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

[Admin: This thread was spun off from https://www.metabunk.org/posts/23146 and the first two posts are partial copies of existing post from that thread]

[...]

Jet fuel can not melt steel and even if you believed that ridiculous story, building 7 was not even hit by a jet. It was one football field length away from the other 2 towers and all 3 buildings collapsed in a matter of hours. We have numerous examples in history of raging infernos that last for days where the skyscrapers were left standing tall but completely gutted from the fire. Years after this, we discover nano-thermite in the dust. Nano-thermite is used to cut steel and can only be made in a military facility, not by bearded men living in a cave.

[...]

 

Normally it can't however it most certainly can significantly weaken the strength of it. Add in the fact of massive damage to the buildings and again I am more surprised that they didn't collapse immediately.
If you want to have a look at one of nature's conspiracies, please explain how burning grass (not all that hot really) can melt aluminium in a very dramatic manner ....

Pure fiction, there is no such thing as 'nano thermite'. What was found was the scale rust from the burnt steel and that is the same base material as regular thermite.

 

And Bill, you're employing the at this point classic technique of explaining away the evidence for molten steel by emphasizing how easily aluminum, and other metals, can melt. As demonstrated in the later portion of my thread on seismic evidence, those who swear by the official account have an odd habit of squirming around/completely disregarding the evidence of molten steel, from pictures to eye-witness testimony to the word of an experienced structural engineer who helped compose the official account. Many even fail to acknowledge that such evidence even -exists-, let alone admit it's rather solid. If you want to talk about cognitive dissonance, why not start with your own? Because apparently some eye-witness testimony and a few photos of tangled wreckage is proof-positive, and yet eye-witness testimony and photos of dripping steel doesn't even warrant consideration.

 

Various scrap yards like Fresh Kills maybe, or long since melted down for scrap in China? I never claimed there'd be solidified pools of steel, just that melted steel, metal, and combustible debris might have pooled in the rubble to create furnace-like environments, explaining the long-lingering hot-spots that required little oxygen, and the eye-witness reports of shifting debris sometimes causing high-pressure flames to come spouting out of the rubble like a large blow-torch. Something like that could potentially be explained by an extreme but suffocated heat being exposed to a narrow source of oxygen.

Fact of the matter is though, you can't even begin to prove there weren't pools of solid steel, as the vast majority of the steel debris is entirely undocumented/was never examined.

 

No I'm not.
I thought it was pretty obvious what my point was, but I'll simplify it even more.
Burning grass doesn't get hot enough to melt aluminium, you can put alloy cooking pans and so-on onto burning grass & wood and they don't melt. Yet as can be seen in that photo burning grass (which is what caused that damage) actually did get hot enough to melt aluminium very well indeed.
My point being that to simplify this by saying 'AVTUR doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel' is quite possibly quite wrong. We already know that it burns plenty hot enough to cause steel to weaken quite a lot so perhaps in conjunction with other materials & conditions in the severely damaged buildings it was hot enough to melt the steel structure enough to cause it to fail.

The energy of the towers falling was massive, the friction caused may have been enough to raise the temperature of the steel beams to melting point.
However, the witnesses would not have been able to confirm if the molten steel was from the structural beams or from other structure - It's like my father's sock I found on the floor the other day; did my dad drop it there or did the dog drag it? I have no evidence either way.
(BTW it was the damn dog)

 

Hot spots in the rubble are entirely to be expected.

The collapse of the buildings liberated the potential energy put into them to raise them in the first place, generating heat and noise, but the majority of the energy would have been found as heat, as producing noise requires very little energy, and a commensurately small amount could have been extracted.

This is easily calculable as an amount sufficient to raise one thousand seven hundred tons of steel to its melting point, in the case of a single tower. Knock off 5% for the noise, and the crushing of the concrete - gives you fifteen hundred tons of hot steel.

When thousands of tons of steel floors slide down steel columns they would produce SPARKS, and SPARKS are MICROSPHERES.

