Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS)
    #5698901 - 06/01/06 09:42 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I came up with a theory last night and want to discuss the idea. I do not want to discuss any conspiracy BS, just the science of this idea.

The problem:

Molten "steel" was found in the rubble of the WTC. The problem is that jet fuel, burning in air, at STP, will not get hot enough to melt steel to liquid. How then, did molten steel form? Lets assume that it is actually steel that was found and not something else.

Hypothesis:

The steel was molten by the diesel effect when the building collapsed.

Basic idea:

As the building fell onto itself, the air inside the building was compressed. This is obvious from the pictures of dust and debris being sprayed out of the building for several blocks. As the air pressure inside the building increased two things would happen:

1) The pressure increase itself would cause an increase in temperature. You can actually light a cotton ball with a bicycle pump using nothing more than air pressure. For details, google "firepiston". It is easy to generate temperatures in excess of 500C with a hand held pump.

2) The pressure increase would cause an increase in the partial pressure of oxygen. In the short period during the collapse of the building, the burning fuel would have been able to burn much hotter because of the extra oxygen available for combustion.

The con:

I don't know how much of a pressure increase would be seen in the building as it fell. With a building made mostly of glass, the pressure gradient would quickly dissipate as gasses escaped the system. However, these building had very large foot prints, and a lot of internal space that was compressed very quickly.

One might argue that no other building melted as it collapsed, so that is not what happened here. However, other buildings that have collapsed have lacked the height (energy to compress the air and large volume of air to compress), the footprint (large volume of air to compress, large volume of air to hold air in place _to_compress), and fuel source (to create the diesel effect).

Regardless:

One thing that I see over and over is that "burning jet fuel cannot melt steel". This is absolutely false. To be correct, one would need to state that "burning jet fuel, in air, at STP, cannot melt steel". However, it is quiet obvious that during the building collapse, STP (standard temperature and pressure) were not maintained. Were the temperature and pressure changes during the collapse enough to allow the burning jet fuel to melt steel? Thoughts?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRiverMan
experiencednewbie

Registered: 06/26/04
Posts: 105
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5699041 - 06/01/06 10:27 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I don't know... There's no doubt in my mind the pressure from the collapse actually did increase the burning fuel temp as you described, but I have doubts to the magnitude of that effect. Obviously you'd have to consider enormous quantities of air dissipating from the building at some point during the collapse (I would expect the pressure would reach a point of significant decompression from the broken windows, cracks, etc.)

The actual melting point of the steel alloy used in the WTC structure should be around 1400 C. I have no clue as to the burning temp of the airplane fuel, but if it is around 1000 C I guess your theory is not that far-fetched. I would think it is feasible.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: RiverMan]
    #5699203 - 06/01/06 11:39 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

bviously you'd have to consider enormous quantities of air dissipating from the building at some point during the collapse (I would expect the pressure would reach a point of significant decompression from the broken windows, cracks, etc.)




That is the part I can't figure out. I tried running some rough numbers last night, but it has been too long since I have played with this kind of engineering and I don't have the proper source material to look it up where I live.

It is obvious that enormous quantities of air did dissipate from the building during the collapse. The huge plumes of dust and debris are evidence of this occuring.

Don't underestimate the ability for air to get very hot under compression. Most people think comets burn up in the atmosphere due to air friction. This is false. Comets burn up in the atmosphere due to air pressure! As the air pressure increases, the heat generated burns the comet up.

> I have no clue as to the burning temp of the airplane fuel

In air, at STP, around 550C. In an oxygen deprived enclosure, such as a building, typically around 400C. In air, under pressure (i.e. an increased PPO2), easily reaches 2000C or higher.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRiverMan
experiencednewbie

Registered: 06/26/04
Posts: 105
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5699868 - 06/01/06 02:28 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I think it's not that hard to estimate the pressure gradient during collapse, but vague assumptions would have to be made about the air dissipating. You could probably use a piston-cylinder assembly to represent the WTC. The only hard part is figuring out the effects of the tower collapsing on itself (acceleration and non-constant weight of "piston")

I also tried to do some back of the envelope calculations but I've only had a basic Thermodynamics class and therefore I don't know shit about fuel combustion. So can't really help you there except than say it is feasible.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZippoZM
Knomadic
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/17/03
Posts: 13,227
Loc: Pongyang, North Korea
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: RiverMan]
    #5700292 - 06/01/06 04:14 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

either way you have to admit that ots of air would be moving in and out allowing it to burn at least slightly hotter.


