Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

reply to post by Varemia


I believe that there was hot material in about ten floors of WTC1.

I believe that that quantity of heat was woefully insufficient to produce the heat in the rubble pile.

I believe the buildings were demolished with 3-4? gen thermonuclear devices.

I believe those devices upon detnation superheated the steel in WTC1.

Some of the steel evaporated immediately, the rest being super hot sublimated while under the pile of rubble
.
So the fires caused by kerosene, office equipment did not cause the demolition of WTC1.

These thermonuclear devices were used on WTC6 and 2 as well.

I do not have to think about oxidizing steel, sulfur, and other things to heat up the steel in WTC1.

Thermonuclear device did that fine to about 6-8,000 degees F.

This instantaneous heating explains the complete pulverization of any matter which contained water (human, concrete, wall board, wood) and that is why paper was left unburned as it has no water content.

I blieve that the (shaped charges) devices were aimed upward from the basement and this is what registered on the seisomograph records at about 2.2-2.5.

I see striking similarities in Oklahoma City, and Bali to name a couple others.

I have already spent considerable time on the heat in the piles, and my conclusion barring any intelligent plausible alternatives is to continue with my belief that thermo nuclear did the destruction.

Thermite, either used as a demolition charge, or generated in the reactions between metals in the pile are in my experience insufficient to explain the heat.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

You know that's wrong, come on.
What is your source. Wikipedia references a test done by the military of a free falling 30-06 bullet, the speed one could expect it to achieve dropped from a high rise, with the understanding it takes some time to even approach free fall speed that bullet may not even get to 200 mph.

en.wikipedia.org...

My source is my PhD in Physicsand 2000 skydives, where in a flat face to earth spread out position you'll get to 120mph or so, but in a track position you can hit 200.
But if I were teaching kindergartners, I would use NASA's explanatory page at www.grc.nasa.gov...
As for your Wikipedia reference, look back at the original equation. One of the variables is "g." Do you understand what that is? It is acceleration in feet per second per second. On earth, in a vacuum, it is 32 feet/sec/sec. 200 mph is 293.333 feet per second. A little more math gets you to the conclusion that it takes a little over 9 seconds to get to that speed. And a little integral calculus shows that in that 9 seconds it has traveled 720 feet. So if the skyscraper is not that tall your bullet will not have enough time to get to terminal. The fact that there is even such a thing as terminal velocity is a result of the facts that gravitational acceleration is a linear function while drag, increasing as the square of velocity is exponential. At some point the lines cross, and where they do is terminal velocity

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

bull.
He free fell from what 60,000 feet where there is no air.
for all practical urposes free fall speed is 125 mph for the
height of manmade objects, especially this close to the surface of the earth.

if a steel beam from he towers fell at 600 mph, that means it was travelling at colse to 900 feet per second, which is about how tall the towers were.
does that compute for you?
me either
so an object falling from 1200 feet will accelerate to 187 fps and that is terminal velocity.
a bowling ball and a bb hit the ground at the same time from that height.
a connon ball fired horizontal to the top of the tower and a bb will hit the ground at the same time

edit on 28-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: (no reason given)

Kittinger actually jumped from the Excelsior gondola at 102,800 feet and reached 614 mph.
OK, now show a freakin source for your fairytale that 187 feet/sec is a universal terminal velocity. Now, depending on the mass of an object, the projected area, the drag coefficient and the density of the atmosphere, it may only have enough time to accelerate to that speed, but terminal velocity is defined as the speed at which the force from drag equals the force of gravity and that is different for different masses, shapes and atmospheric viscosity/density.

"a bowling ball and a bb hit the ground at the same time from that height" only in a vacuum.

Your statement about the towers hitting the ground in 1 second at 900 feet/second suffers from the same ignorance of physics. An object doesn't magically accelerate instantaneously to terminal. It takes time. In fact, it takes about 28 seconds for an object to accelerate, under 1 g, to 900 '/sec.
By the way, 900'/sec is just about terminal velocity of a person in stable free-fall position, on Mars. Do the computation at www.grc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by 4nsicphd


125 mph is terminal velocity this close to the surface of the earth.
125 mph is equivalent to 187.5 fps.
from @1200 feet in elevation it takes a little over
5 second of falling to reach terminal velocity.

that is why a .30-06 fired straight up into the air will not return
to earth with much more velocity that a rock out of a slingshot.

reply to post by slugger9787
That's for a person "falling flat". A person can fall faster by changing their body orientation. Different objects have different terminal velocities as the post before yours suggested:

www.wisegeek.com...

Different objects will have drastically different terminal velocities. A person in freefall, for example, has a terminal velocity of approximately 184 ft/s (56.08 m/s) or roughly 124 mph (200 kph). A raindrop, in contrast, although very aerodynamic, is also not very dense, and so has a terminal velocity of around 25 ft/s (7.62 m/s) or roughly 17 mph (27 kph). A lead bullet shot up straight in the air, on the other hand, has a terminal velocity of around 223 ft/s (67.97 m/s) or 152 mph (245 kph).

