Merged So there was melted steel

[WildCat]

True. Put a cup of hot water and a cup of cold water outside in sub-zero temperature and the hot water will freeze first. I've never tried it but Stephen Fry swore it was true on the QI show.

The Straight Dope says "old wive's tale".

Takamasa Takahashi, writing for Scientific American, says it's possible for hot water to freeze before lukewarm water under certain conditions, but not cold water. Robert Ehrlich expands on this a bit, and says hot water could freeze first under certain conditions, for instance if enough water evaporates from the hot water, then there is less water mass to freeze and it could freeeze faster than cold water.

But overall, I'd say that myth is busted.

 

[chrismohr]

Explain how this is related to molten steel staying molten?

We can't explain a phenomenon until we have proof that it happened. We have no evidence of molten steel flowing around for months. I have a first-hand account of an FDNY firefighter and 9/11 first responder who never saw evidence of molten steel or ANY temperatures above 1400 degrees or so in the debris. He was there and he was looking at thermal images of the debris for almost three months. Mock him at your peril: part 8 molten steel and iron in debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gijCzs9SWH4

 

[Sunstealer]

Explain how this is related to molten steel staying molten?

Heads over to the October Stundie thread to see if this doozy has been nominated yet.

Honestly tmd2_1, if you fail to understand why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is related to the subject then you lose automatically. That one line says everything about you and that is: you know nothing about the subject. Nothing. Nada. Nowt. Diddly. Squat.

Stop wasting your time posting here and go and get an education.

 

[dafydd]

The Straight Dope says "old wive's tale".

Takamasa Takahashi, writing for Scientific American, says it's possible for hot water to freeze before lukewarm water under certain conditions, but not cold water. Robert Ehrlich expands on this a bit, and says hot water could freeze first under certain conditions, for instance if enough water evaporates from the hot water, then there is less water mass to freeze and it could freeeze faster than cold water.

But overall, I'd say that myth is busted.

Thank you.

 

[Athyrio]

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

What letter is it that you are referencing here?

 

[triforcharity]

True. Put a cup of hot water and a cup of cold water outside in sub-zero temperature and the hot water will freeze first. I've never tried it but Stephen Fry swore it was true on the QI show.

It's true. Here's a cool example of this theory.


ETA: As someone else pointed out, under certain conditions.

It's gotta be really cold for one.

But, where it is always applicable, is when you heat metal very hot, it will cool quicker than mildly hot metal.

 

[tmd2_1]

OMG.
We have a winner!

I wasn't saying that it doesn't. I meant literally what I wrote. Explain to me me how that law is applicable to 9/11. I want to know exactly why he(or anyone) thinks it is applicable. Where and why...etc. I can't address the issue until I am sure why the other person thinks that law can help explain some of this current topic.

 

[tmd2_1]

LOL
What science would that be?
Can you point me to a science book, or some other science reference, where I can look up a formal representation (you know, definitions, greek letters, math formulas) of this "law"?
Also, can you explain how you "used" this law, other than throwing the word "insulation" at me and expecting me to believe your intuition that using this "law" would result "steel still molten after weeks"?


You are talking about answers, but I think you have not formulated the question.
I think we will find that the question is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. But I can't be sure, because I don't know the question.
TMD, could you please pose the exact, verbatim question that the defense would ask of NIST (Gross) in court?

Simple question, can we see the data that backs up your models? Gross: "No" How do you think that would go over in court?

 

[tmd2_1]

We can't explain a phenomenon until we have proof that it happened. We have no evidence of molten steel flowing around for months. I have a first-hand account of an FDNY firefighter and 9/11 first responder who never saw evidence of molten steel or ANY temperatures above 1400 degrees or so in the debris. He was there and he was looking at thermal images of the debris for almost three months. Mock him at your peril: part 8 molten steel and iron in debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gijCzs9SWH4

I really don't mock anyone. It is mostly the "debunkers" here that do the mocking. There are plenty that said they saw molten steel, and that includes Leslie Robertson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLCwq3-RzZs

This video is very interesting, we here at a conference at Stanford, saying there was a little river of steel. Please do not give me that he said "like" in front of it, he was not comparing it to anything. You don't seem like someone that would but there are those here who would. Then a few years later he says he hasn't run into anyone that said they saw molten metal. Why the change? Seems interesting does it not?

I'll also add the ASSE have a document that says their was temperatures of over 2800F. They accept, why shouldn't we?

 

[beachnut]

Simple question, can we see the data that backs up your models? Gross: "No" How do you think that would go over in court?

Any engineer can make a model and confirm NIST, but no one can make a model and confirm your delusions on 911. Case closed, knowledge wins. You use hearsay and lies to build fantasy on Saturday, I am taping all the Saturday football games and will start playing them back after I run/walk for an hour. Good luck with your 10 year old delusions, maybe one day you will join reality.

How will it go over in court? Independent schools of engineering will run models and confirm fire did it. Case closed again.
I understand why you can't comprehend models, you can't figure out evidence is not hearsay.

Have you retracted your hearsay post yet?

Why no you have not, you keep using it. You have no idea it is hearsay, you have been told and you can't grasp simple logic.

