WTC Hotspots how did they form and sustained for so long?

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So I did. Threw away the fag-packet.


LOL. Show me.


Oh, you do it too.


Yep. Fill concrete with air holes and that's what you get.


You may be correct, and the people that found a stairwell and escaped lied when they said they used a scraper to hack their way into a staircase and escape. Or they were extraordinarily strong...


I see.

View attachment 2790

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml


Still makes not the slightest difference to my argument that the hotspots were produced by the potential energy of the towers. It just makes a slightly smaller quantity of hotspot likely - if you were correct, which the above illustration debunks rather.


Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? What else can you do? You don't want the real explanation for hotspots when you're trying trying to propagate some thermite inside-job myth.

The thing is that we real engineers get out our calculators and can figure out quite quickly what proportion of that 110,000 kW of potential energy found its way to the basement to manifest itself as hotspots, while people like you look for paint residues and grind your teeth.
Jazzy, can you give me one real world example of a hot spot being created by the collapse of any structure save 911 buildings . . .?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Jazzy, if your theory is correct then would there not be differential measurable differences between hotspots between WTC 1&2 as compared to the hotspot under WTC7 due to the major differences in the potential kinetic energy represented by the size differences . . .?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Jazzy, if your theory is correct then would there not be differential measurable differences between hotspots between WTC 1&2 as compared to the hotspot under WTC7 due to the major differences in the potential kinetic energy represented by the size differences . . .?

Jazzy's theory, which has no evidential basis, is set out here: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/23254

The potential energy of each and every building was sufficient to raise such temperatures.
The potential energy of any building is the energy put into it to raise it from ground level into its structural position. This must be released when the building falls. It is expressed as heat, after crushing some concrete and making a din. In the case of the towers, this potential energy was 110,000 KWh, equivalent to 95.5 tons of TNT, or also 1700 tons of molten steel.

Here https://www.metabunk.org/posts/23275 Jazzy states the temp as:

A very high temperature just short of its melting point (1545 deg C). It wouldn't melt without receiving extra latent heat energy from somewhere, which would necessarily have to be at a greater temperature still. Something burning in the pit would help.
The steel would rapidly alloy itself at those temperatures, withdrawing sulfur from wall-board, for instance, to form a low-temperature eutectic alloy. It would then appear to be molten, but would no longer be steel, but iron sulfide.

When asked:
Please show this simple calculation and also describe how exactly it was converted into hot steel and show exactly how hot it would be and for how long. Thanks.

He responds with:


Register yourself, and work it out for yourself. What I have related already is a rule of physics and is absolutely true. The steel could remain hot for years if well insulated. Check the Earth...

So I think it pretty safe to say... no he cannot back any of it up
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Jazzy, can you give me one real world example of a hot spot being created by the collapse of any structure save 911 buildings?
No can do, George. There aren't many buildings that high that have fallen down.

Why not go to a demolition firm, and ask them to bung in some protected thermocouples into their next demolition of a building 1300 feet high? Shouldn't cost more than say, five thousand bucks.

Jazzy, if your theory is correct then would there not be differential measurable differences between hotspots between WTC 1&2 as compared to the hotspot under WTC7 due to the major differences in the potential kinetic energy represented by the size differences?
Just potential energy to begin with, George.

Other than that, absolutely. Given approximately similar constructional steel densities, a building half the height would only be capable of delivering half the energy to its basement.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No can do, George. There aren't many buildings that high that have fallen down.

Why not go to a demolition firm, and ask them to bung in some protected thermocouples into their next demolition of a building 1300 feet high? Shouldn't cost more than say, five thousand bucks.


Just potential energy to begin with, George.

Other than that, absolutely. Given approximately similar constructional steel densities, a building half the height would only be capable of delivering half the energy to its basement.
So if there are no readily apparent differences between WTC 7 and WTC 1&2 hotspots how would one account for this situation?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No can do, George. There aren't many buildings that high that have fallen down.

Why not go to a demolition firm, and ask them to bung in some protected thermocouples into their next demolition of a building 1300 feet high? Shouldn't cost more than say, five thousand bucks.
Just one more opportunity for a real demonstration of how 911 happened . . . seems this effect could be demonstrated by almost any major demolition project . . . thermocouples and all . . . don't expect anyone to care enough to prove such a thing however . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Jazzy's theory, which has no evidential basis, is set out here:
And there you misdirect. I wonder if that was an accident, or deliberate. (Deja vu).

So here it is:

Grieves said:
Still, I would love to see a mathematical formula which can effectively and accurately calculate how much concentrated heat a collapsing building could generate, and isn't composed by a hobby-physicist. If you have such a reference Jazzy, please share it if you can.
myself said:
^ means the exponent.
* means multiplied by.
weight of tower = M = 450,000,000 Kg = 4.5*10^8 Kg *
height of tower = h = 387 meters
g = 9.81 m / sec / sec
specific heat of iron = c = 0.49 KJ / Kg, assuming it is constant. (It isn't, and varies across this temperature range.) *
ambient temp = t1 = 20 deg C *
melting point of structural steel = t2 = 1545 deg C *

The potential energy of a building, assuming a certain homogeneity, is half its mass times its height, times the acceleration due to gravity.
http://www.tjhsst.edu/~jleaf/tec/html/10/potent.htm

PE = 0.5*M*g*h = 0.5*4.5*10^8*9.81*3.87*10^3 = 8.54*10^11 Joules - the heat potential equivalent

The heat (Q) necessary to raise the temperature of a unit mass of steel m (say 1000 Kg) is the specific heat times that mass times the temperature difference.
http://cnx.org/content/m42224/latest...ol11406/latest

Q = m*c*(t2-t1) = 10^3*4.9*10^2*1.525*10^3 = 7.47*10^8 Joules for 1000 Kg of steel

Then the maximum amount of steel (in metric tons) that could have been raised to melt temperature is PE over Q = 8.54*10^11 / 7.47*10^8 = 1,140 tons.