The basic rules of thumb, though, are that objects will have a higher terminal velocity when: there is more of it, making a heavier weight......

There is nothing universal about 125 mph as a terminal velocity.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


yup.
the terminal velocity of the lengths of toilet paper being
dropped out of the towers on that fateful day have
even less terminal velocity than a raindrop.

we are not able to measure the square
footage of objects, or their weight, while watching a video.
the best we can do is interpolate.

I believe that 125 mph is a good figure.
we can bump it up to 150 mph if that is
accepted as a better estimation.

I am aware of varying TV's of different objects.
My postings were to highlight that the objects falling on 911 were not traveling 900 fps/@600mph.
My post was to illustrate that it takes less time than 28 seconds to reach terminal velocity.

Which, to tie this subject in to molten steel, i do
believe has no bearing on the topic, and have no idea how it is in this thread.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by slugger9787

 

That's for a person "falling flat". A person can fall faster by changing their body orientation. Different objects have different terminal velocities as the post before yours suggested:

www.wisegeek.com...


The basic rules of thumb, though, are that objects will have a higher terminal velocity when: there is more of it, making a heavier weight......

There is nothing universal about 125 mph as a terminal velocity.







Yourfirst and third sentences are absolutely correct. But the second is just flat wrong. Take a piece of paper. Tear off one corner of about 1 square inch. Wad it up tightly into a ball. Put it in your right hand. Put the remaining paper horizontal to the floor in your left hand. drop both. The small ball will hit the floor first even though it has less "weight" or mass.The key is the ratio of mass to projected area and the Cd or coefficient of drag. A sphere is fairly aerodynamic and a comparison of Reynolds numbers is illustrative of the dynamic similitude of the two forms.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


You are right.
I explained that in my most recent post.
how I arrived at the speed and why.

If you think the velocities achieved by falling objects on 9-11 was 600 mph, then you are free to do so.
however, the toilet paper was less than that.

to reach 600 mph or 900 fps an object would have to fall ABOUT 19 SECONDS.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Its not flat wrong, its just not complete (hence the ....). Full sentence is

The basic rules of thumb, though, are that objects will have a higher terminal velocity when: there is more of it, making a heavier weight; the density of the gas it’s falling through is lower, as in upper atmosphere; the object has a lower drag coefficient, meaning it has been built to be more streamlined, like a raindrop; or there is less area to drag, usually meaning the object is more dense.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

You are right.
I explained that in my most recent post.
how I arrived at the speed and why.

If you think the velocities achieved by falling objects on 9-11 was 600 mph, then you are free to do so.
however, the toilet paper was less than that.

to reach 600 mph or 900 fps an object would have to fall ABOUT 19 SECONDS.

Nope, to hit 900 fps would take 28.12 seconds, ignoring centripedal forces, adjustments for latitude and original height.

And for something of the right shape, mass and Cd to hit 900'/sec, it would have to fall from 12,600 feet

reply to post by 4nsicphd


show me your math please

reply to post by slugger9787


The Russian who believes that an underground nuclear weapon will change steel to dust from a shock wave is not grounded in reality. See, for example, "The Behavior of Metals Under Impulsive Loads" by J. Rinehart. No "dustification" just plastic deformation.

No evidence for nukes, just underground fires. Bring on your "nuclear experts."

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by slugger9787

 

The Russian who believes that an underground nuclear weapon will change steel to dust from a shock wave is not grounded in reality. See, for example, "The Behavior of Metals Under Impulsive Loads" by J. Rinehart. No "dustification" just plastic deformation.

No evidence for nukes, just underground fires. Bring on your "nuclear experts."

Your argument is unproven!

At best, we can agree to disagree on this one until as such a time as I get access to said book. No doubt it contains real-world experiments that prove the behavior of metals under stress equivalent to varying nuclear yields and accounts for wave frequency.

reply to post by JohnJasper


Please show how nuclear weapons, or any shock wave, can convert steel into dust without vaporiziing and recondensing the metal. This mechanism would have been noticed and, given the energies required, would have also unavoidably flattened many more buildings and killed many more New Yorkers.

