Can somebody translate this question for a layman? Why did he put scare quotes around upper block, and why does it make a difference how much energy would have been converted? There is no way any single floor could have supported the weight of the entire upper block falling on it.
The entire mass of the upper block falls on a single floor, which fails and contributes its mass to the upper block. It then falls on a single floor, which fails and contributes its mass to the upper block. On and on until there are no floors left.
Can somebody translate this question for a layman? Why did he put scare quotes around upper block, and why does it make a difference how much energy would have been converted? There is no way any single floor could have supported the weight of the entire upper block falling on it.
There's something else that has been pointed out a trillion times before here but which I notice truthers ignore: The fact that the critical factor is the truss to column connection strength. Once those connections are severed, the columns have lost their ability to bear load since they suddenly become vulnerable to lateral forces and can buckle at their connection points. Remove the floors, and column strength essentially becomes irrelevant.
While I understand totally why Bazant and Zhou did what they did, in one very limited respect I fear they accidentally did a disservice because suddenly history deniers latch onto column strength to the exclusion of all else. The fact that 100% column resistance is a best case scenario, and the real situation depended more heavily on those floor-to-column connections is something that seems to keep whizzing by them, no matter how many times we explain it to them.
There's plenty of evidence of molten steel beyond what Robertson was reported as having said, but I'm guessing you'd continue to reject all the evidence even [if] video of Robertson talking about it turned up, eh?
For the record, tarting about 35 seconds into the video, Les Robertson (one of the chief structural engineers of the WTC complex) says:
When you were down there, you had to remember what was above you; the project was on fire for months. Once were down at the B1 level, and one of the firefighters said "I think you would be interested in this," and they pulled off a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel, flowing.
On the basis of a single anecdotal witness account, unsupported by any metallurgical analysis of the material alleged to be molten steel?
I don't have the command of language to explain to you on exactly how profoundly fundamental a level it is that you're just not getting the point here.
LOL, SO, you pulled out a piece of concrete with a little river of steel flowing in it, you would literally start on fire. Sorry, no melted steel. Darn, a great quote mine, perfect cherry picking, but it fails the common sense test. OOPS.
No flowing steel in the WTC. I could believe solder, or aluminum, or other low temperature melting metals, but no steel. Look it up, and try to use the common sense approach and raise the BS flag on what Robertson will retract, since it can't happen.
For the record, tarting about 35 seconds into the video, Les Robertson (one of the chief structural engineers of the WTC complex) says:
When you were down there, you had to remember what was above you; the project was on fire for months. Once were down at the B1 level, and one of the firefighters said "I think you would be interested in this," and they pulled off a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel, flowing.
I have said it elsewhere, for the argument "witnesses saw molten steel, therefore towers were destroyed using thermite" to be valid, the following chain of evidence must be established without one link missing:
It is true that witnesses reported the presence of molten steel in the trash heap
There are methods available to these witnesses to accurately identify the material as molten steel (both the "molten" and the "steel" are of course necessary)
It can be shown that the witness arrived at his conclusion by such a valid method
We conclude from the presence of molten steel in the trash heap at some time after the collapse that it had a temperature of T then.
There is nothing that happens in the trash heap of a building that collapsed do to office fires that could heat steel to temperature T
We conclude that something unusual must have heated the steel such that it had at least temperature T when it was observed some time after the collapse
We formulate a hypothesis of what that something unusual was and show that it would not only explain temperature T some time after the collapse, but would also provide a realistic method to intentionally demolish the building
No other known observation falsifies that theory
So far, the 1st point had only week support. I guess we can agree now that there is at least one eye witness who tells of "steel" which appeared to "molten". We don't know when, but must have been a considerable while after 9/11.
Steps 2 and 3 are missing. This is where the entire argument already fails. Mr. Robertson is no metallurgist, and had no valid method at his disposal to identify the material that he saw. Please note that it is impossible to identify any molten metal by sight alone! In fact, it may not even have been metal that saw.
Step 5 has not been seriously attempted by truthers.
