Molten and Glowing Metal

[Mick West]

I wanted to bring this point up before but I forgot...
It's right in NIST's FAQ. They don't deny there being molten steel there. They just say the cause is irrelevant (caused AFTER the collapse, ie not the impact or fires).

They don't say that there WAS molten steel either.

Did they determine this before or after they started investigating the pile?

Well, it's now after, and the answer is the same. So what does it matter? All they are saying is that it's conceivable.

Also, for clarification, that FAQ only seems to mention WTC1 and 2, not 7.

See the WTC7 FAQ:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

 

[Boston]

Your right, in that they do not actually admit there was molten steel, but whats more interesting is that they seem to be proposing an entirely new and previously unknown branch of physics. Magical increases in temp, due to long exposure to lower temps.

Not sure about the rest of you but all I can say is "wow" and these guys want to be taken seriously ?

What they are saying is absolutely ludicrous. Imagine if you had a fire of say 500°C and you threw in a chunk of steel, would you expect it to heat to, oh say, 1000°C if you left it in there long enough ?

The NIST report is pure comedy, the more I learn about all its particulars, the funnier it gets.

PS
I thought this thread got closed due to redundancy ?

 

[Josh Heuer]

They don't say that there WAS molten steel either.


Well, it's now after, and the answer is the same. So what does it matter? All they are saying is that it's conceivable.


See the WTC7 FAQ:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

You're right; they didn't say there was molten steel. They did a pretty good job at dancing around that admission though.
They say they ...

found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse

...Meaning they didn't even need to look for molten steel or question where it came from. Because molten steel just does not happen in an office fire, not under these conditions.

They do, however, go on to say...

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing

...which I think this is them admitting there was molten steel there but saying it would not have been caused before the collapse. But again, they dance around it. They don't confirm or deny, they say 'hey if there was molten steel it was irrelevant to the collapse because it happened after'

Thanks btw for the wtc7 link.

 

[Boston]

Which is exactly what precipitated my comment Josh. There's no way if you throw a piece of steel into a 500°C fire it will heat to over 500°C.

NIST of course isn't fooling anyone, other than those who want to be fooled. The reasoning is so wildly out of touch its amazing they could even try and foist this lunacy off on people.

 

[Mick West]

Your right, in that they do not actually admit there was molten steel, but whats more interesting is that they seem to be proposing an entirely new and previously unknown branch of physics. Magical increases in temp, due to long exposure to lower temps.

Not sure about the rest of you but all I can say is "wow" and these guys want to be taken seriously ?

What they are saying is absolutely ludicrous. Imagine if you had a fire of say 500°C and you threw in a chunk of steel, would you expect it to heat to, oh say, 1000°C if you left it in there long enough ?
?

If they did say that, then it's wrong, and deserves to be debunked.

So find where they said it, and start a thread debunking it. Otherwise I'll remove these posts.

 

[Boston]

NIST engineering laboratory

Questions and answers about the NIST WTC towers investigation.

Link: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
Quote:
Content from external source
23. Why didn't the NIST investigation consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

 

[Mick West]

Combustion after the collapse.

 

[Boston]

Still just a hydrocarbon based fire, absolute max temp of 825°C under ideal conditions, IE stoichiometrically perfect mixture of oxygen and hydrocarbons. Not likely within a rubble pile. Nor would the conditions similar to a blast furnace, IE forced air intrusion. Ergo the rubble pile should have burned at something more akin to a normal if oxygen starved office fire. I'm going with 500°C on the high side. Which means. No way does the NIST explanation even begin to touch on how temps of 1100+°C could have existed, yet we know they did based on the photographic evidence and a simple steel color/temp chart, like the type you'd find in any welding shop.

It doesn't add up Mick.

As I said when I began the WTC discussions here months ago, I may not know what did happen, but I can be reasonably certain what didn't. A fire of approx 500°C can not result in material of 1000~1200°C tempt ( white/yellow hot steel debris ) being pulled from the rubble weeks later. This has been a point I've been bringing up for quite some time now.

 

[MikeC]

Why do you assume that oxygen is required? the higher the temperature the less oxygen is required for combustion, and other gasses generated at high temperature can provide alternative oxidizing agents to oxygen - eg hydrogen and chlorine are combustible without need for Oxygen.