The towers had full occupancy, were fully-fitted and also had floors devoted to service functions loaded with machinery, pipes and tanks. There is some dispute how much mass that added up to. If the towers weighed 5*10^8 Kg (seems to be consensus here) then the amount of steel that could have been raised to melt temperature would be 1,270 tons. If they were heavier still, then so much the more.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

It's a long time ago since I lost my original figures. Twelve years is a time long enough for these equations to be generally understood by any really competent and interested lay person. They are childrens' arithmetic, of a standard I repeatedly performed in Form Trans X at King George V Grammar School way back in 1956. No calculus or complex mathematics at all.

Suggesting that unless every single event has its maths calculated then there is no basis in fact is exactly like suggesting that because one cannot predict A WAVE one cannot therefore predict THE TIDE.

So that's it for "hot spots". Of course they were more than "just possible" as natural consequences of the collapses. They were inevitable.

* These figures are marginally incorrect, but, of course, that lack of accuracy is entirely irrelevant to the above proposition.

Oxymoron said:
Here Jazzy states the temp as 1545 deg C
That would be the melting point of pure iron, actually. As I was making a theoretical calculation as to how much steel might reach melt temperature, the melting point of pure iron seemed a good starting point, in that steel itself is a carbon eutectic with a lower melting point. It would make the calculation conservative.

When asked: "Please show this simple calculation and also describe how exactly it was converted into hot steel and show exactly how hot it would be and for how long. Thanks", he responds with: "Register yourself, and work it out for yourself. What I have related already is a rule of physics and is absolutely true. The steel could remain hot for years if well insulated. Check the Earth..."
So I should set to work for someone who hadn't yet bothered to register, should I?

So I think it pretty safe to say... no he cannot back any of it up
Whoops.

Mind the egg on your face while you eat your hat.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
So if there are no readily apparent differences between WTC 7 and WTC 1&2 hotspots how would one account for this situation?
I would not be able to account for it.

But the same thing would apply to demolition thermite too, wouldn't it? A similar building of half the height would require half the thermite. So we get nowhere.

A pile of steaming rubble viewed from above for infra-red emission probably spreads the radiation pretty evenly from quite disparate temperatures deep beneath the pile. Maybe.

It would be difficult to put figures to that scenario.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I would not be able to account for it.

But the same thing would apply to demolition thermite too, wouldn't it? A similar building of half the height would require half the thermite. So we get nowhere.

A pile of steaming rubble viewed from above for infra-red emission probably spreads the radiation pretty evenly from quite disparate temperatures deep beneath the pile. Maybe.

It would be difficult to put figures to that scenario.
1) The logic I think would apply as you said if there was thermite in the amount for example proportional to the buildings' mass; however, assuming no thermite (as you contend) we are not readily seeing the evidence your theory would indicate . . . .
2) What then would be your explanation for the existence of the hotspots in the locations and intensity found? Their initial cause, duration and difficulty in quenching . . . .?
3) In other words. . . what we witnessed with the hotspots might support some question of . . . was there a technology involved we don't understand or is not accounted for in the NIST investigation?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) The logic I think would apply as you said if there was thermite in the amount for example proportional to the buildings' mass; however, assuming no thermite (as you contend) we are not readily seeing the evidence your theory would indicate . . . .
2) What then would be your explanation for the existence of the hotspots in the locations and intensity found? Their initial cause, duration and difficulty in quenching . . . .?
3) In other words. . . what we witnessed with the hotspots might support some question of . . . was there a technology involved we don't understand or is not accounted for in the NIST investigation?

The following images on 16 Sept 2001 will illustrate the hotspots and the estimated heat signatures by the USGS . . . http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html WTC 7 Hotspot.jpg
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Contact.


Contact.


I have just demonstrated to you the energy available at the collapse. That potential energy was capable of raising to melt 1,270 tons of steel. All kinetic energy results in heat, because heat IS a form of kinetic energy. The manner of this change is a process you would do well to understand.

What proportion of the total energy resulted in hotspots is open to question. I would guess around 10%, making the likelihood of 127 tons of hot steel to be found right at the bottom in random places, but also around the columns where they received floor shear loads, capped over by insulating rubble, dry at first, but getting wetter as fireman's water percolated down.

The infra-red imagery is entirely to be expected.


Wherever you were schooled, you should go and demand your money back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy


How could it be? The NIST Report concerned itself with events preceding collapse. We are discussing events following collapse.


I will ignore that.


I also offered you the sources for that. Have you read them?


Getouttahere.

Oxymoron, you are once more attacking my credibility rather than following the truth. If you do not understand what I present it really would be better to come back with a question which I might be more able to answer without showing up your ignorance.

But first you must acknowledge and read the sources I present.
Jazzy, you have presented the theory, the math, and say that the WTC collapses are an example of this unprecedented reality; however, based on your calculations there should be at least twice the kinetic energy converted to heat in the twin towers than at WTC 7 . . . I don't see the evidence of this . . . . in fact the WTC7 hotspot is just as large and hot as those under towers one and two. . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
The WTC7 hotspot is just as large and hot as those under towers one and two.
It didn't fly down from 1357 feet either.

Perhaps you should consider how much further from their plan positions portions of the towers fell.

WTC7 was pretty economical with its debris spread.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It didn't fly down from 1357 feet either.

Perhaps you should consider how much further from their plan positions portions of the towers fell.

