9/11, an inside job?

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
On the 911 debunker site they (whoever he is) is now under the theory that the molten iron recovered after some weeks was 'melted' by friction during the fall.

The site even has the math to go along with it but what is the exact part that subtracts the energy needed to pulverize all the concrete from what was available to 'melt steel'.

Perhaps Dex would like to review the theory about steam and iron being able to combine to melt steel. It seems a little far fetched when they are more reasonable answers available. The part I stalled at was where the 700degC temps, to begin a process, originated from. Like the explanation below that needs



Abbreviations: gigaJoules (gJ) = 1,000 megaJoules (MJ). To heat steel to the melting point requires about 0.68 gJ of heat to be added for each tonne (metric ton) of steel. Enough more heat has to be added to melt it. Total is about 1 gJ/tonne. All we require is enough heat to obtain yellow hot steel, approximately 0.6 gJ/tonne. However, for simplicity and to allow for losses, assume 1 gJ/tonne of yellow hot steel in the basement(s) of WTC 1 & 2(?).

This could easily be supplied by a pressure pulse down the box columns as each floor is stripped off.
Again, for simplicity of analysis, assume 100 floors each supplied the same sized pulse of energy down the box column. Then each floor supplied 10 MJ. Calculations shows that this amount of energy, distributed over the horizontal area of the box columns, only provides a small fraction of the pressure required to cause structural steel to yield. So ignoring the top 10 floors to allow a further 10% loss in energy transfer, all that is required to obtain yellow hot steel in the basements is the modest contribution of 10 MJ per floor per tonne of yellow hot steel.

Pressure calculations: Above I determined that each floor needed to deliver 10 MJ of energy down the box column to the bottom in order to supply more than sufficient heat to cause a tonne of steel to become yellow hot. Here we need to assure ourselves that this energy delivery does not stress the box column into yielding. Now just yielding is not failure, but might be noticed in a post-collapse inspection of box columns. From wikipedia, structural steel has a yield strength of 400 MPa and an ultimate strength of 650 MPa.

Patent involving the process, without "molten" iron:
"The generation of hydrogen by passing steam at or about 700.degree. C. over a bed of iron is well known in the art."
"a hydrogen-generating process wherein H.sub.2 O is passed over a bed of iron material. The hydrogen generating process uses a catalyst, or freshly-ground iron material, or both, and generates the hydrogen for the fuel cell in situ at lower-than-normal temperatures when the H.sub.2 O reacts with the iron material."
Fuel cell using an aqueous hydrogen-generating process - Patent 6093501
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

When I mention the story about the 2 bulldozers side by side and saw the hardened steel from the blades where they were rubbing together melting it's obvious that it only takes friction to turn metal into molten slag.
Hardened steel is a lot tougher then concrete.

By 'you guys' I have to assume it means anybody who ever stuck their hand up more than once or twice in their lifetime. Think how much shorter the thread would be without the troll posts, like yours

If I was to argue for extra-heat I would have to go with the steel columns that are u-shaped with no obvious cracking on the outer bend nor 'crinkles' on the inner portion. Only two methods can achieve that brute force applied in one quick stroke or heating and a lower and slower force. Any steel that has been heated and bent will rust much faster than steel that has been 'protected by primer' and then bent. No explosions, just a fizzle that causes lots of heat to be absorbed by the steel, then a few loud bangs as a few collapsed before total failure.

In the 'molten aluminum' corner the color of the smoke just above the 'spill and around the corner' you have white smoke, shouldn't and 'orangish flame' produce something with a tad more unburned carbon particles that what is essentiall 'ash' in vapor form?

How silly of me to ask a question to this boat-loard of dorks. lol

The molten aluminum came from an office loaded with the UPS power supply,all covered extensively on the debunker website.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Perhaps Dex would like to review the theory about steam and iron being able to combine to melt steel.
No, I wouldn't like to do that. I've read enough of your posts on this and other subjects to know that facts don't mean anything to you if they don't suit your prejudices, and you just deny them if they don't.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid.