Also iron does not require gaseous oxygen to burn - it will do very nicely with STEAM above 400 deg C, producing Fe3O4 and Hydrogen - this was how hydrogen was produced 100+ years ago!

then there is the matter of conduction of heat - one of the properties of "piles" is generally that heat generated at the bottom of them can't actually escape.....what happens to the temperature then???

 

[Boston]

Now we're getting interesting, so your suggesting it wasn't a hydrocarbon based fire ?

Progress, I think we're making progress

Oh and steam ? if I remember, and I apologize cause its been a really long time but doesn't it take significant pressure to maintain steam at any temp higher than its transition point 400°C would require a pressure of something well over 1000 PSI wouldn't it. I suppose I should go look that up, good stuff tho, I love it when someone makes me work for it.

Sure enough, 400°C = 752°F and 752°C isn't even on the charts its so much pressure
see
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22657/22657-h/chapters/steam.html

Now I could be wrong about this one, and I'll certainly do some more digging but if I remember it, and that site does tend to support my inclinations, it takes a whopping huge amount of pressure to super heat steam. And of course once again we don't have temps of 752 likely in a rubble pile of typical office furniture starved of oxygen. Nor do we see jets of super heated steam coming from the rubble pile, nor do we see hydrogen explosions going on due to hydrogen building up in the rubble pile.

In a nut shell I see no supporting evidence for the "steam did it" hypothesis

Oh and the trapped heat thing, I used to guide in my off time up in Yellowstone, fishing trips, we weren't really supposed to but often I'd just bank the fire for the evening, I not once ever opened one up in the morning and it was burning hotter than when I left it the night before. Maybe a few nice coals still going but never any melted steel

 

[Cairenn]

First where is the evidence of steel at 1000~1200°C being 'pulled from the pile'? I would like to hear about the equipment that was used for that chore. I saw a picture of what would be called a dull red-red steel, but no white hot steel

 

[Boston]

I think Mick is concerned about redundancy so I'd suggest reading through and finding the relevant posts including picture evidence and charts indicating that in fact, temps of 1000~1200°C did exist at the WTC site.

 

[MikeC]

Now we're getting interesting, so your suggesting it wasn't a hydrocarbon based fire ?

nope.

I am pointing out that it dose not require oxygen to generate heat, nor does it require hydrocarbons.

I don't know what caused whatever heat was generated - I am pointing out that making an assumption that it must have been hydrocarbon is in error.

Oh and steam ? if I remember, and I apologize cause its been a really long time but doesn't it take significant pressure to maintain steam at any temp higher than its transition point 400°C would require a pressure of something well over 1000 PSI wouldn't it. I suppose I should go look that up, good stuff tho, I love it when someone makes me work for it.

Sure enough, 400°C = 752°F and 752°C isn't even on the charts its so much pressure
see
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22657/22657-h/chapters/steam.html

Any temperature over 100 deg C will make steam (assuming standard atmosphere etc)- if the temperature is ALREADY 400 deg C then the steam can react with the iron.

the tables you are looking at show the pressure at which 400 deg C is the saturation temperature from water to steam - at that pressure and temperature steam and water can co-exist. If there is less pressure then more of the water will evaporate - at standard atmospheric conditions all the water will evaporate at 100 deg C.

Now I could be wrong about this one, and I'll certainly do some more digging but if I remember it, and that site does tend to support my inclinations, it takes a whopping huge amount of pressure to super heat steam. And of course once again we don't have temps of 752 likely in a rubble pile of typical office furniture starved of oxygen. Nor do we see jets of super heated steam coming from the rubble pile, nor do we see hydrogen explosions going on due to hydrogen building up in the rubble pile.

In a nut shell I see no supporting evidence for the "steam did it" hypothesis

There is no such hypothesis.

there is a debunking of "there has to be oxygen and it has to be a hydrocarbon fire to generate all the heat" - there does not.

But if there was a hypothesis you would still be wrong as far as I can see, because the reaction of iron and steam does not require high pressure - all it requires is that they both be preset at a temperature of 400 deg C or higher.......which is well within the ability of an initial hydrocarbon based fire to generate.

