Why the "Molten Steel" Argument Needs to Stop.

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.

Tiloke -

What are you doing?!? Are you trying to use actually facts on this board?!?
Facts don't fly.....as I'm sure you'll see.

Are you, by any chance, a sheeple or a Bush croney???

That 'warning' is BS......but I will amend my post so it's actually on topic instead of being filled with scarcasm.

Yes there was a tremendous amount of 'stored' kinetic energy fro the collapse of the towers which were well insulated. But since does not support the CT theories that a micro-nuke was used or that the buildings were filled with bombs it is obviously a lie.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by ferretman2]

He works with me as a NWO official and dis info agent. We are government specialists and get paid well!!



[edit on 9-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Well said, and this was pretty amusing:

Originally posted by Tiloke
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)...

Thank you for the plain explanation. Do not expect many responses until someone figures out how to derail the thread or just plain ignore what you have posted and rant on and on about what ever they "feel" is correct.

Care to explain why there is no molten steel when any other buildings have fallen? Even controlled Demo's don't have molten steel.

Your hangar comparison is TOTALLY bogus.

You are purposefully not reporting/underreporting the real amount of energy input into the repetitive bending of the hanger to achieve such heat and breakage.

Last time I tried it was around (this is a guess) 20 bends to get it done and a significant amount of decreasing force with each bend.

There is NO WAY you can extrapolate this out to metal that was bent probably one time, broke free, hit the ground and stopped.

There is not enough energy available in the WTC scenario to create molten metal... maybe in your little hanger joke, but not in a gravity collapse.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Pootie]

Another FYI...

"Metal" clothes hangars are made of soft alloys that bend quite easily.

Try your experiment with a similar diameter high-grade steel.

You know what I like about your post? You concede molten steel was at the sites. This is a big breakthrough at ATS.

Um think again period.. Between the energy of the fuel in the plane the kinetic energy of the building falling and all the pressure/friction in the mounds of debris along with the fires you very well could get enough heat to melt the metal. Think about doing a cannon ball into a pool then imagine the wtc slamming onto concrete... A lot of energy there.

Originally posted by American Madman
Um think again period.. Between the energy of the fuel in the plane the kinetic energy of the building falling and all the pressure/friction in the mounds of debris along with the fires you very well could get enough heat to melt the metal. Think about doing a cannon ball into a pool then imagine the wtc slamming onto concrete... A lot of energy there.

The fuel was gone in 20 minutes (NIST/FEMA/ASCE). The KE of the planes was transferred to the building causing sway, limited column breakage/damage and was not in play an hour later when the first building collapsed.

Friction during the fall would require a DELAY in the fall. Since the fall times are (IIRC) 9 and 11 seconds (NIST) there really could not have been massive energy input by friction as you claim.

Pressure? There is no pancake (NIST) and most of the mass is thrown outside of the buildings foot print.

"wtc slamming into concrete"? Not in a progressive collapse. the only way it "slams" into concrete is if the resistance (intact building) is "removed" via an outside force.

Until you can put any sort of numbers to your silly little game of comparing alloy wire to steel structures... the assertions made in this thread are a joke.

Originally posted by American Madman
Um think again period.. Between the energy of the fuel in the plane the kinetic energy of the building falling and all the pressure/friction in the mounds of debris along with the fires you very well could get enough heat to melt the metal. Think about doing a cannon ball into a pool then imagine the wtc slamming onto concrete... A lot of energy there.

We now have two "Debunkers" conceding molten steel at the sites!

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Pootie]

Honestly no disrespect, i do not know your credentials but there are many, many well credentialed and educated people in this area that do not agree with you and at the same time very few willing to agree with this nonsense, i like to hear the real experts when these types of arguments come up.

basically the physics do not add up at all that explain the completely pulvarized concrete and yes the molten, metal pools all over, something you might see at a smelting or iron production factory, bottom line is the steel was reinforced and remained in a liquid state for days and weeks afterwards, you simply cannot explain this with the sole variables of a plane, (kerosene or jet fuel) and ignition for a sustained amount of heat necessary to do this.

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 9-7-2007 by phinubian]

I don't understand why a collapsing building, even one as large as the WTC towers, would melt when it fell.