Step 7 is entirely missing. No one has yet proposed a hypothesis that involves the burning of thermite just before and when the towers collapse, and also explains molten metal days, weeks and months later. Any thermite ignited to cause collapse, and any steel molten at that time, would have solidified by the early evening of 9/11 (when railway tracks are welded using a bucket of thermite, the rail solidifies within minutes, and is hard enough 45 minutes later that a train can roll over the weld with no problem).
So argument "Robertson saw molten steel, therefore thermite" is broken in 3 different places. It is as dead as it ever was.
Rather, on the cumulative basis of Robertson's witness account among others, along with video, photographs, and supported by some limited metallurgical analysis. I won't bother recounting that all in detail though, as I'm sure you've seen it before and are fully prepared to wave your hands at it until they fall off. My question really wasn't directed at you anyway.
Estimating the temperature of a material by visual inspection is fairly simple, to the point that one only need be familiar with the change in color of the light emitted by steel as it's heated to the point of melting to be able to recognise such temperatures. Granted, the color of the light emitted alone can't be used to identify the material, but being a stream of molten material of the temperature hot enough to melt steel in a pile full of steel; it doesn't take a degree in metallurgy come to conclusion that one is looking at is. at least in part, molten steel. That said, if anyone cares to propose an explanation for how temperatures hot enough to create such a river of molten material could have been produced within the context of the official story, I'm all ears.
Rather, on the cumulative basis of Robertson's witness account among others, along with video, photographs, and supported by some limited metallurgical analysis.
The videos and photographs have been discussed at length; to summarise, it's impossible for them to be molten steel. The metallurgical analysis you're referring to doesn't exist; nobody has presented metallurgical analysis showing that any previously molten, now solidified material from anywhere in the WTC complex is steel.
I won't bother recounting that all in detail though, as I'm sure you've seen it before and are fully prepared to wave your hands at it until they fall off.
Please do recount the metallurgical analysis in detail, so we can explain to you that it doesn't say what you want it to. The rest, we can disregard, because it amounts to nothing more than anecdotes.
Estimating the temperature of a material by visual inspection is fairly simple, to the point that one only need be familiar with the change in color of the light emitted by steel as it's heated to the point of melting to be able to recognise such temperatures. Granted, the color of the light emitted alone can't be used to identify the material, but being a stream of molten material of the temperature hot enough to melt steel in a pile full of steel; it doesn't take a degree in metallurgy come to conclusion that one is looking at is. at least in part, molten steel.
...
Estimating the temperature of a material by visual inspection is fairly simple, to the point that one only need be familiar with the change in color of the light emitted by steel as it's heated to the point of melting to be able to recognise such temperatures. Granted, the color of the light emitted alone can't be used to identify the material, ...
but being a stream of molten material of the temperature hot enough to melt steel in a pile full of steel; it doesn't take a degree in metallurgy come to conclusion that one is looking at is. at least in part, molten steel.
FALSE. It apparently does take a degree in metallurgy to see with ease how wrong you are.
1. The pile that you are looking at is full of potentially everything that you find in an office building: Glass, copper, aluminium, concrete, etc etc etc.
Steel will be among the very last materials to melt. So you might be looking at virturally everything except steel.
2. All other metals that are common in office building melt before steel does.
3. All these other metals are still liquid at 1500°C+, when steel finally melts
That said, if anyone cares to propose an explanation for how temperatures hot enough to create such a river of molten material could have been produced within the context of the official story, I'm all ears.
We don't even have clear proof that Robertson actually did see something molten.
However, if the material was lead, zinc, aluminium, copper, glas, or any of several other common materials, then simple trash fires are explanation enough.
It does exit, here and here, which I'm sure you've seen both before. But again, I've no interest in going into detail on such with you, so you can save yourself the trouble of waving your hands at it.
Not that I ever suggested so much, but I suppose it's easier for you to maintain your denial by ignoring what I have actually said and construct strawmen to wave your hands at instead.
Well, when I asked you if you'd continue to reject all the evidence of molten steel even if video of Robertson talking about it turned up, you're replied suggesting you wouldn't engage in such faith-based denial. So, I thought you might live up to your word, though fortunately I never had any intention of holding my breath for as much.