 

[Steve]

http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm There were many factors in the debris pile that would cause it to rapidly oxidize and even start to burn. This site goes into the many different possibilities for the molten metals and debunks Prof. Jones theory outright..

 

[Cairenn]

Temps of that range does not mean that steel was pulled out at that temp. I asked for that proof of that, and not that odd ball picture you seem to love. That picture of the backhoe with something red does not make any sense,

Please check out the link Steve posted, it is very educational.

 

[Boston]

nope.

I am pointing out that it dose not require oxygen to generate heat, nor does it require hydrocarbons.

I don't know what caused whatever heat was generated - I am pointing out that making an assumption that it must have been hydrocarbon is in error.

Ah, I think what we are actually agreeing on this then. At no point am I assuming this was a hydrocarbon based fire, in fact I think there must be some other explanation due to the temps significantly higher than what can be generated within a hydrocarbon based fire, even at its maximum potential, under ideal conditions.

Any temperature over 100 deg C will make steam (assuming standard atmosphere etc)- if the temperature is ALREADY 400 deg C then the steam can react with the iron.

I'm inclined to take your word for that, being the resident metallurgist and all except for one thing. If steam is generated from a source temp of 400°C it will very very rapidly shed that heat through expansion. Without that confining pressure the temp of that steam will be reduced dramatically based on a number of mitigating factors. But if there were steam pockets of that temp and pressure range capable of producing the reaction specified would we not have seen super heated jets of steam ? or explosions of hydrogen ? In atmosphere what is the life span of steam produced at 400°C ? While I agree that exothermic reactions abound, I'd be very skeptical of steam as a driving force behind the temps we see at the WTC site.

the tables you are looking at show the pressure at which 400 deg C is the saturation temperature from water to steam - at that pressure and temperature steam and water can co-exist. If there is less pressure then more of the water will evaporate - at standard atmospheric conditions all the water will evaporate at 100 deg C.

Actually they didn't, 400°C was off the charts, either way at atmospheric pressure all the water had the opportunity to evaporate and immediately expand thus loosing its heat density ( or whatever that term is ) IE got cooler. The net effect should have been to carry heat away from the site.

There is no such hypothesis.

Agreed, the steam did it suggestion is at best an example just as you say, I was just pointing out that its not a reasonable explanation for what we actually see at the WTC site.

there is a debunking of "there has to be oxygen and it has to be a hydrocarbon fire to generate all the heat" - there does not.

Never said there did, what I said was that "if" its a hydrocarbon based fire then its going to need some very specific conditions to reach its maximum possible temp of about 825°C which is still well below the temps evident in the photographic evidence. I'd more likely suggest there was some other source of energy at the site that can explain the higher temps, than go with the NIST hypothesis that collapse was a result of normal office furniture ( hydrocarbon ) based fires.

But if there was a hypothesis you would still be wrong as far as I can see, because the reaction of iron and steam does not require high pressure - all it requires is that they both be preset at a temperature of 400 deg C or higher.......which is well within the ability of an initial hydrocarbon based fire to generate.

You'd need to have evidence of such a reaction and there is none, no superheated steam jets, no hydrogen explosions, and iron and steel are two different things, so I'd think the reaction temp would be different that that of iron. Not so sure about that last but still, there'd have to be some evidence of this specific reaction taking place before it would be reasonable to assume it did.

Cheers
I'm out for the evening
B

 

[Mick West]

I think Mick is concerned about redundancy so I'd suggest reading through and finding the relevant posts including picture evidence and charts indicating that in fact, temps of 1000~1200°C did exist at the WTC site.

I'm also concerned with efficiency, so feel free to make a handy list.

 

[Jazzy]

The steel gained temperature by stopping falling, Boston.

The 110,000 kWh of energy used to raise the building had to have been released as heat when the building hit ground zero - save for the part used for shattering the building on the way down.

It obviously wasn't all used up on the way down because the downward acceleration of the two towers was .7G and neither G nor zero. (The fascia of WTC7 was observed to buckle and collapse at approximately free-fall but the interior preceded that).

