"Molten Metal" at Ground Zero

[Loss Leader]

Funny, I always thought gravity was one of nature's most powerful forces.

[derail]
Actually, as has been mentioned, it's one of the weakest. Think about it this way: I am looking at a paperclip on my desk. It takes the entire mass of the earth to keep that paperclip on the desk and not floating away. But with a magnet weighing less than an ounce, I can pull the paperclip right up off the desk.
[/derail]

In any case, Truthseeker1234 is an idiot.

 

[Loss Leader]

Really? Then what caused the squibs? I thought they were caused by floors pancaking ahead of the main collapse front, piston-style, and pushing air out the center window? Isn't that what NIST says?

No, as the building pulled itself inward, air was compressed from the inside out until it shattered the windows and ejected whatever material was riding the air current. My correct understanding of the collapse actually imparts even more lateral energy to the ejecta than your incorrect pancake theory.

 

[Horatius]

No, it's many orders of magnitude smaller than the other three fundamental forces.

Gravity may be weak, but you have to remember there's a hell of a lot of it around!

 

[Pardalis]

[derail]
Actually, as has been mentioned, it's one of the weakest. Think about it this way: I am looking at a paperclip on my desk. It takes the entire mass of the earth to keep that paperclip on the desk and not floating away. But with a magnet weighing less than an ounce, I can pull the paperclip right up off the desk.
[/derail]

Well, it keeps planets in orbit, keeps oceans and continents from going into outer space... but hey, what do I know about physics!

 

[Hellbound]

Tell you waht, "Truth" Seeker.

Give me your estimate on the weight of the building. I'll take that and get us a ballpark estimate of the GPE contained. Then we can see exactly how many pounds of explosive equivalent the gravitational energy is, in pounds of TNT and pounds of C4.

Also, please show your actual evidence that the building was "turned to dust" and the steel "shredded". Look at any of the photos from the aftermath or the cleanup. THey had to cut the remaining steel down so as to fit it on trucks. Some of the survivors of the collapse survived because a section of flooring that reamined intact sheilded them. The "pockets" in the rubble where fires were, were all you CTers like to point and scream about molten metal, were there because of intact sections of steel and flooring that made holes and air pockets.

IF you actually bothered to seek truth, instead of assuming it and seeking confirmation, you might not make such a fool of yourself.

Well, you probably would anyway.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Well, it keeps planets in orbit, keeps oceans and continents from going into outer space... but hey, what do I know about physics!

gravity is the weakest of the 4 findamental forces, but its also the farthest reaching

think about it this way, the entire mass of the sun keeps planets in orbit, the entire mass of the earth keeps the oceans from floating away

whats the gravitational pull of a pencil? a car? an entire building? not very much

another example, earths gravitational field will pull a compass needle towards the center of the eath, earths magnetic field will pull it towards the north pole. so which way does a compass point

this isnt to say gravity is weak, its just weaker than the other fundametal forces (kinda liek saying the second strongest man in the world is weaker than the strongest man, its all relative)

sorry for the derail, carry on....

 

[Hellbound]

gravity is the weakest of the 4 findamental forces, but its also the farthest reaching...

Sorry, but this is wrong.

Both gravitational and electromagnetic force have a theoretically infinite reach.

What makes gravity one of the driving forces isn't it's reach, but the fact that it's always attractive...which seems to be what you were getting at...I just wanted to clear up some terminology errors

Unlike electromagnetic forces, which have positive and negative charges that "cancel" out, gravity always attracts.

 

[CurtC]

this isnt to say gravity is weak, its just weaker than the other fundametal forces (kinda liek saying the second strongest man in the world is weaker than the strongest man, its all relative)

Huntsman already said what I was about to post, so let me address this. It's not like comparing the world's strongest man to the second-strongest. There's something like 40 orders of magnitude difference between the strength of the forces. It's more like comparing the mass of a proton to the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Gravity, compared to the other three fundamental forces, is extremely weak.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Huntsman already said what I was about to post, so let me address this. It's not like comparing the world's strongest man to the second-strongest. There's something like 40 orders of magnitude difference between the strength of the forces. It's more like comparing the mass of a proton to the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Gravity, compared to the other three fundamental forces, is extremely weak.

well my point was that it isnt exactly a weak force that couldnt pull a building to the ground

 

[rwguinn]

gravity is the weakest of the 4 findamental forces, but its also the farthest reaching

think about it this way, the entire mass of the sun keeps planets in orbit, the entire mass of the earth keeps the oceans from floating away

whats the gravitational pull of a pencil? a car? an entire building? not very much

another example, earths gravitational field will pull a compass needle towards the center of the eath, earths magnetic field will pull it towards the north pole. so which way does a compass point

this isnt to say gravity is weak, its just weaker than the other fundametal forces (kinda liek saying the second strongest man in the world is weaker than the strongest man, its all relative)

sorry for the derail, carry on....

except for the "farthest reaching" bit, I agree--
And the attraction of dust particles to each other, and to larger lumps made the planets, sun, etc. Lots of energy there.
And it is everywhere. Unlike other attractive forces, such as magnetism, there is no way to neutralize it.

