WTC: Molten Steel - Was there any? Why? What About the Hot Spots?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, George. That's an interesting categorical statement.

View attachment 1710
You are saying deforming steel and then colliding them into a rubble pile and compression will result in hot spots of many hundreds of degrees despite paper being found in the compressed clumps . . . is that your theory?
 
It is true that free-falling pieces of steel get marginally warmer by only a few degrees. I made it less than your figure.

But that's by-the-by.

Every time another floor was punched off the core during the collapse, the reaction loads would have been expressed at the basement foundations to the core columns.

Every time any piece of steel struck any steel beneath it, some of that energy would have been immediately transferred to the lower of the two pieces at the speed of sound in steel. This would have cascaded that available energy downwards towards the bottom of the increasing pile, where the most intense energy transfers would have been taking place. The bottom of the pile would have been a net receiver of energy from the top. This would have served to raise temperatures in the basement way above the free fall norm.

The exact amount of energy resulting as heat is not so easily expressed, as some of the dynamic energy became seismic as the ground deflected/vibrated, as Mick has pointed out, but the origin of the energy which resulted in the basement temperatures was unquestionably the tower's potential energy.

Perhaps you should read the thread again.

I disagree. Why would the "bottom of the pile" be a net receiver? Energy transfer is not an energy sink. The foundations simply spread out and transfer the impulses to the bedrock.

contrailscience.com_skitch_3819594000_cc2e293f0a_o.jpg_20130214_091226.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bend a paper clip until it breaks. How hot can you make it?
Not as hot as if I would hammer onto it, but when I hit the hammer with the paper clip, it does not work.

Below are snippets from earlier in this thread (which is hard to work through completely and comprisingly):
What do you think happened to all that energy?"
Yes indeed. Where DID it go?
It heated up the rubble pile by a maximum of 4 C in average, because of all that heat capacity.

The civil engineering foundations - the plate-to-slab interfaces, were where the real action occurred.
This cannot explain the molten steel the firemen were talking about "running down the channel rails" because the foundation is already at the lowest level.

The steel would rapidly alloy itself at those temperatures.....then appear to be molten, but would no longer be steel, but iron sulfide.
This is disproved by experiment:

 
You are saying deforming steel and then colliding them into a rubble pile and compression will result in hot spots of many hundreds of degrees despite paper being found in the compressed clumps . . . is that your theory?
"In a few places what might have been carbonized, compressed stacks of paper stuck out edgewise like graphite deposits."

Reread.
 
I disagree. Why would the "bottom of the pile" be a net receiver? Energy transfer is not an energy sink. The foundations simply spread out and transfer the impulses to the bedrock.
I know you disagree.

Another way to look at it is the relative state of compaction between the top and the bottom of the pile. The top was lightly compacted, and the bottom very greatly compacted. The compaction, being work done, was greatest at the bottom. Therefore the most work was done at the bottom.

The work done will have had to have manifested itself as heat.
 
I know you disagree.

Another way to look at it is the relative state of compaction between the top and the bottom of the pile. The top was lightly compacted, and the bottom very greatly compacted. The compaction, being work done, was greatest at the bottom. Therefore the most work was done at the bottom.

The work done will have had to have manifested itself as heat.

And were the hot-spots even at the bottom of the pile? I though they were just at random points?

Sorry Jazzy, fires (both existing and resultant) are a much simpler and more plausible explanation.
 
Not as hot as if I would hammer onto it, but when I hit the hammer with the paper clip, it does not work.
Try hitting it with, say, 100,000 tons of paperclips doing 120 mph.

It heated up the rubble pile by a maximum of 4 C in average, because of all that heat capacity.
"All that heat capacity" wasn't available. The collapsing tower directed mechanical energy downward through shearing fifty-plus floors from their supporting columns, and by deep compaction, leaving the heated basement and tangled steel well insulated with crushed wall boarding.

Those floors sheared off every horizontal beam and diagonal brace from the vertical interior core columns, and those reactions were felt by the grillage.