WTC7 was pretty economical with its debris spread.
So the 3 or 4 second difference in the fall would dissipate so much potential heat? The debris scatter theory seems to have more merit to me . . . but that is a stretch as well . . . IMO . . .

Debris field photo, page 2-28 . . . http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf WTC Debris Fields.jpg
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Jazzy, you have presented the theory, the math, and say that the WTC collapses are an example of this unprecedented reality; however, based on your calculations there should be at least twice the kinetic energy converted to heat in the twin towers than at WTC 7 . . . I don't see the evidence of this . . . . in fact the WTC7 hotspot is just as large and hot as those under towers one and two. . . .

The math is hugely and fatally flawed. I will address it later, unless someone else does.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Contact.

An impact only takes place and follows from the moment of contact.

The Newton's Cradle shows the almost instanteous transmission of kinetic energy through the line of balls.

Wreckage striking the heap will transfer its kinetic energy whenever it makes contact with, and impacts, other material. The net direction of transferred kinetic energy is downwards.

There are differences between rubble and steel, and these are material density (thus greater momentum), toughness, and hardness. Under these conditions the steel will sink through rubble. At speed, of course, until it meets more steel.

Motion and contact. Steel balls of the same temperature, which are in contact but at rest, do not result in a change of temperature
Enough. The cradle isn't transferring HEAT.

It is also capable of many other things like bending columns and beams and pulverizing reinforced concrete
Of course it is. That is what is happening. What happens when you bend and pulverize? You generate heat.

Where is most of this material heading? The pile. Does the debris reach ground zero? Yes. Does the steel tend to penetrate the rubble? Yes. Does steel hitting steel transfer its energy? Yes. In what direction? Towards the bottom of the pile. So where does a significant proportion of the kinetic energy end up? The bottom of the pile, against ground zero.

Are these processes efficient? No. What happens to inefficient transfers of kinetic energy? They resolve as HEAT. And the temperature climbs.

This is patently untrue because if etc.
We're done here.

This is the type of patronizing etc.
And here.

myself said:
What proportion of the total energy resulted in hotspots is open to question.

Very much so. In fact it is pure conjecture on your part.
The energy isn't a conjecture. I have demonstrated it mathematically. The proportion of this non-conjecture isn't a conjecture. There must be one. The question is a conjecture, because that's what a conjecture is. A question.

The sentence as a whole isn't a conjecture. It's a statement of FACT.

As you state... a guess.
But one educated by years of experience following years of training.

myself said:
The infra-red imagery is entirely to be expected.
Is it? And yet it is unique in its intensity and duration in such an event.
I agree with you, it's just as unique as collapsing long-span beamed steel-framed skyscrapers are.

myself said:
Wherever you were schooled, you should go and demand your money back

This is the type of patronizing comment, etc.
No. You have been sold a pup if you believe you know anything about physics and engineering.

(After Oxymoron reads what WIKI writes about kinetic energy)
Yes, any work produces heat but at a very small ratio.
By which you mean to say? I'll answer what I think you mean. Significantly less work is done destroying brittle material than bending tough material. Significantly less work is done at the top of the pile than at the bottom of it. The work, however, is there to be done. And that which doesn't go to bursting or bending goes to heating. We have established that.

And I gave you a ratio to consider: ten per cent.

If this were not the case, every time I repeatedly hammered a nail, it would melt.
It undoubtedly would if you hammered it fifty times per second for, say, a minute.

Did NIST not investigate where the molten metal came from?
I thought they investigated up to the collapse. What molten metal? Do you have pictures or videos of it? Where was it?

I have either found your sources to be irrelevant
Physics is irrelevant? Maybe to a truther of some sort, but the rest of us rather respect it.

or very often not working, (error 404's)
Yet you have never told me this up to this point. It doesn't point to your competence, does it?

I am attacking the credibility and veracity of your arguments
No, you aren't, because you never discern them. You are always talking about something else.

I suggest it is you who perceives it as personal.
I take it personally when, without reading and understanding what I say, you make loud and false accusations of contradiction without the slightest backing of argument with either facts or reason.

You have never done so
Enough.

error 404's
Your laziness.

I note you avoided the question as to whether you still stick by your statement, "A vertical slender column which buckles IS collapsing. The only thing to follow it is its meeting ground zero."
Leonhard Euler made it in 1745. Who am I to disagree? When are you going to make a sensible dispute with slender vertical column buckling instability?

Of course the external columns were strapped together at the floor levels. They failed along their floor lines in planes. The undersides of the floor levels where the fires were burning were the most susceptible.

Unlike the Windsor Tower there was nothing there to hold them up. The WTC structures on the point of collapse were about to become mechanisms, with failing members immediately transferring their loads to previously intact members.

Non mutually volatile objects
Balls.

[video=youtube_share;BMWsOyOHaaA]http://youtu.be/BMWsOyOHaaA[/video]
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
When I was an apprentice I had a job with a couple of others of "disassembling" a RR Dart engine from a F-27 Friendship that had crashed into Manukau Harbour, west of Auckland (2 ppl killed, 2 survived) in 1979 (1979 was a bad year for NZ aviation - the Erebus crash was also in 1979 - 257 dead!)
I remember it well. It sparked into life my interest in forensics. No, not quite true. Unearthed WW2 fighters began it, I remember. You have to put shock and suffering aside and soldier on, because the rewards for successful analysis are so great. The human aspect, situational awareness, is very interesting. Physiology and psychology... not enough time, so much to do.

The engine was heavily corroded due to salt water, and we used cold chisels a lot for knocking off nuts and splitting casings apart. Eventually they got blunt, so we sharpened them on grind stones....but then hte broad heads eventually wore down, so we heated them red hot and hammered the end flat to make it wide again, then heated htem again and quenched them to hardent them.