 

[Loss Leader]

Gravity, compared to the other three fundamental forces, is extremely weak.

I remember reading that gravity is so weak that some physicists have theorized that most of gravity's effects may be bleading into other dimensions.

[stoner]

Hey, what if our magnetism is just some other dimension's gravity? And our gravity is some other dimension's strong nuclear force?

[/stoner]

 

[Pardalis]

Thanks guys for all the info about gravity. Since I have limited knowledge of physics, it's very interesting.

Needless to say, gravity is a pretty strong force by any human standards when a 100 stories building starts to fall.

 

[Hellbound]

Pardalis:

Well, gravity is weak.

But it's kinda like saying that air is light-weight. This is generally true. But when there's enough of it moving fast enough (hurricane, tornado), it becomes very strong in aggregate.

And gravity is like that. Think about it, simple static electricity on a plastic comb can overcome the gravitational force of the entire Earth and lift a piece of paper. A small piece of cotton string is too tough for the Earth's gravity to break.

But you get enough stuff together, because all of it adds to the force and none subtracts, it doesn't really have an upper limit to the amount of force it can generate.

 

[Pardalis]

And gravity is like that. Think about it, simple static electricity on a plastic comb can overcome the gravitational force of the entire Earth and lift a piece of paper. A small piece of cotton string is too tough for the Earth's gravity to break.

Excuse this stupid question, but then why does a rocket require so much energy to extract itself from the Earth's gravitational pull?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Excuse this stupid question, but then why does a rocket require so much energy to extract itself from the Earth's gravitational pull?

a few thousand pounds of fuel expended to overcome the gravitational pull of 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of earth

 

[Pardalis]

a few thousand pounds of fuel expended to overcome the gravitational pull of 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of earth

Ah, got it...

 

[CurtC]

I remember reading that gravity is so weak that some physicists have theorized that most of gravity's effects may be bleading into other dimensions.

The idea there, from what I've read, is that maybe gravity is stronger on other "branes" in the universe, but a small amount bleeds over to our observable part. Here's an article that begins to explain it in layman terms. Hey, if can't trust a source that has "Christian" and "Science" right in the title...

About the relative strengths - the electromagnetic forces from just a very small area on the bottoms of my feet is all that counters the gravity from 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of Earth.

 

[maccy]

stundie's thermite arguments

Because it's buried in another thread, here is a digest of a recent discussion about thermite and molten metal:

I'll be specific!

What on earth could be fueling those fires for weeks on end?? Piles of wire/aluminium, office materials are going to burn at tempratures to melt steel? Fires need fuel to burn, yes all the things could have burned, but it would not be hot enough to melt steel.

Unless you think the combustable debris/materials are hot enough to melt the steel? hahahaha!! Talk about theories? Where is your proof of this?

The only logical explanation is THERMATE! The molten iron found they clean up crew found is a by product of it!

You have failed to debunk anything and if you really believe you have debunked it, then I'm going to laugh at your so called debunking skills based on what...Your theories?? lol

Stundie, please explain how thermate can keep metal molten for weeks?

You already said yourself that fires need fuel. Is thermate a fuel?

Thermate, or Thermate-TH3, is an incendiary compound primarily used for military applications. Because of the similarity in names, thermate is sometimes confused with one of its components, thermite.

Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yex063_Fblk&feature=PlayList&p=C0E39728ACB19348&index=5

If your asking about to explain how thermate can keep metal molten for weeks! Then you really have not INVESTIGATED!!

Fires need Ignition, Fuel & Oxygen to burn.

So where is the fuel that kept the tempratures as high for as long as they did??

Excuse me? Was that your explanation for the molten metal?

THERMATE or THERMITE!!

Its amazing stuff which cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter!

There's a little detail your precious CT sites and Dr. Jones forgot to tell you, a thermite reaction doesn't last for months.