This is disproved by experiment
Sorry, but the experiment is totally out of scale, and disproves nothing at all. Alien Scientist and his uncle are well out of line with all their 9-11 rubbish. Their "thermite" experiments are stupid too. How do you ignite thermite? How hot does it burn? How can molten iron generated by thermite "pool" on a sagging floor? Answer - it can't, because at a temperature of 2,500 deg C it cuts straight through.

"Molten steel the firemen were talking about "running down the channel rails" was more likely molten light metal. There was at least fifty tons of it in the middle of a large "muffle furnace" in each tower. When hot enough, molten aluminum glows.
 
And were the hot-spots even at the bottom of the pile? I though they were just at random points?
"Random" is completely implausible.

Sorry Jazzy, fires (both existing and resultant) are a much simpler and more plausible explanation.
Imagine an express train* hitting a terminus at 120 mph. Would the ensuing fires exist because the train had to be in flames? Or would there be no fire if the train were not on fire?

* Or, more realistically, an ocean liner doing 120 mph.
 
"Random" is completely implausible.


Imagine an express train* hitting a terminus at 120 mph. Would the ensuing fires exist because the train had to be in flames? Or would there be no fire if the train were not on fire?

* Or, more realistically, an ocean liner doing 120 mph.

There would be fire because something caught fire. Once can certainly imagine such a collision causing fires. The question is if it the collision alone creates enough heat to melt metal, or stay hot for weeks.
 
There would be fire because something caught fire. Once can certainly imagine such a collision causing fires. The question is if it the collision alone creates enough heat to melt metal, or stay hot for weeks.
I have already calculated that the gross energy available could raise 1200 T of steel to melt temperature. If the proportion of that energy were only 10% as a net amount, then that's still 120 tons of near-molten steel, which to me is perfectly plausible.

The square-cube law should tell you that such large amounts of material can easily stay hot for weeks when well-insulated. It is difficult for deeply-packed red hot steel surrounded by crushed insulation to sustain combustion because the flow of air is almost completely prevented. However it is possible for fire-fighting water and the sulfur in the wall-boarding to react with the steel at such temperatures to form a melted eutectic liquid. Such conditions are intensely corrosive to steel over weeks of time.

All these misconceptions are due to the grand scale of these events.
 
A couple of thoughts, from my own experiences. It is quite possible for something to stay hot for awhile, if it is insulated. I know this is just about wood coal, but, it does illustrate that. Some years ago, a group I was in was clearing brush off a site. We were burning it. Most of this brush was vines and such, not hardwood. As it got dark we covered the fire pit, since we intended to come back the next day and work on the site some more. We awoke to find a cold rain falling that then changed to snow---forget working. When we came back the next weekend and uncovered the fire pit, the coals were still hot enough to start the new brush burning.

The other personal experience comes from a type of pottery, called Raku. In Raku the pots are pulled from the Kiln when they are glowing red hot and placed in a container with newpaper or hay or straw. As soon as you put them in, the paper catches fire, so you put a tight fitting lid on the container. In 15-20 min, you take the lid off. You have to have a water hose handy to put out the fire that erupts.

The points I am trying to make is that areas could have stayed hot easily for a long time and that when oxygen got to the fires, the fires restarted. Hot enough to melt metal? I don't know
 
The points I am trying to make is that areas could have stayed hot easily for a long time and that when oxygen got to the fires, the fires restarted.
Absolutely.

Hot enough to melt metal? I don't know
Steel is an iron alloy with a small proportion of carbon. The carbon lowers the melt temperature of the pure iron (1545 deg C) a little. Sulfur can lower that temperature by 300 deg C.

Steel above around 1200 deg C that is surrounded by steam/water and gypsum is reactive enough to absorb sulfur ions, which migrate to populate the main body of the steel over time. The "solid" iron/sulfur alloy will melt, if it doesn't corrode faster than it melts. It's an accelerated corrosion process due to the high temperatures involved.