As the steel was already up to temperature when it stopped moving, no fire was needed to support it, as sufficient air could not have reached the base of the wreckage to support combustion. All the steel needed to stay hot was insulation, and it certainly had that.

So this thread proceeds due to your not reading, or maybe absorbing or understanding, previous threads.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Good job explaining how the steel stayed hot.
And how does that tie in with molten steel?

 

[Jazzy]

Good job explaining how the steel stayed hot.

Correction - how the steel got hot. Then how it stayed hot.

And how does that tie in with molten steel?

What molten steel? Reference please.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Correction - how the steel got hot. Then how it stayed hot.


What molten steel? Reference please.

Ok, so then you're saying steel that was already hot from the fire (and presumably friction from when some of it fell against debris) just got hotter. I don't disagree with that.
I mentioned molten steel because, sir, that's the topic of the thread.
Just wondering if you were saying this steel that heated up was ever able to reach molten state, which your last post clarified as not the case.

 

[Cairenn]

I still want to see any real evidence of 'molten steel'. How can we discuss something that may not have existed?

 

[Josh Heuer]

That's exactly why this thread is here. To discuss the validity of the claims.

 

[MikeC]

But if there was a hypothesis you would still be wrong as far as I can see, because the reaction of iron and steam does not require high pressure - all it requires is that they both be preset at a temperature of 400 deg C or higher.......which is well within the ability of an initial hydrocarbon based fire to generate.

You'd need to have evidence of such a reaction and there is none, no superheated steam jets, no hydrogen explosions,

there need be no "jets" - steam can be present at 400 deg C without pressure, and the hydrogen need not explode. You are making up strawmen.

and iron and steel are two different things,

Do you not know that "steel" is elemental iron with a particular level of carbon in it??

how can you hope to rationally discuss this topic if you do not know this basic fact??

so I'd think the reaction temp would be different that that of iron.

you would be wrong. the reaction is of elemental iron - Fe on the periodic table - steel is generally 95% or more Fe.

Not so sure about that last but still, there'd have to be some evidence of this specific reaction taking place before it would be reasonable to assume it did.

Interesting - so why not also require some actual evidence of molten metal before it would be reasonable to assume there was some molten metal??



[Admin: politeness edits]

 

[Cairenn]

I agree with MikeC. I want some evidence of 'molten steel' first. Without it, it makes as much sense as discussing the genome of an unicorn.

 

[Jazzy]

Ok, so then you're saying steel that was already hot from the fire (and presumably friction from when some of it fell against debris) just got hotter. I don't disagree with that.

That situation existed on only six of a hundred and four floors. Insignificant!

I mentioned molten steel because, sir, that's the topic of the thread.

If you look again, sir, that is NOT the topic of the thread.

Just wondering if you were saying this steel that heated up was ever able to reach molten state, which your last post clarified as not the case.

It wouldn't be able to reach a molten state because extra (latent) heat energy would have had to be added to cause melting. This would have required an external higher temperature source which didn't exist.

Did my last post clarify this?

Now where are your references for molten steel?

 

[Josh Heuer]

That situation existed on only six of a hundred and four floors. Insignificant!

Then why, sir, did you go out of the way to describe it?

If you look again, sir, that is NOT the topic of the thread.

Ok, you got me on that one. I meant to say 'molten metal' but got caught up and said steel. In all fairness, steel is a metal.

It wouldn't be able to reach a molten state because extra (latent) heat energy would have had to be added to cause melting. This would have required an external higher temperature source which didn't exist.

Did my last post clarify this?

Now where are your references for molten steel?

My references for molten steel? What molten steel?

 

[Jazzy]

Then why, sir, did you go out of the way to describe it?

I was describing what happened to every bit of steel in the buildings that was above ground zero. Every bit of the steel, not just six floors.

In all fairness, steel is a metal.

So is mercury.

What molten steel?

You mentioned it: "And how does that tie in with molten steel?"

The answer is that it doesn't, quite probably because there wasn't any molten steel. The idea is stupid because no solidified puddles of steel were found in the wreckage. If they had, they wouldn't have passed without comment/silencing/assassination/etc., which is an idea only real to a paranoid person.