Steelwork is protected by RED OXIDE paint and ALUMINUM paint. Oh, aren't they the constituents of "thermite"? Why, so they are...

And Building Seven "wasn't hit by anything" - er, except for 70-ton pieces of WTC1 doing 120 mph. And then it burnt for SEVEN HOURS.

What I'm saying is that it is quite clear that all "theories" so far propounded critically lack science, and demonstrate COGNITIVE BIAS. (Not dissonance.)

 

Jazzy, Bill, before any discussions about what might have caused it's presence, are you acknowledging the presence of molten steel in the wreckage of the WTC buildings, or at least that the evidence available suggests it's presence was probable?

 

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.

It's (note correct use) not our fault that you don't know this. Perhaps you should become more aware of the world around you.

 

No need to get snippy over grammar/punctuation, I'm largely at the mercy of auto-correct here, and I'm not going to argue with the thing over an it's.

Also, I only ask because every critic of 'truthers' I've ever come across has flat out -refused- to make that acknowledgment. It's actually very refreshing to see someone acknowledge the presence of molten steel, even with a few derisive jabs attached.
I wonder if Bill is willing to take the same position.

 

'Hot spots in the rubble are entirely to be expected' - Exactly how hot would you expect?

'The collapse of the buildings liberated the potential energy put into them to raise them in the first place, generating heat and noise, but the majority of the energy would have been found as heat, as producing noise requires very little energy, and a commensurately small amount could have been extracted.

This is easily calculable as an amount sufficient to raise one thousand seven hundred tons of steel to its melting point, in the case of a single tower. Knock off 5% for the noise, and the crushing of the concrete - gives you fifteen hundred tons of hot steel.' 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.

'When thousands of tons of steel floors slide down steel columns they would produce SPARKS, and SPARKS are MICROSPHERES' - What are these sparks microspheres of exactly, please?

'Steelwork is protected by RED OXIDE paint and ALUMINUM paint. Oh, aren't they the constituents of "thermite"? Why, so they are...' No they are not. Red oxide paint is a paint use to prevent oxidization of the subject. It is not a constituent of thermite. The constituents of thermite are aluminum powder and iron oxide - that's 'rust' to you, oxidized iron.

[...]

 

Unusual or not(most experts agree it was, even if they concur with/help composed the official explanation, an unusual event), it still happened, didn't it? And the 9/11 commission was there to give a basic explanation of the series of events, was it not? Even if there's no mystery or controversy, kind of strange to entirely leave out one of three buildings to have collapsed. If a complete layman on the subject, like say a young person five years from now, picked up the book with the intent of learning what happened way back in 2001, they'd have no idea there even was a building 7 when they finished the book off.
It's a strange omission, no matter how you try to slice it.

 

Agreed, it's an interesting theory. I've already reviewed a few of the calculations used to speculate in this regard, as posted by folks in other threads on this site, but a few key elements always seem to be absent from the calculations, and they often seem to treat each tower collapse as a single massive kinetic event, as opposed to thousands of smaller kinetic events stretched out over several seconds.. Suggesting the total kinetic energy generated was somehow concentrated. One went so far as to state the towers collapsed 'with kinetic force to rival the Hiroshima blast', for which he had calculations to demonstrate how/why. The fact is though, even if you add up all the kinetic energy that would have resulted from the collapse, and that number comes to rival the force of a nuclear blast, it's quite entirely clear that force wasn't concentrated, or there would have been a major blast.
Similarly, adding up all the kinetic energy of the collapse and saying that figure could result in enough heat to melt steel is dependent on the accuracy of the calculations used to reach those figures, and whether they treat the tower collapse as a single kinetic event or not. If they don't account for every influencing factor, they can't be considered fact-based. 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.

