| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Incredible heat was created during the collapse of the towers due to friction. This physical process is well understood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Incredible heat was created during the collapse of the towers due to friction. This physical process is well understood. |
I'd like to see the term 'incredible heat' quantified here, with some real world, real time examples if possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
435 M kg of mass an average of 200m above the ground
That's about 850 billion joules of energy. If 10% of that is converted into heat via friction (a very conservative estimate, to be certain), that would be 85 billion joules of energy converted to heat, per tower, due to the collapse.
85 billion joules is alot of heat. To give you some idea of how much heat 85 billion joules, I'll calculate how much steel I could melt with 85 billion joules, given perfect effeciency. The steel was preheated by the fire. NIST reports maximum fire temps reached 1000 degrees celsius, we'll say 800 degrees celsius, just to give you some more breathing room. From there, steel melts at about 1350 degrees celsius... So we'd need to heat the steal 550 degrees.
The specific heat of steel is 450 joules per kilogram per degree celsius... given that information, with 550 degrees, and 85 billion joules, I can melt around 340,000 kgs, or 750,000 pounds or about 375 tons of steel.
Now, I admit, perfect conditions is a little ridiculous, so lets chop that number by 2 orders of magnitude.. just more some breathing room... 3.75 tons of melted steel, per tower, for a total of 7.5 tons of melted steel.
Now, let's consider the fact that there is no proof that the molten metal was STEEL. Do you really want me to repeat this calculation with aluminum? Was that quantified enough for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The above posting surely contradicts NIST's explanation for molten metal found deep in the WTC1,2 and 7 rubble 8 weeks after the event. And of course NIST's story needs revising as you can see with your own eyes that the twin tower floors with the 1 and 2 hour appx' well below optimum efficiency fires were blown out horizontally by some energy source in micro particle in four directions catching the wind and sending toxins toward New Jersey. So the twin tower 60 and 80th (appx')floor fires can be cancelled from the below ground zero metal melting heat equation. Dr.Stephen Jones of BYU is on record ('Alex Jones terrorstorm DVD') stating his research drew him to the conclusion the molten metal found in the WTC basements 8 weeks post 9/11 was not aluminium, I don't know if anyone here who wants to contradict this has also had a 'hands on' opportunity to examine these specimens.
Friction heating melting steel is a new one to me, I've heard of molten metal being found in the rubble of buildings that have had controlled demolition but this is due to the incendiaries used. Perhaps someone could post a link? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | The above posting surely contradicts NIST's explanation for molten metal found deep in the WTC1,2 and 7 rubble 8 weeks after the event. |
Surely? You just substitute that word for proof... well done.
| Quote: | | And of course NIST's story needs revising as you can see with your own eyes that the twin tower floors with the 1 and 2 hour appx' well below optimum efficiency fires were blown out horizontally by some energy source in micro particle in four directions catching the wind and sending toxins toward New Jersey. So the twin tower 60 and 80th (appx')floor fires can be cancelled from the below ground zero metal melting heat equation. |
Red Herring. Distraction. Smoke and mirrors. Choose your favorite name for the same fallacy.
| Quote: | Dr.Stephen Jones of BYU is on record ('Alex Jones terrorstorm DVD') stating his research drew him to the conclusion the molten metal found in the WTC basements 8 weeks post 9/11 was not aluminium, I don't know if anyone here who wants to contradict this has also had a 'hands on' opportunity to examine these specimens.
|
His "research" is not scientific. When he publishes it in a scientific journal, let me know.
| Quote: |
Friction heating melting steel is a new one to me |
It is? Really? What happens when you grind aluminum with an industrial grinder not made for aluminum? Hint: It melts.
| Quote: |
I've heard of molten metal being found in the rubble of buildings that have had controlled demolition but this is due to the incendiaries used. |
This reason breaks down as follows:
A implies B. (CD makes molten metal)
B is true (there was molten metal)
Therefore, A is true. (CD)
Logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
Friction heating melting steel is a new one to me, |
Take a piece of steel, such as a crowbar, and strike a glancing blow against the sidewalk.
See the sparks? That's molten steel.
Magnify the effect by several million times, and.... well, you begin to get the idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | 435 M kg of mass an average of 200m above the ground
That's about 850 billion joules of energy. If 10% of that is converted into heat via friction (a very conservative estimate, to be certain), that would be 85 billion joules of energy converted to heat, per tower, due to the collapse.
