Tree99 Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 Having just recently signed up as a member of SFN, a friend has asked that I post the following document relating to molten metal at WTC 1, 2 & 7. The PDF link... http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf Can I ask people to give there thoughts on the accuracy of this document written by Professor Terry Morrone. This seems like the best place for people to look at this through the impartial objective lens of science.
insane_alien Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 not very accurate at all. 1/ he doesn't account for the massive amount of flammable materials contained within the three buildings. 2/ he states molten steel was falling from the towers. a note on 2/ flaming jet fuel fell from the towers which has been mistaken for thermite before. this is probably what the witness saw. also, if there were explosives wouldn't there have been more of an explosion?
theCPE Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 I will ignore obvious logical flaws in the implications created by asserting explosives and not the airplanes caused the collapses and will only focus on the "science" this physicist used to prove that it couldn't have happend. First, there was not a single mention anywhere within his very informal looking paper (considering the context and his supposed status) that metal and steel alike is weakened by increased temperature FAR before it begins to melt. Anyone giving an honest, objective, and informed analysis of these events would realize that the strength of the steel infastructure would not remain unchanged until the exact moment it begun turning into a liquid and would therefore point this out in the paper. In order for the building to collapse the steel did not have to melt, it only had to weaken enough that it could no longer support the massive buildings. Second, any molten steel found onsite more than likely melted after the buildings collapsed. At that time the burning collapsed structure could act as a kiln and greatly increase the temperature of the inceneration. Finally, probably not included in this paper, but in most 911 conspiracy papers the comparison between the Sears Tower being crashed into by a plane during the 50s is made. Hopefully, the difference between the velocities of a prop plane and a 747, fuel capacities, and general "potential" energy is easy to understand between these two very different incidents. Anyone that assersts the energy from the jet fuel was insufficient to create the sustained temperatures necessary to melt the steel or cause it to collapse must be in denial of the iron age, but google could definitely help them out there.
bombus Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand impact from planes as it was an identified risk long before 9/11. Whatever the flaws in this paper, it seems strange to me that the towers collapsed as a result of plane impacts. I suppose the designers may have cut corners (like in The Towering Inferno!).
insane_alien Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 the designers didn't anticipate the jets being fully fueled which is why the fire proofing failed on the structure(appart from being torn off.) if the jets had been coming into land then they would have stayed standing. and to be fair, the did survive the strike, just not the fire.
Tree99 Posted June 11, 2007 Author Posted June 11, 2007 the designers didn't anticipate the jets being fully fueled which is why the fire proofing failed on the structure(appart from being torn off.) if the jets had been coming into land then they would have stayed standing. and to be fair, the did survive the strike, just not the fire. From what I have learned the jets only had half fuel capacity, and it would seem a little silly if the designers did not account for the fuel, what with jets not typicaly flying without fuel.
insane_alien Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 they did take into account fuel but they anticipated an attack coming from an aircraft coming into land from somewhere else. not just having taken off a few minutes ago.
theCPE Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand impact from planes as it was an identified risk long before 9/11. Whatever the flaws in this paper, it seems strange to me that the towers collapsed as a result of plane impacts. I suppose the designers may have cut corners (like in The Towering Inferno!). They collapsed as a result of the fires not the plane impacts. And these arguments always remind me of the Titanic.....I wonder what the conspiracy was there it obviously couldn't have sank, it was unsinkable.
insane_alien Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 HA! never even thought of comparing it to the titanic. i wonder what the conspiracy sites would have said then if the internet was around then. probably the same as this. " it was made of STEEL ice can't break STEEL!" i can also imagine them showing an experiment with an ice cube and a steel tin to 'prove' that ice can't tear it.
ecoli Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 HA! never even thought of comparing it to the titanic. i wonder what the conspiracy sites would have said then if the internet was around then. probably the same as this. " it was made of STEEL ice can't break STEEL!" i can also imagine them showing an experiment with an ice cube and a steel tin to 'prove' that ice can't tear it. Maddox beat you to that idea... lol.
insane_alien Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 heh great minds think alike. hadn't seen that one before.
bombus Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 They collapsed as a result of the fires not the plane impacts. All part of the same thing. As has been said, jet planes can't fly without fuel.
insane_alien Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 and i answered. the designers didn't account for an internal attack. the most likely vector for a plane hitting the towers was when it was coming into land. when its getting low on fuel. if they were low on fuel then the fire wouldn't have been as fierce and the building would have survived. engineering it to withstand a fully fuelled aircraft impact would have been over engineering. it may be reasonable for a nuclear power plant but not for a commerce building.
theCPE Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 All part of the same thing. As has been said, jet planes can't fly without fuel. Well sure the collapse was a sequential event that occurred after the plane crash, but the buildings did not collapse directly because of the plane impacts. They collapsed directly because of the inferno that resulted that weakened the steel structure. And the point being just because someone designs something with a specific intent doesn't mean the desired result is the outcome. After all I don't recall any tests where the engineers crashed 707s into a test WTC to verify their design, do you?
