Why the "Molten Steel" Argument Needs to Stop.

Originally posted by gottago

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?

Yes, well welcome to Tiloke's "Thimble and Coat Hanger WTC Physics Thread". Home Spun Physics for the scientifically challenged.

Thank you so much John.

If anyone else is counting, thats 3 threads now where Lear has come in just to insult me without addressing the thread topic or even giving reasons why he thinks that way.

this energy was transferred to all the parts of the buildings and everything inside,so much so infact poeple were turned to dust.....

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.

There was enough energy released to turn the builing and the people inside to "powder".

There was enough energy released to hurl 100 ton iron beams a hundred yards sideways.

There was enough energy released to cloud a city in dust.

But that release of energy did NOT generate any heat, even though the creation of heat is the most common form of energy transfer...

John Lear hates me.


Whew, thanks for clearing that up. To quote another member, it's no wonder this forum died. The insane arguments that some people will come up with just to protect their version of reality is baffling.

Originally posted by Tiloke
So, to sum things up:

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

There was enough energy released to turn the builing and the people inside to "powder".

There was enough energy released to hurl 100 ton iron beams a hundred yards sideways.

There was enough energy released to cloud a city in dust.

But that release of energy did NOT generate any heat, even though the creation of heat is the most common form of energy transfer...

Not a bad list.

And just to make sure (and forgetting NYPD/EMS/FDNY/MSM reports of bombs going off, shattered lobbies videotaped, tops of towers explosively disintegrating as they begin to topple, the collapse zone blossoming into a chrysanthemum flower of grey destruction, squibs, etc), none of this explosive release of massive energies you find abnormal for 2 gravity-driven collapses that occur as fast as gravity itself?

The insane arguments that some people will come up with just to protect their version of reality is baffling.

Ah! At last some common ground!

op, using your logic the remains of places hit by earthquakes would contain pools of molten steel.

this is not the case as far as i can ascertain.

Tiloke, that is the most retarded thing I have ever read. I would like to see a piece of metal that gets bent so much that it becomes molten. It is completely impossible.

So let me get this strait, you think that an I-beam falling 100 stories will become molten because of the shear weight on it?
The only way a piece of metal can become molten from falling is if it re-enters the atmosphere at cometary speed, and the air friction causes it to heat up.

Tiloke -

John Lear was kind when he said your suggestion is scientifically challenged.

Your attempt to extrapolate the coat hanger example to the WTC collapse so defies logic and common sense, let alone the most rudimentary scientific analysis, that it doesn't even pass the "AssMonkeyRule" which holds that "ideas and beliefs should be judged based on whether they are more or less likely than winged monkeys spontaneously flying out of your ass." That's an easy to grasp principle derived from Wayne's World . . . a variant of Occam's Razor, which you'd do well to study and comprehend.

I don't mean to offend you, so I hope no offense is taken, but, there is no polite way to get the point across.

What's most amazing is that your proposition resulted in a 5 page ATS thread! That is the single aspect of this thread that merits serious discussion and analysis.

[edit on 7/10/2007 by dubiousone]

[edit on 7/10/2007 by dubiousone]

Originally posted by earth2
I think there was some hot coals under that building just like all other buildings that burned down.

the buildings 'crushed themselves', according to official tripe, they did not 'burn down'.

Originally posted by Voxel
You added energy to the system.

Originally posted by Pootie
We now have two "Debunkers" conceding molten steel at the sites!

Isn't it interesting how debunkers invaribly do this? So bent on pushing one item, they forget themselves...

But your right its a joke... would someone please just get a metalurgist on board to answer this?

Originally posted by Tiloke
But that release of energy did NOT generate any heat, even though the creation of heat is the most common form of energy transfer...

Not enough to keep steel red hot for weeks after. I saw how long it glowed in those videos AFTER it was exposed to air... Have you ever taken an acetylene torch to quality steel, heated it white hot [near melting)and watched how quickly it cools in air after you take away the flame? Try it... its easy to find a shop... you will see how rapidly near molten steel cools

John Lear hates me.

Nah, your just paranoid

River of Molten Steel running down the stairs according to Firemen who saw it..



6 weeks later they are still pulling out red hot steel



But your right bending coat hangers is a great analogy



[edit on 10-7-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Spawwwn
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.

Actually it could also be because people have found satisfactory answers to their questions and moved on. 9/11 is much less a mystery then it was initially, thanks to some of the great posts here from our diligent members and various external sources.

The side effect of this is that the forum is not as busy since most of us have a better understanding and/or satisfactory answers of what really happened. We don't need to post anymore, the truth has set us free! Were doing you a favour by informing you.

Its unfortunate guys like yourself that keep going around in circles. We know there were explosives in the building and a whitewash of the facts, get over it, its been proven over and over. Why do you think this thread got so many hits? Because its a false representation of the facts and people get annoyed. Afterall, they're trying to help you!

Much like how the official story of 9/11 is also false/watered down which is one main factor why the entire subject has generated so much interest. If there was nothing wrong with the official story then people wouldn't have a problem with it and there wouldn't be this forum in the first place.


