Why the "Molten Steel" Argument Needs to Stop.

Originally posted by ferretman2
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]

pffftt..

Bending a hanger and a building collapsing seems like slightly different cases..oh hey,did u know fire also creates heat?crazy right?

Idk if its it fact but you guys can hold a lighter to your arm,i bet it may just get hot..

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

Wow..this thread is starting to look like the united nations with all these flags!!!

Lets play nice kiddies!!!!

We've had some nasty comments in this thread.

I need to remind everyone of the great big banner at the top of every thread in this forum:
Due to members demand, this forum is now under close staff scrutiny.

Warns will be handed out quickly. And over-the top abusiveness may receive more than one warn.

Originally posted by Tiloke
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.

Yes, there was a large amount of KE in the falling debris... that energy had to do MANY things:

- Snap columns
- turn concrete to dust
- eject huge chunks of steel a block
- crush the remaining superstructure of the building and it's contents
- push a dust cloud miles

Energy is a ZERO SUM GAME. I know you are REPEATING the word "thermodynamics" but you are ignoring ALL OF THE OTHER ENERGY SINKS.

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

You are ignoring the giant white elephants in the room (the other energy sinks).

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

Originally posted by Tiloke
Pulverized concrete......

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

Gathering the empirical evidence on this is difficult... Show me some picrutes of big chunks of concrete or even the metal floor pans that held them. 110 stories x 10cm cement ea. = 11 METERS of cement slabs... GONE. Show me A SINGLE SLAB. Show me, in a photo a SINGLE chunk of a slab.

Go drop a chunk of concrete out of a plan ate 30,000' and it WILL NOT turn to dust on impact.

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.

Again, you need to input many, many swings. You do not seem to understand that the RATIOS of energy in your silly examples (swinging a sledge at a small chunk of concrete) are exponentially larger than in the WTC collapses.

Originally posted by Tiloke
Or are you saying the forces at work on September 11th were less that the forces I can create with a hammer?

RATIOS... Nice cut and paste with Thermo but you obviously lack a solid understanding of math, calc and physics to post that.

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

Why do I need to be taken seriously by people posting seriously flawed physics examples and claiming they explain molten steel?

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Project_Silo

pffftt..

Bending a hanger and a building collapsing seems like slightly different cases..oh hey,did u know fire also creates heat?crazy right?

Idk if its it fact but you guys can hold a lighter to your arm,i bet it may just get hot..

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

See, how many times do I have to tell you before you'll understand? Bending a hanger and a collapsing building are indeed totally different.

What is the same is the laws of energy transfer at work here. The kinetic energy had to be converted into something when it hit the ground. If it was not heat, than what was it??

The amount of heat produced would obviously be way more since there is millions of times the force and mass involved.

When your computer converts energy to heat(hence the fans) its normal.

When a lightbulb converts energy to heat, its normal.

when you rub 2 sticks together, converting kinetic energy into heat, its normal.

When you bend metal and it gets hot do to the transfer of energy, its normal.

But when a collapsing gets hot because of those very same principles, it's a conspiracy?

This thread reminds me of the Jim Garrison quote in the movie JFK:

"The FBI says they can prove it through physics in a nuclear laboratory. Of course they can prove it. Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! But use your eyes, your common sense.

Peace

Originally posted by Tiloke

Originally posted by Project_Silo

pffftt..

Bending a hanger and a building collapsing seems like slightly different cases..oh hey,did u know fire also creates heat?crazy right?

When you bend metal and it gets hot do to the transfer of energy, its normal.

But when a collapsing gets hot because of those very same principles, it's a conspiracy?

So,does the coat hanger become molten?and stay molten for days?or did i not bend it enough?

nice qoute Dr Love

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Project_Silo]
*Please don't quote so much of the previous post*

[edit on 9-7-2007 by dbates]

Originally posted by Tiloke
But when a collapsing gets hot because of those very same principles, it's a conspiracy?