85 billion joules is alot of heat. To give you some idea of how much heat 85 billion joules, I'll calculate how much steel I could melt with 85 billion joules, given perfect effeciency. The steel was preheated by the fire. NIST reports maximum fire temps reached 1000 degrees celsius, we'll say 800 degrees celsius, just to give you some more breathing room. From there, steel melts at about 1350 degrees celsius... So we'd need to heat the steal 550 degrees.
The specific heat of steel is 450 joules per kilogram per degree celsius... given that information, with 550 degrees, and 85 billion joules, I can melt around 340,000 kgs, or 750,000 pounds or about 375 tons of steel.
Now, I admit, perfect conditions is a little ridiculous, so lets chop that number by 2 orders of magnitude.. just more some breathing room... 3.75 tons of melted steel, per tower, for a total of 7.5 tons of melted steel.
Now, let's consider the fact that there is no proof that the molten metal was STEEL. Do you really want me to repeat this calculation with aluminum? Was that quantified enough for you? |
While the figures certainly looked intimidatingly correct, I could see there was a fallacy in there but how to expose it in such a way as not to turn it into a dry math argument that would be incomprehensible for many. I asked myself 'How would Jesus prove the WTC didn't melt itself in mid air? - and lo! from the world of the carpenter came the answer.
1300ft of WTC fell in lets say 13 seconds for round numbers - some say 10s some say 14s, so 13s seems fair. An average of 100ft per second.
I girded my trusty Black and Decker verily with a 6 inch carbide grinding disc, and worked out that at 2800rpm that would give roughly a speed of 70ft per second. I'd adjust the soak time to 20 seconds to allow for that.
I ground some concrete garden slab. I ground some angle iron. I ground some aluminium (without lubricant which left a disc cleanup job of a type I'm not used to. And you know what?
Using a common or kitchen oven thermometer, and excluding sparking, I didn't record a maintained temperature above 220F.
I think what this shows in a practical way, to use an analogy, is that while indeed a million electric kettles may have the collective power of a battlefield tactical nuke, you're still only going to end up with 125,000 gallons of boiling water rather than a mushroom cloud.
Allowing for the lesser differential in speed of material all falling in the same direction - that is not in direct hi-speed opposition - the friction argument certainly appears a bogus one in practice.
This is an experiment the boys and girls can try at home!
Be sure to wear safety goggles and gloves! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeez! why do we bother with these 911Inside job denyer mass debaters? they have no arguement so they take things you say out of context ,pull you up on your syntax or just talk plain BS!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | While the figures certainly looked intimidatingly correct, I could see there was a fallacy in there but how to expose it in such a way as not to turn it into a dry math argument that would be incomprehensible for many. I asked myself 'How would Jesus prove the WTC didn't melt itself in mid air? - and lo! from the world of the carpenter came the answer.
1300ft of WTC fell in lets say 13 seconds for round numbers - some say 10s some say 14s, so 13s seems fair. An average of 100ft per second.
I girded my trusty Black and Decker verily with a 6 inch carbide grinding disc, and worked out that at 2800rpm that would give roughly a speed of 70ft per second. I'd adjust the soak time to 20 seconds to allow for that.
I ground some concrete garden slab. I ground some angle iron. I ground some aluminium (without lubricant which left a disc cleanup job of a type I'm not used to. And you know what?
Using a common or kitchen oven thermometer, and excluding sparking, I didn't record a maintained temperature above 220F.
I think what this shows in a practical way, to use an analogy, is that while indeed a million electric kettles may have the collective power of a battlefield tactical nuke, you're still only going to end up with 125,000 gallons of boiling water rather than a mushroom cloud.
Allowing for the lesser differential in speed of material all falling in the same direction - that is not in direct hi-speed opposition - the friction argument certainly appears a bogus one in practice.
This is an experiment the boys and girls can try at home!
Be sure to wear safety goggles and gloves! |
Your reasoning seems sound here, and its possible that your experiment could be scaled up to apply to a collapsing 1000-foot building. However, in trying to determine how melted metal that was found under the rubble was produced, we have to consider the following:
1. We don't know what kind of molten metal it was, having only anecdotal evidence that it existed at all.
2. We have no way of being sure that the molten substance found was produced by the collapse and/or aftermath, or by the efforts to cut the debris into manageable chunks to clear the site.