And then the 1st time we used one on something hard the whole end shattered!

We quickly checked those that had not been used, and there was a web of cracking across ethm - the rapid quenching had over stressed them that much. So they got reheated red hot, hammered flat again and cooled in oil. THEN we "blued" them - heated them until the end changed colour to a lovely deep blue, and again quenched in oil to temper them.

We actually did a lot of "blueing" like this as apprentices - mostly on various tools and exercises we had made ourselves in practical classes.
Been there. Ah, nostalgia.

In a random situation like WTC7 where you cannot say anythnig for certain beyond "some of it was hot (and perhaps some degree (sic) of knowledge of how hot) and some of it was cold" it seems quite difficult to support any firm conclusions on teh performance of the steel that require any more precision than that!
Absolutely. You have to speak of tendencies and variations and degrees of uncertainty, indicate various processes for which you have equations and numbers for, be logical, follow a timeline, and cover all the ground.

I found the NIST Report as exciting and readable as a good novel.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
So the 3 or 4 second difference in the fall would dissipate so much potential heat?
Potential heat? Surely potential energy?

I don't know where you got that idea from, George. It certainly wasn't from me. Whooshing through a thousand feet of air is hardly going to slow the steel at all, and please let's assume it was at ambient temperature.

The debris scatter theory seems to have more merit to me but that is a stretch as well.
Hardly. The towers definitely spread their material over an order greater area, but weren't ten times the size of WTC7.

Oxy, WTC7 fell inwards once column 79 failed. That's an implosion. WTC1 failed inwards (the mast rocked first), but WTC2 failed down a side and took a tilt. WTC1 was also part implosion. Just an opinion.

To refine the point as to whether I knew they would collapse completely - I didn't expect ALL the core to go. I expected a conical pile. That shocked me enough to go over the energy issue. It made me realize how slack my assumptions had previously been.

Oxymoron said:
The math is hugely and fatally flawed. I will address it later, unless someone else does.
How later?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Potential heat? Surely potential energy?

I thought we were talking about the heat element of the whole potential energy available?

Good that you have clarified that when you were referring to 'contact', you actually meant 'impact'. huge difference.

I don't know where you got that idea from, George. It certainly wasn't from me. Whooshing through a thousand feet of air is hardly going to slow the steel at all, and please let's assume it was at ambient temperature.

Do you have any actual figures for the heat/temperature rise in say a 10 tonne steel falling from 1000 ft and impacting the ground. I.e. what temperature would you expect that steel to be afterwards as opposed to in it's original placement, (fire exempted)?

Oxy, WTC7 fell inwards once column 79 failed. That's an implosion.

Another unique event... how many unique events can we have in one day?

WTC1 failed inwards (the mast rocked first), but WTC2 failed down a side and took a tilt. WTC1 was also part implosion. Just an opinion.

1 & 2 clearly collapsed outwards with material cascading from all sides.

To refine the point as to whether I knew they would collapse completely - I didn't expect ALL the core to go. I expected a conical pile. That shocked me enough to go over the energy issue. It made me realize how slack my assumptions had previously been.

So you are now saying you expected a partial collapse, not the total collapse which we all saw?

Originally Posted by Jazzy

^ means the exponent.
* means multiplied by.
weight of tower = M = 450,000,000 Kg = 4.5*10^8 Kg *
height of tower = h = 387 meters
g = 9.81 m / sec / sec
specific heat of iron = c = 0.49 KJ / Kg, assuming it is constant. (It isn't, and varies across this temperature range.) *
ambient temp = t1 = 20 deg C *
melting point of structural steel = t2 = 1545 deg C *

The potential energy of a building, assuming a certain homogeneity, is half its mass times its height, times the acceleration due to gravity.

Merely sets out the total potential energy available.

Good link but makes absolutely no mention of heat.

PE = 0.5*M*g*h = 0.5*4.5*10^8*9.81*3.87*10^3 = 8.54*10^11 Joules - the heat potential equivalent
The heat (Q) necessary to raise the temperature of a unit mass of steel m (say 1000 Kg) is the specific heat times that mass times the temperature difference
Ok. So that is the amount of heat required to heat say a 1000kg of steel to 1545 C, but with the caveat of, if it was applied directly and only to that steel with no wastage.


Q = m*c*(t2-t1) = 10^3*4.9*10^2*1.525*10^3 = 7.47*10^8 Joules for 1000 Kg of steel

Then the maximum amount of steel (in metric tons) that could have been raised to melt temperature is PE over Q = 8.54*10^11 / 7.47*10^8 = 1,140 tons.

This is the major flaw in your argument as far as I am concerned. I suggest that quantity of steel could only be raised to melt temperature if all the available heat from the potential energy is concentrated on that steel only. Obviously it was not, it was dissipated amongst all the steel and all the other rubble and into the surroundings.

The towers had full occupancy, were fully-fitted and also had floors devoted to service functions loaded with machinery, pipes and tanks. There is some dispute how much mass that added up to. If the towers weighed 5*10^8 Kg (seems to be consensus here) then the amount of steel that could have been raised to melt temperature would be 1,270 tons. If they were heavier still, then so much the more.

The same logical flaw applies here as to above.


 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I thought we were talking about the heat element of the whole potential energy available?

Good that you have clarified that when you were referring to 'contact', you actually meant 'impact'. huge difference.



Do you have any actual figures for the heat/temperature rise in say a 10 tonne steel falling from 1000 ft and impacting the ground. I.e. what temperature would you expect that steel to be afterwards as opposed to in it's original placement, (fire exempted)?



Another unique event... how many unique events can we have in one day?



1 & 2 clearly collapsed outwards with material cascading from all sides.