Not the same principals at all. You are claiming that falling debris "banging together" and rubbing is causing enough friction to MELT STEEL whilst ignoring all of the other energy outputs.

You are also ignoring that the only energy inputs in the collapse were small office fires and the mass of the upper blocks x g...

No valid comparisons have been made in any of your posts in this thread.

Originally posted by Pootie


Not the same principals at all. You are claiming that falling debris "banging together" and rubbing is causing enough friction to MELT STEEL whilst ignoring all of the other energy outputs.

Umm, no, Never once did I say that. In fact, I haven't mentioned friction at all. Now I understand why your arguing, you haven't read a thing I've written.

You are also ignoring that the only energy inputs in the collapse were small office fires and the mass of the upper blocks x g...

You are ignoring what is known as "potential energy".
There did not have to be an external source, the buildings had enough energy ready and waiting to go. All they needed was a reason to release that energy.You supplied that reason with your post, E.G. small office fires and the mass of the upper blocks".

No valid comparisons have been made in any of your posts in this thread.

Only in the eyes of the uneducated or ignorant.





[edit on 9-7-2007 by Tiloke]

Personaly I dont think there is 100% proof molten steel was there. Ive seen a few pictures of some red hot coals but it could be just hot coals.
And a witness is just hearsay. Where is the proof there was molten steel?
Where is the proof the meteor blob is molten steel? Just because somebody says so. Where are the lab results?????

Maybe molten aluminum.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by earth2]

Heres a site that claims molten metal was reported 21 days after the towers collapsed.21 days is a long time for metal to stay in liquid form.Just read whats reported by fireman and others involved in the clean-up of the towers.Incredible stuff,and mind boggling.

Yeah thats all I ever see is reports. I dont want to see another report about molten steel for the rest of my life. All I want to see is a picture of a pool of molten steel and then ill believe. Why no pic of molten steel??

*It's not necessary to quote the post directly above yours in entirety.*

[edit on 9-7-2007 by dbates]

Originally posted by earth2
Maybe molten aluminum.

Yes, you've changed my mind! That must have been molten aluminum pouring out of the side of the building before it collapsed.

Thanks for throwing me that life preserver so I don't feel completely stupid.

Peace

Wow, I actually need to quote the first post in this thread. Do people read anything other than the title before posting?

Originally posted by Tiloke
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.

Its just insulation keeping it hot, nothing more. If you have enough insulation , you can do amazing things with heat energy.

Did you know it would take an ice cube over a month to melt in the Space Shuttles fuel tanks? Thats because it has great insulation. It would also keep something hot in much the same way.

Now, I know that concrete is not as good an insulator as the space age materials used on the shuttle. It did not have to be because there was so much of it. If you have enough of any material, it will work as a insulator.

I cant remember, was there a lot of concrete in the WTC?

Yes Ive been there before with someone and they tried to say aluminum doest glow red. And maybe thats true i dont know but it had to be mixed with a lot of other material, in other words it wasnt pure, and that could have made it glow red.

Originally posted by Tiloke
Umm, no, Never once did I say that. In fact, I haven't mentioned friction at all. Now I understand why your arguing, you haven't read a thing I've written.

You have totally and completely dodged and failed to respond to all of the energy sinks, your exaggerated energy inputs (swinging a sledg vs. it dropping via gravity), how much force you are actually applying to a simple coat hangar to generate a small amount of heat (newtons x # of "bends') and every other fact I have pointed out to you.

Kudos.



[edit on 9-7-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by earth2
Why no pic of molten steel??

Because ALL CAMERAS WERE CONFISCATED as you passed through MILITARY CHECKPOINTS BLOCKS FROM GROUND ZERO.

The ONLY photographers allowed AT ground Zero were TWO... count them TWO FEMA cameramen with very shady backgrounds.

Most of the photos taken even by the FEMA guys are still being withheld.

Personaly I think concrete would absorb the heat and smother any fire down below. Besides for your theory to be valid first you have to prove there was molten steel.