3. Any explanation that assumes a collapse/aftermath cause has to account for the fact that melting temperatures were maintained for weeks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I girded my trusty Black and Decker verily with a 6 inch carbide grinding disc, and worked out that at 2800rpm that would give roughly a speed of 70ft per second. I'd adjust the soak time to 20 seconds to allow for that.
|
Your experiment is flawed, both in theory, and in methodology.
The energy of a single piece of aluminum falling isn't enough to melt it. You need the energy of alot more material falling to melt a smaller piece of metal. In other words, how hard did you push your grinder into the aluminum? Normal force is everything when talking about friction.
You need alot of normal force to increase friction to the melting point of the metal. This, in the building, is provided by all the weight on top creating "pressure". In other words, at 2800 rpm, the friction and heat generated is proprotional to the normal force you apply the aluminum to the grinder. You probably stuck it there with a few ounces of force holding the aluminum to the grinder. Try grindig it at 3000 rpm with 20 pounds of force. Then try 1000. Then try 100,000. It'll melt, I promise.
| Quote: |
I think what this shows in a practical way, to use an analogy, is that while indeed a million electric kettles may have the collective power of a battlefield tactical nuke, you're still only going to end up with 125,000 gallons of boiling water rather than a mushroom cloud.
|
This is a well understood physical concept called power. Power is the ability to release energy in a given amount of time.
When you try my new version of your experient, you'll find your grinder isn't able to spin at 3000 rpm with 1000 pounds of force on the aluminum.. why? Because it doesn't have enough power. I use that in the strict scientific way, not the normal way..
The reason that a million kettles don't produce a mushroom cloud has everything to do with power, and nothing to do with energy. This is identical to why your grinder can't reproduce molten metal.. it doesn't have enough power, compared with the collapse of a building.
| Quote: |
This is an experiment the boys and girls can try at home!
Be sure to wear safety goggles and gloves!
|
Also, please, be very careful when grinding aluminum. I know CTers don't understand thermite, at all, but liquid or powdered aluminum is VERY reactive, and can react VIOLENTLY with iron oxide (rust), among other things (including water vapor, producing hydrogen, which has a tendency to explode). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Incredible heat was created during the collapse of the towers due to friction. This physical process is well understood. |
I think we badly need a link for this "well understood process". It surely must occur with every conrolled demolition, there must be countless examples out there.Someone should tell NIST!
...and everytime I hit a steel object on concrete and achieve a spark...I've reached the melting point of steel? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
I think we badly need a link for this "well understood process".
|
Why? A link to something doesn't make it true.
| Quote: | It surely must occur with every conrolled demolition, there must be countless examples out there.Someone should tell NIST!
|
Why? There are no controlled demolitions anywhere near the size of the WTC collapse.
| Quote: | | ...and everytime I hit a steel object on concrete and achieve a spark...I've reached the melting point of steel? |
Yes, on a very small scale. The sparks are so small that they won't even burn you, but they are energetic enough to be visible. If you've ever seen a car trying to drive on metal rims, you will see it on a larger scale. In this case, the sparks are large enough to start fires. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
I think we badly need a link for this "well understood process".
|
. Why? A link to something doesn't make it true
UH?
| Quote: | It surely must occur with every conrolled demolition, there must be countless examples out there.Someone should tell NIST!
|
Why? There are no controlled demolitions anywhere near the size of the WTC collapse.
THERE WOULD SURELY BE THIS REACTION MEASURABLE PROPORTIONAL TO THE SIZE OF CD?
| Quote: | | ...and everytime I hit a steel object on concrete and achieve a spark...I've reached the melting point of steel? |
Yes, on a very small scale. The sparks are so small that they won't even burn you, but they are energetic enough to be visible. If you've ever seen a car trying to drive on metal rims, you will see it on a larger scale. In this case, the sparks are large enough to start fires. |
They're X thousand degree centigrade...but won't burn you  are you bullsh!tting me?
On a general point, after five years NIST have, to my knowledge, never mentioned this building falling friction effect that resulted in pools of molten metal in the basements, it just gets curiouser and curiouser round here! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | They're X thousand degree centigrade...but won't burn you are you bullsh!tting me?
|
You're confusing heat and temperature.