So you are now saying you expected a partial collapse, not the total collapse which we all saw?



Merely sets out the total potential energy available.


Good link but makes absolutely no mention of heat.


Ok. So that is the amount of heat required to heat say a 1000kg of steel to 1545 C, but with the caveat of, if it was applied directly and only to that steel with no wastage.





This is the major flaw in your argument as far as I am concerned. I suggest that quantity of steel could only be raised to melt temperature if all the available heat from the potential energy is concentrated on that steel only. Obviously it was not, it was dissipated amongst all the steel and all the other rubble and into the surroundings.



The same logical flaw applies here as to above.



Oxy, since we do not believe in the heat generation/transfer from kinetic potential theory to a concentrated mass of structural steel (and other materials) at the bottom of ground zero in multiple locations . . . . do you have a theory on what created and sustained these hotspots? IMO we are stuck with the reality the hotspots are real but I find no plausible explanation for them in the number, intensity, duration and difficulty to quench. . . . Maybe we need an expert on blast furnaces to explain how they work ?

Exhaustive analysis of hotspots . . . http://www.takeourworldback.com/911demolished.htm
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
A thick piece of steel (that is a piece with a high volume/surface area ratio) that got hot enough to soften, would if left alone end up permanently softened because its mass/surface area ratio would prevent rapid heat loss, and it would anneal itself. It wouldn't retain its softness "for a few hours", but permanently*.

If on the other hand it is dropped instantly into quenching water it would end up pretty hard on the outside, pretty tough within.

If a thin piece of steel (that is a piece with a low volume/surface area ratio) that got hot enough to soften, is dropped instantly into quenching water it would end up totally hard on the outside, pretty hard within.

It's a matter of the rate at which the temperature falls.

There are further properties which tend to go unnoticed. The austenitic process actually begins at a lower temperature than 800 deg C but proceeds very slowly. 450 deg C? Not sure.

When the steel is subject to tension, compression, or torsion, this slow breakdown and realignment of steel's crystalline structure manifests itself in the process known as CREEP, and is responsible for the load-shifting, through the towers' top hat trusses, between the interior and exterior columns, which helped bring on their collapses.

What does it matter, in this instance, whether the steel regained its hardness or not? If it softened sufficiently, and crept, then it certainly approached its point of buckling instability over time. When two floors, one above the other, detached, there was no way the newly-detached columns could stand, as their stability dropped to a ninth of their former value.

So you're arguing over the hardness of the wreckage? Spare us all from any more of that.

* There is a very small amount of hysteresis in cold grain re-structuring which makes my "No" only partially correct, it is true, but it hardly compares with your bullying of Cairenn and somewhat successful campaign to deflect the direction of the thread from: WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough? to "everyone that argues with me is incompetent and doesn't know what they're talking about".

Changed your mind again? What numbers are you relying on today?

It's pertinent to the thread - when someone makes a claim that once steel gets soft and deformable from heat (like a fire, maybe?), it remains that way after cooling. It's patently false. Annealing (your cover story for the incorrect statement) has nothing to do with it. Annealing is the rather precise controlled restorative manufacturing process every structural steel goes through as the last part of fabrication - to restore the steel from its work-hardened state to its relaxed, original condition so that it is fit for purpose, or for further working.
It may be performed several times during manufacture. Didn't you know?

http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/PJST10_2_149.pdf

You see, ductility is good - it's what annealing does - 'stays soft and deformable' or 'fit for purpose' - can you see a difference? After working, steel gets hard - annealing it restores it to its previous relaxed condition, it doesn't mean it 'stays soft and deformable' it means it renders it workable again, didn't you know? Can you understand the difference? Trying to present annealing as if it's a detrimental weakening process is just plain wrong - if structural steel wasn't annealed it wouldn't be fit for purpose. But your chop-logic and ever changing position on pretty much everything tries repeatedly to imply just that - and all this to try to cover for an uninformed comment which should have been withdrawn as soon as it was flagged.

There was a fire in wtc 7, remember?, and the question is 'were the fires hot and long enough', yes? and when someone tries to present 'if the steel got soft and deformable then it stayed that way' as an enequivocal statement of fact - I'm not interested who said it, only that it's misleading and should be flagged. Bullying has nothing to do with it - just the facts. And, once more with feeing - annealing has nothing to do with it either.

Oh yes, and there's this from your seminal 'core still standing all slagged up inevitable hotspot kinetic molten steel theory'

The potential energy of any building is the energy put into it to raise it from ground level into its structural position.

The PE of any building is Gravitational Potential Energy, actually. But then you did say that another day, so it could have changed a few times since then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Potential heat? Surely potential energy?

I don't know where you got that idea from, George. It certainly wasn't from me. Whooshing through a thousand feet of air is hardly going to slow the steel at all, and please let's assume it was at ambient temperature.


Hardly. The towers definitely spread their material over an order greater area, but weren't ten times the size of WTC7.

Oxy, WTC7 fell inwards once column 79 failed. That's an implosion. WTC1 failed inwards (the mast rocked first), but WTC2 failed down a side and took a tilt. WTC1 was also part implosion. Just an opinion.

To refine the point as to whether I knew they would collapse completely - I didn't expect ALL the core to go. I expected a conical pile. That shocked me enough to go over the energy issue. It made me realize how slack my assumptions had previously been.


How later?
Jazzy, while your theory is as valid as anyone else's. . . .how do you account for the distribution of so many hotspots. . . .you would have to divide the necessary concentration of your kinetic energy heat generation theory into at least two to three separate hotspots per building?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
That was my whole point. The steel was heated and it's strength could have been altered by that.