No, I wouldn't like to do that. I've read enough of your posts on this and other subjects to know that facts don't mean anything to you if they don't suit your prejudices, and you just deny them if they don't.
My new signature!!!

I love you Dex!!!

I've posted the link to the pdf 3 times.
Sorry I missed it.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
No, I wouldn't like to do that. I've read enough of your posts on this and other subjects to know that facts don't mean anything to you if they don't suit your prejudices, and you just deny them if they don't.
Thank you for reading just enough to fall short of having anything to say about the proposal that the website promotes.

Good enough reason to take it up with them, ...... Oh wait somebody already has , just follow the link.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
On the 911 debunker site they (whoever he is) is now under the theory that the molten iron recovered after some weeks was 'melted' by friction during the fall.
No he's not. He has offered other theories as to how it may occur.

Abbreviations: gigaJoules (gJ) = 1,000 megaJoules (MJ). To heat steel to the melting point requires about 0.68 gJ of heat to be added for each tonne (metric ton) of steel. Enough more heat has to be added to melt it. Total is about 1 gJ/tonne. All we require is enough heat to obtain yellow hot steel, approximately 0.6 gJ/tonne. However, for simplicity and to allow for losses, assume 1 gJ/tonne of yellow hot steel in the basement(s) of WTC 1 & 2(?).

This could easily be supplied by a pressure pulse down the box columns as each floor is stripped off.
Again, for simplicity of analysis, assume 100 floors each supplied the same sized pulse of energy down the box column. Then each floor supplied 10 MJ. Calculations shows that this amount of energy, distributed over the horizontal area of the box columns, only provides a small fraction of the pressure required to cause structural steel to yield. So ignoring the top 10 floors to allow a further 10% loss in energy transfer, all that is required to obtain yellow hot steel in the basements is the modest contribution of 10 MJ per floor per tonne of yellow hot steel.

Pressure calculations: Above I determined that each floor needed to deliver 10 MJ of energy down the box column to the bottom in order to supply more than sufficient heat to cause a tonne of steel to become yellow hot. Here we need to assure ourselves that this energy delivery does not stress the box column into yielding. Now just yielding is not failure, but might be noticed in a post-collapse inspection of box columns. From wikipedia, structural steel has a yield strength of 400 MPa and an ultimate strength of 650 MPa.

Patent involving the process, without "molten" iron:
"The generation of hydrogen by passing steam at or about 700.degree. C. over a bed of iron is well known in the art."
"a hydrogen-generating process wherein H.sub.2 O is passed over a bed of iron material. The hydrogen generating process uses a catalyst, or freshly-ground iron material, or both, and generates the hydrogen for the fuel cell in situ at lower-than-normal temperatures when the H.sub.2 O reacts with the iron material."
Perhaps you can break that down into layman's terms for us mhz?

...... Oh wait somebody already has , just follow the link.
Which link? The one to the debunker? If so, no one has sufficiently proven anything that he has said is wrong. If fact, he seems to be the only one that doesn't use far fetched claims of nano therimtes, and other silly crap.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
The friction theory.... The least amount of friction would have been the lower floors. Does anyone disagree? So therefore as you went up the pile there would be heat from the higher floors higher up in the pile. Anyone disagree?

If the molten puddle was in the basement it would have needed incredible energy to melt is way through pile to rest on the bottom. It would have left a massive hole and column of fused materials through the pile. Was anything like that evver found or documented?
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
To me, it's that I'm-better-than-'the Foilers' closed-mindedness that makes both poles sound like they're full of crap.
Pretty much. People love to turn their pet thoughts into full-blown religions.
I'm inclined to agree with Dexter. The amount of people that would have to be involved in the conspiracy would show the idea of a conspiracy to be a logical improbability.

That does not mean the official story is accurate, though.
Les posted a link to some scientific and expert research showing the impossibility of WTC 7 falling.