What would you prefer falling on your arm, a spark from a sparkler or a pint of boiling water?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On a general point, after five years NIST have, to my knowledge, never mentioned this building falling friction effect that resulted in pools of molten metal in the basements, it just gets curiouser and curiouser round here! |
NIST is interested in HOW the buildings collapsed. What happens after they collapse isn't of any concern to anyone except conspiracy theorists. NIST mission statement isn't to answer every single question in the universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I think we badly need a link for this "well understood process". |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29
The energy went somewhere, due to the first law of Thermodynamics. All energy lost to friction becomes heat. Friction is the MAIN energy sink in the collapse of a building. If you want to argue with any of the basic science above, let me know. Once you've agreed with that, take a look at my calculations, and tell me the mistakes I've made. If you refuse to learn the high school physics involved to understand my calculation, you really have no business expressing your opinion on it's validity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
I think we badly need a link for this "well understood process". |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29
The energy went somewhere, due to the first law of Thermodynamics. All energy lost to friction becomes heat. Friction is the MAIN energy sink in the collapse of a building. If you want to argue with any of the basic science above, let me know. Once you've agreed with that, take a look at my calculations, and tell me the mistakes I've made. If you refuse to learn the high school physics involved to understand my calculation, you really have no business expressing your opinion on it's validity. |
Where in those links does it explain the "well understood process" of the falling friction of buildings collapsing CD style resulting in basements swimming with molten steel 8 weeks post collapse? maybe Aggle' let a freudian slip by saying 'a link doesn't make it true'?
We really are straying a long way from NIST's 'natural blast furnace' smelting metal for weeks in the pile . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
On a general point, after five years NIST have, to my knowledge, never mentioned this building falling friction effect that resulted in pools of molten metal in the basements, it just gets curiouser and curiouser round here! |
NIST is interested in HOW the buildings collapsed. What happens after they collapse isn't of any concern to anyone except conspiracy theorists. NIST mission statement isn't to answer every single question in the universe. |
What happened after the collapses, surely, tells us HOW they collapsed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | Where in those links does it explain the "well understood process" of the falling friction of buildings collapsing CD style resulting in basements swimming with molten steel 8 weeks post collapse? maybe Aggle' let a freudian slip by saying 'a link doesn't make it true'?
We really are straying a long way from NIST's 'natural blast furnace' smelting metal for weeks in the pile . |
Why do YOU think there were pools of molten metal in the basements? Does the answer lend any support at all to the idea that the US government killed thousands of its own people? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
I girded my trusty Black and Decker verily with a 6 inch carbide grinding disc, and worked out that at 2800rpm that would give roughly a speed of 70ft per second. I'd adjust the soak time to 20 seconds to allow for that.
|
Your experiment is flawed, both in theory, and in methodology.
The energy of a single piece of aluminum falling isn't enough to melt it. You need the energy of alot more material falling to melt a smaller piece of metal. In other words, how hard did you push your grinder into the aluminum? Normal force is everything when talking about friction.
You need alot of normal force to increase friction to the melting point of the metal. This, in the building, is provided by all the weight on top creating "pressure". In other words, at 2800 rpm, the friction and heat generated is proprotional to the normal force you apply the aluminum to the grinder. You probably stuck it there with a few ounces of force holding the aluminum to the grinder. Try grindig it at 3000 rpm with 20 pounds of force. Then try 1000. Then try 100,000. It'll melt, I promise.
| Quote: |
I think what this shows in a practical way, to use an analogy, is that while indeed a million electric kettles may have the collective power of a battlefield tactical nuke, you're still only going to end up with 125,000 gallons of boiling water rather than a mushroom cloud.
|
This is a well understood physical concept called power. Power is the ability to release energy in a given amount of time.
When you try my new version of your experient, you'll find your grinder isn't able to spin at 3000 rpm with 1000 pounds of force on the aluminum.. why? Because it doesn't have enough power. I use that in the strict scientific way, not the normal way..
The reason that a million kettles don't produce a mushroom cloud has everything to do with power, and nothing to do with energy. This is identical to why your grinder can't reproduce molten metal.. it doesn't have enough power, compared with the collapse of a building.
| Quote: |
This is an experiment the boys and girls can try at home!
