Could somebody give me evidence that friction causes molten metal?

pdoherty76

Banned
P
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
571
I keep hearing that the molten metal at wtc was caused by friction.

I have never heard of this phenomenon and if true would be very interested to see the proof of this.

This is a genuine request for info.
 
pdoherty76 said:
I keep hearing that the molten metal at wtc was caused by friction.
Click to expand...
Source?

By the way, pdoherty, you've been posting here long enough that I should NOT have had to ask that question.

Is any of this sinking in at all, pdoherty?
 
slijpen.jpg


check if this is possible but then with metal on metal...
 
pdoherty76 said:
I keep hearing that the molten metal at wtc was caused by friction.

I have never heard of this phenomenon and if true would be very interested to see the proof of this.

This is a genuine request for info.
Click to expand...

Although it is theoretically possible, I doubt that friction alone could cause molten metal, but high speed impacts, fires, and metal Oxidation reactions could, depending on the metals involved.
Friction can actually cause Aluminum and other reactive metals to Oxidize under the right conditions.
 
I keep hearing that the molten metal at wtc was caused by friction.
Click to expand...

Yes, a source would be in order. I believe, I have seen people, tell him it is possible. Not that it is certain, to have happened.
 
Last edited:
Re-entry into the atmosphere at the wrong angle, I believe will cause enough friction to make a molten goop of any satellite or spaceship that has the misfortune...am I not correct.

TAM
 
So TAM you are claiming some steel falling from a thousand feet is comparable to shuttle re-entry? Game of jenga anyone?
 
pdoherty76 said:
So TAM you are claiming some steel falling from a thousand feet is comparable to shuttle re-entry? Game of jenga anyone?
Click to expand...

Thought your main question was in general?
Could somebody give me evidence that friction causes molten metal?
I have never heard of this phenomenon and if true would be very interested to see the proof of this.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
pdoherty76 said:
gravy my source is www.debunking911.com which claims it was friction. also another thread in this forum claims it
Click to expand...
False. This page, which you were too lazy to link to, does not "claim it was friction." It raises the possibility.

Do you see the difference?

Is any of this sinking in at all, pdoherty, or are you just going to keep wasting our time like this?
 
talking of time wasting you asked me a question about alex jones in the double think post, i have answered but i get the feeling u will never reply

by the way, i am lazy, ill give u a minute to think of how that makes me anti semitic or a terrorist supporter
 
I'm big a proponent of friction. Not so much before the collapse, but after. Most of the energy that was in the tower as gravitional energy left as heat, due to friction. The only two other places the energy could go would be pulverizing concrete, which is already a very ineffecient process with lots of friction and therefore heat, and "sound".. or more precisely.. kinetic energy of the air molecules.
 
pdoherty76 said:
talking of time wasting you asked me a question about alex jones in the double think post, i have answered but i get the feeling u will never reply

by the way, i am lazy, ill give u a minute to think of how that makes me anti semitic or a terrorist supporter
Click to expand...


Ahem...wrong thread there dingo!
 
pdoherty76 said:
So TAM you are claiming some steel falling from a thousand feet is comparable to shuttle re-entry? Game of jenga anyone?
Click to expand...

What was the title of this thread and the content of the original post you made PD. I was answering this.

No, I am not saying that the friction of re-entry is the same, or even close to that created by the falling of the WTC. I do not have the scientific knowledge to make a comparison between the two, besides the amount of friction would vary with the angle of re-entry, and the friction applied to a given piece of metal in the WTC would depend on how far up it was at collapse, and how much kinetic energy was applied to it.

My purpose, was to merely show you that your question, as originally posted, was to vague. I knew what you were after, I was simply trying to show you to be more exact when asking for some info, you will get all the possibilities.

TAM
 
so in short none of you can give me a link to an academic paper that shows this phenomenon exists? yep those debunking sites are very scientific
 
An academic paper to show you that friction can melt metal? Are you serious?

They don't write academic papers to prove high school physics topics.
 
pdoherty76 said:
so in short none of you can give me a link to an academic paper that shows this phenomenon exists? yep those debunking sites are very scientific
Click to expand...
Wassamatta? Too lazy to read?

Here's what they actually say on that site YOU linked to:
One of the arguments for thermite that onspiracy theorists use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum, which suggests they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet, the aluminum outer skin of other airliners have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...
Click to expand...
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

The report actually shows clearly that the burning contents of an aircraft can easily be hot enough to melt aircraft-grade aluminium, i.e. metal. It goes on to show that there was easily enough energy expended in the collapse of the WTC towers to cause ignition of the buildings' contents, and thus contribute to the melting of aluminium-based materials in the rubble, such as wall partitioning, window-frame, etc (the WTC, like most modern buildings, had LOTS of aluminium inside). See above. It did not require the use of external ignition sources (like squibs or explosives). Examples are shown in the report...if you read it.
 
are you looking for a reference to a paper that states that molten metal at the WTC site was caused by friction?

I do not believe that NIST addressed the "molten metal" at the site, and I am not sure, to them, what the relevence would be in doing so. The importance of this, is only in the minds of CTers...noone else.

TAM
 
http://web.mit.edu/course/other/machineshop/Grinder/aluminum.con.html

gr_al.jpg



Please note the melted aluminum on this grinding wheel. Grinding is friction.

There are some materials that can cause major problems if you try to grind them. In particular, the big no-no with grinders is aluminum. Aluminum melts easily, and if you were to try to grind down aluminum, it would start to melt and the aluminum would coat the wheel.
Click to expand...
 
pdoherty76 said:
gravy my source is www.debunking911.com which claims it was friction. also another thread in this forum claims it
Click to expand...
The word "friction" does not appear anywhere on that page. If you're referencing a particular article, find it and link directly to it. Maybe even quote it. When you make a claim, it is not someone else's job to hunt down just what it is you are talking about.