--------------------
PEACE

:mushroom2:zippoz:mushroom2:



"in times of widespread chaos and confusion, it has been the duty of more advanced human beings - artists, scientists, clowns, and philosophers - to create order. In such times as ours however, when there is too much order, too much m management, too much programming and control, it becomes the duty of superior men and women and women to fling their favorite monkey wrenches into the machinery. To relieve the repression of the human spirit, they must sow doubt and disruption"

"People do it every day, they talk to themselves ... they see themselves as they'd like to be, they don't have the courage you have, to just run with it."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM Happy Birthday!
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5700465 - 06/01/06 05:00 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I can't see the pressure gradient lasting long enough to melt steel. The building fell at nearly free-fall speed, so the time frame of compression for each floor would be a couple fractions of a second at most.

Could compressed air have generated enough extra energy and transfer it into the steel in such a short time frame? Air holds very little heat in it when compared to a solid like steel...

For comparison - my little nitromethane RC engine uses high compression to combust the fuel, and while the core cylinder temp can reach well over 1500 degrees C, that temp simply isn't there for long enough to cause the actual metal engine parts to heat up much beyond 120 degrees C. During compression there is nowhere for the compressed air to escape to (as long as everything is working properly), unlike in the building during free fall. The engine also sees those intense core temps repeatedly up to 40,000 times a minute - yet still doesn't even melt the aluminum the thing is cast from.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEgo Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: trendal]
    #5700584 - 06/01/06 05:28 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

So what would cause the steel to of melted?

Could a bomb do it? Just a question - I'm not leading to anything.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewhiterasta
Day careobserver
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Ego Death]
    #5700636 - 06/01/06 05:41 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Thermite is the most probable non- impact candidate for melting the steel of the building. As trendal said the exposure time to even 2000f would not have been great enought to melt the very large amount of steel in the beam, let alone leave pools of completely molten metal.These facts coupled with the fall of WTC7 lead me to conclude it was a theatric demolition using preplaced thermite charges with the planes the intended scapegoats for the fall. Remember much of the fuel was vaporized on impact and did not even make it into the buildings as the wings which hold the fuel disintegrated on impact.The burning compressed diesel theory will just not provide the right conditons for even one of the buildings to collapse perfectly much less both towers and WTC7.
WR


--------------------
To old for this place

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM Happy Birthday!
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Ego Death]
    #5700732 - 06/01/06 06:05 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

danoEoboy said:
So what would cause the steel to of melted?





I don't know, which is why we're discussing it :wink:

Quote:


Could a bomb do it? Just a question - I'm not leading to anything.




No, a bomb just blows things apart. You need a good sustained temperature rise to melt any large quantity of steel (or anything).


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5701018 - 06/01/06 07:28 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I haven't read much about this but I have a question..

Did they actually find liquid pools of steel or did they find smoldering masses of steel that appeared to have been molten? I think this is important because steel does not behave like, say, water-ice which either cracks and breaks or melts. Steel can become malleable at temperatures well below melting, especially if there are significant compression forces involved.

Has the claim that the steel was actually liquified been backed by scientists/engineers or is it anecdotal?

Please forgive my ignorance of this issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM Happy Birthday!
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Catalysis]
    #5701062 - 06/01/06 07:39 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I'm pretty sure they did find large quantities of steel that was obviously molten at some point, and I think they attributed those molten pools to some of the "hotspots" that stayed hot for so long after the buildings fell.

I could be wrong on that, though.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Catalysis]
    #5701069 - 06/01/06 07:40 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

yeah, what is the source of this account of molten steel?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: trendal]
    #5702937 - 06/02/06 05:05 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

> I can't see the pressure gradient lasting long enough to melt steel.

That was one of the hangups that I came up with as well. Going out on a limb here...

1) The building was already very hot. We aren't trying to melt steel from room temp, but from a point where it is almost molten already. Kind of like breaking static friction, we are just trying to get enough energy into the system to induce a phase change.

2) The RC engine has air around it to keep it cool. Imagine a football field packed with RC engine's all buzzing away side by side, one on top of another, hundreds of thousands of them. Would the engine's in the middle of the pile survive?

3) The majority of the compression would occur towards the end of the collapse when air trapped in the basement structure, with nowhere to escape, begins to compress from the building material piling up on top of it. The earth itself would help insulate the system.

> Could a bomb do it?

Not really, but sort of. An explosive can melt steel, but only in the area near the explosive. The force of the explosion will cause the molten steel to spray. You don't end up with a pool of molten metal, but rather droplets of molten metal spray everywhere before they cool and harden.

