Molten Steel in WTC

[gumboot]

In any case, in highly reinforced structures you'll have a small outer hole in the actual reinforced area (surrounding dirt will likely be blasted clear), and an inside that looks like Jason and Freddy Kruger had a kegger with a weedwhacker, a sledgehammer, a garden weasel, and an eggbeater.

I think it's more JDAM that's aimed at reinforced structures.

They were using thermobarics because the shockwave would travel down the tunnels around every twist and curve, before having the air sucked back to the point of detonation, asphyxiating anyone who survived the shockwave.

I think I've gone way off topic...

-Andrew

 

[Hellbound]

I think it's more JDAM that's aimed at reinforced structures.

They were using thermobarics because the shockwave would travel down the tunnels around every twist and curve, before having the air sucked back to the point of detonation, asphyxiating anyone who survived the shockwave.

I think I've gone way off topic...

-Andrew

My bad, for some reason I thought you were talking about the famed "Bunker Buster" bombs.

I didn't get my Wheaties this morning

But yeah, it depends on whether you want to take out the structure or take out the personnel. For tunnels in mountainsides and such, the only way you're going to take out the structure is with a nuke . High speed explosives are likely to cause a collapse of tunnels, especially with uncertain construction. A collapse would "trap" the explosion in an area, and probably reduce the distance it would travel down corriders and such.

Thermobaric weapons are fuel-air explosives, which have a dispersal mechanism before ignition (the explosive/fuel is aerosoled over an area), so the explosive itself will travel over a short area before igniting (there's video somewhere of one going off, the initial aerosol surrounded a moderately sized farmhouse before ignition, all in less than a second. And this was from a WWII documentary).

Low-speed explosives would tend to travel further, I think, and fuel-air explosions do some of that travel before they go boom. This would make sense as to why they are preferred for these types of scenarios, along with incendiaries...um, I mean "smoke" grenades. Yeah.

 

[Soapy Sam]

not necessarily http://www24.pair.com/glyptica/ThousandsSeparator.html

Though I'm familiar with the European use of the comma as a decimal separator- (3,14159) I have never seen the dot used as a thousands separator (Nine million dollars-$9.000.000?), which is why I kidded Claus about it.

So was that just a typo Claus, or would you actually type (for example) ten thousand litres as 10.000 litres?

Can someone point me to an example? Claus? Hans? Anyone?
Apologies for potential thread derail. PM if you prefer.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Post in wrong place. Ooops.

 

[Hawk one]

not necessarily http://www24.pair.com/glyptica/ThousandsSeparator.html

DERAIL:
Personally, I find that if you are in the habit of simply using space between each three digits, then it won't really matter whether you use the comma or the dot to make a decimal.

22 550.00 litres.
22 550,00 litres

I don't know which of these are the standard in Norway... But it won't matter, since in both cases, I will automatically think "twenty two thousand, five hundred and fifty litres". Removes all the source of confusion.

OK, derail over. If you disagree that spaces between the digits is the best way to go, I suggest a separate thread for it. I'll be there. Probably.

 

[bjb]

I think that steel color vs. temperature chart refers to the discolorations that occur to steel when it is overheated. The comments about color vs. temperature being the same for *all* materials seem correct to me as this is a consequence of blackbody radiation:

http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/applist/blackbody/black.htm

These temperatures vs. colors should be correct for molten metals.

By the way, a good scientific calculator can be set to display either . or , as a thousands seperator. In college, I reset one of my friend's calculators as a prank and he panicked, thinking that his calculator was hopelessly broken. I admitted what I did and put his calculator back to normal, and he was so relieved that he let me live.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Though I'm familiar with the European use of the comma as a decimal separator- (3,14159) I have never seen the dot used as a thousands separator (Nine million dollars-$9.000.000?), which is why I kidded Claus about it.

So was that just a typo Claus, or would you actually type (for example) ten thousand litres as 10.000 litres?

Can someone point me to an example? Claus? Hans? Anyone?
Apologies for potential thread derail. PM if you prefer.