This would be common only where all the above conditions were met. In that compressed junk pile it must have been a rare event. But definitely not an impossible event.
 
Those floors sheared off every horizontal beam and diagonal brace from the vertical interior core columns, and those reactions were felt by the grillage.

I've always believed that immense heat was justifiable through some complex energy transfer due to the scale of the collapse.

However, given the typical floor truss seat/connection detail I disagree that the individual column grillages would have received enough load to generate heat (if that's what you're implying). The truss connections were basically paperclips - not much resistance (end therefore energy transfer) against a mass of falling floors from above.

IMO these connections were the single weakest link.
 
http://allforthegreatergood.com/AmericanParty.tv/ <Credible People saying 9/11 was planned. These people are more credible than you guys.

Our country needs our help. Please take action.
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force Director of Advanced Space Programs, under Presidents Ford and Carter
"The official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible. There's a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don't want us to know what happened and who's responsible." --Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, former U.S. Air Force Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter, Doctorate of Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Cal Tech University.
Our two-party system is broken. Our country is being stolen by criminal conspirators. Supranational banking and finance oligarchs have hijacked our federal government by infiltrating and controlling both the democratic and republican parties for their own wickedness.
Now is the time for "We the People" to peacefully, legally, and lawfully organize our military forces, police, and other officials to take back our stolen Country with the brilliant mechanisms that our founding fathers provided within our Constitution to protect our Freedom. We must act now before it is too late!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://allforthegreatergood.com/AmericanParty.tv/ <Credible People saying 9/11 was planned. These people are more credible than you guys.

Our country needs our help. Please take action.
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force Director of Advanced Space Programs, under Presidents Ford and Carter
"The official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible. There's a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don't want us to know what happened and who's responsible." --Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, former U.S. Air Force Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter, Doctorate of Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Cal Tech University.
Our two-party system is broken. Our country is being stolen by criminal conspirators. Supranational banking and finance oligarchs have hijacked our federal government by infiltrating and controlling both the democratic and republican parties for their own wickedness.
Now is the time for "We the People" to peacefully, legally, and lawfully organize our military forces, police, and other officials to take back our stolen Country with the brilliant mechanisms that our founding fathers provided within our Constitution to protect our Freedom. We must act now before it is too late!


I think that there is a logical fallacy called 'Appeal to Authority", which is where someone says 'because an authority says something, then it must be true'. However if the authority were to produce evidence that can then be subject to peer review by other authorities and they all concur, then there is probably something there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He is the guy that wrote this also

http://rense.com/general78/pdet.htm

External Quote:
"Dear Comrades in Arms,

You are facing challenges in 2007 that we of previous generations never dreamed of. I'm just an old fighter pilot (101 combat missions in Vietnam , F-4 Phantom, Phu Cat, 1969-1970) who's now a disabled veteran with terminal cancer from Agent Orange. Our mailing list (over 22,000) includes veterans from all branches of the service, all political parties, and all parts of the political spectrum. We are Republicans and Democrats, Greens and Libertarians, Constitutionists and Reformers, and a good many Independents. What unites us is our desire for a government that (1) follows the Constitution, (2) honors the truth, and (3) serves the people.

We see our government going down the wrong path, all too often ignoring military advice, and heading us toward great danger. And we look to you who still serve as the best hope for protecting our nation from disaster.

We see the current Iraq War as having been unnecessary, entered into under false pretenses, and horribly mismanaged by the civilian authorities. Thousands of our brave troops have been needlessly sacrificed in a futile attempt at occupation of a hostile land. Many more thousands have suffered wounds which will change their lives forever. Tens of thousands have severe psychological problems because of what they have seen and what they have done. Potentially hundreds of thousands could be poisoned by depleted uranium, with symptoms appearing years later, just as happened to us exposed to Agent Orange. The military services are depleted and demoralized. The VA system is under-funded and overwhelmed. The National Guard and Reserves have been subjected to tour after tour, disrupting lives for even the lucky ones who return intact. Jobs have been lost, marriages have been destroyed, homes have been foreclosed, and children have been estranged. And for what? We have lost allies, made new enemies, and created thousands of new terrorists, further endangering the American people.

