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.

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

page: 6
4
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Has2bJohn , If you really are who you claim to be then use some of your internet time to look up the WTC work of Dr F Greening PhD Physist (amongst other quals)

Blah, blah, blah... Greening's calculations ASSUME that ALL OF THE MASS OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING is providing KE to crush the rest of the building... Problem?

Most of the material was being ejected over the sides and the KE of that material is UNAVAILABLE for any of the energy sinks I have pointed out.

Greening problem number two:

His mechanism requires STEEL TEMPS far above and beyond the max temps ever reached by any of the tested steel. He tries to TRICK you with AIR TEMPS...

Greening has been beat down OVER AND OVER AND OVER... even the NIST rejects his work so...

Drop the greening argument and do a search for his "retraction and exit" from 9/1 research.

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Pootie

Most of the material was being ejected over the sides and the KE of that material is UNAVAILABLE for any of the energy sinks I have pointed out

I thought it was a controlled demolition and the building fell into its footprint?

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Has2b
Learn and report back why his calculations are wrong!

Well, first, he assumes an un-impeeded drop of 12 feet. The only way that could happen is if the columns were severed with explosives. Since he is not saying explosives this means that his calculations are erroneous. For, you see, even buckled columns still give some resistance.

So, in the end, his assumption of freefall (which is crucial to his kinetic energy equation (mgh)) is erroneous. He uses mgh when he should really have used m x (gravity minus decceleration due to resistance) x h. Since his calculations are erroneous from the beginning, why should I listen to him any further?

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:30 AM

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
I thought it was a controlled demolition and the building fell into its footprint?

1. I have never said this so do not play "strawman" with me.

2. 7 fell almost exclusively into it's own foot print.

3. 1 and 2 violently ejected materials all over Manhattan...

You attempting to write off CD with that silly statement is ridiculous. The fact that material WAS ejected so far really hurts the gravity, progressive collapse argument and reinforces CD.

Your posts in this thread have shown that you may need to do a little studying before trying to call me out.

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
I thought it was a controlled demolition and the building fell into its footprint?

Not to offend you if you are simply asking a question, but this is a typical debunker tactic. The towers did not fall into their footprints as 7 did. But, the debris was symmetrical in all directions. I'm not good at explaining it. BsBray, Pootie?

Edit: Looks like Pootie and I are typing at the same time. We are not "ganging" up on you.

[edit on 7/10/2007 by Griff]

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Griff
Well, first, he assumes an un-impeeded drop of 12 feet.

All of the official stories RELY on the support columns on the damaged floors to DISAPPEAR (not fail) all at the same instant offering NO RESISTANCE and allowing momentum to build. The resistance CANNOT just disappear.

This is one of the most fundamental flaws in every Official Story.

We SHOULD NEVER see this in a collapse caused by heated columns. We SHOULD SEE a slow onset of the collapse where heated columns begin to fail, others over load and begin to fail and the top portion slowly sinks as it separates... probably falling to the side or slowly resting precariously on the existing structure.

In no situation is it even possible for a 12' space of OPEN and UNOBSTRUCTED AIR to just appear. Even if it had, after the 12' foot drop we should see the block stall (at least slightly) as the top block strikes the intact structure (impulse) transferring the KE to the ENTIRE INTACT STRUCTURE... not just the next single floor as Greening would have us believe.

Greening's work on this subject is bull.

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Pootie

Your posts in this thread have shown that you may need to do a little studying before trying to call me out.

Yes I will get out of this thread and stop questioning?

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:47 AM

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Yes I will get out of this thread and stop questioning?

We are talking about molten metal and you are trying to play a strawman game by wrongly connecting material ejections to a gravity driven collapse, comparing insulation to a kiln and saying there were "coals" in the pile. Not exactly scholarly work in my opinion.

I did not ask you to stop posting in this thread. I asked to to inform yourself before you attempt to tie me to some little strawman/off-topic derailment argument.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by Pootie]

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:00 AM
Actually I have asked 3 questions in this thread and been insulted 3 times for asking the questions. If the question are so simple to answer why not just answer them without slinging an insult?

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:40 AM
Wow.

It's almost frightening how many people here give credence and support to the OP's proposition. It was quickly dismantled because it was so outrageous and unfounded in physical reality. The high tempers and numerous warnings and scrubbed posts are witness to that.

The basic logic used to rebut the proposition is not hard to grasp--structural steel is not going to melt in a gravity-driven building collapse, of whatever magnitude. This is a concept that should be self-evident.

The OP's premise requires that the collapses recreate the conditions in a foundry within a ten-second time-frame during an uncontrolled collapse occurring in open air. Stop a moment and think about that.

There simply isn't enough potential energy to do this, unless it is harnessed and directed upon an extremely small point. And right there, disregarding the manifest impossibility of harnessing and funneling those energies, you cross the line to control, and its partner, demolition.

But because the WTC towers were so big, people somehow believe they could and did do things that are manifestly impossible. Somehow the WTC slips out of our understanding, like numbers beyond a trillion, and a new set of rules take over.

But that "logic" must then also be applied to WTC 7, as it had exactly the same thermal hotspots and molten steel beneath its wreckage as did the twin towers. Back to manageable reality. At this point, one would hope the impossibility of the proposition becomes evident to all.

Think about it. If this purported principle were true, airplanes should melt when they crash. They are made mostly of aluminum--much easier to melt and also burn than steel--and they have enormous KE on impact, much more focused than any building collapse. Other than at the Pentagon and Shanksville, this doesn't happen.

