Customer Discussions > Science forum

Science Forum? Then Please Explain This To Me!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 174 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 13, 2013 11:07:56 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 11:09:30 AM PST
Wulfwig Fox says:
Have you read the NIST reports?

Posted on Feb 13, 2013 11:13:11 AM PST
Rev. Otter says:
hey look, it's THIS thread again!

/popcorn

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 11:35:12 AM PST
Rev. Otter says:
and on a more serious note:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

all your questions from the OP are answered here. ALL of them. :)

Posted on Feb 13, 2013 11:53:59 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
Thanks, Rev. Saves a lot of time.

The OP's response to your information will quickly determine whether we're dealing with an honest inquiry or a conspiracy nut.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 11:59:03 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 12:04:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 13, 2013 12:05:50 PM PST
CD finished his giant plate of 5-way and said:
"These are just some things that have me confused."
I'll just bet!

Assuming you are in Cincinnati:
You just go upriver about 60 miles to Adams county and it will all be made clear to you. Here's a sample answer that you might get:
"H'it wuz a whole conspeeracee. H'it wuz a plot by awl o'them jooz and communistical folks, and the Freeasons, and the reepooblicans, and them Steinways, er no--the Hammersteins, er--oh yeah, the Roth-childs. I know it all fer shuur because my sister done red it ta me off'n the internet.

Posted on Feb 13, 2013 12:33:50 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 13, 2013 12:34:54 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 12:49:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 13, 2013 12:54:21 PM PST
"All I intended to do was start a scientific discussion on facts"

Suuuuure you did.
We've seen it all before.
You must be a newbie here, otherwise you'd know that.
Nobody except other conspiracy wackos are going to take time at this late date to go over all of these points with you. You tipped your hand by saying you'd read a perfectly reasonable article--based on science--and aren't "satisfied." Which brands you as just another Johnny-come-lately conspiracy nut. You should post on the Religion forum since your conspiracy ideas are matters of faith and belief rather than objective observation and reason.
That video shows absolutely nothing and is just nonsensical prattle.

Oh--and by the way--I grew up in Lawrence county and had rural relatives in Scioto and Adams counties--so I know whereof I speak. So fork off.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 12:53:11 PM PST
Rev. Otter says:
it sounds like your mind is made up. best of luck to you, then. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 12:59:23 PM PST
M. Helsdon says:
"The article agrees that the fire was not hot enough to melt steel, but provides no explanation for the molten steel."

The first thing is to determine if there was any molten steel present, or if the material was something else instead.

An observer might well assume that what they are seeing was molten steel, but a modern building is going to contain numerous other materials, including other metals with a far lower melting temperature, and of course the aircraft had introduced significant quantities of aluminium, the alloys of which melt at far lower temperatures than steel, including the temperature range of the fires started by the aircraft fuel. It is possible that small quantities of hot and glowing aluminium alloy is what was really being reported. Aluminium has melted in mundane crashes, even when the fuel tanks weren't ruptured, so it is a far more likely candidate for molten/glowing metal than steel.

Posted on Feb 13, 2013 1:07:13 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 13, 2013 1:53:18 PM PST
Thank you M. Helsdon, this is the kind of response I was looking for.

And, thank you Rev. Otter for the kind words.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 2:36:12 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 14, 2013 8:00:22 AM PST
Sorry for restarting this topic, which people don't seem to want to discuss, but I have a question about the molten metal. The conspiracy theorists say that witnesses claimed to have uncovered molten steel three weeks after the towers collapsed. Is that even possible, under any circumstances, that any type of metal could be in a molten state after that much time?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2013 8:03:41 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2013 8:10:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 14, 2013 8:16:21 AM PST
M. Helsdon says:
"The conspiracy theorists say that witnesses claimed to have uncovered molten steel three weeks after the towers collapsed. Is that even possible, under any circumstances, that any type of metal could be in a molten state after that much time?"

It depends upon its melting temperature; numerous hot spots were identified after the collapse using thermal imagers:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

'Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800F. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16.'

