Why the "Molten Steel" Argument Needs to Stop.

Originally posted by earth2
There were probably fires down below because a giant tower just fell on top of it.

... and SMOTHERED THE HOLY HELL out of any fire that could have been in the basements or ground floor. We are talking about massive amounts of steel and concrete...

Man this thread is "odd".

Originally posted by ferretman2
Pootie - you obviously were not in NYC. within 2 weeks I could 'walk' by the trade center. There were no 'military' check points.

WHERE DO YOU PEOPLE COME UP WITH THIS STUFF!?!

What are you talking about? Walk by it? Could you walk into ground zero? Didn't think so. We've even had people post pictures in here that they took illegally at ground zero. Why do I say illegally? Because they even said that there were checkpoints and no cameras where allowed. I thought that was common knowledge?

[edit on 7/9/2007 by Griff]

At least Pootie and I can agree that there were probably no fires burning under the thousands of tons of concrete and debris that would have starved it of oxygen.

Pootie, would you agree that the concrete and debris above the hot spots, so longs as there was enough of it, to insulate the heat and keep it hot for all that time?

Originally posted by Tiloke
As I said before, the energy released by the falling buildings has been compared to a small earthquake or a nuclear weapon.

As I said before... ACCORDING TO WHOM?

Originally posted by Tiloke
If even a small fraction of that energy were converted to heat during the collapse, than that would explain the high temperatures and melted steel that people claim to have seen.

This is PURE, UNADULTERATED BULL. You are ASSUMING OR FLAT OUT GUESSING all of your energies then you say a "small fraction" heated the pile to THOUSANDS OF DEGREES FOR A MONTH OR SO? You seem to want people to believe that you are some physics expert but are really showing that you are not.

Originally posted by Tiloke
The thousands of tons of concrete that settled over that would be enough to keep those temperatures up for weeks.

Again, total assumption. (though better than the rest)

what was the R value of the concrete?

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Pootie]

Since it's obvious my question was unworthy of a response from Tiloke, I would just like to ask Voxel to cease and desist since there's no room for real science in this thread.

Remember that game at the arcade where you'd try to hit the gopher as it popped out of the hole, then another gopher would pop up somewhere else, and so on and so on? It's the same as flawed logic.

Peace

Will you people just listen to yourselves?

What kind of country are we? Where we hate our government so much that we are willing to say it produced an atrocsity? Why? You say that there just super corrupt. And they probaly are. But don't be so corrupt yourselves.

I found this site 2 years ago in a computer class. It seemed to have all the freakin answers. But now, idk, it's just not what it was. Sorry. But now were all just "Sheeple".

I go ahead and state my opinion so it can be torn apart by people who clearly are more qualified. Someone who supposedly has experience.

I believe him. His physics are simply correct to me, a 15 yr old with a whole class of intergrated science behind him. You wanna know why I would believe this guy????

Because I don't think anyone has bothered to look through the alledged terrorist's eyes.

You grow in a hell hole somewhere in the Middle East. Little food. Crappy shelter. And an organzation telling you about a horrible place called America. You see a couple pictures from this "Al Queda". One contains what looks like a missile. You ask and they reply that it's just an airplane.

Our terrorist gets an idea.

Just think about what you are saying. I imagine that if the fellow had not cleared up the idea of "Military Checkpoints" a lot more would be on that bandwagon. If you have actually read this...Good Job. Consider my thumbs up a prize.

Originally posted by 64MM4-R4Y-8UR5T
Will you people just listen to yourselves?

What kind of country are we? Where we hate our government so much that we are willing to say it produced an atrocsity?

The Neocons are fascists. The military checkpoints were 100% real and verifiable. If you have read this then you get a from me.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Pootie]

Actually, I've only heard of one person saying that there wasn't checkpoints. And that's our very own ferretman2.

I approached from the south, walking up the West Side Highway. At the first checkpoint I explained myself to a very friendly police officer, showed a business card, pay stub and ID and was told to come in--and to be careful. I asked the officer what the best route to my building was and he replied, "I'm not sure, to be honest, I'm from upstate, just helping out. But you'll be showing your ID at about 9 more checkpoints, and they'll help you."

www.spectacle.org...



[edit on 7/9/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Actually the concrete should have acted like a giant kiln holding the heat in and acting like a furnace.

100% False. Heat is GENERATED in a kiln. The pile was simply insulated... What would the source of heat generation be in the settled pile?

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Hoover Dam built back in the 1930s is still settling the mass of concrete is so large, the Dame still generates heat.

Only because drying cement is an exothermic reaction... The cement was not wet and curing in the WTC.

This thread just gets weirder and weirder...

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Tiloke
Ok Vox, Read the thread next time.

If you are going to dismiss the science in my post that easily, then I guess I could dismiss your entire original post aways as "Read a physics textbook next time." Instead, I will take some time in an attempt to educate you.

The coat hanger was an example of kinetic energy being converted to heat energy. I understand that there were other forces involved also, but the point of it was that kinetic energy can be converted to heat.

