|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 10/19/2006 : 14:58:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I'll ignore the seeming contradiction in that you believe something to be true, but are also making no claim that it's true and ask about some of your references.
In particular, most of them are so vague that it's impossible to track them down. I spent 10 minutes trying to find the context of quote 6 but had no luck. Do you have an issue or volume number? Some of the other citations are a bit lacking in information.
Let me know if the link doesn't help with your question.
Yeah, I've been past that for awhile now. I actually addressed your ideas of "molten" steel on the first page. It's the post with the image on it. You've yet to address it. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 15:23:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
So I did some searching into the "molten steel" aspect and came up with a few points. Most come from this site, which made a number of important observations. First is this key point:quote:
The first question that comes to mind is whether these witnesses know the difference between incandescent and molten. Steel can get hot enough to glow long before it gets hot enough to melt. The fact that glowing steel was pulled out of the rubble doesn't mean it was molten.
Good point. And in at least several of the citations given by ergo it's clear that the witnesses weren't experts in judging what molten steel vs. incandescent steel might be. Indeed, notice this:
Before reading the above, I might have said that it was a picture of molten steel. But clearly, it's just incandescent steel.
Moreover, as a number of sites note (and as filthy has probably sad already), the purpose of explosives in demolition is to cut steel beams, not to melt them. Molten steel, then, isn't evidence of demolition; quite the contrary: is suggests long, sustained fires!
In all, then, I'd say that a) there really wasn't much molten steel, and that b) the incandescent steel doesn't suggest explosives, but does suggest fire.
Half of the citations mention either direct observations or reports of others' observations of molten metal “dripping,” “leaking” or “running” at the scene:
“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel (3).”
“A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter ‘Toolie' O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were ‘dripping from the molten steel.' (4)
“An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (8)
“The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: ... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” (10)
“A review of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling ‘heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.'” (11)
I don't think it takes an expert metallurgist to distinguish solids from liquids.
The factual problem with relating molten metal to fires is that the fires generated by the jet fuel and other carbon-based materials don't burn hot enough to melt steel. One needs a controlled, oxygen-rich environment, like in a blast furnace, to melt steel. If anything, the fires under the pile of rubble at Ground Zero would provide an oxygen-starved environment impossible of melting steel or aluminum.
Thermite and Thermate are demolition materials used for quickly cutting through steel. A by-product of their use is molten metal (iron when cutting steel).
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 15:32:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I don't think it takes an expert metallurgist to distinguish solids from liquids.
The factual problem with relating molten metal to fires is that the fires generated by the jet fuel and other carbon-based materials don't burn hot enough to melt steel. One needs a controlled, oxygen-rich environment, like in a blast furnace, to melt steel. If anything, the fires under the pile of rubble at Ground Zero would provide an oxygen-starved environment impossible of melting steel or aluminum.
Thermite and Thermate are demolition materials used for quickly cutting through steel. A by-product of their use is molten metal (iron when cutting steel).
I remain unconvinced that some-- if not all-- of the observations include some exaggeration. That said, it is entirely unlikely that a bomb blast of some sort would be able to generate the type of heat to keep the metal "molten" for days after the event. Indeed, if the accounts are right that lots of people were seeing lots of molten metal, then we must posit that some other factor were in play-- like a giant metal processing plant below the WTC still in operation? I don't know-- in either case, I can find no evidence that a blast would generate massive amounts of heat to melt steel such that said steel would remain melted days later.
Note again: your own quote says "21 days later"! Are we to imagine that super-quiet undetectable explosives were still going off 3 weeks after 9/11 and melting steel?
(edited for emphasis) |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 10/19/2006 15:36:11 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 15:43:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I don't think it takes an expert metallurgist to distinguish solids from liquids.
No, but you need a metallurgist to tell liquid steel from liquid aluminium. There was a lot of aluminium in those buildings. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 16:02:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I don't think it takes an expert metallurgist to distinguish solids from liquids.
The factual problem with relating molten metal to fires is that the fires generated by the jet fuel and other carbon-based materials don't burn hot enough to melt steel. One needs a controlled, oxygen-rich environment, like in a blast furnace, to melt steel. If anything, the fires under the pile of rubble at Ground Zero would provide an oxygen-starved environment impossible of melting steel or aluminum.
Thermite and Thermate are demolition materials used for quickly cutting through steel. A by-product of their use is molten metal (iron when cutting steel).
quote:
I remain unconvinced that some-- if not all-- of the observations include some exaggeration.
What evidence do you have that any of these people were exaggerating or even had reason to exaggerate?
quote:
That said, it is entirely unlikely that a bomb blast of some sort would be able to generate the type of heat to keep the metal "molten" for days after the event.
And what is your claim based on? Why is it entirely unlikely?
A little additional info on thermite:
Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction when they are heated to ignition temperature. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2500 °C (4500 °F) with iron(III) oxide)—although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air.
quote:
Indeed, if the accounts are right that lots of people were seeing lots of molten metal, then we must posit that some other factor were in play-- like a giant metal processing plant below the WTC still in operation?
Oh, is that where the tiny little blue elves work? 
quote:
I don't know-- in either case, I can find no evidence that a blast would generate massive amounts of heat to melt steel such that said steel would remain melted days later.
But thermite and/or thermate (those are aluminothermic reactants) would.
quote:
Note again: your own quote says "21 days later"! Are we to imagine that super-quiet undetectable explosives were still going off 3 weeks after 9/11 and melting steel?