I really don't mock anyone. It is mostly the "debunkers" here that do the mocking. There are plenty that said they saw molten steel, and that includes Leslie Robertson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLCwq3-RzZs

This video is very interesting, we here at a conference at Stanford, saying there was a little river of steel. Please do not give me that he said "like" in front of it, he was not comparing it to anything. You don't seem like someone that would but there are those here who would. Then a few years later he says he hasn't run into anyone that said they saw molten metal. Why the change? Seems interesting does it not?

I'll also add the ASSE have a document that says their was temperatures of over 2800F. They accept, why shouldn't we?

Wow, you can't figure out the 2,800 F is hearsay, so you keep using it to building your lies and delusions.

Robertson retracted that, and he would have burned up next to a river of steel flowing. You have not been in a steel mill, so you accept Robertson misspeaking, and can't correct your failures. Robertson said no melted steel.
Robertson made a mistake, ask him! I asked him, he said no melted steel. You are now spreading lies. Good job.

 

[tmd2_1]

No.
At least none that was taught to me in physics, chemistry or biology classes.
It seems you don't know what a law of science is.


My purpose is to teach you a lesson that that you badly need.

Teach me a lesson? So is any of what I said not true? Insulation does not exist? Thermite won't react when it comes into contact with fire? There aren't substances that will down a thermite reaction causing it to burn more slowly?

 

[DGM]

Simple question, can we see the data that backs up your models? Gross: "No" How do you think that would go over in court?

I love this level of stupid. Does he actually think anyone is dumb enough to believe NIST would withhold the data if it ever got to court?

 

[dafydd]

Teach me a lesson? So is any of what I said not true? Insulation does not exist? Thermite won't react when it comes into contact with fire? There aren't substances that will down a thermite reaction causing it to burn more slowly?

Controlled demolitions do not use thermite. They have these things called explosives which make very loud bangs.

 

[NoahFence]

Thermite won't react when it comes into contact with fire?

EVERYTHING reacts when it comes in contact with fire. Including metals such as steel. They get weaker.

Don't know about you, but if I'm a big building, I don't want weakened steel trying to hold me up. Bad stuff happens. Even without Termite!

 

[dafydd]

EVERYTHING reacts when it comes in contact with fire. Including metals such as steel. They get weaker.

Don't know about you, but if I'm a big building, I don't want weakened steel trying to hold me up. Bad stuff happens. Even without Termite!

Or termites. Wait a minute,I feel a new twoofer theory coming on!

 

[DGM]

Or termites. Wait a minute,I feel a new twoofer theory coming on!

Termite controlled demolition is nothing new. I just did a 30K rebuild after their work.

 

[dafydd]

Termite controlled demolition is nothing new. I just did a 30K rebuild after their work.

The worst we get here is dry rot. Could that have been a long term plan for the Twin Towers? The NWO is very cunning.

 

[DGM]

The worst we get here is dry rot. Could that have been a long term plan for the Twin Towers? The NWO is very cunning.

I've heard they did develop a steel eating variety, I just haven't seen the YouTube video to confirm.

 

[Oystein]

LOL
What science would that be?
Can you point me to a science book, or some other science reference, where I can look up a formal representation (you know, definitions, greek letters, math formulas) of this "law"?
Also, can you explain how you "used" this law, other than throwing the word "insulation" at me and expecting me to believe your intuition that using this "law" would result "steel still molten after weeks"?


You are talking about answers, but I think you have not formulated the question.
I think we will find that the question is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. But I can't be sure, because I don't know the question.
TMD, could you please pose the exact, verbatim question that the defense would ask of NIST (Gross) in court?

Simple question, can we see the data that backs up your models? Gross: "No" How do you think that would go over in court?

You owe us a goal post. You moved the current one to far behind the horizon.

In other words: How does your reply aven adress the quoted post? How does it address the topic of this thread?
Answer: not at all.


So back to you: Can you point me to a science book, or some other science reference, where I can look up a formal representation (you know, definitions, greek letters, math formulas) of this "law" (Insulation)?
Also, can you explain how you "used" this law, other than throwing the word "insulation" at me and expecting me to believe your intuition that using this "law" would result "steel still molten after weeks"?

 

[Oystein]

Teach me a lesson? So is any of what I said not true? Insulation does not exist? Thermite won't react when it comes into contact with fire? There aren't substances that will down a thermite reaction causing it to burn more slowly?

All of what you say is not established as factual, is not derived at using scientific laws, and are not used in a proper logical chain of reasoning. You just say random things that happen to pop into your mind.

Sure, insulation does exist; insulation makes sure that heat cannot escape. Well, HOW MUCH HEAT was released by which reaction inside what insulated volume, and how much of what materials did it heat up? If you understood the science behind these concepts, you'd understand that
- in perfect insulation, burning paper will heat up steel much more than thermite woul
- thermite as diluted as you think it might have been would not melt steel at all due to its very low energy density
- Slowly burning thermite likewise only works against its ability to melt steel at all

Next, it is far from certain that thermite will react when it comes into contact with fire. Thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite, For example, quite often a gas flame, such as you get on an ordinary cigarette lighter, is not enough.

Also, you are woefully lacking in details about this thermite mixed with something unknown to give it any property you wish to imagine you need for your lunatic "theory".

Lastly, apart from you not proving that your theory works at all, all those pieces of debris from a train wreck of thought do nothing to establish that ONLY thermate diluted with whatever to make it melt steel slower could explain molten steel after the collapses.