markusariliu Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 First of all if you search for error you will find error. In the effect of if there is error it will be found and if there is none it will be created. The main reason conspiracies are rejected is because conspiracy theorists often search for any error or hint of such in the ones they scrutinize but do not use the same scrutiny on themselves, and second because the same is true of the ones who scrutinize the conspiracy theorists. Several of you mentioned this very thing by the "ice cant break steel" and the prop plane in the sears tower. However none of you brought to the table a body of research as did the PDF even as informal as it was. They look for all of the problems in what the theorists are saying and if they find none they fall back to the childish "whatever you’re just dumb". If you actually read through the document though, you would have found many assumptions and probabilities. The writer only hurts himself by saying probably many times instead of just going and finding which way it would have happened. There are also several misspellings and completely incorrect grammar such as "when you take an ice cubes", and "until the all solid" along with a few others. Not that misspellings and grammar mistakes automatically make a document incorrect, but when they can be corrected by a click of the mouse it shows a lack of care for their task of proving their point and it ends up hurting them. Also the writer states his understandings of the sciences and shows that he has the wrong understanding of them by saying “A falling body is accelerated by the force of gravity”. This could just be a misstatement but as with the misspellings and grammar mistakes it shows that he is not checking his logic to ensure it is correct while he is defiantly checking the governments. Other than these simple and not entirely unrelated mistakes the author also does not cite his sources on more than half of the document and expects his reader to do so. So, even though the document could be very convincing with a few changes to the writing style and the addition of some citations, I am left unconvinced because of his lack of citations, misunderstandings of physics, and use of probably instead of verifying his point of view. Suggestion: If you want to write a conspiracy theory to convince one scientifically of your beliefs, use the format in which scientists have set down to prove things scientifically. By doing so you will not only have everything needed in your paper to prove what you believe, since that is what a science paper “format” has been set up to do, but you will also have the advantage of those used to this format being less likely to scrutinize your paper. Anyway just my thoughts 1
Tree99 Posted June 11, 2007 Author Posted June 11, 2007 For those that are interested, and who would like to validate the science, this is a good documentry. http://www.911revisited.com Sort of a challenge for people with a background in physics
theCPE Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 They look for all of the problems in what the theorists are saying and if they find none they fall back to the childish "whatever you’re just dumb". Several of you mentioned this very thing by the "ice cant break steel" and the prop plane in the sears tower. However none of you brought to the table a body of research as did the PDF even as informal as it was. Right..... I would really like to hear your explanation of how the titanic example and the point about how a prop plane crashing into the sears tower is not equivalent to 747s hitting the WTC is even in the same ballpark as saying "your dumb". Further, I guess you completely skimmed over the point I made about how the document did not mention that steel weakens before it melts......but I was curious where your body of research was within your post. Also the writer states his understandings of the sciences and shows that he has the wrong understanding of them by saying “A falling body is accelerated by the force of gravity”. Gravity doesn't make objects accelerate? That is news to me....or is there a symantec game being played here......
markusariliu Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 I am sorry I could have worded that better. I do not disagree that a prop plane is different from a 707 nor do I think that steel cannot be ripped by ice. I did not mean that your statements were just saying you are dumb, but that your statements revealed how they overlooked simple truths. The second sentence was just there to encourage others not to do the same as many often do to conspirators, which is dismiss any points they have and look for flaws, while scrutinizing the viewpoints’ of tree's document. As for the "a falling body is accelerated by gravity": Gravity has a constant affect on all objects at all times an atom on one side of the universe has a gravitational pull on an atom on the opposite side and visa versa. He states gravity and falling as separate, by saying that a body falls and then gravity accelerates it, when they are the same. And I also stated just after that that it could have just been a misstatement. What I meant was that he should be clear when he writes if he wants to convince his reader. Which if he is not clear shows that he has a similar attitude as other conspiracy theorists and that is to check with utmost perfection the documents of the opposing belief but not his own. The same goes with the grammar mistakes, because as I stated before people have the habit of looking for error even if it is not with his viewpoint. An example is what happened just now when I placed two sentences next to each other and you thought they were together, and when I failed to explain what I meant by saying something and you had to interpret what I meant.
insane_alien Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 well, he was a lot clearer in his wording than you are. seriously my mind is tied in knots trying to figure out what you said.
Bignose Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Here I had hoped that the "WTC couldn't have been weakend by fire" crowd would have disappeared after that bridge in California collapsed due to a gasoline truck fire. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/30/national/main2740065.shtml If one little tanker truck full of gasoline can collapse two overpasses, I have no problems whatsoever believing an entire jet liner full of fuel could have easily taken down buildings.
bascule Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 I would ask: Ever considered molten aluminum, from the fuselage of the plane?
insane_alien Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 it could have been. it could also have been molten plastic that was smoldering there are a plethora of substances it could have been including steel as after the collapse the debris would have made very good insulation.
Tree99 Posted June 12, 2007 Author Posted June 12, 2007 The documentary deals with both the above suggestions. I think the main point here is that a hydrocarbon fire does not provide sufficient heat to turn steal molten. And if you are suggesting that it turned molten after the buildings collapsed because it was insulated, then you have to keep in mind that it will only heat up to the maximum temperature of a hydrocarbon fire. It won't get any hotter then what the combustible materials will allow. And keep in mind that molten metal was located in the debris piles of WTC 1, 2 & 7, so an adequate explanation for WTC 7 also needs to be supplied. Again I only listed the documentary http://www.911revisited.com so that people could challenge it, not to try and advance a conspiracy theory. I would like to keep this purely science related and would realy appreciate your views on the said documentry.
YT2095 Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 anyone ever seen a Blast Furnace before? they`re really quite Simple and Very capable of melting tons of steel (and glass and copper and plastics and aluminium....). Forced air and a chimney are almost exactly what you had in the T.T scenario too.
Recommended Posts