This table indicates that several metals are at melting point at these temperatures:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

You will note that the temperatures identified by the thermal imagers was far below that required to melt steel and it is probable that no "molten steel" was present. Instead, other metals may have been molten, but were more likely to be glowing because of the residual heat.

In addition, aluminum alloys have a melting point of 865-1240 F, and the temperature readings "greater than 800F" would certainly permit some aluminium alloys to be molten.

Posted on Feb 14, 2013 10:28:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 14, 2013 10:58:08 PM PST
Re OP: The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 each released energy equal to that of the atomic bomb that flattened Hiroshima [1]. There was certainly enough energy for the resulting blast wave to flatten any building that was in the vicinity.

WTC 1 and 2 collapsed when the heat of the fires worked its way through the insulation on the floor beams, allowing them to bend and thus pull the vertical beams out of vertical alignment. This made them unable to support the weight of the stories above the fires, and these collapsed into the burning floors. The gravitational energy released by this collapse was sufficient to knock down lower floors like a house of cards.

An airplane hitting anything at 500 MPH will be so thoroughly obliterated that no recognizable pieces are likely to be found. In the case of the WTC buildings, the remains would have been further pulverized by the collapse of the upper stories of the buildings.

Helsdon's post (above) is somewhat off point. Steel loses its strength at temperatures of about 1400 F, far below its melting point -- but far lower than the heat of a hydrocarbon-fueled fire, which can easily reach 2000 F. Watch a blacksmith adjusting a horseshoe for a graphic example of this; a small propane-fired furnace is more than sufficient to permit the horseshoe to be shaped.

Later: In any building, there will be a considerable amount of aluminum -- in desk chair bases, and other furnishings. When pulverized, aluminum will burn with enough heat to melt steel. See "thermite" for details.

1. This is a trivial computation, based on the mass and height of the buildings. Necessary conversion factors can be found in Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 86th edition, 2005.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 12:51:49 AM PST
M. Helsdon says:
Robert,

I was referring to the supposedly 'molten steel' days or weeks after the event.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 5:29:43 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
Thanks for this excellent summary, Robert. It remains to be seen if it will be ignored or dismissed by conspiracy theorists, but I know where to place my bet.

Posted on Feb 15, 2013 9:43:25 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 9:58:21 AM PST
Re Cincinnati, above: "it collapsed to the ground 7 hours later." The blast weakened the building sufficientky to put it into a metastable state.

"There have been plenty of plane crashes where plenty of recognizable pieces remain." Depends entirely on the speed of the aircraft at the time.

"It's funny you should mention "thermite"." Worth mentioning because one of the sillier assertions about the situation had to do with supposedly planted thermite.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 2:28:03 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 3:40:39 PM PST
John Donohue says:
Robert Saunders >>WTC 1 and 2 collapsed when the heat of the fires worked its way through the insulation on the floor beams, allowing them to bend and thus pull the vertical beams out of vertical alignment. <<

And the deniers ignore in their discourses a fact that was presented on a Nova special soon after the attack: for the WTCs the support beams did not go all the way across the floor; instead, the floors were supported around the edges by L-brackets which were much more vulnerable when the fire got hot enough to weaken steel.

911 conspiracies need to ignore evidence --

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 3:48:50 PM PST
John Donohue says:
Cincinnati Dave - I take it that you have no academic background in structural engineering, materials engineering, physics or architecture. The web sites that pump your POV are run by people who are similarly ignorant.

So the question is, of what value is any claim you make? Why should I pay any attention to you instead of the MIT scientists and engineers who evaluated the WTC collapse and determined that it was just as it appeared: the result of a jet aircraft smashing into it and burning.

Btw - do you think that the Moon landing was a hoax? How about Lady Di's death -- was that a conspiracy?

Do you ever examine your motives for finding any crank conspiracy theory more believable than the straight forward and obvious explanation?

Posted on Feb 15, 2013 3:58:21 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Thank you for your support of Amazon Discussion Forums. Due to the changing needs of Amazon Forums, we have decided to stop supporting the ‘Active discussions in related forums’ feature in order to focus on providing the most value for our customers.  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  25
Total posts:  174
Initial post:  Feb 13, 2013
Latest post:  Jul 14, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions