...Its fun to hear all of the arguments

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:04 PM
I have a question, If the energy from the fall was hot enough to melt steel, Than why didnt it melt the steel above the basement? At the least it would have warped the steel and had signs of partial melting. After looking at all that has been presented in all the 9/11 threads, i have come to the conclusion that there was more than one thing that brought down the towers. let me explain.

1- Possible microwave energy used to weaken the core.
2- thermite charges. to control the fall. wont post a link to that because there are enough here already.

3-Normal demo charges could have been used also. The melted steel in the basement could have been from a direct microwave beam concentrated at the core.

In the link a provided you will see a picture of some steel beams around thirty feet above the hole of one of the buildings. And you can see the beam cut perfectly in half. and there is no signs of heat damage to them. So maybe some of you could explain this with some real facts. i think the reason for so many explainationsis because of the incorporation of many thinks that brought these towers down. If only one tower had fallen than i might have believed the official story. But the fact that 3 fell, This is impossible and anyone who says otherwise should look at all other buildings that have been hit by airplanes. Those towers could have been hit by 2 planes each and they wouldnt have fallen. partial collapes maybe, but full collapse is not possible.
www.centralmass911truth.org...
But this one is most telling of all www.serendipity.li...
And i dont see this argument ever stopping. it seems that the people that think the official report is right will not even look at other alternatives to what happened. Its pretty sad if you ask me.

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 01:33 PM
OK This theory does not make any since to me and I've inspected industrial structures including buildings, aircraft, oil rigs, etc. for over thirty years. I was also asked to inspect the basement of the World Trade Centers after the basement bombings.

What does make since is along the lines of:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

These buildings were demolished by pre-placed explosives and softening agents. It was set up and so were the American public. I really wanted to believe all the lies we were told about 911 but I know what I know and it was not done the way we were told.

posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 03:31 PM
guys, calm down..
the OP is just spreading DisInfo.

just like others .

posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Tiloke
There seems to be a lot of people here who simply do not understand the laws of thermodynamics. Over and over again there are people who will shoot down any attempt to rebut the controlled demolition theory by shouting "WHAT ABOUT THE MOLTEN STEEL???".

First , I want you all to try a simple experiment. Everyone can do it, it only costs about 4 cents and its easy to do.

First, go to your closet and pull out a wire hanger. You can not use a plastic one for this. If you do not have wire hangers because your mom saw the movie "Mommy Dearest" and forbids them(like my mom did a long time ago), you can use any similar type strong wire or thin metal rod.

Now, take that hanger/wire and straighten it out. Now bend it back and forth in one spot until the metal becomes soft and breaks apart.

Now, this is important, as soon as the wire comes apart, I want you to touch the freshly broken edge of the wire to your lip or the back of your hand.

What happened when you did that?

Thats right , you got a little burn or felt the heat depending on what type of metal your wire was.

That, my friends is an example of whats called " The laws of thermo dynamics" These are the laws that state "Energy can not be created or destroyed, only converted to other types of energy."

The physical force(energy) of you bending the metal, since it had nowhere to go, was converted to heat, just like the WTC.

Now, lets imagine a million tons of energy , compared to the 2 pounds you put in the wire, falling and gaining more momentum as it falls. More and more of the buildings stored energy(thermodynamics term) is converted to kinetic energy. When the building reaches the ground all that kinetic energy needs to be converted to another type of energy. Now, what kind of energy did we just demonstrate kinetic energy can be converted to? Thats right , HEAT.

Now, if a tiny wire being bent with a force of your fingertips can get hot enough to burn you, do you think a couple billion times more force and material might make even more heat?

On top of that , concrete is a fabulous insulator. It is common knowledge that concrete homes pay less for heating and cooling than regular homes.
If you trap all that heat under hundreds of tons of concrete, it stands to reason that its going to stay hot for a while, much the same way your coffee stay warmer in a Styrofoam cup compared to a glass one.

The "molten steel argument seems to be another one of those "If I don't know how, it's a conspiracy." types of things that seem to be prevalent on this board.

So let me get this straight. You are comparing a building collapsing to bending a coat hanger until it breaks (which requires a force to bend it one way and then the other over and over)? You are also saying that the building falling.. created the molten steel... On top of that you are saying that the 20 stories of damaged building fell on top of 80 stories of undamaged building, with about 10 stories to build speed... and it dropped the whole building into the basement. WOW. No wonder you cant get some people to see the truth. This is great. So I guess you are saying I could build a model of a tower out of any material... cut off the top 20 percent... drop it on the rest of the model and it would flatten it? That is the same logic. 20 percent of the building destroying 80 percent.

Your not gonna try to say the floors BELOW the impact was weakened by this raging mega fire that was SO hot... we have pics of people standing IN THE HOLE.. just feet away from this miracle fire. Bravo man... Bravo.

top topics

4