Molten Steel

[tsig]

Are you a truther? Either you are and your trying to act like your not or you didn't read my entire post.

Where did the energy to melt the steel come from? Steel does not melt just for the hell of it.

If the steel melted how did the samples survive? You know the ones they have on display?

 

[~enigma~]

Where did the energy to melt the steel come from? Steel does not melt just for the hell of it.

If the steel melted how did the samples survive? You know the ones they have on display?

Do you have a cognitive problem or are you just acting stupid? You mean there was no energy in the collapse...ok, show me numbers that account for ALL the energy. BTW, did I say molten or vaporized? Why does molten metal not become unmolten at some point or are you stupidly thinking molten and vaporized metal are the same thing?

 

[tsig]

No there is no reason whatsoever to doubt any type of molten metal. All of the doubts I have seen stem from either a standpoint of personal incredulity and or a lack of scientific principles.

So if someone doesn't agree with you they are stupid.

I do not agree with you. There is no proof of molten steel. You like science so tell me where does the energy come from to melt the steel? Do some calculations.

 

[gumboot]

Hang on, are we talking about molten steel during and/or before collapse, or molten steel in the debris pile?

I would say no, there is no evidence of molten steel during or before collapse, and that there is ample evidence that there would not have been any molten steel during or before collapse. The forces involved in the collapse would not have produced molten steel, and the fires in the towers were insufficient to melt steel.

However it's very plausible that steel in small quantities melted in the debris pile after collapse.

 

[~enigma~]

So if someone doesn't agree with you they are stupid.

I do not agree with you. There is no proof of molten steel. You like science so tell me where does the energy come from to melt the steel? Do some calculations.

That isn't what I said. Learn to read otherwise I might believe you are really stupid. Did I ever say there was proof of molten steel? I said there is no scientific reason whatsoever that there could not be molten metal of any kind at ground zero back in September of 2001. If you claim there wasn't or couldn't be, not only are you claiming the witnesses who saw molten metal (note I said metal not your trumped up strawman steel) are a bunch of liars but you are also claiming there wasn't enough energy during the collapse and ensuing fires to create molten metal. Sorry, your going to have to show calculations to back such an "odd" claim.

ETA - Are you going to come clean and admit that you confused my use of the word molten with some foolish idea of vaporized metal?

 

[tsig]

Well to be fair to both you and Enigma... materials under higher pressure do achieve higher temperatures - this is why the core of large celestial bodies are hotter than the surface.

However, materials under higher pressure also retain more stable states, which is why the Earth's iron core, although at more than double the temperature require to make iron boil at one atmosphere, is in fact solid at over 3 million atmospheres.

So basically, materials under higher pressure have higher temperatures but higher melting points.

Yes that is true but to achieve the pressure required to melt steel is impossible in a building collapse.

 

[~enigma~]

Yes that is true but to achieve the pressure required to melt steel is impossible in a building collapse.

What is that pressure? Your argument sounds startlingly similar to the truther canard that office fires could not weaken steel.

 

[gumboot]

Yes that is true but to achieve the pressure required to melt steel is impossible in a building collapse.

I would imagine achieving it full stop would be impossible. As pressure increases temperature increases, but so does the melting point. At higher pressures, and higher temperatures, iron still does not melt (admittedly iron has a slightly higher melting point than steel anyway).

Consider the core of the earth - the absolute highest pressure point on the entire planet - over 44,000,000 psi. Also the highest temperature on the planet - between 5 and 7,000 degrees C. And yet iron there is solid, not liquid, not a gas.

 

[~enigma~]

Hang on, are we talking about molten steel during and/or before collapse, or molten steel in the debris pile?

I would say no, there is no evidence of molten steel during or before collapse, and that there is ample evidence that there would not have been any molten steel during or before collapse. The forces involved in the collapse would not have produced molten steel, and the fires in the towers were insufficient to melt steel.

However it's very plausible that steel in small quantities melted in the debris pile after collapse.

Who said before collapse?

 

[gumboot]

Who said before collapse?

I'm trying to clarify what is actually being discussed, because I'm not sure.

 

[~enigma~]

I would imagine achieving it full stop would be impossible. As pressure increases temperature increases, but so does the melting point. At higher pressures, and higher temperatures, iron still does not melt (admittedly iron has a slightly higher melting point than steel anyway).

Consider the core of the earth - the absolute highest pressure point on the entire planet - over 44,000,000 psi. Also the highest temperature on the planet - between 5 and 7,000 degrees C. And yet iron there is solid, not liquid, not a gas.

And the iron core flows as if liquid. So does rock at extreme pressures as I am sure you know considering your proximity to Ngauruhoe, Ruapeho and the White Island crater.

 

[gumboot]

And the iron core flows as if liquid.

No it doesn't. It's solid. The outer core is liquid.

So does rock at extreme pressures as I am sure you know considering your proximity to Ngauruhoe, Ruapeho and the White Island crater.

Well they're not very good examples because they're stratovolcanoes. However most of the Earth's mantle is actually solid, and magma (liquid rock) only forms in high-temperature and low-pressure areas near the earth's crust. The further into the mantle you go the higher the pressure and the more viscous it is. Further magma's not a good example because magma is typically between 700 and 1300 degrees C which is insufficient to melt steel.

The earth's core is a good comparison because it's made from an iron-nickel alloy which has similar properties to steel.

 

[tsig]

What is that pressure? Your argument sounds startlingly similar to the truther canard that office fires could not weaken steel.