[prolonged derail]Yes, in Denmark, and several other European countries,

10.000,12

Means ten thousand point one two. One million would be:

1.000.000

[/derail]

Hans

 

[rwguinn]

[prolonged derail]Yes, in Denmark, and several other European countries,

10.000,12

Means ten thousand point one two. One million would be:

1.000.000

[/derail]

Hans

It's a decimal point
not a decimal comma...

 

[kevin]

Nifty

So, is there any material that has a speed of sound that's higher than 12,000 mps? Seems that these types of materials could be good for fortified bunkers and such (just speculatin').

Diamond apparently does.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/soundv.html

Interesting that Pyrex glass is higher than gold and iron.

 

[kevin]

[prolonged derail]Yes, in Denmark, and several other European countries,

10.000,12

Means ten thousand point one two. One million would be:

1.000.000

[/derail]

Hans

On a Mac, open up System Preferences, International panel, Click the Format tab. Set the region to Denmark. Revel in your computer using a goofy (so called by all correct thinking people!) nomeclature. Windows has a similar setting, but I'm way to lazy to walk downstairs and see how to do it.

BTW, while you're there set your calendar to the Hebrew one. Hours of fun setting appointments after that!

edited to correct a your-you're and their-there error (in one sentance!)

 

[Orphia Nay]

I would like a few conclusions made in regard to the "molten steel at the WTC" issue.

This is something that has been mentioned a lot, without anyone really offering up "evidence". So I thought I would.

The relevant video is here

This is a segment from "America Rebuilds" by PBS, I believe (I could be wrong).

Unfortunately for the guy who posted this video, he ended it before the actual "molten steel" is removed, however I have seen the whole thing.

The particular bit he pulls out is not actually molten steel (as evident from the fact that it isn't liquid) but it is about the right colour, and the liquid dripping off the end is definately molten.

I believe this is a picture of what you are describing:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h2.jpg

(taken from Steven Jones' paper in which he says the photo was taken on September 27, 2001.

"Ah hah!" Cry the CTers.

Not quite.

Molten Steel found months after the collapse indicates intense fires with a lot of fuel. There is no logical way in which explosives could have generated fires that would do this. Any steel melted by initial explosives would long ago have hardened again.

IMHO the molten steel is evidence of intense fires and extensive fuel for fires at the time of collapse. This supports the official story in two ways:

1/ Fires burned in WTC1, 2, and 7 (molten steel claimed to be found there also) so intensly, and so expansively, that upon collapse they were not put out, and continued to burn for months.

Fuel sources in the floors of WTC were so extensive that they fueled fires hot enough to melt steel months after collapse. This indicates there was ample fuel in the floors of the buildings to provide the heat to weaken the structure of the buildings, resulting in the collapse.

I believe molten steel and red hot steel in the basements of the WTC rubble is strong evidence that the official story is accurate.

-Andrew

What evidence is there of molten steel, Andrew? I really want to get my head round this, but I have found no evidence at all - only the parroted rants of CTists.

As I said earlier,

There were verbal reports of molten metal found days after the collapse. (Or maybe one healthworker said it was steel [which was probably based on false hearsay]. Mark Loiseaux's quote was false as discovered by Gravy.)

I just was shown this link to an interesting article describing the towers' collapse, in which the author (Thomas Eagar, Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT) says:

"they have had people sorting through the steel from the World Trade Center, and no one has reported finding melted steel".

Excuse me, but all metals glow at the same temperature. The color of anything glowing is a pretty accurate measure of its temperature.

You are both right that the findings do not contradict the official report. They don't particualrly contradict any other theories, however, since just the collapse of the buildings would release energy enough to melt steel, given the right conditions.

Hans

I'll resist the temptation to ask what temperature that is.

I think that steel color vs. temperature chart refers to the discolorations that occur to steel when it is overheated. The comments about color vs. temperature being the same for *all* materials seem correct to me as this is a consequence of blackbody radiation:

http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/applist/blackbody/black.htm

These temperatures vs. colors should be correct for molten metals.