Was it then made of bent coat hangers?

Also, there was very little concrete to insulate all those melted coathangers, as it --and much of the building contents--was pulverized into 2 inches of dust that coated lower Manhattan.

Maybe the relevant movie isn't "Mommie Dearest" but "The Wizard of Oz." I'm thinking of the scene where the witch melts when splashed with water...

[edit on 9-7-2007 by gottago]

You seem to have missed the point of my post.

THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.

The hanger bending is an example of those laws at work. I did not say the steel in the building was bent back and forth.Nor did I say the WTC was made out of "coat hangers" It was only an example of one of the many many ways that kinetic energy can be turned into heat energy.

FYI, heat is the most common (by far) type of energy created by these laws.

I said the kinetic energy of the building falling was transformed to heat energy when the building hit the ground. There was an incredible amount of energy in those falling buildings and it had to go somewhere. That means an incredible amount of heat was generated when that energy was transferred.

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

You are making the mistake of "because I don't understand it, it can't be true". Please don't fall into that trap.

Pulverized concrete......

Was every little piece of concrete pulverized? Every tiny single piece?

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?


P.S. If you want to be taken seriously, you might not want to call yourself "King Slap Nuts"


[edit on 9-7-2007 by Tiloke]

Originally posted by Pootie

We now have two "Debunkers" conceding molten steel at the sites!

Pootie, thanks for bringing reason to this thread. When I first saw this post this morning I thought "Oh no, more uninformed speculation using ridiculous examples."

Its just amazing how many you can get to believe the collapse and molten steel at the base of World Trade was due to bending a coat hanger. Its sad even.

But please keep up the good debate. Thanks.

Originally posted by phinubian
Honestly no disrespect, i do not know your credentials but there are many, many well credentialed and educated people in this area that do not agree with you and at the same time very few willing to agree with this nonsense, i like to hear the real experts when these types of arguments come up.

basically the physics do not add up at all that explain the completely pulvarized concrete and yes the molten, metal pools all over, something you might see at a smelting or iron production factory, bottom line is the steel was reinforced and remained in a liquid state for days and weeks afterwards, you simply cannot explain this with the sole variables of a plane, (kerosene or jet fuel) and ignition for a sustained amount of heat necessary to do this.

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 9-7-2007 by phinubian]

What would explain it?

Thermite would not keep it hot just melt it quickly and not a lot of it just enough to make the building crash.

Originally posted by Pootie
Your hangar comparison is TOTALLY bogus.

I agree, since when do coat hangers turn to molten metal through that sort of effect through bending? Sure it will heat up but it doesnt melt! They snap. Whats more you need to bend it back and forward a number of times. That building came down in approx. 10 seconds! There was no backward and forward bending, it wasn't there long enough.

How about you get your coat hangar and try reducing it to a pool of molten metal, or better yet *snip*.



[edit: removed offensive content]
Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by RandomThought
Care to explain why there is no molten steel when any other buildings have fallen? Even controlled Demo's don't have molten steel.

I would love to.

In a real controlled demolition, the energy of the building falling is Controlled through the use of DEMOLITION charges, hence the term "controlled demolition".

When it is not controlled , there are forces you can not even begin to understand at work. Thats why we have calculus and all that "advanced" math, because we can not understand the forces at work without it.

Also, never ever ever in the history of mankind had a building the size of the WTC been demolished, so how can you compare the energy released? Especially when you know that potential energy increases exponentially when you increase weight and hight of the object falling.

If an object traveling 5 MPH was 5 energy, that same object traveling 10 mph has 20 energy. Thats how these laws work. You simply can NOT compare a smaller building to a large one because the energy is so incredibly more in a large building.

-----------------------------EDIT--------------------------------

Look people, how stupid do you have to be to directly compare a coat hanger to the strength of the towers? The coat hanger was AN EXAMPLE OF THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS, THATS ALL. An example of the laws at work, nothing more.

VicRH, Did I say the coat hanger melted? No, I said IT HEATS UP DUE TO THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.

If all you people can do is argue about a stupid coat hanger and ignore the point of the thread than it's obvious you have no real argument.



[edit on 9-7-2007 by Tiloke]