> Has the claim that the steel was actually liquified been backed by scientists/engineers or is it anecdotal?

Mostly anecdotal. I don't want to derail the thread, so for this discussion, assume that molten steel was found and assume the steel came from the building and not the furniture, fixtures, etc in the building.

I am not trying to prove anything. Rather, I am trying to figure out if the idea is valid or not.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5703034 - 06/02/06 06:51 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

You say the building was mostly made of glass (which I do not disagree with), and if this is so, then I must ask: was there any molten glass found in the collapse debris?

Glass has a melting point of 1400 - 1700 C, if there was enough heat to melt steel (however that heat was generated), then wouldn't there be enough heat to melt glass, and that being the case, shouldn't there have been melted glass?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Darcho]
    #5703253 - 06/02/06 08:29 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

> was there any molten glass found in the collapse debris?

I don't know. I have not heard claims of any. However, the glass was the "skin" of the building. As the building fell, the glass would have been blown outward, away from the building. With this in mind, I wouldn't expect to find much in the way of molten glass. Good question, however.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRiverMan
experiencednewbie

Registered: 06/26/04
Posts: 105
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5703380 - 06/02/06 09:37 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

And how about the collapse itself. You've already got the steel at high temprature from the burning fuel, so wouldn't the impact of those millions of tons from the WTC have some kind of effect on the steel? Or is the pressure induced by this collapse too weak or too short to melt the steel?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: RiverMan]
    #5704679 - 06/02/06 04:17 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

RiverMan said:
And how about the collapse itself. You've already got the steel at high temprature from the burning fuel, so wouldn't the impact of those millions of tons from the WTC have some kind of effect on the steel? Or is the pressure induced by this collapse too weak or too short to melt the steel?




I am not sure how you would go about figuring that out. I know from my experience with machining steel that you can generate massive amounts of heat with relatively little processing at room temperature. I think this heat would only be limited by the melting point or softening of steel as opposed to jet fuel which is limited in the heat it can generate by combustion. I would imagine that the heat generated by the steel columns as they bend and twist would be immense.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSchwip
Never sleeps.
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/27/05
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5704719 - 06/02/06 04:31 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Interesting discussion.


But, right from the get-go this bugs me:

Quote:

Lets assume that it is actually steel that was found and not something else.




Also can you point me in the direction of links or refs to the finding of "molten steel at the wtc site"?

thanks :smile:


--------------------
--------------------------------

" If the sky were to suddenly open up there would be no law. There would be no rule. There would only be you and your memories... the choices you've made, and the people you've touched. If this world were to end there would only be you and him and no-one else. "

..............

"MAN! You know there aint no such thing as left over crack!"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,302
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5714378 - 06/05/06 10:29 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Seuss, I'm willing to split the million dollars with you if you do the honors.

I believe I found the reason for the Twin Towers collapsing!

You can't escape the tin foil this time, because it is at the heart of my theory. Tin being aluminium, Al 7150-T651 alloy to be exact. And foil being the Boeing airplane skin made from it.

I won't bore you all with the details, but here's the deal in a nutshell:

Upon impact there was generated a lot of pulverized concrete. Since the fire took place in enclosed, insulated but well-ventilated spaces the burning jet fuel melted the aluminium at around 660'C which is well in the realm of jet fuel's capabilities. This molten aluminium alloy Al 7150-T651, consisting of 89.08% aluminium, 6.2% zinc, 2.3% copper, 2.3% magnesium, 0.12% zirconium seeped into the powdered concrete, forming a thermite mixture based on a CaCO3/SiO2/Al mixture.  Heated aluminium rapidly oxidizes, increasing the temperature, until it finally ignites in open air at around 700'C.

So what do we have? We have an oven-like enviroment, acting like a crude blast furnace, with a thermite mixture burning in it, feeding off itself, combustion gases of the jet fuel (CO2/CO/H2O) and the air. Some combustion products (Calcium, Silicon) themselves are highly combustible, leading to secondary thermite-like reactions. This drives the temperature considerably above the temperatures burning jet fuel is capable of, and most construction steel beams lie exposed due to the shattering blow.

The steel heats up, perhaps some of it close to the thermite will melt, and the buildings collapse in on themselves.
The rest is tragic history.