And yes Mick, I'm speaking of the 9/11 commission. That it's account of the events themselves is only a few pages long is a problem for me in and of itself, but omitting significant details (like a whole building) is a major $&?!-up in my opinion. And yes, the NIST report does have a section on building 7, but that's something you have to search for. The 9/11 Commission's book was the public release, intended to inform everyone/anyone about the events leading up to, during, and after the attack. So why leave out a whole skyscraper? Makes no sense to me.

 

Lol, understood.

 

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.

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...

Pure steel in non-oxidizing conditions. Ferric oxide when oxygen is available.

Red oxide paint is red IRON oxide. "Silver" paint is made of ALUMINUM powder.

Exactly so. Nor were the materials found in the dust. Now tell that to Steven Jones.

 

Mick, anyone here - which bits of this would you agree with?

ps edit - did a question get answered anywhere?

 

You cannot rule it out at all. ALL of that energy MUST be liberated, and the routes to draw off that energy are very limited. That energy can either a) crush concrete b) make noise, or c) bend steel. The first two processes require and absorb very little energy. The third process can absorb a lot of energy. You get a lot of hot bent steel.

That is what happens. If you work steel in a hydraulic forging press you see it happen all the time.*

​

The potential energies of the buildings received little mention in the NIST Report because its focus lay upon the reasons for the collapses, and not their consequences.

* There is no real difference between an impact on steel and its internal temperature. They both involve vibrational movement. The impact energy is COHERENT sound energy; all in a single direction, and instantaneous. The thermal activity is RANDOM sound energy. The former becomes the latter by sound transmission and internal reflection.

 

This is absurd. Mick, for the sake of any kind of credibility - put a stop to this nonsense!

 

Thanks

 

Fair enough. Nothing to do with aa77 etc

 

Pure steel, eh?

Where does that come from?

 

Err.... what portion of that five minute video on various methods of industrial forging has anything to do with what you're talking about..? Watched it... the guy flipping that hot bolt of steel as the huge part-press slammed down on it repeatedly was a deft sob, but I don't see the connection.

 

Please - mate - Post up an example of me being really rude from any one of my 1000 plus posts. I think you'll struggle to find me being even half as nasty as, say, Jazzy. So what gives?

I'll abide by politeness, happily, as long as everyone else is held to the same standard. I don't see that.

 

And you'e right not to see the connection - because there isn't one.

 

The connection is between hammering and bending steel and heating it.*

The bit no-one seems to get is that all of the energy used to raise the building has to be liberated as heat when it collapses, and that the only significant recipient of the energy is the steel itself. Crushing concrete and heating air cannot remove more than around 5-10% of that energy, and the rest must remain in the steel.

The original thesis was instigated by a "truther" engineer with the false argument that because the PE couldn't melt ALL the steelwork (450,000 tons of it!) then the foundations couldn't have contained molten steel from that process.

That was quickly dropped. LOL.

And then suppressed, because it was realized that the possibility of 1700 tons of molten steel down there** argued against the thermite hypothesis. So much for truth...

* Potential energy > kinetic energy > heat. Kinetic energy IS heat. The impact is coherent sound energy, the heat in the steel is incoherent and random sound energy.

** There would be more heat the further down the rubble, as energy would always be transferred and reflected from where the columns reacted at least fifty floor shears against the foundations. At the base.

 

They only require a red hot billet because they cannot deliver sufficiently energetic impacts. Have a look at any destroyed battle tank. How did that come about? Magic?

The columns were candidates for a lot of friction welding (and sparks) as dozens of floors sheared by them.

Recall the stranded center columns standing, all slagged up, before their final buckling instability collapse...

 

Hmmm.

Tank turrets are made of steel, but don't do that much fracturing. They appear to be scooped like butter. It depends on the amount of energy delivered over unit time.

Explosion-forming is a technology which supplies high rates of energy.

Of course the tower steel only reached 120 mph which is a lot slower than a tank round. Nevertheless, heavy impacts create HEAT and high temperatures. This impact heat was sufficient to ignite WTC7, was it not?