When I engaged the Russian "expert" and asked how steel was turned to dust by a shockwave, I was told that since I was close minded enough to ask a question and not just believe him, he would not argue the point. This is a relatively common tactic when people propose something on the spur of the moment and can't back it up. They claim super-secret devices and unknown technology that does what they want it to do. The steel-to-dust from a shock wave is pure fantasy. Nukes without heat and radiation do not exist; that is what they are designed to do. Directional nukes are another technology that doesn't exist and has no application. If you think nuclear explosives downed the towers, you should look at a few nuclear weapons test videos to get an idea of what it would look like, and compare them with the collapses.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

show me your math please

OK, 1g acceleration on earth is 32'/sec/sec, so:
after 1 sec 32's^2 16' fallen
2 sec 64'/s^2 48'
3 sec 96 96'
4 sec 128 160'
After that it's linear so divide 900'/sec by 32'/s^2 and you get 28.12500 seconds..
For the total feet fallen, use calculus to find the area under the time versus speed plot, or if your not acquainted with calculus, use the simple formula d=1/2gt^2, where d is distance fallen, t is time falling, and g is the gravitational constant. For ease of calculation, you can ignore the factor of latitudinal differences in the earth's radius from center, the centrifugal force of the curved path, and the insignificant gravitational force of the mass of the falling body (msub1*msub2/r^2)-g.
Or if you like it a lot less mathier, use the calculator at www.gravitycalc.com...

Anything else?

CORRECTIONS IN BLUE
OK, 1g acceleration on earth is 32'/sec/sec, so:
after 1 sec 32's^2 16' fallen
2 sec 64'/s^2 48'
3 sec 96 80'
4 sec 128 112'
After that it's linear so divide 900'/sec by 32'/s^2 and you get 28.12500 seconds..
For the total feet fallen, use calculus to find the area under the time versus speed plot, or if your not acquainted with calculus, use the simple formula d=1/2gt^2, where d is distance fallen, t is time falling, and g is the gravitational constant. For ease of calculation, you can ignore the factor of latitudinal differences in the earth's radius from center, the centrifugal force of the curved path, and the insignificant gravitational force of the mass of the falling body (msub1*msub2/r^2)-g.
Or if you like it a lot less mathier, use the calculator at www.gravitycalc.com...

Anything else?

Originally posted by slugger9787

CORRECTIONS IN BLUE
OK, 1g acceleration on earth is 32'/sec/sec, so:
after 1 sec 32's^2 16' fallen
2 sec 64'/s^2 48'
3 sec 96 80'
4 sec 128 112'
After that it's linear so divide 900'/sec by 32'/s^2 and you get 28.12500 seconds..
For the total feet fallen, use calculus to find the area under the time versus speed plot, or if your not acquainted with calculus, use the simple formula d=1/2gt^2, where d is distance fallen, t is time falling, and g is the gravitational constant. For ease of calculation, you can ignore the factor of latitudinal differences in the earth's radius from center, the centrifugal force of the curved path, and the insignificant gravitational force of the mass of the falling body (msub1*msub2/r^2)-g.
Or if you like it a lot less mathier, use the calculator at www.gravitycalc.com...

Anything else?

edit on 30-9-2010 by 4nsicphd because: to get rid of a trespassing "n"

Your "corrections" to my post are wrong. You are adding the acceleration rate to the distance fallen. Here, let me make it really simple. At 0 time, the object has no speed and, therefore has travell
ed 0 distance. After 1 second, it has accelerated to 32'/sec. So for that 1 second it had an average speed of halfway between zero and 32, or 16 feet per sec. for 1 second. So it fell 16'. At the end of the 2nd second, it was going 64'fps and during that 2nd second, it averaged32+64/2 fps, or 48fps. So, during that 2nd second it fell another 48' on top of the 16' it fell during the first second, for a total of 64'. OK, let's do the third second. The object starts this second at 64 and ends up at 96 for an average of 80, added to the 48 it had already fallen for a total of 128' fallen by the end of the third second, not the 80 you showed. Your numbers ignore the distance fallen in the prior time periods. You're trying to show something closer to the derivative and not the integral. To find the distance fallen in 28.125 seconds, which was the point you wanted the math for, you have to sum the distances fallen each second for all the seconds.

Then there's the February 1975 North Tower fire that everyone seems to keep forgetting... The fire burned for 3 hours.

So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

...

That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.

how911wasdone.blogspot.com...

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by slugger9787


Still, in any example of a building on fire that remained standing, there is the failure to remember that parts of the building were severely damaged. The WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris from the North Tower. That's how the fires started in the first place. The two towers were hit by planes that are very much objects and added new variables to the equation. Also, one must consider differences in structural fireproofing. I was reading about how basically crappy the fireproofing job on the trade centers was. That the steel had rust and stuff already on it that flaked off a lot of the spray-on coat, and then the whole bit about the non-uniformity of the fireproof coat, and how the temperatures on the floor of the world trade center were not constant throughout.

That's another thing people fail to remember, is that these weren't full on office fires. The planes blasted combustibles to the sides and such, making a very hot area in one spot and much cooler areas in other spots. That woman who was at the edge of the building waving out can attest to that. The variation of temperature created increased plasticity on the steel because it was designed to hold up to those temperatures, but not when one side was hot while the other was hundreds of degrees cooler. With the WTC 7 it was a combination of debris damage, fire with no resistance, and the particular structure in relation to the fire that caused the collapse.

Nothing like 9/11 ever happened before or since. Therefor, as I have heard many times before, it is the rule, not the exception to the rule.