If you fail to point people directly to what it is you are claiming the source said, they will suspect you are misrepresenting the source.
At the moment of the initiation of the pressure pulse due to floors stripping off, the initial forces will all be on just the outside edges of the most exterior of the box columns in the core. But as the calculation shows, the pressure required is less than 1/40th of the yield strength. So the box columns would not show signs of yielding, even with highly asymmetric patterns of the initial forces.
Click to expand...
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
The only likely source of the heat great enough to actually "melt" significant quantities of iron in the piles (or even just raise so much of it to red-hot or to 2000F) would be chemical energy (i.e., "combustion" of some sort).
Click to expand...
http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

In this case, it looks like people would be right to suspect you were misrepresenting the source.
 
T.A.M. said:
are you looking for a reference to a paper that states that molten metal at the WTC site was caused by friction?

I do not believe that NIST addressed the "molten metal" at the site, and I am not sure, to them, what the relevence would be in doing so. The importance of this, is only in the minds of CTers...noone else.

TAM
Click to expand...

Pools of molten metal are not characteristic of things falling.

I would love to see u produce an example of a builing collapse before or since 911 that has had molten metal involved
 
Yes, anti-Sophist, please provide a photograph of steel being ground. AHA! Caught you!
 
pdoherty76 said:
Pools of molten metal are not characteristic of things falling.

I would love to see u produce an example of a builing collapse before or since 911 that has had molten metal involved
Click to expand...
Please reference similar building collapses so we can look into it.
 
pdoherty76 said:
So TAM you are claiming some steel falling from a thousand feet is comparable to shuttle re-entry? Game of jenga anyone?
Click to expand...
I haven't heard of any scientists claiming the supposed molten steel found in the rubble was caused by friction alone. You don't think there was a lot of material that got buried in the collapse that was burning and/or extremely hot.

Do you think there wasn't any additional heat generated by the collapse. You do believe that friction can cause heat don't you. A little mental experiment would be If you dragged a piece of steel behind a car at 60 mph for a quarter of a mile what do you think would happen to the temperature of the steel. This isn;t my field of expertise but I wouldn't think picking it up with your bare hand would be a good idea.

BTW
When the Space Shuttle reenters Earth's atmosphere,
the friction of the air can get the temperature up as high as 3000 F
Shuttle reentry is a controlled, unpowered glide that starts at 18,000
miles per hour, and touches down at about 220 mph. They start entering
the atmosphere at a 40 degree angle of attack. If it's any steeper, the
shuttle will burn up (even with the nifty tiles), and if it's any
shallower, the shuttle will skip off the atmosphere like a stone over
water. Interesting stuff!
according to http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2001/987003987.Eg.r.html
 
More:
...none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.
Click to expand...
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
 
eeyore1954 said:
I haven't heard of any scientists claiming the supposed molten steel found in the rubble was caused by friction alone. You don't think there was a lot of material that got buried in the collapse that was burning and/or extremely hot.

Do you think there wasn't any additional heat generated by the collapse. You do believe that friction can cause heat don't you. A little mental experiment would be If you dragged a piece of steel behind a car at 60 mph for a quarter of a mile what do you think would happen to the temperature of the steel. This isn;t my field of expertise but I wouldn't think picking it up with your bare hand would be a good idea.http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2001/987003987.Eg.r.html
Click to expand...
not only that, but bending metal would also produce heat
 
Melting Steel Girders and Bending Spoons with Friction

I once asked if bending metal, like bending a spoon, caused enough heat to melt it. I was assured that, yes, what happened when you bent a spoon is that microscopic areas of the metal briefly reach melting point. Immediately thereafter, the melted spots spread their heat to the surrounding metal and re-solidify, leaving tiny defects in the spoon's structure. Bending the spoon fast enough by hand can cause enough heat buildup to not just make the metal warm -- even warm enough to burn you. The accumulation of re-melted spots will also materially weaken the spoon enough to make it soft and fall apart.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

There has to be, though, a ceasing of friction once the metal reaches liquid state, so the metal, I would think, would only reach melting point then would hit a temperature "brick wall" and not get any hotter because there's too little friction in liquid metal. The heat would be distributed and dissipated into the surrounding material.

In the case of a building like the WTC there is a mix of steel, lots of aluminum, concrete, and asbestos -- all with different coefficients of friction and melting and burning temperatures. Rub them all together really fast and I can believe the lower temperature stuff would melt from the friction.
 
Last edited:
doherty, what makes you think the molten metal found at the WTC was steel? did anyone do any tests on it?
 
Mr. Scott said:
There has to be, though, a ceasing of friction once the metal reaches liquid state, so the metal, I would think, would only reach melting point then would hit a temperature "brick wall" and not get any hotter because there's too little friction in liquid metal. The heat would be distributed and dissipated into the surrounding material.

In the case of a building like the WTC there is a mix of steel, lots of aluminum, concrete, and asbestos -- all with different coefficients of friction and melting and burning temperatures. Rub them all together really fast and I can believe the lower temperature stuff would melt from the friction.
Click to expand...

You also need to consider what changing pressure would do to molten materials. You'd have an "interface" of melted stuff between two grinding materials. This is a non-trivial problem to analzye much beyond the point of proof-of-concept. Anyone who claims that friction (both external in the form of sliding and "internal" in things like deformation) can't melt metal just doesn't understand the very basics of the first law of thermodynamics.
 
Also, anyone who was interested in whether friction could make metals hot enough to melt could Google or Wiki "friction welding" "stir welding"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom