'Molten' metal found at WTC 1, 2, and 7, 8 weeks after 9-11?

[Dave Rogers]

but i still doubt that the fires in the rubble was able to melt steel, but to keep molten steel molten maybe. if there was indeed steel, or whatever metal that was once molten.

But what you're suggesting here doesn't make any sense. You're saying that you can believe that the fires produced enough heat to raise the temperature of the rubble pile as a whole to the melting point of steel and maintain it there, which is what would be required to keep molten steel molten, but you doubt that they could have produced enough additional heat to melt any steel that wasn't already molten. How narrowly can you determine the heat output of the fires? You've basically taken two numbers you don't know, then said that a third number you don't know is probably larger than one of them but smaller than the other. This is a good example of what I call the unevaluated inequality fallacy. In other words, your doubts have no basis in reality.

Dave

 

[PhantomWolf]

but i still doubt that the fires in the rubble was able to melt steel, but to keep molten steel molten maybe. if there was indeed steel, or whatever metal that was once molten.

I don't think you get it, the temperature to keep metal molten is exactly the same temperature that will melt it in the first place. If the fires weren't hot enough to melt it, then they aren't hot enough to keep it molten, it's that simple.

 

[DC]

the same amount of thermal energy is needed to keep motlen stell molten, like it would need to melt that same amount of steel?

 

[PhantomWolf]

the same amount of thermal energy is needed to keep motlen stell molten, like it would need to melt that same amount of steel?

energy no, temperature yes. You do need more energy, but that is what a fire is, in fact as the metal melts its temperature will decrease, but once the metal has melted the temperature will rise again to and then beyond the melting point.

As Jaydeehess pointed out eariler in the thread there are 3 possible thermodynamic situations in a fire.

a) There is more energy being used and escaping than the fire is producing
b) There is exactly the same amount of energy being used or escaping as the fire is producing
or
c) There is less energy being used and escaping than the fire is producing.

In situation a) the fire will cool and go out. This obviously didn't happen. In b) the temperature of the pile will remain constant as long as there is fuel and in c) the fire will heat up until situation b) is created.

The reason that material's temperature drops as it melts is because it is using extra energy to change phase, but if it is still being given energy, from a fire, then the melting process continues. This means that the energy being produced by the fire is being "eaten" by the melting marterial and will prevent the surrounding from heating up futher until there is no more material to melt. Once it is melted there is less removing that energy from the system and the temerapture will keep increasing until it again reaches an equilibrium.

This means that fires that would just be keeping metal molten would generally be hotter then fires that were busy melting metal, and as such they can easily melt that metal themselves.

 

[DC]

energy no, temperature yes. You do need more energy, but that is what a fire is, in fact as the metal melts its temperature will decrease, but once the metal has melted the temperature will rise again to and then beyond the melting point.

As Jaydeehess pointed out eariler in the thread there are 3 possible thermodynamic situations in a fire.

a) There is more energy being used and escaping than the fire is producing
b) There is exactly the same amount of energy being used or escaping as the fire is producing
or
c) There is less energy being used and escaping than the fire is producing.

In situation a) the fire will cool and go out. This obviously didn't happen. In b) the temperature of the pile will remain constant as long as there is fuel and in c) the fire will heat up until situation b) is created.

The reason that material's temperature drops as it melts is because it is using extra energy to change phase, but if it is still being given energy, from a fire, then the melting process continues. This means that the energy being produced by the fire is being "eaten" by the melting marterial and will prevent the surrounding from heating up futher until there is no more material to melt. Once it is melted there is less removing that energy from the system and the temerapture will keep increasing until it again reaches an equilibrium.

This means that fires that would just be keeping metal molten would generally be hotter then fires that were busy melting metal, and as such they can easily melt that metal themselves.

so it need less thermal energy to keep molten metal molten, than is need t melt it.

thx for clarification.

 

[PhantomWolf]

so it need less thermal energy to keep molten metal molten, than is need t melt it.

thx for clarification.

However in the middle of a fire finding thermal energy isn't an issue. Temperature is the important factor, not the amount of energy.

 

[DC]

However in the middle of a fire finding thermal energy isn't an issue. Temperature is the important factor, not the amount of energy.

temperature is defined as the average energy of microscopic motions of a single particle in the system per degree of freedom.

 

[Dave Rogers]

so it need less thermal energy to keep molten metal molten, than is need t melt it.

The latent heat of iron is 0.45 J g-1 K-1, so about 675kJ is required to heat 1kG of iron from room temperature to its melting point. The latent heat of fusion is 272 J g-1, so 272kJ is required to liquefy 1kG of iron at its melting point - less than half of what was required to heat it in the first place. That's ignoring the fact that there was also other material in the rubble pile which also had to be heated to the same temperature.

We don't know the rate of heat loss, so we can't say what heating rate is needed to keep it there, but note that whatever that rate is, it has to be sustained for a matter of months. For the fires to have heated the steel to melting point and kept it there for that long without melting a significant part of it, is to constrain the heat output so narrowly that it's an absurd assumption.

Not that any of this is relevant anyway. There are only anecdotal accounts of molten steel; nobody at any time took a sample of molten metal and analysed it in any way that would have established that it was steel. The only requirement for plausibility of the generally accepted narrative, therefore, is that it explain why people thought there was molten steel in the rubble pile, and this has been done more times than I care to number.

Dave

 

[PhantomWolf]

temperature is defined as the average energy of microscopic motions of a single particle in the system per degree of freedom.

We're talking the difference between Heat and Temperature. Temperature is the energy inside a material. Heat is the energy that is transfered between them. When melting the material needs heat to absorb and convert to get it over the melting point. Heat is something that isn't exactly rare in a fire.

It's like dipping a bucket in a lake. It doesn't matter to the lake if it's a 1 gallon bucket or a 50 gallon one, they both fill up the same way and anything inside gets wet, one just holds a bit more.

Melting metal absorbs more heat than melted metal does, but since there is so much avaible, it doesn't affect anything. If the fire is hot enough to keep the metal liquid then it has enough heat in it to supply that to solid metal and melt it as well.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Once again:

The fires were measured to be up to 2,800 degrees in places. One source for this is in an article published in May 2002 (Professional Safety, "SH&E at Ground Zero"), a source that also repeated the news that the fires were "officially" extinguished on December 19 (a date outside the "7,8 weeks after 9-11"). So again, regardless of what we think caused the fires, it is beyond question that they were hot for a very long period of time, hot enough to melt metals, and in the spots measuring 2,800 degrees, hot enough to melt steel.

Given the acknowledgement that the fires existed, given both this heat level and timeframe, and given the relative dearth of proof of thermite use, how can any hypothesis citing these sightings reasonably include thermite? Because once again, the fires were measured to be hot enough and acknowledged to have burned long enough - beyond 7 to 8 weeks - to account for any molten metals including steel without resorting to thermite. Once again, as I said in previous posts, these sightings can not be used to support the thermite hypothesis, because regardless of any arguments about heat retention, fuel for the fires, etc., we know the fires were hot enough as late as mid December, and we know that thermite, even in sizes on the order of pounds burns out through within seconds (here's one article discussing "Burn Rate Measurements of Nanocomposite Thermites": http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMASM03_582/PV2003_241.pdf"... someone else can do the calculation for how much would be needed for the proposed scenarios). So thermite cannot be thought of as the fuel that resulted in the temperatures in December 2001. And any proposition that thermite only melted the steel initially and the fire kept it molten for the rest of the time is unsupported because, again, there's no proof of molten steel existing prior to these sightings, and the fires on their own could account for molten metals, including steel.

I apologize for not only being didactic but also repetative. I'm not aiming this comment at any one person, but: It seems as though we've had this answer several pages ago but are still discussing elements of the story as if these givens are not being taken into consideration. Many here are indeed acknowledging these factors, but a few posters have not, and I hope that those few people will take these pieces of information into account.

 

[gumboot]

temperature is defined as the average energy of microscopic motions of a single particle in the system per degree of freedom.

That's only the definition of temperature on the microscopic scale (zeroth law of thermodynamics).

The definition of temperature on the macroscopic scale (which is what is relevant to this discussion) is the unique physical property that determines the direction of heat flow between two objects placed in thermal contact. If no heat flow occurs, the two objects have the same temperature; otherwise heat flows from the hotter object to the colder object (second law of thermodynamics).

We have a fuel source and we have molten steel. The fuel, which is burning and therefore generating heat, must be at a minimum of 1350 degrees, as we have established it is sufficient to maintain molten steel. Were it at less than 1350 degrees the fuel source would absorb heat from the molten steel and the steel would solidify.

We next introduce solid steel to the equation. The solid steel absorbs heat from the molten steel and burning fuel source, until such time as it rises to the same temperature as the molten steel and fire (1350 degrees). In doing so the steel melts.

Ergo, if the burning of a given fuel source radiates enough heat to maintain molten steel it must also radiate sufficient heat to melt solid steel (assuming the fuel source is not exhausted first).

Essentially, to claim that the fires can maintain steel at molten state, but not melt solid steel, requires the debris pile to defy the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Your turn, what is the mechanism by which one could acheive the results seen using thermite?
Hey, its YOUR contention, try to convince me!

And remember, deep44, you have to choose one type of thermite: The fast-burning, volatile kind that would have ignited as soon as the planes hit the towers, or the more stable, slow-burning variety that would have been ineffective at severing the support beams.

You can't choose the best of both worlds. One or the other.

 

[aggle-rithm]

temperature is defined as the average energy of microscopic motions of a single particle in the system per degree of freedom.

My, your English has improved.

This wouldn't be a copy-and-paste from Wikipedia, would it?

 

[Dave Rogers]

temperature is defined as the average energy of microscopic motions of a single particle in the system per degree of freedom.

Do you actually understand that sentence well enough to realise that it supports PhantomWolf's position rather than refuting it?

Dave

 

[Evilgiraffe]

This wouldn't be a copy-and-paste from Wikipedia, would it?

temperature is defined as the average energy of microscopic motions of a single particle in the system per degree of freedom.

Yes I believe it is.... Unfortunately the microscopic definition of temperature is next to useless in this discussion.

Depending on the density of the sytem, individual particles can be very "hot" (having high thermal motion) yet the system is incapable of transferring large amounts of heat.

A good example of this is very low pressure gases. Individual gas molecules may be moving very fast (they have a high temperature) however the amount of energy (heat) that can be transferred by the gas, as a whole, is limited due to the small number of molecules per unit volume.

 

[CHF]

Zoom, right over my head? When I said, "according to you, that number is 0", I meant that your claim assumes that everything you mentioned (molten steel, etc) can happen without thermite, or any other incendiary/explosive.

Actually I don't claim there was molten steel for weeks at GZ. Twoofers claim that but I don't.

What I'm asking you and DC to do is explain your theory for why that "molten steel" was there.

So if I say that it would take 100 lbs of thermite to do everything, who are you to argue? You believe something like that can happen with no thermite at all.

I would respond by pointing out that thermite doesn't burn long enough to account for it. And you would respond to that fact by saying....what?

 

[Dave Rogers]

So if I say that it would take 100 lbs of thermite to do everything, who are you to argue? You believe something like that can happen with no thermite at all.

Actually, you're missing the point here, as I think is everyone else.

The aim of the truth movement here is to cite the alleged presence of molten iron at Ground Zero months after the collapses as evidence of the presence of thermite. The question therefore has to be asked: What was the minimum quantity of thermite consistent with this observation? It might then be inferred that this quantity of thermite must have been present.

We know that it is physically impossible for the high temperatures months after the collapse to have been sustained by a thermite reaction, as this reaction is fast enough that it could not have persisted beyond a few minutes after the collapse. Therefore, the high temperatures months after the collapse must be due to some explanation other than heating by thermite. Therefore, the minimum quantity of thermite consistent with this observation is zero. There is therefore no evidence of thermite from the high temperatures in the rubble pile months after the collapse.

In order to deduce some evidence, you need both to determine a way in which thermite could cause the temperatures observed, and to demonstrate that the temperatures observed could not have been due to any other cause than thermite. The fact that the temperatures were not inconsistent with the presence of a small quantity of thermite is irrelevant; citing this as evidence is simply affirming the consequent.

Dave

 

[defaultdotxbe]

What freezer? Did you understand the context of my example? Maybe you should go back and read the claim I was replying to - just keep re-reading it until you figure out why there wasn't a freezer involved.

your example seemed to imply insulation (debris) could keep steel in a liquid state in a below freezing (freezing point of steel that is) environment for several weeks with no energy input

if your thermos can keep soup hot in a freezer for several weeks it would be a relevant example, if not its a false analogy

 

[jaydeehess]

your example seemed to imply insulation (debris) could keep steel in a liquid state in a below freezing (freezing point of steel that is) environment for several weeks with no energy input

if your thermos can keep soup hot in a freezer for several weeks it would be a relevant example, if not its a false analogy

Put another way.
Liquid water becomes solid when the ambient temperature falls below 0 deg. C.
Liquid steel becomes solid when the ambient temperature becomes less than its melting temp of about 1300 deg. C

Thus room temperature is to steel as a freezer is to water, and your soup is essentially water with some dissovled materials(call its melting point about -5 deg.C. if its particularily salty)

 

[PhantomWolf]

Put another way.
Liquid water becomes solid when the ambient temperature falls below 0 deg. C.
Liquid steel becomes solid when the ambient temperature becomes less than its melting temp of about 1300 deg. C

Thus room temperature is to steel as a freezer is to water, and your soup is essentially water with some dissovled materials(call its melting point about -5 deg.C. if its particularily salty)

You'd be closer having it immersed in liquid nitogen. The temperature difference between melting steel and room temperature is around 1280°C. Between soup's melting point and liquid nitrigen would be only about 142°C, so that's stilll a factor of 10 out, but a freezer would only be about 3-4°C different, a factor of 100 out.