A rough rule of thumb. The towers' potential energy could raise 1,200 tons of steel to melting point. They fell at .7G so must have absorbed 30% of the (by now kinetic) energy in physical destruction*, leaving 840 tons of steel capable of being raised to melt, were the remaining energy to be efficiently transported to ground zero.

Well, part of it was transported there by elastic kinetic energy transfer**, mostly in the central part of the bell curve of wreckage scattering. Say a third of it, and you are talking 280 tons of steel hotter than that seen deep down in the pile, so maybe it was more like 500 tons of steel at 1100 deg C (reddish orange), which was a thousandth part of the weight of each tower.

It's a rough rule of thumb, but it's a calculation showing the approximate state of affairs and acknowledging the mechanics and metallurgy.

* Some of that energy was not so much lost as conducted vertically down the columns to ground zero, as 104 floors were punched off their fixings. It was the first burst of energy to arrive there, preceding the falling materials.

** Pretty inefficiently. "Bent like a pretzel" etc., springs to mind.

 

[Josh Heuer]

I was describing what happened to every bit of steel in the buildings that was above ground zero. Every bit of the steel, not just six floors.


So is mercury.


You mentioned it: "And how does that tie in with molten steel?"

The answer is that it doesn't, quite probably because there wasn't any molten steel. The idea is stupid because no solidified puddles of steel were found in the wreckage. If they had, they wouldn't have passed without comment/silencing/assassination/etc., which is an idea only real to a paranoid person.

A rough rule of thumb. The towers' potential energy could raise 1,200 tons of steel to melting point. They fell at .7G so must have absorbed 30% of the (by now kinetic) energy in physical destruction*, leaving 840 tons of steel capable of being raised to melt, were the remaining energy to be efficiently transported to ground zero.

Well, part of it was transported there by elastic kinetic energy transfer**, mostly in the central part of the bell curve of wreckage scattering. Say a third of it, and you are talking 280 tons of steel hotter than that seen deep down in the pile, so maybe it was more like 500 tons of steel at 1100 deg C (reddish orange), which was a thousandth part of the weight of each tower.

It's a rough rule of thumb, but it's a calculation showing the approximate state of affairs and acknowledging the mechanics and metallurgy.

* Some of that energy was not so much lost as conducted vertically down the columns to ground zero, as 104 floors were punched off their fixings. It was the first burst of energy to arrive there, preceding the falling materials.

** Pretty inefficiently. "Bent like a pretzel" etc., springs to mind.

I get what you're saying. You were explaining to Boston that steel heated up from the impact of ground zero, and some stayed that way due to insulation.
The reason I mentioned 'molten steel' is because that's what this thread is about. Well, 'molten and glowing metal' but I think any claims made have been that it was steel melted. I haven't made any such claims myself. I have no reason to.
The *only* evidence of molten steel being there are eyewitness accounts but we know those don't really hold up.

 

[Jazzy]

I get what you're saying. You were explaining to Boston that steel heated up from the impact of ground zero, and some stayed that way due to insulation.
The reason I mentioned 'molten steel' is because that's what this thread is about. Well, 'molten and glowing metal' but I think any claims made have been that it was steel melted. I haven't made any such claims myself. I have no reason to.
The *only* evidence of molten steel being there are eyewitness accounts but we know those don't really hold up.

There were many tons of light metals in the building. The plane had perhaps 70 tons of light alloy in the flames. Electronic equipment and furnishings used die cast zinc alloys. Battery houses contain tons of lead.
All of these metals will be orange liquids at 1100 deg C, which is the sort of temperature that six acres of burning office in a seventy foot high pile can easily achieve in a 20 mph wind.

 

[Josh Heuer]

There were many tons of light metals in the building. The plane had perhaps 70 tons of light alloy in the flames. Electronic equipment and furnishings used die cast zinc alloys. Battery houses contain tons of lead.
All of these metals will be orange liquids at 1100 deg C, which is the sort of temperature that six acres of burning office in a seventy foot high pile can easily achieve in a 20 mph wind.

So then there were molten metals at the site?
Hmm?

 

[Cairenn]

Jazzy didn't say that there were. You did. Evidence please.