But you know all this. I'm sure you also see the enormous danger in a possible attack on Iran , possibly with nuclear weapons. Such an event, seriously contemplated by the Cheney faction of the Bush administration, would make enemies of Russia and China and turn us into the number one rogue nation on earth. The effect on our long- term national security would be devastating.

Some of us had hoped that the new Democratic Congress would end the occupation of Iraq and take firm steps to prevent an attack on Iran , perhaps by impeaching Bush and Cheney. These hopes have been dashed. The lily-livered Democrats have caved in, turning their backs on those few (like Congressman Jack Murtha) who understand the situation. Many of us have personally walked the halls of Congress, to no avail.

This is where you come in.

We know that many of you share our concern and our determination to protect our republic from an arrogant, out-of-control, imperial presidency and a compliant, namby-pamby Congress (both of which are unduly influenced by the oil companies and other big-money interests). We know that you (like us) wouldn't have pursued a military career unless you were idealistic and devoted to our nation and its people. (None of us do it for the pay and working conditions!) But we also recognize that you may not see how you can influence these events. We in the military have always had a historic subservience to civilian authority.

Perhaps I can help with whatever wisdom I've gathered from age (I retired in 1978, so I am ancient indeed).

Our oath of office is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Might I suggest that this includes a rogue president and vice-president? Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember). One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the DUTY to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were "only carrying out their orders."

The Constitution which we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the "highest law of the land," equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations charter and the Geneva Convention.

Based on the above, I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty- bound to refuse that order. I might also suggest that you should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.

I know for a fact that in recent history (once under Nixon and once under Reagan), the military nuclear chain of command in the White House discussed these things and were prepared to refuse an order to "nuke Russia ." In effect they took the (non-existent) "button" out of the hands of the President.. We were thus never quite as close to World War III as many feared, no matter how irrational any president might have become. They determined that the proper response to any such order was, "Why, sir?" Unless there was (in their words) a "damn good answer," nothing was going to happen.

I suggest that if you in this generation have not had such a discussion, perhaps it is time you do. In hindsight, it's too bad such a discussion did not take place prior to the preemptive "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad . Many of us at the time spoke out vehemently that such an attack would be an impeachable offense, a war crime against the people of Iraq , and treason against the United States of America . But our voices were drowned out and never reached the ears of the generals in 2003. I now regret that I never sent a letter such as this at that time, but depended on the corporate media to carry my message. I must not make that mistake again.

Also in hindsight, President Bush could be court-martialed for abuse of power as Commander-in-Chief. Vice President Cheney could probably be court-martialed for his performance as Acting Commander- in-Chief in the White House bunker the morning of September 11, 2001 .

We in the U.S. military would never consider a military coup, removing an elected president and installing one of our own. But following our oath of office, obeying the Nuremberg Principles, and preventing a rogue president from committing a war crime is not a military coup. If it requires the detention of executive branch officials, we will not impose a military dictatorship. We will let the Constitutional succession take place. This is what we are sworn to. This is protecting the Constitution, our highest obligation. In 2007, this is what is meant by "Duty, Honor, Country."

Thank you all for your service to this nation. May God bless America , and sustain us in this difficult time. And thanks for listening to the musings of an old junior officer.

Respectfully,

Robert M. Bowman, PhD, Lt. Col., USAF, ret."
He seems to be a fairly long time peace activist and he has run for a variety of political offices with no success.
 
He is the guy that wrote this also

http://rense.com/general78/pdet.htm

He seems to be a fairly long time peace activist and he has run for a variety of political offices with no success.

Shame there aren't more like him. I hope there is but we just haven't heard of them yet.

What he says is obviously right and true.

The reason America chose to fight the Crown was because King George was mad... how is this different.
 
I've always believed that immense heat was justifiable through some complex energy transfer due to the scale of the collapse.

