Discussion in '9/11' started by muttkat, Jul 1, 2013.
^ I don't have a science background but isn't this true? thanks
It depends on exactly what is mean by "vaporise solid steel". If it were actually vaporized or "dustified" it would become pyrophoric in air and spontaneously ignite.
If we are talking about a sudden application of energy sufficient to instantly turn steel into a gas via heating, then that would probably result in a massive explosion, even for a small amount of steel. Consider what happens when 0.1g of steel at the tip of an arc welder is vaporized with electromagnetic energy.
Now scale that up by a factor of about 100 million for a 10 tonne girder, then repeat several thousand times. Goodbye Manhattan.
The only thing that would work would be some kind of magic transmutation. Without more details about exactly what is being suggested I don't really think there's much point giving it any serious analysis.
So vaporization of steel is out first round then, isn't it ridiculous to even consider? Woods just made up the word 'dustification', under *no circumstance* could steel turn to dust, right?
Sorry I'm dense with science but my BS detector is usually on lol.. thanks, I so hate the pervasiveness of pseudoscience!
You can turn steel to dust with a file or abrasive stone, although it would take a long time. But there's no physical mechanism of turning steel to dust with an energy beam. All you can do is heat it up.
Steel is not like concrete. You could perhaps imagine some kind of very strong energy beam shaking concrete until it fractured and turned to dust. But steel does not fracture when you shake it, it's very plastic.
It's basically magic. There's no known technology that would do that without basically melting the beams.
And it's all moot anyway, as the steel did not turn to dust, there's zero evidence of that.
Great, thank you!! What science classes/background do you recommend for combating most engineering pseudoscience related to this- physics & civil/structural engineering? I want to be able to understand the basics up to the mostly relevant harder stuff and know I need calc. up to diff. equations to learn and be able to explain math to my employees the pseudoscientific misconceptions, and want to approach from both a macro logic and a methodical approach, eventually. thank you Metabunk rocks!
Really the most useful thing to have a grounding in basic math, not really anything more than high school algebra, trig and geometry though. I've almost never used calculus. The science is generally stuff you can look up, however you need to be able to understand the math that's involved.
I’ve read that IF one could turn steel into dust, then it’s likely that there would of been a massive dust explosion, similar to a wheat dust explosion.
Perhaps worse than a wheat dust explosion, since metal “dusts” can be used as a fuel source for fuel-air bombs.
Any opinions on that?
You’d need the right dust/air mix for an explosion. So not really. Probably impossible.
It’s a moot point though. “Dustification” is not defined, so you can’t extrapolate. First you have to explain where the atomic bond energy goes, and then how big are the dust particles. Otherwise it’s just appealing to magic.
Think about how much energy is needed simply to snap a girder in two. Then multiply by a trillion to get dust.
I remember at the time a Dr Greg Jenkins calculated the energy required to "dustify" the buildings was greater than the entire Earth's power output.
Having read parts from Judy's book and seen the presentations I believe what she it talking about is the actual bonds between atoms/molecules breaking though how this happens she claims does not matter. The Hutchinson effect is mentioned but that doesn't seem to help the argument either. Also the claim that this destruction was a statement to the world i.e. yes we have the power to destroy a building like the first atomic bomb but why would you do this to your own people? So yes its not just steel or iron turning to dust it's everything in the building so wood, metal filling cabinets, concrete.... as for how this was done going into the realms of sci fi as so many have pointed out currently as far as we know there are no weapons that can break the physical bonds of matter in such a way apart from aeons of time - thats the geology side of me coming out! As for how much iron was used in the construction vs. how much was shipped to China & India - somebody must know would clear up this justification of the girders?
a symbolic amount of steel was recycled and built a US navy ship
Separate names with a comma.