 

[Boston]

The steel gained temperature by stopping falling, Boston.

It also magnetizes, but that doesn't mean its so concentrated as to turn the metal a nice rich yellow/white color indicating that in specific areas it was in the range of 1000~1200°C. You might see some heat generated due to bending, but impact would not likely result in any localized excessive heat or at least nothing like what is seen in the photographic evidence

The 110,000 kWh of energy used to raise the building had to have been released as heat when the building hit ground zero - save for the part used for shattering the building on the way down.

No substantial portion of the kinetic energy would have been released as heat, bending sure, interaction with the rubble pile, sure, compression of the rubble pile, sure, but raw heat, sorry, maybe a little but certainly not enough to create glowing hot metal months after the opperation

It obviously wasn't all used up on the way down because the downward acceleration of the two towers was .7G and neither G nor zero. (The fascia of WTC7 was observed to buckle and collapse at approximately free-fall but the interior preceded that).

Yah we're going to disagree on this one, downward acceleration of the towers was at a rate virtually indistinguishable from free fall, and again, we don't know what the interior did, thats pure speculation on the part of NIST and speculation which failed to successfully model the manor of collapse. Also I prefer to stick to WtC 7 as we have our best evidence there. The towers are a whole other ball game due to a number of mitigating factors, WtC 7 on the other hand

As the steel was already up to temperature when it stopped moving, no fire was needed to support it, as sufficient air could not have reached the base of the wreckage to support combustion. All the steel needed to stay hot was insulation, and it certainly had that.

The steel was not already up to temperature when it stopped moving, again that's pure speculation, and there was no source of heat greater than 825°C absolute max and more likely below 500°C. You also do not know that sufficient air was able to reach the bottom of the rubble piles, again pure speculation. Your also assuming that the glowing hot steel was at the bottom of the pile, we don't know where all the pockets or pieces of glowing steel was, all we have is some photographic evidence and multiple eye witness accounts. So exactly where that glowing steel was and how much if any insulation was involved in maintaining its temp in the glowing hot range for months after the operation is as of yet an unknown.

So this thread proceeds due to your not reading, or maybe absorbing or understanding, previous threads.

actually the thread proceeds regardless of your lack of comprehension. Asymmetrical damage does not lead to symmetrical results, nor do lesser temps result in higher temps, you can add all the insulation you want if you apply 100°C to something over a prolonged period of time it will not end up any hotter than 100°C. Period.

Try Zeroth law of thermodynamics

 

[Boston]

Ok, so then you're saying steel that was already hot from the fire (and presumably friction from when some of it fell against debris) just got hotter. I don't disagree with that.
I mentioned molten steel because, sir, that's the topic of the thread.
Just wondering if you were saying this steel that heated up was ever able to reach molten state, which your last post clarified as not the case.

Some of these guys are going to split hairs, there is ample evidence of glowing hot steel at temps between the 1000~1200°C range already been provided. But there is little or no photographic evidence of actually molten steel, or at least none that I've seen so far. There is however ample eye witness accounts of molten steel. However, some of us ( including myself ) tend to question eye witness testimony. So I think it fair to apply the same logic to all evidence and simply go with what we can absolutely confirm.

My personal take is they are splitting hairs, but for the sake of accuracy, we should be using the term glowing hot steel of a color that indicates temps of about 1000~1200°C

 

[Boston]

Boston said: ↑

But if there was a hypothesis you would still be wrong as far as I can see, because the reaction of iron and steam does not require high pressure - all it requires is that they both be preset at a temperature of 400 deg C or higher.......which is well within the ability of an initial hydrocarbon based fire to generate.
Click to expand...

You'd need to have evidence of such a reaction and there is none, no superheated steam jets, no hydrogen explosions,
Click to expand...

there need be no "jets" - steam can be present at 400 deg C without pressure, and the hydrogen need not explode. You are making up strawmen.

actually I'm showing that you have not one dot of evidence to support this steam hypothesis, and if you had some pressure of steam sufficient to maintain it at 400°C for more than the split second it takes for it to expand and loose all that heat, or at least a significant portion of it, you'd be waving it around like the prom queens underwear day after the big party.

and iron and steel are two different things,
Click to expand...