Did you forget about the building that collapsed in one big pile of rubble?

And it is your claim that this thermate kept the metal molten for days or weeks after the initial application?

About 3 months actually.*

*That's how long the underground fires lasted. You know, the ones using debris from the WTC, not Thermate/Thermite, as fuel, as Thermate/Thermite would have been spent within a very short period of time by comparison.

No, I stand corrected. Jet Fuel (Kersone) from the plane and office equipment, plastics, debris etc can bring massive benefits to the energy industry as it kept those fire burning.

One thing, if the combustible or maximum tempreture of all these things cannot melt steel. How the hell did it get to those tempratures.

Here is Thermite in action, Thermate is a more powerful substance!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

Oh like some one else said, it was underground and because thermate burns at about 5000 Degrees (I'm just estimating and cant rememeber the figure of my head) it would keep hot for months. Would it not?

In the quantities present it's no surprise the fires burned as long as they did.


What steel did it melt? Do you have any proof at all that any steel melted? I've heard of molten metal, but not steel.


It would not. Not to mention the fact that there is proof of oxygen starved debris fires, and no evidence of any thermite residue.

So far, so good.

You DO know that plenty of fuel was available in the various offices, right ?

You ARE aware that fires can rage underground for months in some cases, right ?



Certainly not thermate. The reaction stops fairly quickly.

Also, thermate leaves traces that were not found on the site. Care to explain that ?

From the NIST vs popular mechanics thread:



I think it would be better if you tried to stay on one topic for a bit before moving to others.

I suppose the main question about thermite/thermate is why would anybody use an incendiary to demolish a building?

The auxiliary question is: how do you get thermite/thermate to cut through a steel beam anyway? Once the reaction is started, the thermite/thermate will move downwards, not sideways.

Anyway, some more thermite/themate resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/thermite/index.html

If you look at the thermite reactions in this video you'll see it produces a lot of heat very quickly - leading to localised melting that then cools down - not a sustained release of heat. NB thi is shown then they use thermite on the car, in the second part of the video.



Some relevant threads here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67737
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66140
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65247
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64843
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58851
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61469

Some are about thermite/thermate - others about controlled demolition in general.

 

[maccy]

And some more discussion about molten metal

I was talking about the molten metal, fires found weeks after the collapse. I'd love to hear JREF forumers debunking this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE

Ive heard debunkers saying fuel from the jets Molten Aluminum but yet noone can still explain it other than calling it unimportant? Or a moot?

Please, you are trying to convince me the fires burning below was some kind of firepit?

If kersone based fuel doesn't melt steel and it cannot get hotter than these tempreture of Kersone. How comes there big lumps of steel fused with concrete? How did the tempratures get hot enough to melt the steel?

I'm all ears on this one?

Fires found 100 years after the collapse. Fires underground can burn for a long time.


I guess you must be right, a fire started by burning rubbish can destroy a whole town, but three burning skyscrapers collapsing could never have fires after a couple of weeks.

Some links about molten metal:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/ (pg 26)
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings...#_Toc144445988
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html (timestamp 51:11)
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/l...3#molten-steel
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

Also a couple of threads here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65353
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63886

and a bonus thread on sulfur

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58851

 

[maccy]

In Crazy Chainsaw's thread which is specifically about the possibility of collapse of the towers causing spontaneous thermite reactions - a possibility that would undermine Steven Jones' (nano-)thermite/mate hypotheses - stundie has posted this:

Hi Neil,

Welcome and thank you for you fascinating post regarding this subject. I have made references the molten metal which was found at the bottom of the collapsed with other JREFers and the only answers I seem to get are:-

A) Its been debunker (With no reference or evidence that shows this)
B) Its the aluminuim and kersone from the jet(Which doesn't explain how the tempratures were hot enough to melt the steels beams)
C) Its a pit fire, did you know pitfires get hot.
D) There were no fires! (even though there is plenty of evidence and witness accounts to show otherwise)

I'm glad that someone as manage to explain scientifically that this nano thermite reaction is impossible. I'm not a scientist but the explanations do not add up.

I will warn you, that because your explanation doesn't fit in with the offical story or the debunkers versions, you may like me, maybe labelled a conspiracy theorists, even though I would never consider myself one! Its not like I believe in the Roswell incident or a space beam was used on WTC.

So thank you again and please keep posting to keep the debate alive. Who knows maybe we might get a proper investigation as to what happened on 9/11.

stundie

I belive that stundie will find all the answers he needs in this thread, but if anybody want's to explain it to him again then go for it...