But a misguided application of "the laws of thermodynamics"--i.e., the conservation of energy, explained by way of a bent coat hanger--has somehow seduced a number of people here enough to lead to this conflagration.

They come to the thread and demean those who support the most basic of logic as tin-foil-hatters and wild madmen. This really is ignorance denying reality on a breathtaking scale. It also shows that accepting the official story relies upon a suspension of logic and willful ignorance, which is very disturbing.

A number of posts on this board by debunkers will end with something along the lines of, Why are you beating a dead horse? Well, first off, because the horse ain't dead by any means. And also because some of those same people propose that beating a dead horse hard enough will make it melt, then burn. That sort of gets you going, given the subject matter and its import.

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Tiloke
I can turn concrete into powder in my backyard with just a sledgehammer, I don't need any squibs, thermite, etc.
Or are you saying the forces at work on September 11th were less that the forces I can create with a hammer?

can you melt steel with that sledge hammer?

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:09 AM
If you heat it up you can actually make some pretty cool horse shoes. Blacksmiths still do it

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Tiloke
Your right, and there was exactly enough energy to do that and no more......

So, to sum things up:

There was enough energy released to be detected on seismographs 2 states away.

And that was going to be my main point. But what You didn't say was, A building falling or even being demolished does not set off seismic detectors. The reason they detected it was because of an explosion under the ground.
the readings where made at columbia university observitory in palisades NY. 21 miles away. At the moment of collapse, There was a short spike that registered 2.1. 20 times the amplitude and 100 times the force of the of the waves generated by the actual building when it hit the ground. These where the same type of readings they would get from underground nuclear explosions. The 1993 W.T.C truck bomb didn't register because it was not coupled to the ground.So to sum it all up... The towers where brought down by an underground explosion.When the towers hit the ground, there was no seismic reading because even with that much force, the impact was absorbed by the surrounding buildings. these statements where made by seismologist Arthur lerner lam and Won young kim Of columbia university. i tend to believe them because they are experts.

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by russ1969

So to sum it all up... The towers where brought down by an underground explosion.

Then why did they fall from the TOP down?

Originally posted by russ1969
When the towers hit the ground, there was no seismic reading because even with that much force, the impact was absorbed by the surrounding buildings. these statements where made by seismologist Arthur lerner lam and Won young kim Of columbia university. i tend to believe them because they are experts.

WHAT?? Arthur Lerner Lam did NOT say that!!!
He is a seismologist at the University that recorded the readings you are talking about and stated this to Popular Mechanics:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

www.popularmechanics.com...

[edit on 10-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:47 AM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Then why did they fall from the TOP down?

Do I really need to explain this? Once again?

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Then why did they fall from the TOP down?

Do I really need to explain this? Once again?

No Griff, you don't... backtrack through all of his posts and you will see a pattern... He just likes to throw words into every thread so it appears as if he is actually debating. In my opinion he is not and is simply clouding the waters and picking tangents to try to pull people off on.

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 12:08 PM

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Actually I have asked 3 questions in this thread and been insulted 3 times for asking the questions. If the question are so simple to answer why not just answer them without slinging an insult?

why don't you ask your three questions again IF they are germane to the topic of molten steel.

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 12:52 PM
Pootie,

Seems you don't like that I state facts. Geologists state that the seismic data does NOT support the bomb in the basement theories. Please let me know what evidence I have posted that is not accurate. I will be sure to withdraw any statement I posted that is wrong.

The post i was responding to was not accurate. I corrected it. Was i wrong?
Please Pootie...if you don't like me...you really dont have to read my posts. Put me on ignore. Most others in here enjoy the mature debates I bring up.

Griff...sorry if i missed your explanation. If you would like to post the link. I will read it.

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 01:19 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Griff...sorry if i missed your explanation. If you would like to post the link. I will read it.

The explanation is quite simple really. The outer and core columns were connected at the top with the hat truss.

The outer columns could hold 50% of the weight (I've heard less but this makes it easier). Now, factor in that about 15% were damaged. I believe there were 207 outer columns. That leaves it with 175 columns holding 50% of the weight.

Let's assume the weight as 1 ton just to make it easy.

So, .5 tons were being held by the outer columns.

With a factor of safety of 2 (also something not verifiable yet), the columns could hold 1 ton.

OK. If the core is taken out, that puts all the weight onto the outer columns...i.e. 1 ton. That's at the brink of the ultimate load. Given that the outer facade was weakened 15%, that would put the load over the amount of the ultimate and cause failure.

The failure would occur at the impact zones because that was the weakest part of the facade and we all know that a chain breaks at it's weakest link.

Hope that clears up any confusion. And as usual, I could be wrong, but no one has challenged me on this priciple as of yet.

[edit on 7/10/2007 by Griff]

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Seems you don't like that I state facts. Geologists state that the seismic data does NOT support the bomb in the basement theories. Please let me know what evidence I have posted that is not accurate. I will be sure to withdraw any statement I posted that is wrong.

Omitted from the NIST reports is NCSTAR 1-6G: "Analysis of Sept. 11, 2001 seismogram data" by W. Kim. of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. This is the document that WOULD explain the OFFICIAL STORY of the seismic data.

You do a lot of posting but fail to provide sources for many of your claims.

Maybe you would like to take a REAL CHALLENGE regarding the seismic data here?

www.studyof911.com...

Beyond that... If you want to use "Protec" as your "geologists" don't bother unless you can produce copies of the ACTUAL DATA they refer to bu NEVER REVEAL.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by Pootie]

top topics

4