Do you not know that "steel" is elemental iron with a particular level of carbon in it??

how can you hope to rationally discuss this topic if you do not know this basic fact??

Thats funny cause I'm equally as curious as you how you hope to rationally discuss this topic if your basic comprehension is really so bad as to so completely misunderstand such a simple statement. I was making YOU aware of the fact that steel and iron are two different things and therefor your iron example of conversion at 400°C is most likely inaccurate due to the fact that one is an alloy and the other an element.

so I'd think the reaction temp would be different that that of iron.
Click to expand...

you would be wrong. the reaction is of elemental iron - Fe on the periodic table - steel is generally 95% or more Fe.

So your admitting we have a 5% difference which would likely effect reaction temp You seriously need to work on comprehension

Not so sure about that last but still, there'd have to be some evidence of this specific reaction taking place before it would be reasonable to assume it did.
Click to expand...

Interesting - so why not also require some actual evidence of molten metal before it would be reasonable to assume there was some molten metal??

Well that would be interesting indeed, however what we have is another glaring failure to comprehend whats being said. I've been talking about glowing hot steel, your the one interjecting your own preconceived notions of molten steel due to some reaction with steam

You might want to slow dawn, take a deep breath or two and actually reply to whats being said.

Cheers
OK long day, got time for maybe one more

 

[Boston]

A rough rule of thumb. The towers' potential energy could raise 1,200 tons of steel to melting point. They fell at .7G so must have absorbed 30% of the (by now kinetic) energy in physical destruction*, leaving 840 tons of steel capable of being raised to melt, were the remaining energy to be efficiently transported to ground zero.

This line of reasoning is so completely wrong, I love it when this one comes up. OK so going with your own numbers, we have enough energy to bring 840 tons of steel to ( just for fun we'll call it ) 1500°C

But how much steel did we have off the top of my head if I recall its about 200,000 tons each tower, and you did say towers <----- plural ( that wasn't getting to specific now was it ) so we can allot 420 tons at 1500°C to each. ( pulls out the ole calculator and, hey, look at that )

Ends up your right you could raise the temp of "all" that steel all of a whopping 3.2°C per ton with that potential energy. Or are you suggesting that all that energy for some mysterious reason never seen before just went into a few beams ? or better yet, just a few locations on some specific beams, and if so, how'd that happen ? ( oops back to controlled demolition again )

Sorry, and I respect your privacy on the net, but this draws into question your previous claims of higher education, clearly there is a fundamental misconception of the basics IMHO. The energy of impact ( of the planes that is ) might have been localized, and we could see by virtue of a victim standing in the impact hole that it wasn't very hot. But the kinetic energy of collapse would have been distributed over the entire structure and therefor, has zero chance of concentrating in any one area. Rather you'd get a generalized heating of the entire rubble pile by all of about 3.2°C, and yet we've got glowing hot yellow/white steel beams being pulled from the pile months later, hmmmmm

These numbers of course assume we just consider the steel, if we consider the entire mass of each tower the temp lowers to about 1.26°C per ton.

No mater how you slice it the fundamental misconception that the kinetic energy somehow managed to result in steel beams glowing at colors in the range of 1100°C simply doesn't cut it.

Best of luck
love
B

 

[Cairenn]

What is this folks? This is the 3rd time in less than a week that the credentials of debunkers has been questioned here.

And this time it is a dodge around the insistence from the poster that there was molten steel in the debris.

 

[Boston]

its a conspiracy

 

[Jazzy]

It also magnetizes, but that doesn't mean its so concentrated as to turn the metal a nice rich yellow/white color indicating that in specific areas it was in the range of 1000~1200°C.

What is so concentrated?

You might see some heat generated due to bending, but impact would not likely result in any localized excessive heat or at least nothing like what is seen in the photographic evidence

Thanks for your pointer in coarse self-taught physics, but I have no use for it.

The photographic evidence speaks of huge energies being at work, and I have already pointed this out. Must I also point out that mechanical energy is NOT something that a silent pyrotechnic can supply? Nor is it something that can be applied to the steel without heating it vigorously.