My link to the debunking 9/11 website covers every aspect of why it fell in great detail,really,everyone who wants answers should read that site first before posting,hundreds of thousands of hours were put into fact finding and showing exactly what happened and why.They are very thorough.
Where's your link?
If I google "debunking WTC 7" will the return result in the link?

Av, the difference between me and you is, you could easily google the official side of the story. It'd be virtually impossible for me to be sure I googled the same link that Kakato is referring to because there are probably dozens. And there's only 1 official story to google. But then you aren't concerned with that. All you want to do is argue and if the argument isn't going your way, you can call people names (like crack pots) or make fun of their posts or something, but not to discuss.

Ah, NIST changed its views on WTC 7 since I googled them last. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm
 
Last edited:

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
No he's not. He has offered other theories as to how it may occur.

Perhaps you can break that down into layman's terms for us mhz?

Which link? The one to the debunker? If so, no one has sufficiently proven anything that he has said is wrong. If fact, he seems to be the only one that doesn't use far fetched claims of nano therimtes, and other silly crap.
I'm sure you have the number of times a beam that size has to be bent back and forth before it melted.

Shirley Bear you can see that the article was already reduced to layman's terms.

"other silly crap" Like bending steel back and forth till it melts?

The link to the observations of molten metal in the bottom of the elevator shaft.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
I'm sure you have the number of times a beam that size has to be bent back and forth before it melted.
You'll never "melt" any metal by bending. You'll only weaken the layered crystal lattice.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I read that. I know WTC 7 collapsed and I never believed the conspiracy version that says stuff like "controlled demo caused it". But that link does not say how "falling debris" from the towers managed to land waaaay over on WTC7. The fires that caused WTC 7's collapse must have come from somewhere.
It shows pictures of huge pieces of the perimeter of WTC 1 sitting on the road at the base of WTC 7. It also has pic's of the damage to the roof of WTC' 5 and 6.

I'm sure you have the number of times a beam that size has to be bent back and forth before it melted.
Nope, because it's never happened to my knowledge.

Shirley Bear you can see that the article was already reduced to layman's terms.
So in other words you can't. Thanx again for showing you don't understand 99.99999% of what you post.
"other silly crap" Like bending steel back and forth till it melts?

The link to the observations of molten metal in the bottom of the elevator shaft.
What about it?
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Something caused a whole lot of heat in all 3 buildings
Fire would be my guess.
Flame temperatures in room fires

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C. The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.
from interFIRE, A site dedicated to improving fire investigation worldwide.


Here's some persistent heat for you: THISDAYonline

But I think New Scientist provides a pretty good description:

Ground Zero's fires still burning - 03 December 2001 - New Scientist



My version is the same as where it left off, nothing I have come across disputes these claims about WTC7.
EclippTV • View topic - Texas Engineer Demolitions the 9-11 WTC 7 Fairy
... or at least not that you can understand or acknowledge anyway.

It shows pictures of huge pieces of the perimeter of WTC 1 sitting on the road at the base of WTC 7. It also has pic's of the damage to the roof of WTC' 5 and 6.
Yeah. I guess crap can travel a football field length and through another building to land on and near 7.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Yep. Which is why there is photographs of that debris.

Don't forget how tall WTC 1 was.
Yeah I know. It'd be nice if there was a vid of it though. Downward velocity does not pitch stuff horizontally. I can't see it rolling far after most of 1 was in a heap either. Unless the plane knocked a big wad of it off when it hit.......
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Yeah I know. It'd be nice if there was a vid of it though. Downward velocity does not pitch stuff horizontally. I can't see it rolling far after most of 1 was in a heap either. Unless the plane knocked a big wad of it off when it hit.......
Nah, because of the design of the buildings, it peeled like a banana and just fell right over from way on up.

In a lot of the pics, you can see it lying on WTC 5 to.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Nah, because of the design of the buildings, it peeled like a banana and just fell right over from way on up.

In a lot of the pics, you can see it lying on WTC 5 to.
:) Ok.
Maybe I can find something else to throw doubt on Junior Dumbya & Co.'s explanation then.