You know what, potential energy also gets converted to heat. In fact, that is exactly what the structure of a building does. The steel of the building was constantly taking the energy caused by the mass of the building itself, gravity, and wind and converting that energy into heat.

It had nothing to do whatsoever with the strength of the hanger or its ability to resist stress or the fact that I put energy into it. The energy put into it in the case of the WTC would be the potential energy stored in the very towers themselves.

The fact that you put energy into it is THE KEY. To towers supposedly had no energy added to them. You seem to think that the potential energy is just stored waiting to be released unto unsuspecting steel if it gets the least bit weakened. The reality is that the steel was always taking the force of the potential energy. There is no energy stored anywhere that can be added to the system to explain the molten metal.

As I said before, the energy released by the falling buildings has been compared to a small earthquake or a nuclear weapon.

We agree! All that energy (the buildings' weight) that was previously supported by the steel was turned into sound (seismic activity is just sound in the ground.) How does steel taking a certain amount energy for decades suddenly become molten when most of that energy is dumped into the air (sound) or ground?

If even a small fraction of that energy were converted to heat during the collapse, than that would explain the high temperatures and melted steel that people claim to have seen.

No, as I have tried to explain, for the entirety of the towers' existence they have faithfully absorbed "that energy" without even getting warm to the touch. Yet, according to you, on that day far less energy (most of it being pumped into the air in the form of dust and the ground in the form of vibrations) caused tons of steel to melt - and you would have us believe that?

Jon

100% False. Heat is GENERATED in a kiln. The pile was simply insulated... What would the source of heat generation be in the settled pile?

Well the Building was on fire when it collasped was it not?

[edit on 7/9/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

Originally posted by ferretman2
Pootie - you obviously were not in NYC. within 2 weeks I could 'walk' by the trade center. There were no 'military' check points.

WHERE DO YOU PEOPLE COME UP WITH THIS STUFF!?!

There were two security cordons around the WTC--an outer NYPD and an inner Fed one. A good friend was called in on the morning of the 12th to man the Fed cordon; we've had some very interesting discussions about his experience.

Nobody, but nobody who didn't have Fed clearance could get onto the actual site. There were numerous near-brawls between the locals and the Feds and the workers.

BTW, just want to add my appreciation for a very enlightening thread, but in ways apparently unforeseen at its outset.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by gottago]

I'd like to thank everybody who has participated in this thread to help Deny Ignornance. It was obviously needed. Thanks again.

Originally posted by Voxel

You know what, potential energy also gets converted to heat. In fact, that is exactly what the structure of a building does. The steel of the building was constantly taking the energy caused by the mass of the building itself, gravity, and wind and converting that energy into heat.

You're right. When a building is doing what it is supposed to, the heat generated by forces such as wind an other natural things is negligible and the building is designed to withstand it. What about the forces generated when those buildings collapse and hit the ground? Was the building designed to disperse all that energy evenly and safely during an uncontrolled collapse? Where did the energy that was there when the buildings potential energy was converted to kinetic energy? When all that hit the ground what happened? Where did that energy go? There was a mind-boggling amount of energy there. You can not say that some of that energy was converted to heat.

The fact that you put energy into it is THE KEY. To towers supposedly had no energy added to them. You seem to think that the potential energy is just stored waiting to be released unto unsuspecting steel if it gets the least bit weakened. The reality is that the steel was always taking the force of the potential energy. There is no energy stored anywhere that can be added to the system to explain the molten metal.

The towers did not need any energy added to them. There was enough potential energy there to do the job. We all learned in junior high that Force = mass x Acceleration. The towers were designed to hold themselves up, not a collapse. When one floor gives way, as soon as it has moved a foot, the building would have to resist 4 times its normal weight to stop it and it just gets worse the more it moves. So, the steel was not designed to withstand the kinetic energy of the building falling, it was designed to keep that potential energy harnessed in the structure. All it needed was a reason for that potential energy to be converted to kinetic energy, that happened when the safe-gaurds against that happening(the steel framework holding the building up) weakened enough to start the failure.

We agree! All that energy (the buildings' weight) that was previously supported by the steel was turned into sound (seismic activity is just sound in the ground.) How does steel taking a certain amount energy for decades suddenly become molten when most of that energy is dumped into the air (sound) or ground?

Again, the forces at work as soon as the one floor weakened and gave way would be way more than the designers could even hope to prepare for.

No, as I have tried to explain, for the entirety of the towers' existence they have faithfully absorbed "that energy" without even getting warm to the touch. Yet, according to you, on that day far less energy (most of it being pumped into the air in the form of dust and the ground in the form of vibrations) caused tons of steel to melt - and you would have us believe that?

Jon

Again, the amount of energy the towers would have had to withstood was beyond what they were designed for. All it took was for part of it to fail for the whole thing to fail. The system was dependent on the towers never having to sustain that much damage and weakening.