Thanks. (As far as I understand it. ) I think we need some consensus as to what temperature steel (in the size and shape of the picture with the digger) would glow red.

As far as I understand it, the fires (before collapse) were hot enough to weaken the steel columns, but no molten steel was created.

 

[Kent1]

"The comments about color vs. temperature being the same for *all* materials seem correct to me as this is a consequence of blackbody radiation:

http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp...body/black.htm

These temperatures vs. colors should be correct for molten metals."


This isn't exactly correct. Different matericals have different emissivity

Aluminum has an emissivity of around .12 iron around .4. So Aluminum tends to look silvery at higher temps in daylight and is about 1/4 as bright as iron. However if you had other matericals, say lime glass, or other garbage, then the emissivity would rise.
Also I wouldn't rule out melted steel. You have sulfer which causes hot corrosion at temps. lower than the normal melting temp of steel. Slag can occur at less than 1000C
For example here in this study of the steel.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html

There's other possibilities also.
One study from the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes
revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures. However as the report states, what appears to be melted may be merely oxidized.

http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf
911 myths also has some good information on this.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Overall we can't rule out melted steel claims, and there's plenty here to give the appearance of melted steel.

Steel changes from Bright Cherry to Salmon in this table at between 790C and 845C.
Which I don't see any problem with.
Hot coals in a house fire can reach 1300C.

http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm

 

[Blank]

It's a decimal point
not a decimal comma...

Exactly.. The decimal point is clearly superior and should be used.

For example take some simple vectors:

A=(1,2,3,4)
B=(1.2,3.4)

Easy to see the superiority of a decimal point.

 

[gumboot]

I would like a few conclusions made in regard to the "molten steel at the WTC" issue.


What evidence is there of molten steel, Andrew? I really want to get my head round this, but I have found no evidence at all - only the parroted rants of CTists.

As my original post says, the "Evidence of molten steel" is in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds".

The video shows a large metal beam being removed, the end of which is dripping and molten. The colouring is correct for molten steel - pale-lemon to white. It cannot be aluminium (as far as I know the only other explanation for such a significant beam of metal) because aluminium would be a puddle of liquid well below the temperatures indicated by the metal column.

This video was taken "nearly six weeks" after the collapse.

Thanks. (As far as I understand it. ) I think we need some consensus as to what temperature steel (in the size and shape of the picture with the digger) would glow red.

A guide to steel temperature by colour is here. The steel piece in in your photo appears to range from bright red at the top to lemon at the bottom - a range of about 845 - 995 degrees C. Steel usually has a melting point of around 1300-1400 degrees C (lower than iron).

As far as I understand it, the fires (before collapse) were hot enough to weaken the steel columns, but no molten steel was created.

This is a misleading argument used by CTers to claim that presence of molten steel is proof of explosives, as the fires could not have melted steel. Any steel melted at the time of collapse would not remain molten for six weeks later without a major heat source. It would solidify again.

Molten steel in the debris six weeks after collapse really indicates NOTHING about the condition/temperature of the steel at the time of collapse. What it does mean is there was an enormous heat source in the debris pile for a long time AFTER the collapse - extensive fires. Extensive fires in the debris pile DO suggest something about the situation at the time of collapse - they suggest there were massive fires in the buildings at the time of collapse.

Hence, the OP of this thread - presence of molten or near-molten steel in the debris pile six weeks after collapse is indicative of extensive fires pre-collapse, hence supports the official story.

-Andrew

 

[Kent1]

One other point, if you read Jones paper he states the temps of the metal in his photo is 845 - 1040C.
A common error among CT'er is that steel buried below ground wouldn't be that hot. That is incorrect. The steel would retain its heat until enough air reaches it or water douses it.
The area also wasn't flooded with water because city officials insisted that work at Ground Zero was a rescue operation.

Other than water, what was also often used during the Twin Towers was Pyrocool.
Some CT'ers have also suggested the use of Pyrocool means that thermite was used. One of the main reason it was used was the large Freon tanks that had served the WTC air-conditioning system and might have exploded.
Another was WTC7 where a large amounts of fuel were known to be.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634