Nope - your 'whole point', as represented by a stand alone paragraph, was that if the steel got soft and deformable (from the fire in wtc7, that's the subject) then it stayed that way. Which is not the same thing, is it? (its strength could have been altered though, if it had been annealed it would have helped with deflection and contorted cooled pieces would have been more able to resist further damage - but that's not what you meant, was it?)

It's an interesting diversion - that the pack mentality can lead to such contortions of logic - when a quick owning up to a basic error would have obviated the need for all these posts. You claim to be about removing bunk, not making up your own because it sounds like it might fit your version of events better.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Oxy, since we do not believe in the heat transfer theory to a concentrated mass of structural steel (and other materials) at the bottom of ground zero in multiple locations . . . . do you have a theory on what created and sustained these hotspots? IMO we are stuck with the reality the hotspots are real but I find no plausible explanation for them in the number, intensity, duration and difficulty to quench. . . . Maybe we need an expert on blast furnaces to explain how they work ?

Exhaustive analysis of hotspots . . . http://www.takeourworldback.com/911demolished.htm

The energy budget of the buildings is a worthwhile thing to look at, particularly the towers. We know the available gravitational potential energy in KWH from the FEMA building performance study.

You can make some ball park calculations on the amount of energy required to pull apart the steel from its connections (reviewing pics of the towers' steel after collapse shows that this was the failure mode of a great deal of it); the blasting of the concrete and building contents into very small particles (recall the surrounding area inches deep in dust); the hotspots, intensity and duration; the hot dust cloud, spread and speed (700ft high, 35 feet per second); the projectile steel (some of it went 600ft).

Pretty soon you've overspent.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The energy budget of the buildings is a worthwhile thing to look at, particularly the towers. We know the available gravitational potential energy in KWH from the FEMA building performance study.

You can make some ball park calculations on the amount of energy required to pull apart the steel from its connections (reviewing pics of the towers' steel after collapse shows that this was the failure mode of a great deal of it); the blasting of the concrete and building contents into very small particles (recall the surrounding area inches deep in dust); the hotspots, intensity and duration; the hot dust cloud, spread and speed (700ft high, 35 feet per second); the projectile steel (some of it went 600ft).

Pretty soon you've overspent.

This person's analysis is the only complete one I could find. . . .he may not be correct (I don't have the education to challenge his conclusions or analysis) but he backs up his analysis with quite a bit of data and equations . . . certainly beyond what FEMA and NIST published . . .

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Oxy, since we do not believe in the heat generation/transfer from kinetic potential theory to a concentrated mass of structural steel (and other materials) at the bottom of ground zero in multiple locations . . . . do you have a theory on what created and sustained these hotspots? IMO we are stuck with the reality the hotspots are real but I find no plausible explanation for them in the number, intensity, duration and difficulty to quench. . . . Maybe we need an expert on blast furnaces to explain how they work ?

Exhaustive analysis of hotspots . . . http://www.takeourworldback.com/911demolished.htm

That is a really interesting link George. Thanks.

Yep we need to differentiate from heat and temperature, although related they are not the same. So I could boil a pint of water easily enough but if I were to try to boil a gallon of water with the same heat/energy .... well.

The hotspots are a huge problem.

If they are very deep then they are starved of oxygen and will not burn efficiently or will simply be extinguished.

Next we have the problem of fuel source. As noted by NIST the fires in 7 ran out of fuel in about 20 mins and self extinguished behind itself as it moved on to new fuel sources.

Again it is 'another' unique event. The whole event can be likened to a 'cluster of solitaire diamonds' IMO.

If it hasn't happened before or since, what can possibly account for it. For proponents of the OS to simply say, 'It was entirely to be expected, is ludicrous.

The only realistic explanation I can come up with is, that it was an exothermic chemical reaction which was either unaffected or exacerbated by water application, (4 million gallons), and created it's own oxygen.

The only substance which I know of that ticks all these boxes is thermite. Thermite is usually ignited by Magnesium 'detonators'. The autognition Temperature of magnesium is 650o​C, (being insufficient to ignite thermite). It then burns at a max temperature of approx 3100o​C, being sufficient to ignite the thermite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Ignition

If key structural columns and girders were targeted, this would also account for the specificality of the locations of the 'hot spots'.

Much has been said about the quantities and access but the video showing how readily thermite can be used to cut not only beams but also bolts would necessitate relatively low amounts of a substance which is easily made by a 'guy in his back garden' and is undoubtedly obtainable by any covert NGO/spook team.

Access is really not a problem. There is easy access to concealed areas by simply removing a ceiling panel which would then give access to all totally exposed structural support beams, columns and connections on the whole floor. NB The connections are largely hidden by the false ceilings so this would be an ideal access method for a clandestine team disguised as service personnel

Well that is my theory which from a practical point of view covers all bases.

There is one giant problem... would the government do such a thing to it's own citizenry. I can believe they would but for those who would not believe such a thing, alternative solutions need be found, no matter the difficulty or improbability of the solution but then that could easily result in many 'unique events' all happening in quick succession.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Obviously off topic but I include it to demonstrate... (as if I need to really... but will anyway), how political expediency supersedes the search for truth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22574761

 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
This person's analysis is the only complete one I could find. . . .he may not be correct (I don't have the education to challenge his conclusions or analysis) but he backs up his analysis with quite a bit of data and equations . . . certainly beyond what FEMA and NIST published . . .



Yes. Thanks for posting, G. Looks like a well put together bit of work.

I just got to this bit:

 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
This might be of interest. Particularly striking to me is, in the second experiment, the way the molten iron runs in rivers over the surface....reminiscent of the flowing molten stream issuing from the south tower just prior to collapse -



'Adding something cold to thermite doesn't cancel it out, it just makes it angry'

And it ain't that hi-tech with flower pots and fuse wire.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Well that is my theory which from a practical point of view covers all bases.