Well, when I asked you if you'd continue to reject all the evidence of molten steel even if video of Robertson talking about it turned up, you're replied suggesting you wouldn't engage in such faith-based denial. So, I thought you might live up to your word, though fortunately I never had any intention of holding my breath for as much.
Actually, what you said is "There's plenty of evidence of molten steel beyond what Robertson was reported as having said" - that is, beyond anecdotes. All you've done is deliver another anecdote. And now I see you're back to FEMA's steel samples, which are not evidence of molten steel either.
Of course you'll never accept that. And I'm bored with truthers now, so I'll bow out here and leave the others to provide useful information for you to ignore.
Rather, perhaps if you had earned one you might not have completely failed to comprehend my point about the color of the light emitted from the molten material making it easy to approximate it's temperate as being hot enough to contain molten steel or otherwise. However, you're obviously no metallurgist by any stretch, as if you were you'd know that the zinc you suggested would boil off before even getting to the point of emitting light, and copper vaporizes just shortly beyond that point, well before it can reach the color of light emission comparable to that of molten steel. Also, you're wrong in suggesting glass has a lower melting point than steel, as it's actually around the same to much higher depending on the particular constitution of the glass.
Dust analysis, and metallurgical analysis on components that were still solid. So, as I pointed out, your implication - that there is metallurgical analysis suggesting the presence of molten steel - is false.
Please feel free to lie by implication and then angrily refuse to defend your misrepresentations. It makes it so much easier to tell who's actually interested in understanding the truth, and who's trying to push an idealogical agenda.
Not that I ever suggested so much, but I suppose it's easier for you to maintain your denial by ignoring what I have actually said and construct strawmen to wave your hands at instead.
So let me see if I'm geeping up with your goalposts. First, you said Robertson identified some material as being molten steel. Then you said that Robertson must have correctly estimated the temperature - although we've no reason to believe that from a single brief anecdote - and that, if it was hot enough for steel to be molten, then it must at least contain molten steel. What's next, insisting that we can't prove to your satisfaction that it wasn't molten steel, so you'll continue to believe that it was? That's the usual line of retreat for those determined to profess belief in something that isn't supported by any plausible and convincing evidence.
Rather, perhaps if you had earned one you might not have completely failed to comprehend my point about the color of the light emitted from the molten material making it easy to approximate it's temperate as being hot enough to contain molten steel or otherwise.
It does exit, here and here, which I'm sure you've seen both before. But again, I've no interest in going into detail on such with you, so you can save yourself the trouble of waving your hands at it.
I mean, they don't say what you think they say, so I want to know why you posted an analysis of the dust, when we're talking about molten steel..........
It does exit, here and here, which I'm sure you've seen both before. But again, I've no interest in going into detail on such with you, so you can save yourself the trouble of waving your hands at it.
For the first link: How many times do you all need to be told that the sulfidation erosion is not proof of molten steel? How many times? Have you even read the subsequent WPI studies of that steel? You know, the ones that came after the FEMA report you're citing? Or will you continue the fine truther tradition of taking the earlier reports of phenomena and ignoring later studies of it?
For the second link: Boy, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? That's a study of what materials were released by the collapse of the towers and the subsequent grinding/pulverization of many of the materials, not the least of which is the concrete. Not a single thing about it indicates anything about molten steel.
It does exit, here and here, which I'm sure you've seen both before. But again, I've no interest in going into detail on such with you, so you can save yourself the trouble of waving your hands at it.
Err No. Please show me where in those reports that bulk melting of steel occurred.
You cannot call liquation (grain boundary melting) which is on the micron scale with bulk melting which is mm/cm/m plus.
Why can't truthers get it into their heads that there are dozens of metals and alloys that melt way below the melting point of steel.
If temperatures were hot enough to melt steel then there would be tonnes of liquid metal all over the place as everything that melts below 1500°C would be liquid. If you look at the periodic table more than half the elements melt below 1535°C.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