Seuss, you're the pro, how's about us splitting that thar million for demonstrating how the steel could yield at locally generated temperatures. We got it published first :wink:

So yes, we have thermite, but no conspiracy what-so-ever :smirk:


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM Happy Birthday!
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5714482 - 06/05/06 11:05 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

1) The building was already very hot. We aren't trying to melt steel from room temp, but from a point where it is almost molten already. Kind of like breaking static friction, we are just trying to get enough energy into the system to induce a phase change.

Yes but we're talking about a phase-change here, and materials can't change phase all at once (unless you add a rather huge amount of energy).

Think of an ice cube as it approaches melting temp - it takes a lot MORE energy to get the ice from 0 to 1 degree than it does to get it from -1 to 0 degrees because the heat is not being used to simply raise the temperature of the ice. At 0 degrees, all the energy you add to the ice cube goes into the phase transition, so the ice cube as a whole (and the water surrounding it) remains at about 0 degrees as long as there is any ice left unmelted.

So it takes a lot more heat to melt steel than it does to just heat the steel up in the first place.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: trendal]
    #5714634 - 06/05/06 11:51 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

> (unless you add a rather huge amount of energy)

When the building fell, a huge temperature spike was created from the near instantaneous compression of air, especially in the basement area. The metal in the building was already near melting and the temperature spike went into creating the phase change from solid to liquid. The earth and rubble insulated the system, preserving hot spots.

... as I said, out a limb here. Don't underestimate how much heat a quick spike in pressure can generate. As you said, time is the enemy of this theory. (time passing allows heat to escape the system) I still think we could see a pretty good, but short lived, compression in the basement areas with the earth and rubble acting as a heat insulator. Not only would the pressure create heat, but it would also increase the partial pressure of available oxygen. The already hot jet fuel, along with the sudden availability of oxygen, would add more heat to the system as it flashed. Don't forget, we aren't melting the entire support structure of the building, but rather small areas that will coincide to the hot spots found later.

W_S, I like! Don't forget about the magnesium in the aircraft as an ignition source. I donno about the powder concrete from impact. There will be some dust, but I doubt we would see the many thousands of pounds (assumed) of concrete dust needed... maybe, donno. However, there is a lot of powdered gypsum (calcium sulfate) in drywall and a lot of drywall in an office building. Reducing a calcium "oxide" rather than iron oxide... interesting idea. What are the chances of the aluminum alloy oxidizing in the fire and "burning away" rather than melting? It would be rather ironic if the burning jet fuel, being too cool to melt steel, is also just cool enough to melt without vaporizing the aluminum alloy.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,302
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5714954 - 06/05/06 01:02 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

there is a lot of powdered gypsum (calcium sulfate) in drywall and a lot of drywall in an office building.




6 CaSO4 + 10 Al --exotherm!--> 4 Al2O3 + Al2S3 + Ca
Ca + O2/CO2/H2O --exotherm!--> CaO

Lots of interesting highly exothermic reactions. Gypsum/aluminium is a patented thermite-like formulation for the production of intense heat. The jet engine fan blades consist of huge chunks of already quite hot titanium. It takes a lot to get that going, but once it does you're getting outrageous temperatures.

Aluminium in air ignites before it volatilizes btw.

Quote:

What are the chances of the aluminum alloy oxidizing in the fire and "burning away" rather than melting?




Quite good. Rapid oxidation of aluminium is a pain in pyrotechnics because it then glows red instead of producing a dazzling illumination. But from a chem point of view, you and I know you'd still get all the kcal/gr because you're still oxidizing aluminium. If I remember correctly pure aluminium as a fuel represents its weight in 4.800'C if you oxidize/burn it. The oxygen donog hogs a lot of that heat, but its still quite hot.

The Aluminium/Magnesium/Titanium/Calcium/Silicon reactions are as close to a free ride as one can get. It needs some heat to get started but past that point it feeds off nothing but the waste gases of the jet fuel and the rubble of the building, leaving all the air to the jet fuel, and in fact even greatly enhancing the fuel burn by its awesome heat and by the release of Copper fumes from the airplane skin and wiring, which in that state is a combustion catalyst used in rockets and other fuel/oxygen systems.

The alleged metallic puddles might have resulted from localized (thermite-like) hotspots or even be aircraft aluminium instead of iron.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

Edited by Asante (06/05/06 01:08 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5715030 - 06/05/06 01:34 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Hypothesis: Controlled demolition.