No substantial portion of the kinetic energy would have been released as heat, bending sure, interaction with the rubble pile, sure, compression of the rubble pile, sure, but raw heat, sorry, maybe a little but certainly not enough to create glowing hot metal months after the operation

I'm sorry, but your kitchen physics is in disagreement with many thousands of engineers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Introduction
Energy occurs in many forms, including chemical energy, thermal energy, electromagnetic radiation, gravitational energy, electric energy, elastic energy, nuclear energy, and rest energy. These can be categorized in two main classes: potential energy and kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy may be best understood by examples that demonstrate how it is transformed to and from other forms of energy. For example, a cyclist uses chemical energy provided by food to accelerate a bicycle to a chosen speed. On a level surface, this speed can be maintained without further work, except to overcome air resistance and friction. The chemical energy has been converted into kinetic energy, the energy of motion, but the process is not completely efficient and produces heat within the cyclist.

The kinetic energy in the moving cyclist and the bicycle can be converted to other forms. For example, the cyclist could encounter a hill just high enough to coast up, so that the bicycle comes to a complete halt at the top. The kinetic energy has now largely been converted to gravitational potential energy that can be released by freewheeling down the other side of the hill. Since the bicycle lost some of its energy to friction, it never regains all of its speed without additional pedaling. The energy is not destroyed; it has only been converted to another form by friction. Alternatively the cyclist could connect a dynamo to one of the wheels and generate some electrical energy on the descent. The bicycle would be traveling slower at the bottom of the hill than without the generator because some of the energy has been diverted into electrical energy. Another possibility would be for the cyclist to apply the brakes, in which case the kinetic energy would be dissipated through friction as heat.

Mechanical work done on steel by kinetic forces will always heat it. Successive mechanical work will always heat it successively. This process only stops when the steel becomes too mushy to accept the work applied to it. You are poorly-informed, but I'm sure that logic has a chance of working with you. Any pyro work, as you say, cannot raise the temperature beyond the temperature of the flame, but this does NOT apply when kinetic energy is the agent.

Yah we're going to disagree on this one, downward acceleration of the towers was at a rate virtually indistinguishable from free fall, and again, we don't know what the interior did, thats pure speculation on the part of NIST and speculation which failed to successfully model the manor of collapse. Also I prefer to stick to WtC 7 as we have our best evidence there. The towers are a whole other ball game due to a number of mitigating factors, WtC 7 on the other hand

Yah sucks, I think.

The steel <snip> an unknown.

actually <snip> thermodynamics

As do these.

 

[Jazzy]

if I recall its about 200,000 tons each tower

450,000 to 500,000 tons fully-equipped.

you did say towers <----- plural

Because there were two of them. I treated them individually. Exactly the same laws apply to WTC 7, of course.

you could raise the temp of "all" that steel all of a whopping 3.2°C per ton

That's correct.

are you suggesting that all that energy went into a few beams or just a few locations on some specific beams, and if so, how'd that happen

I told you what and how it happened. If I were you I would read it again, for I am sparing with words.

there is a fundamental misconception of the basics IMHO

My informed opinion is that your opinion lacks all humility. My experience tells me this isn't about to change.

the kinetic energy of collapse would have been distributed over the entire structure and therefore has zero chance of concentrating in any one area. Rather you'd get a generalized heating of the entire rubble pile by all of about 3.2°C, and yet we've got glowing hot yellow/white steel beams being pulled from the pile months later

That would be perfectly true if steel never collided with the steel in the wreckage pile. Was this true, do you think?

These numbers of course assume we just consider the steel, if we consider the entire mass of each tower the temp lowers to about 1.26°C per ton.

That would be perfectly true if all the other materials (including a lot of steel) never collided with the steel in the wreckage pile. Was this true, do you think?

No matter how you slice it the fundamental misconception that the kinetic energy somehow managed to result in steel beams glowing at colors in the range of 1100°C simply doesn't cut it.

1100 deg C. What color is that?

"nice rich yellow/white color in the range of 1000~1200°C" - Er, NO.

And here is an example of the loss-less elastic transmission of kinetic energy, which, as you say, has, "for some mysterious reason", "never been seen before".



I'm happy to oblige with any further "mysteries" you may suffer from.