There is one giant problem... would the government do such a thing to it's own citizenry. I can believe they would but for those who would not believe such a thing, alternative solutions need be found, no matter the difficulty or improbability of the solution but then that could easily result in many 'unique events' all happening in quick succession.

Good post.

Just that bit above, O. I don't see a giant problem, but a proven fact of realpolitik. But it's not 'the govt.' per se, it's a group within the power structure, with others outside, pulling the strings they want to. Politicians are there to serve them, or else. Most are happy to 'serve'. There are some known faces, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and many more unknown ones, no doubt...the problem, as I think you are also alluding to, is a psychological one.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Good post.

Just that bit above, O. I don't see a giant problem, but a proven fact of realpolitik. But it's not 'the govt.' per se, it's a group within the power structure, with others outside, pulling the strings they want to. Politicians are there to serve them, or else. Most are happy to 'serve'. There are some known faces, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and many more unknown ones, no doubt...the problem, as I think you are also alluding to, is a psychological one.

Yep, thanks Lee, that is what I meant. Except, I think Bush and co are likely included. And I think some very powerful banking and petrochemical people as well as some rogue CIA/private security.



 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
BushCo (as begat by Grandaddy Prescott Bush the Nazi money launderer, you mean?) - yes, but Dubya? Nah - too risky. That's why they made sure he was out the way reading goat stories while Cheney took the command centre. Would a real 'surprise' attack see the secret service leave the real boss in a classroom in full public view?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
http://www.takeourworldback.com/911demolished.htm


 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I thought we were talking about the heat element of the whole potential energy available?
The "heat element" of a falling steel fragment has yet to exist.

At the present, during the fall, it has decreasing potential energy and increasing kinetic energy.

What proportion ends up as heat depends on whether it can hand off energy by collision - exactly as the balls do in Newton's Cradle. If it casts off its kinetic energy its temperature needn't rise by much. But the chances are high it will hit something made of steel and lose kinetic energy - downwards, towards the base of the pile. Gravity is a great concentrator of falling towers, especially their steelwork, which is denser than rubble by a factor of three.

when you were referring to 'contact', you actually meant 'impact'. huge difference.
Let me know when you find an impact taking place without contact. When discussing kinetic energy, motion is implicit.

Do you have any actual figures for a 10 tonne steel falling from 1000 ft and impacting the ground?
No, because they are not part of this discussion. We are discussing steel falling onto steel wreckage. Would you confirm there was steel upon steel in the wreckage pile at Gzero? You are not going to say it was scattered all about?

how many unique events
Don't waste my time.

1 & 2 clearly collapsed outwards with material cascading from all sides.
Their floors and cores burst out of their sides, did they? What nonsense.

WTC1 failed inwards (the mast rocked first), but WTC2 failed down a side and took a tilt. The tilted section of WTC2 fell through the structure beneath.

So you are now saying you expected a partial collapse, not the total collapse which we all saw?
I did at that time. But that was twelve years ago. Don't waste my time.

Merely sets out the total potential energy available.
So it merely does. It merely gives the exact energy start point. Merely.

Good link but makes absolutely no mention of heat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Ok. So that is the amount of heat required to heat say a 1000kg of steel to 1545 C, but with the caveat of, if it was applied directly and only to that steel with no wastage.

The kinetic energy was already within the steel.
Screen Shot 2013-05-18 at 01.05.37.png

Thanks.

"Then the maximum amount of steel (in metric tons) that could have been raised to melt temperature is PE over Q = 8.54*10^11 / 7.47*10^8 = 1,140 tons."
I suggest that quantity of steel could only be raised to melt temperature if all the available heat from the potential energy is concentrated on that steel only.

The kinetic energy was already within the steel.
Screen Shot 2013-05-18 at 01.05.37.png

This is the major flaw in your argument as far as I am concerned. I suggest that quantity of steel could only be raised to melt temperature if all the available heat from the potential energy is concentrated on that steel only. Obviously it was not, it was dissipated amongst all the steel and all the other rubble and into the surroundings.
If it fell "into the surroundings" then it wasn't part of any hotspot. Hotspots were deep in compacted steel wreckage. We have already accepted the proportion of a tenth. We're considering a hundred tons of hotspots.

The kinetic energy was already within the steel.
Screen Shot 2013-05-18 at 01.05.37.png

The same logical flaw applies here as to above.

The kinetic energy was already within the steel.
Screen Shot 2013-05-18 at 01.05.37.png

Asking you to read and understand anything is.

Saving some effort on my part, I have decided on a Clown Award to be bestowed every time you fail to acknowledge, read, and understand that which I have worked to bring to your attention.

And the message for today is: the kinetic energy of a moving body is within it, and Newton's Cradle shows how it is simply transferred by IMPACT.

[video=youtube_share;20zn2oLo8Hw]http://youtu.be/20zn2oLo8Hw[/video]
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2013-05-18 at 00.44.24.png
    Screen Shot 2013-05-18 at 00.44.24.png
    7.7 KB · Views: 328

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The "heat element" of a falling steel fragment has yet to exist.

At the present, during the fall, it has decreasing potential energy and increasing kinetic energy.

What proportion ends up as heat depends on whether it can hand off energy by collision - exactly as the balls do in Newton's Cradle. If it casts off its kinetic energy its temperature needn't rise by much. But the chances are high it will hit something made of steel and lose kinetic energy - downwards, towards the base of the pile. Gravity is a great concentrator of falling towers, especially their steelwork, which is denser than rubble by a factor of three.


Let me know when you find an impact taking place without contact. When discussing kinetic energy, motion is implicit.


