fire melts steel. 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

moeaholic wrote:

well, seems an open fire buckled steel and melted bolts in this case. i have no idea what the bolts were made of, but i highly doubt it was plastic.

Weakened steel is one thing. Melted steel is an entirely different situation altogether.

Anyhow back to 9/11. The bridge comparison is a completely pointless off topic discussion. Fire weakens steel yes...open fire cannot melt it. hmm...cannot melt steel....hmmm i.e. fire does not melt steel...hey!! there's proven and well known concept right there!

It's stunning how anyone with more than a few brain cells to rub together can see nothing wrong with huge pools of melted steel glowing red hot (not hours or days) but for several weeks because of a little sprinkling of that "o so magic" super duper jet fuel.

It really is inconceivable some people either can't, or don't, even blink at this utterly glaring and most impossible fact and reality.

.

moeaholic wrote:

you know, i don't normally reply to things in this forum because people take on the "holier than thou" attitude. and now, i'm sorry that i did. it amazes me that replies can't be made without hurling insults at anyone that doesn't agree.

have fun tearing each other new assholes. i'm sure this thread will end up 20 pages long and have more insults than sane conversation.

hey anytime.. stop by again if you get lonely. One can't coddle the incomprehensible their entire lives. It's going on 6 years since this whole 9/11 fiasco... People are sensing the urge to forgo a few niceties at this stage of the game for those who still haven't caught up to speed.

At some point you know it's gotta get a little ugly. Kinda like Iraq was/is...not to mention all the delicious and greatly warranted pentagon spending...you know...actually the list is pretty much endless.....just ask anyone with a keen eye these days

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's stunning how anyone with more than a few brain cells to rub together can see nothing wrong with huge pools of melted steel glowing red hot (not hours or days) but for several weeks because of a little sprinkling of that "o so magic" super duper jet fuel.

Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office building went to?

See if you can make the connection here...

69charger wrote:

I like this thread. I think we'll talk about it right here.

Thanks.

Have fun in your purple sky world...

El_Kabong wrote:

there is a difference between steel beams holding up an interchange (where it is spread out) and a building which has a much smaller area and probably more beams

You are making some pretty wild assumptions there.

the bolts were what melted, what were the bolts made of?

Steel.

69charger wrote:

Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office building went to?

See if you can make the connection here...

Do you know what kinetic energy is or did I confuse you with the term Joules?

You're still confused?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/300407freewaycollapse.htm

69charger wrote:

Only the steel? Are you sure? Do you have samples to back that up or are you just assuming that's what it was?

Again, where did all that energy go? Or has your conspiracy mamaged to find a way to violate the first law of thermodynamics?

Nice uneducated blind guess you're trying to pass off as reality there. Pretty hilarious indeed. You want to cough up some data, or just paint the sky some more?

Here's the clueless NIST idiots (actually one of the lead idiots) grasping for his own ass hair and outright lying again as per usual....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=e

Oh yeah... NIST disregarded (and outright denied) the pools of metal because it just didn't do anything for them.....well....yeah no kidding eh!. That and the complete absence of the core columns to support their collapse theory. What of the molten steel also found at the bottom of building #7? ....hmmm.... Thermodynamics?......uhm..no.

Some serious magical la la land reality type stuff...love that groovy purple sky...

NIST report = completely useless shite... and some people love eating that shite pie...

69charger wrote:

First, you have to prove that it was molten steel and not some molten slurry of a hundred different metals found in the WTCs, which you haven't.

Second, answer this question...

Again, where did all that energy go? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?

Lol. Are you suggesting that it frictionalized as it went down?

Primarily, it was felt and absorbed as a seismic event.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Easy. They have samples of the melted steel. Big huge chunks of it.

Prove that it is steel and not some molten slurry mix like I described before.

Show me something that indicates what kind of pure crushing force is required to melt gigantic steel columns. That concept is entirely insane given the model provided. It's ludicrous. You could drop the entire building from miles high and it wouldn't spontaneously combust itself into flowing molten metal ooze. You're taking forces in and around nuclear proportions.

How ironic actually.

It seems you've also swallowed the NIST pancake collapse theory hook, line, and sinker. You're not seeming to understand the floors below absorbing and distributing the forces as the collapse progresses.
The whole thing didn't hit the ground in one shot like boom.....melt power! Each floor was involved and distributed forces as it went down (in reality it didn't do that at all however as it free fell in vacuum with assistance).

Didn't you have a problem understanding the mass density of water not too long ago? Can you name one physicist that agrees with you on this new thermodynamic crushing melting force model of yours?

You cant still be trying to hold up and wave the NIST report are you? That would be kinda silly given the evidence.

.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of [pounds*] of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.

My best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustibles, 60% metal and other non-combustible items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.

There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.

This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents.

You should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newbie and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.

This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).

What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.

A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. But it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.

While a 600GJ bomb would take out ten blocks in any direction, the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.

There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theories (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that heat STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”

All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. It was also pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. This force was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. The STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.