Be sure to wear safety goggles and gloves!
|
Also, please, be very careful when grinding aluminum. I know CTers don't understand thermite, at all, but liquid or powdered aluminum is VERY reactive, and can react VIOLENTLY with iron oxide (rust), among other things (including water vapor, producing hydrogen, which has a tendency to explode). |
It seems to me that during the free fall stage of the collapse if anything the material was being thrown sideways to approx twice the width of the building, and not being compacted together to produce the necessary friction.
Also, the calculations somehow neglect the not inconsequential mass of the inches thick blanket of dust spread for acres all over downtown Manhattan.
I agree with you about the release of power and the time over which it is released being important. And yet, very little of that mass of paper seemd to be charred or burnt during the collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
I agree with you about the release of power and the time over which it is released being important. And yet, very little of that mass of paper seemd to be charred or burnt during the collapse. |
To verify that, we would have to know how much unburned paper was left over in the building at the time of collapse, and how much remained afterwards. I wouldn't expect to find the kind of light, fluffy ashes that are normally produced by burning paper, because it would have been crushed and mixed in with the other debris, like many of the bodies that were never found.
Still, for some reason I keep coming back to the question: Why is this relevant to the question of how the buildings collapsed? How does a govt. conspiracy explain the molten metal better than any competing theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
I agree with you about the release of power and the time over which it is released being important. And yet, very little of that mass of paper seemd to be charred or burnt during the collapse. |
To verify that, we would have to know how much unburned paper was left over in the building at the time of collapse, and how much remained afterwards. I wouldn't expect to find the kind of light, fluffy ashes that are normally produced by burning paper, because it would have been crushed and mixed in with the other debris, like many of the bodies that were never found.
Still, for some reason I keep coming back to the question: Why is this relevant to the question of how the buildings collapsed? How does a govt. conspiracy explain the molten metal better than any competing theory? |
The main physical evidence would be Jones reporting of thermate residues - the oxidised reddish solidified metal being iron or iron based.
That was not produced by jetfuel fires, or any other unaspirated hydrocarbon fire. Producing the temperatures required is a science that does not happen by accident in the same three locations that steel frame buildings collapsed in what may well prove to be the smallest footprints possible for buildings of their size.
And yet, use of thermite only answers some but not all of the questions about the destruction of the towers. It seems likely other agents were involved too.
At the risk of sounding repetetive, a new investigation is required that seeks to answer questions rather than stifle them in the name of whatever interests the 911 Commision sought to protect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
Where in those links does it explain the "well understood process" of the falling friction of buildings collapsing CD style resulting in basements swimming with molten steel 8 weeks post collapse? maybe Aggle' let a freudian slip by saying 'a link doesn't make it true'?
We really are straying a long way from NIST's 'natural blast furnace' smelting metal for weeks in the pile . |
Again, the building had 850 billion joules of energy just by standing up. When it collapse, all that energy went somewhere. Where did it go? Once we subtract the "energy of pulverization", where did the rest of the energy go? Pulverization is a very ineffecent process, in and of itself, and even in a pure pulverizing machine, much of the energy that goes into it is converted to heat. Again, where does the rest of the energy go? There is only one answer to that question. And running the math on that answer produces alot of heat.
Your continuing denying the basic physics here and claiming it's "unlikely" shows you don't understand the very basics of the first law of thermodynamics.
If the energy didn't go into heat, where did it go? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
The main physical evidence would be Jones reporting of thermate residues - the oxidised reddish solidified metal being iron or iron based.
That was not produced by jetfuel fires, or any other unaspirated hydrocarbon fire. Producing the temperatures required is a science that does not happen by accident in the same three locations that steel frame buildings collapsed in what may well prove to be the smallest footprints possible for buildings of their size.
|
Jones' result aren't scientific and therefore basing conclusions on is flawed. His analysis hasn't gone through the appropriate channels to be peer-reviewed and agreed upon. He's afraid, more than likely, because he knows it is wrong.
Again, when he is willing to post his scientific work in a scientific journal, it will be taken seriously as science. Until then it's nothing more than a hypothesis that you are basing your entire world view on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
The main physical evidence would be Jones reporting of thermate residues - the oxidised reddish solidified metal being iron or iron based.