Planes have hit skyscrapers before at top speed. They just punched holes in the side of them and caused fires. The buildings don't just collapse like that. The World Trade Towers especially, were built to withstand very extreme conditions and natural disasters. And they collapsed to the ground within 10-15 seconds.. freefall speed. Very much in the fashion of controlled demolitions. Couple that with the hundreds of eyewitness reports from everyone ranging to school teachers to police officers, they they heard simultaneous explosions in the buildings, well after the planes hit. Not to mention that 90% of the steel was hauled away from ground zero without examination and sent to salvage yards. There was little to none investigation or forensic engineering analysis. So the irreplacable physical evidence was quickly and quietly destroyed.

Of course, I'm no engineer. Nor a rocket scientist. But not an idiot either. Tin foil hat not necessary.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Shroomism]
    #5715151 - 06/05/06 02:03 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesleepy
zZzZzZzZz
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/17/05
Posts: 3,888
Loc: Flag
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Shroomism]
    #5716175 - 06/05/06 06:51 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

the pressure would not have increased much. the building was full of windows so any pressure increase is instantaneously released. its not like a test tube or whatever scientists create pressurized environments in.

i haven't studied this at all but is this true?


also shouldn't there be infrared video of the collapse that would show the temperature increase? doesn't the FDNY have infrared to look into buildings?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBrainiac
Rogue Scientist
Male

Registered: 04/29/06
Posts: 13,259
Loc: 與您的女朋 Flag
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: sleepy]
    #5716826 - 06/05/06 09:32 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

:imo:Hes a Little
:cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo:


--------------------
:Awesketch:

:cool: Fair is Fair :devil:

Edited by Brainiac (06/05/06 09:35 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Brainiac]
    #5717933 - 06/06/06 04:35 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

> so any pressure increase is instantaneously released.

Incorrect. Air cannot move instantaneously. The movement of air is governed by the laws of physics. Air is a fluid, just like water, and it must push other stuff out of its way in order to occupy that space (or it must squeeze closer together with other stuff, known as compression). Because the buildings footprint was so large, and the rate of fall so quick, the air would be compressed by the falling structure before it had a chance to move out of the way. This is fact. The question is how much compression will be seen and how much heat will be generated by the compression. It may be next to none or it may be massive. That is what we are discussing: the effect of the increase in pressure, the effect of the increase in partial pressure of oxygen, and how the hot jet fuel would react over the tiny window of time during and immediately after the collapse.

Shroomism, I am really trying to keep this discussion on the science of the collapse. For the sake of this discussion I don't care if Bush himself walked into the building with a bomb strapped to his back. For this discussion, assume that all of the conspiracy stuff is false. This is not a pro/con conspiracy debate. The idea is to see if the evidence we are assuming was found can be explained through the physics of what we saw happen. Rather than post and repost all the BS from conspiracy sites, are are brainstorming new and innovative ideas that might explain some of what happened.

I'm the first person I have heard talk about pressure as a source of heat. W_S is the first person I have heard talk about the plane itself and the building material mixing to form a thermite reaction. We are not claiming these theories are correct, accurate, or anything else... only that they are possibilities.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekotik
fuckingsuperhero
 User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: WTC / Molten "steel" / Science discussion (no tinfoil hat BS) [Re: Seuss]
    #5718412 - 06/06/06 10:11 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

We are not claiming these theories are correct, accurate, or anything else... only that they are possibilities.




with complete, and utter respect for the intentions of this thread:

:poop:

Quote:

The object of oratory alone is not truth, but persuasion. - Lord Macaulay




--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Isn't anyone else interested in SCIENCE or TECHNOLOGY? Just call this the computer forum.. freddurgan 2,449 15 02/09/05 12:01 AM
by Vvellum
* Sciences fundamental flaw
( 1 2 3 all )
Ego Death 5,017 41 02/07/07 08:50 PM
by Salvia_Antics
* Psychedelic Drug Synthesis -- an uncensored discussion of its past, present and future
( 1 2 all )
Asante 7,240 20 05/03/08 07:01 PM
by leoside
* The USA leads the world in science and techonology
( 1 2 all )
UrineVanderslope 3,976 23 04/04/12 05:51 AM
by cosmic carnage
* Science vs. Faith
( 1 2 all )
daba 3,866 22 03/03/07 07:34 PM
by downforpot
* Site for you science and chemical (heh) enthusiasts deformeddavo 500 1 10/10/05 12:42 AM
by Androctonus
* Alternative Science cybrbeast 1,286 13 07/07/05 12:48 AM
by TheCow
* A fault of science chodamunky 1,314 5 04/25/03 08:32 PM
by XOCHI

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
2,315 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.