However, given the typical floor truss seat/connection detail I disagree that the individual column grillages would have received enough load to generate heat (if that's what you're implying). The truss connections were basically paperclips - not much resistance (end therefore energy transfer) against a mass of falling floors from above.

IMO these connections were the single weakest link.
What remained standing after the collapse? Some of the vertical core columns. These columns were stripped of every cross beam and diagonal brace.

A moments reflection should convince you that ALL the forces involved in the above events HAD to be reacted at the column bases. As Mick has pointed out, this couldn't have ALL resulted as heat, in that some of it became seismic.

All that steel was hammered off the core columns. It was by no means just "paperclips". That core was beefy.
 
How about an appeal to the LAWS OF PHYSICS/ Metallurgy: Shear strength for 7075-T6 (strongest) aluminum 48,000 PSI, A36 structural steel 11,500,000 PSI. That is a 1:230 ratio

CAN YOU GUYS NOT SEE HOW IMPOSSIBLE IT IS TO SHEAR STRUCTURAL STEEL W/ ALUMINUM?
 
How about an appeal to the LAWS OF PHYSICS/ Metallurgy: Shear strength for 7075-T6 (strongest) aluminum 48,000 PSI, A36 structural steel 11,500,000 PSI. That is a 1:230 ratio<br>
<br>
CAN YOU GUYS NOT SEE HOW IMPOSSIBLE IT IS TO SHEAR STRUCTURAL STEEL W/ ALUMINUM?

You are confusing shear strength with shear modulus. And "shear strength" actually depends on usage 48,000 PSI is listed as a shear strength of Aluminum, but 11,500,000 psi is the shear MODULUS of A36. A totally different thing.

Better to look at the yield strength:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(engineering)
contrailscience.com_skitch_Yield__20130306_140013.jpg
Here you can see that the yield strength of aluminum is higher than steel. But steel is a lot denser. It's not strictly relevant though. You can shear steel with water if it's moving fast enough.
 
Last edited:
My hubby worked on developing a water knife to cut jalapeno peppers. I was not aware of all the uses of a water knife until then
 
LMAO, you are now comparing cold rolled steel to structural steel, and NO tensile does not have anything to do w/ a SHEAR failure. You believe the plane made a "road runner" cut out, a clear indication of SHEARING. Maybe you should learn how metal is stamped out, and how much more force is needed to shear when the clearances are higher than specs call for. Tool making requires much Trig. Alum is NEVER used in a shearing die for steel, NEVER. Clearly a perverse understanding of engineering. Modules of shear are the same, unlike hardness scales.

YOU ARE USING WIKI FOR A REF, SUPER JOKE WHEN IT COMES TO ENGINEERING.
 
LMAO, you are now comparing cold rolled steel to structural steel, and NO tensile does not have anything to do w/ a SHEAR failure. You believe the plane made a "road runner" cut out, a clear indication of SHEARING. Maybe you should learn how metal is stamped out, and how much more force is needed to shear when the clearances are higher than specs call for. Tool making requires much Trig. Alum is NEVER used in a shearing die for steel, NEVER. Clearly a perverse understanding of engineering. Modules of shear are the same, unlike hardness scales.

YOU ARE USING WIKI FOR A REF, SUPER JOKE WHEN IT COMES TO ENGINEERING.

I think you need to check again.
 
I've always believed that immense heat was justifiable through some complex energy transfer due to the scale of the collapse. However, given the typical floor truss seat/connection detail I disagree that the individual column grillages would have received enough load to generate heat (if that's what you're implying). The truss connections were basically paperclips - not much resistance (end therefore energy transfer) against a mass of falling floors from above. IMO these connections were the single weakest link.
I missed this comment previously, but it's interesting so I'll answer it. IMO you're correct when you say those links were crucial to the collapses. But they all allowed or caused asymmetries which completely altered subsequent events.

A collapsing and tilting tower becomes rapidly and totally unpredictable...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top