No. But it's not too difficult to imaging the 4000*F temps from the thermite reactions would stay hot due to the insulating effect of the rubble that covered them 10 seconds after they went off.[fishsl |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 16:04:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I don't think it takes an expert metallurgist to distinguish solids from liquids.
No, but you need a metallurgist to tell liquid steel from liquid aluminium. There was a lot of aluminium in those buildings.
Even if the jet fuel fires were hot enough to melt aluminum, those fires were out within the first 5 or 10 minutes after impact of the respective planes, according to NIST. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/19/2006 16:05:05 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/19/2006 : 16:06:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Thermite and Thermate are demolition materials used for quickly cutting through steel. A by-product of their use is molten metal (iron when cutting steel).
And at least partially for that very reason, those substances are not used in explosive implosions. They would make a job that much more dangerous with molten metal flying around. But the main reason they are not used is because those not high explosives, but heat producers and used as such. They are often used in specialized welding applications.
On the other hand, they can be hombrewed easily and the Anarchist's Cookbook even has a recipe, and no, you evil-minded bastards, I am not going to link to it!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 16:37:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Thermite and Thermate are demolition materials used for quickly cutting through steel. A by-product of their use is molten metal (iron when cutting steel).
And at least partially for that very reason, those substances are not used in explosive implosions. They would make a job that much more dangerous with molten metal flying around. But the main reason they are not used is because those not high explosives, but heat producers and used as such. They are often used in specialized welding applications.
What's your point here filthy? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 16:44:56 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Filthy for bringing up my next point. You don't use thermite to bring down buildings. Its volitility coupled with the fact that it can burn at such high temperatures and is so difficult to smother makes it an unlikely candidate for use in such a capacity.
As for the eye-witness accounts, it is simply something I believe to be the case. Before reading the discussions in the link I provided (you almost certainly didn't bother to read it), I would have said that the photo showed molten steel, and i fI had seen it in real life-- cranes moving red-hot metal, complete with flying debris, sparks, and so on-- it is entirely likely that I would have used adjectives such as liquid and melting and the like to describe it.
I assume that others-- peopel generally concerned with other issues and only tangentally interested in metallurgy-- could have done the same. That coupled with some of the things I brought up already leads me to think that the witness accounts are not entirely reliable.
Again-- overall, I find the "molten metal" argument to be woefully lacking. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 16:47:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What's your point here filthy?
His point is that using thermite in demolitions is a bad idea, as it is unstable (making it dangerous for the people working with it) and it can burn in rubble for a long time, meaning that clean up is difficult. So it's not used. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 17:06:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Thanks, Filthy for bringing up my next point. You don't use thermite to bring down buildings. Its volitility coupled with the fact that it can burn at such high temperatures and is so difficult to smother makes it an unlikely candidate for use in such a capacity.
Um, so you are saying that it is an unlikely candidate because it would be too dangerous?  You do realize we are talking about a criminal event, right? I could see your point if it was an old building contracted to be demolished. But the goal here--if such materials were used to bring down the buildings--was to make it look like terrorists attacked us; it means whoever did it was willing to kill thousands of people.
You guys continue to think of this as a traditional job--with all the safety and OSHA concerns that would go along with it. You really crack me up!
quote:
As for the eye-witness accounts, it is simply something I believe to be the case.
Ah--you stick with your unsupported opinion in the face of observed data. I didn't realize "skeptic" meant 'someone who only believes what they thought before seeing any evidence...'
quote:
Before reading the discussions in the link I provided (you almost certainly didn't bother to read it), I would have said that the photo showed molten steel, and if I had seen it in real life-- cranes moving red-hot metal, complete with flying debris, sparks, and so on-- it is entirely likely that I would have used adjectives such as liquid and melting and the like to describe it.
I did read it--and the resolution in the photo is so low it's impossible to determine if there is molten metal dripping off those beams. And that you would use a word like "liquid" to describe a solid just points out your lack of command of the English language. Don't assume everyone is confused by the difference! 
quote:
Again-- overall, I find the "molten metal" argument to be woefully lacking.
Yet you provide no evidence of its lacking. So I am left to consider your opinion on this matter as "woefully and willfully ignorant," and you, a poor sport. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 17:08:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What's your point here filthy?
His point is that using thermite in demolitions is a bad idea, as it is unstable (making it dangerous for the people working with it) and it can burn in rubble for a long time, meaning that clean up is difficult. So it's not used.
Huh. And didn't you notice how long the hotspots at ground zero lasted? You guys are helping me prove the point. Thanks! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 17:14:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What's your point here filthy?
His point is that using thermite in demolitions is a bad idea, as it is unstable (making it dangerous for the people working with it) and it can burn in rubble for a long time, meaning that clean up is difficult. So it's not used.
Yes, that and passing along a little information I find interesting. I do that, sometimes.
I've never used thermite myself, but I was required to know something about it. It's really handy stuff and used in industrial applications and in some munitions. It produces extremely high temperatures, and these can be adjusted by the makeup of the thermite itself. Just swap the aluminum for, say, copper or iron and you change the temps.
Fascinating, no?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 17:25:11 [Permalink]
|
Does thermite explode? Or just sort of flare up and sizzle? Remember, part of ergo's claims are that people on the ground heard explosions as the towers were falling.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 17:30:17 [Permalink]
|
| I'm still interesting in "if the only possible way for that molten metal to get where it was was through the use of explosives or aluminothermic reactants," because if the answer is "no," then all the discussion so far in this thread is moot. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Molten metal