No, because they are not part of this discussion. We are discussing steel falling onto steel wreckage. Would you confirm there was steel upon steel in the wreckage pile at Gzero? You are not going to say it was scattered all about?


Don't waste my time.


Their floors and cores burst out of their sides, did they? What nonsense.

WTC1 failed inwards (the mast rocked first), but WTC2 failed down a side and took a tilt. The tilted section of WTC2 fell through the structure beneath.


I did at that time. But that was twelve years ago. Don't waste my time.


So it merely does. It merely gives the exact energy start point. Merely.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy



The kinetic energy was already within the steel.
View attachment 2862

Thanks.



The kinetic energy was already within the steel.
View attachment 2862


If it fell "into the surroundings" then it wasn't part of any hotspot. Hotspots were deep in compacted steel wreckage. We have already accepted the proportion of a tenth. We're considering a hundred tons of hotspots.


The kinetic energy was already within the steel.
View attachment 2862



The kinetic energy was already within the steel.
View attachment 2862


Asking you to read and understand anything is.

Saving some effort on my part, I have decided on a Clown Award to be bestowed every time you fail to acknowledge, read, and understand that which I have worked to bring to your attention.

And the message for today is: the kinetic energy of a moving body is within it, and Newton's Cradle shows how it is simply transferred by IMPACT.

Well I have given you the benefit of the doubt until now but you have really overstepped the mark and shown your colours with this fatuous, insane and extremely creepy response.

I am seriously concerned for your mental health, so I shall put you on ignore from now on, in order not to upset you further. No hard feelings but I think it for the best.

I strongly suggest that Mick remove the post as it reflects badly on the site IMO, (this response can also go as well).
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Changed your mind again?
You obviously don't understand my reply. The tiny fraction of cold restructuring wasn't worth the mention, especially because it would occur after collapse. It is also obvious that the softening by fire caused the collapse. All that roaring of yours was without point. Specially preprepared structural steel softens when heated beyond its critical point.

What numbers are you relying on today?
You misdirect once more, knowing I'm talking about principles.

It's pertinent to the thread - when someone makes a claim that once steel gets soft and deformable from heat (like a fire, maybe?), it remains that way after cooling. It's patently false.
It's not patently anything until you specify the rate of cooling.

Annealing has nothing to do with it.

your cover story
I don't have a story.

You see etc.
I saw. Fifty years ago. I still remember it.

But your chop-logic and ever changing position on pretty much everything
Sometimes the Gordian Knot must be cut. Was the steel heated past its critical point? Yes. Did it fail? Yes. Chop.

There was a fire - Bullying - facts - feeing - annealing - slagged
Whine away.

I remember that too.

Only one award is given to you, for saying something wasn't what it was. There is not much real content to deal with in your post..
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2013-05-18 at 00.50.20.png
    Screen Shot 2013-05-18 at 00.50.20.png
    31.3 KB · Views: 321

Jazzy

Closed Account
Well I have given you the benefit of the doubt until now but you have really overstepped the mark and shown your colours with this fatuous, insane and extremely creepy response.
It is "fatuous, insane and extremely creepy" of you not to acknowledge, read, and understand the SCIENCE behind this thread.

I am seriously concerned etc.
I don't believe you.

I strongly suggest that Mick remove the post as it reflects badly on the site IMO, (this response can also go as well).
I strongly suggest all the posts you make without scientific understanding should go, but then we'd have nothing to talk about, would we?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I could boil a pint of water easily enough but if I were to try to boil a gallon of water with the same heat/energy .... well.
How about you'd need SIX TIMES as much? Six pints to a US gallon, aren't there?

The hotspots are a huge problem.
I can see they must be if you find difficulty in the above situation.

If they are very deep then they are starved of oxygen and will not burn efficiently or will simply be extinguished.
Most fire produced from the rubbish stack was from hot steel oxidizing in steam and producing hydrogen gas, in the presence of water and dissolved salts.

No access to air was required where this reaction took place. The hydrogen gas would have burnt at the surface if there was a flame there to ignite it.

Next we have the problem of fuel source.
I can see it must be a problem if you found difficulties in the above situations.

it was an exothermic chemical reaction which was either unaffected or exacerbated by water application, (4 million gallons), and created it's own oxygen.
Neat, when it was actually an endothermic chemical reaction which was brought about by water application, (4 million gallons), and created its own hydrogen.

The only substance which I know of that ticks all these boxes is thermite.
All these boxes are already ticked - with references - so we don't need to travel down this path, do we?

George, as a moderator you shouldn't be gaily astroturfing off-topics.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Misdirection.

I have shown how the heat at the hotspots was created mechanically.

Fires in the stack were unlikely because the stack was compacted, and didn't allow air to burn non-existent combustible materials.

The hotspots weren't fires. They were areas of hot steel caused by downward kinetic energy exchanges towards ground zero.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How about you'd need SIX TIMES as much? Six pints to a US gallon, aren't there?


I can see they must be if you find difficulty in the above situation.


Most fire produced from the rubbish stack was from hot steel oxidizing in steam and producing hydrogen gas, in the presence of water and dissolved salts.

No access to air was required where this reaction took place. The hydrogen gas would have burnt at the surface if there was a flame there to ignite it.


I can see it must be a problem if you found difficulties in the above situations.


Neat, when it was actually an endothermic chemical reaction which was brought about by water application, (4 million gallons), and created its own hydrogen.


All these boxes are already ticked - with references - so we don't need to travel down this path, do we?

George, as a moderator you shouldn't be gaily astroturfing off-topics.
So the hot iron plus water gives you hydrogen. . . So how HOT does the iron have to be to produce the hydrogen and what maintained the heat in the iron for weeks??
 
Top