So you say that with all that force crashing into the ground, there was just a few vibrations and dust? Just a question, how do you know it was "tons of steel" ? I can't find anywhere online that gives an amount that is anything but hearsay. So, to be clear, You think that enough energy was created to be picked up on seismographs in other states, throw debris a few city blocks, and cloud a city in dust wont generate any heat.... Just so I'm clear.




[edit on 9-7-2007 by Tiloke]

At least Pootie and I can agree that there were probably no fires burning under the thousands of tons of concrete and debris that would have starved it of oxygen.

Apparently have not heard of the Centralia Pennsylvania mine fire -
an abandoned coal mine has been burning since 1962! Used to work
with someone from Centralia, fire burning below town got so bad (Carbon
monoxide was seeping into houses and heat was causing sinkholes) that
entire town was evacuated and abandoned. The debris pile at WTC
burned for 3 months. Underground fires in mines and peat bogs have
burned for years. There are plenty of spaces for air to seep in to feed
the fires. The myth of "oxygen starved fires" is that a myth created by
tin foiler to justify their wild conspiracies.

Why even bother posting science for these nubs anymore? It's obvious that internet psuedo-science and wild unprovable theories that actually go AGAINST science..is the way to gain respect around these parts. I personally had a great thread probably a couple years ago at this point, about how it couldn't have been a CD because there were no explosions from the good non edited credible videos on 9-11. I even used what was then live footage, from literally right underneath the towers. No sounds of explosions WHAT SO EVER. It's easy to make crazy theories..watch..

Lets try one..

"The 9-11 attacks were the result of the gov using a CD and the charges were silent because they were filled with thermite and nukes".

See how easy it is? now if i was serious i probably could have gotten like 3 pages out of a thread like that.

oh well...i guess the reason this part of the forum died is because people were tired of using science and reasoning, only to be "debunked" by people who think that there actually was a chance that they used holograms instead of planes.

If I might add. To my understanding of the molten steel found under the WTC buildings it was present for weeks after they fell. That being said a common product(for lack of a better word) may have be present with all 3 buildings. Now since only 2 towers were hit then jet fuel is not it. Watching news footage shows molten steel dripping off one of the towers prior to its' drop. The fuel burns at 500 degrees and molten steel at 1370 degree so again a product would of had to be introduced. As we all know thermite is a possible product. Also another product possiblity is Electromagnetic weapon that may be the cause of this wreckage turning to dust. These points have probably been hashed out already, but thermite seems more plausible then thermal dynamics.

Originally posted by Tiloke
At least Pootie and I can agree that there were probably no fires burning under the thousands of tons of concrete and debris that would have starved it of oxygen.


Tell that to the people in PA who have to move because old coal mines are on fire below ground. No flames perhaps but plenty of smoldering computers and human waste among other things. People keep compairing this to controlled demolition HELLOW these buildings were not MT.

mikel


Sorry I missed thedmans thread about the fires but to add thousand of amps of electricity could melt the buss bars and I assume they had some very large ones. It was probably copper unning out of the buildings.
l

[edit on 9-7-2007 by mikellmikell]

Earth 2 said:

All I want to see is a picture of a pool of molten steel and then ill believe. Why no pic of molten steel??

A simple google search will give you photos.I'll provide one for you though.
okay maybe one more.

Originally posted by thedman

Apparently have not heard of the Centralia Pennsylvania mine fire -
an abandoned coal mine has been burning since 1962! Used to work
with someone from Centralia, fire burning below town got so bad (Carbon
monoxide was seeping into houses and heat was causing sinkholes) that
entire town was evacuated and abandoned.

The debris pile at WTC burned for 3 months.

Underground fires in mines and peat bogs have
burned for years. There are plenty of spaces for air to seep in to feed
the fires. The myth of "oxygen starved fires" is that a myth created by
tin foiler to justify their wild conspiracies.

Just when it looked like we'd exhausted comparisons of wire coat hangers and the steel structure of the WTC towers, we are now asked to consider the molten steel in the basements in comparison to mine fires and peat bogs.

Ok, let's recap, shall we? The non-tin foilers (hereinafter called NTFs) propose that the collapse of the WTC, like the bending of wire coat hangers, caused the towers' structural steel to melt and pool in the basements, where it "burned for three months."

Further, the NTFs find that this is nothing abnormal, because peat bogs and coal mines (and free bonus example) piles of old tires can burn for literally years.

In their favor, they have not yet seriously proposed Magic Jet Fuel (tm) as an energy source for either occurrence, and at least this WC/TF (Wild Conspirator/Tin Foiler) is grateful for that--as well as for acknowledging the reality of molten steel, by whatever means.

But I do have some problem understanding how steel is supposed to melt like bent coat hangers, then burn like a coal seam or a peat bog.

I guess my tin-foil hat is on too tight. Help from the NTFs, please?

Edit to add bonus question: And all this also applies to WTC 7 too, which had the same thermal hotspots and molten steel as the twin towers did?


[edit on 9-7-2007 by gottago]