Once again the Ad Hom. Steel falling does not melt . Steel hitting the ground will not generate enough energy to melt,

You are saying that a open hearth furnace was suddenly created by a building collapse.

 

[~enigma~]

No it doesn't. It's solid. The outer core is liquid.

It doesn't flow then you turn around and say the outer core is liquid. (IE. it flows)

Well they're not very good examples because they're stratovolcanoes.

Not saying there is no such thing as a stratovolcanoe but it is a nomenclature I am not familiar with. Most geologists use these four terms when classifying volcanoes...

cinder cones, composite volcanoes, shield volcanoes, and lava dome

However most of the Earth's mantle is actually solid, and magma (liquid rock) only forms in high-temperature and low-pressure areas near the earth's crust.

Not at all Gumboot...

The further into the mantle you go the higher the pressure and the less viscous it is. Further magma's not a good example because magma is typically between 700 and 1300 degrees C which is insufficient to melt steel.

The earth's core is a good comparison because it's made from an iron-nickel alloy which has similar properties to steel.

So you deny pressure makes solids act as liquid?

ETA - By stratovolcanoe you mean composite?

 

[gumboot]

It doesn't flow then you turn around and say the outer core is liquid. (IE. it flows)

Inner core = higher pressure = solid
Outer core = lower pressure = liquid

Not saying there is no such thing as a stratovolcanoe but it is a nomenclature I am not familiar with. Most geologists use these four terms when classifying volcanoes...

Volcanologist don't like using "composite Volcano" because all volcanoes have a composite structure, consisting of multiple layers built up over years of different eruptions.

"Composite Volcano" is an obsolete term that's generally used for laymen.

A stratovolcano is a volcano formed from high-silica igneous rock such as rhyolite or andesite. They tend to be steep and have highly explosive eruptions with little or no lava flow. This is in contrast with shield volcanoes that are formed from low-silica rock like basalt and tend to have gentler inclines and frequent lava flows.

Not at all Gumboot...

Yes, at all. Most of the earth's mantle is composed of ductile solid material that allows convection on very long time scales. Only small pockets of the low pressure outer layers near the crust have magma.

So you deny pressure makes solids act as liquid?

Of course I deny it. Increasing pressure increases viscosity, it doesn't decrease it.

 

[Seymour Butz]

You are saying that a open hearth furnace was suddenly created by a building collapse.

Not to butt in, but a more accurate statement would be that an open hearth furnace was created "in the aftermath" of the buildings collapsing. The 2 are not cause and effect. IMHO they developed independently.

But to be honest, any comparison to a REAL building cd is beyond foolish when discussing whether or not there are fires after either.

As far as I know, buildings are stripped of combustibles like carpeting, office furniture, and cars aren't ususally left in any underground parking structures to catch fire in the case of a conventional cd.

All this crap, and more, WAS available to burn after the collapses. So it's useless and pointless to compare the 2.

 

[~enigma~]

Once again the Ad Hom. Steel falling does not melt . Steel hitting the ground will not generate enough energy to melt,

You are saying that a open hearth furnace was suddenly created by a building collapse.

No...I am asking you a question that must be trivially simple for you to answer since you can say with assurance that the pressure is impossible in a building collapse. Now take your strawman about an open hearth furnace....and file it somewhere until you give an answer to my question. What is the pressure and why is it impossible to achieve in a building collapse?

 

[~enigma~]

Inner core = higher pressure = solid
Outer core = lower pressure = liquid

Ah but you first said core. There was no distinction between inner and outer until a later post. In either case, have you ever heard the term rheid?

Volcanologist don't like using "composite Volcano" because all volcanoes have a composite structure, consisting of multiple layers built up over years of different eruptions.

"Composite Volcano" is an obsolete term that's generally used for laymen.

Ok...maybe that is the case in New Zealand but you forget here in the other half of the globe we do things backwards...or is it you guys do things backwards?

A stratovolcano is a volcano formed from high-silica igneous rock such as rhyolite or andesite. They tend to be steep and have highly explosive eruptions with little or no larva flow. This is in contrast with shield volcanoes that are formed from low-silica rock like basalt and tend to have gentler inclines and frequent larva flows.

Hmm...good description of a composite volcano

Yes, at all. Most of the earth's mantle is composed of ductile solid material that allows convection on very long time scales. Only small pockets of the low pressure outer layers near the crust have magma.

Nope. What you said earlier is the preferential way magma is formed but that is different from being the only way it is formed. The mantle undergoes convection and is a rheid. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the term?

Of course I deny it. Increasing pressure increases viscosity, it doesn't decrease it.

Then you are wrong as wrong can be.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Not to butt in, but a more accurate statement would be that an open hearth furnace was created "in the aftermath" of the buildings collapsing. The 2 are not cause and effect. IMHO they developed independently.

But to be honest, any comparison to a REAL building cd is beyond foolish when discussing whether or not there are fires after either.

As far as I know, buildings are stripped of combustibles like carpeting, office furniture, and cars aren't ususally left in any underground parking structures to catch fire in the case of a conventional cd.

All this crap, and more, WAS available to burn after the collapses. So it's useless and pointless to compare the 2.

Is the implication that if those items weren't removed, that such events would be common in CDs?

 

[~enigma~]

Is the implication that if those items weren't removed, that such events would be common in CDs?

Maybe in a CD of a 100 story (or storey for you UK denizens) but who mentioned CD?