[edit on 10-7-2007 by VicRH]

i gotta admit something,i ran up and melted the metal with a torch,its what i do

Originally posted by Tiloke
There was enough energy released to be detected on seismographs 2 states away.

You got it right there. Most of the kinetic energy would have been transferred to the earth.

Originally posted by Tiloke
There was enough energy released to be detected on seismographs 2 states away.

Pretty heavy weight... fell in seconds... made big tump...shockwaves travel miles...

There was enough energy released to turn the builing and the people inside to "powder".

Look at the plume... all that energy is spreading upward and outward in an explosion of dust and debris, not contributing to friction of bending steel

There was enough energy released to hurl 100 ton iron beams a hundred yards sideways.

Hurling beams away from the building, also not contributing to friction of bending steel

There was enough energy released to cloud a city in dust.

Drop a bag of flour... dust doesn't take much energy to travel distances. It certainly does not create heat. You can't simply add all the energy being dispersed in all directions and apply it to friction and bending metal with enough heat generated to turn high grade steel into molten metal. It just doesn't work that way.

Show me one other collapse anywhere in the world, including implosions by conventional means, where there is molten steel in the foundaton. If your theory of the coat hanger is correct it should be easy to find me MANY such examples.

One will do


[edit on 10-7-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by earth2
All I want to see is a picture of a pool of molten steel and then ill believe. Why no pic of molten steel??

Not sure if someone has responded to you already, but I saw footage of the molten steel on the zeitgeist movie. really amazing to see that and the columns also look very unusual, I am not molten steel expert but looked logically very strange.

cheers

First of all let me say that I am hearing you Tiloke, I do. Most people in here seems to have a bit too narrow mind to be able to tell a hanger from a enormous metal rod, which is quite disturbing. If a thin metal wire can casue just a little, or apperent heat (depending on thickness and/or material) just imagen a thick metal rod that has been subject to massive force and fire, not only from jet fuel, but also to burning debree of different kinds. Of course the rods got bent as they swayed from side to side (even though that was not seen with the naked eye, alot of veterans who used to work at the site, or any other high rising building would tell that during strong winds the entire building would sway) making the force and energy (heat) increase every second, and also giving good circulation for air to fuel the fire as the building kept "breathing".

So, my thought is this;
Ok, there is some sort of eye whitness reports of seeing molten or red hot glowing metal weeks after the fire, I can go with that. But is there any analasys of these "pools" that proves that it's contents originates from the rods themselves? Can't it be molten debree from gas canisters, electrical equipment or even the hull of the aeroplanes? Can it be? Likely.
And second of all, does such "pools" come about as regular occurance at the site of a controlled demolition? If so, the work of cleaning up after such activities would be hard and dangerous. I don't think that happens.

Let me make it clear though that I have my thoughts of the goverment, or parts of it, did have something to do with this but the attack in it self is just what it seems to be; a precision impact, highly calculated for maximum response and destruction. Maybe the buildings were designed to take such an impact, IN THEORY, but numerous causes (chaos theories and other factors impossible to calculate) did play their part.

So, to all you fanatics (me included in some cases) try looking at other issues connected to the event, don't lock yourselves on single events and facts it will only cripple the hunt for truth. This discussion has been going on for quite some time now (in numerous threads) and as it seems, the side for natural causes (NOT controlled demolition) seems to have the winning hand. Investigate what the *snip* the airforce was up to during the time instead (for ONE thing).

Thank you reader, and thank you Tiloke.

[edit=typo]

[edit on 10-7-2007 by Raud]

[edit on 10-7-2007 by Raud]

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

John , 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)

He explains clearly how the potential energy of the WTC coverted to kinetic energy had the capability and scale to melt steel. Learn and report back why his calculations are wrong!

For the other guy who claims there was no input of energy ... you do not understand potential energy. The input is Gravitational force

You could easily construct a high ( say 6ft) tower out of coathangers strong enough to suspend a heavy concrete block or bricks. Snap the structure so that blocks fall and then observe the energy dispelled on the ground by the block.

I don't believe the official story for a moment but there was enormous engergy released by the collapse

In fact even Greening whilst accepting that molten steel could be caused he is mystified about the length of time is stayed in that condition.

Oh Poster di nero avatar..... you don't know whether the 45deg cut steel was done prior or after clean up demolition occurred! If prior meaningful after not at all relevent!

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

Where did all of this energy you propose come form?

The PE of the mass of the block above the impact zone?

The issue you have in this thread is that you are ASSUMING HUGE energy INPUTS were available by citing what the OUTPUTS were recorded as (kind of and with no actual references) HUGE.

the PE of the block cannot account for the destruction, heat, material ejection, pulverization of concrete, etc. THE INPUT DOES NOT COVER THE OUTPUT... not by a LONG shot. Not in the same ballpark, not even in the same city. We are talking exponential differences, not eve multiplicative.

So.. Show me the math for all of your available PE.

thanks.