That was not produced by jetfuel fires, or any other unaspirated hydrocarbon fire.
|
When Jones' work becomes publishable in a scientific journal, I might consider his conclusions to be more valid. Until then...
| Quote: | | Producing the temperatures required is a science that does not happen by accident in the same three locations that steel frame buildings collapsed in what may well prove to be the smallest footprints possible for buildings of their size. |
I think the footprints COULD have been smaller. For instance, the towers COULD have collapsed without destroying buildings a block away, and WTC7 COULD have collapsed without its debris being heaped up several stories high against the building across the street.
| Quote: |
And yet, use of thermite only answers some but not all of the questions about the destruction of the towers. It seems likely other agents were involved too.
|
It's not simply that thermite is not SUFFICIENT to explain the destruction, it's that it just doesn't make sense at all. Pure thermite would have survived the crash and fire, but is too slow-burning to be useful in severing large steel beams. Thermate would be better at this, but wouldn't have survived the fires because it's more volatile. That leaves purely speculative new thermite devices which might have somehow survived the fire, burned quickly through the steel, and could be directed vertically to cut through the supports it was supposed to have cut through. By this time, you're REALLY reaching. Saying "we know that thermite was used, but since that's completely implausible, there must have been other agents as well" just doesn't cut it.
| Quote: |
At the risk of sounding repetetive, a new investigation is required that seeks to answer questions rather than stifle them in the name of whatever interests the 911 Commision sought to protect. |
NIST has already addressed many of the questions put forth by "truthers" in their FAQ page, taking them far more seriously than I ever would have done. Do you not find these answers sufficient, and if not, why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
It seems to me that during the free fall stage of the collapse if anything the material was being thrown sideways to approx twice the width of the building, and not being compacted together to produce the necessary friction. Also, the calculations somehow neglect the not inconsequential mass of the inches thick blanket of dust spread for acres all over downtown Manhattan.
I agree with you about the release of power and the time over which it is released being important. And yet, very little of that mass of paper seemd to be charred or burnt during the collapse. |
Yes my calculation does take all of that into account, crudely. I specifically said that only 10% of the energy is converted into friction for heating metal. That's 85 billion joules. That leaves the other 90% for pulverizing concrete (which produces heat, anyway), and spreading dust and other debris around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
Where in those links does it explain the "well understood process" of the falling friction of buildings collapsing CD style resulting in basements swimming with molten steel 8 weeks post collapse? maybe Aggle' let a freudian slip by saying 'a link doesn't make it true'?
We really are straying a long way from NIST's 'natural blast furnace' smelting metal for weeks in the pile . |
Again, the building had 850 billion joules of energy just by standing up. When it collapse, all that energy went somewhere. Where did it go? Once we subtract the "energy of pulverization", where did the rest of the energy go? Pulverization is a very ineffecent process, in and of itself, and even in a pure pulverizing machine, much of the energy that goes into it is converted to heat. Again, where does the rest of the energy go? There is only one answer to that question. And running the math on that answer produces alot of heat.
Your continuing denying the basic physics here and claiming it's "unlikely" shows you don't understand the very basics of the first law of thermodynamics.
If the energy didn't go into heat, where did it go? |
Nitpick
NIST estimated each building had 400,000,000,000 (4*10^11) joules of energy stored. The 8,000,000,000 (8*10^9) joules figure came from their estimate of the amount of PKE stored above the impact point on WTC 1. I have estimated the PKE stored above the impact point of WTC 2 as being ~17.3*10^9 joules PE
/Nitpick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, 850 billion verseus 400 billion is only a factor of 2. I divded by 100 in my calculation, so it doesn't really change much. That "error" is well within the noise. Even if I propagate it, I get 3.5 tons or so, of melted steel, between the two towers.
The calculation is so crude that any particular numerical answer isn't really relevant.. none of the inputs were that accurate. The point is to demonstrate that saying its "impossible" to produce molten metal given the official story, is provably false. It's incredibly easy to show that there is PLENTY of heat to melt even steel. And melt lots of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Well, 850 billion verseus 400 billion is only a factor of 2. I divded by 100 in my calculation, so it doesn't really change much. That "error" is well within the noise. Even if I propagate it, I get 3.5 tons or so, of melted steel, between the two towers.
The calculation is so crude that any particular numerical answer isn't really relevant.. none of the inputs were that accurate. The point is to demonstrate that saying its "impossible" to produce molten metal given the official story, is provably false. It's incredibly easy to show that there is PLENTY of heat to melt even steel. And melt lots of it. |
Especially when the energy sink for "pulverization" isn't actually going to 60 microns, or costs 1.5 kWh/t. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
