The Physics of 911

Im just trying to help you see the light. Too bad you're not interested.

If there's such a thing as light wine, you might want to familiarise yourself with it, mate.

You've been talking **** since you turned up here.

Oh I am so deeply sorry that I wasn't able to reach your expectations, Builder. I am only a logical man, not a magician, you see? I can't make the holocaust disappear from history books, nor can I make those planes disappear from video footage.

The closest fallacy that these clowns support is "argumentum ad lapidem"..

I think theyve had quite enough time in the sun for another few years

What always surprises me is the extent of their obsession with the issue. Why do certain topics (eg the number Pi, the Holocaust, 9/11, etc.) attracts the lunatics? And where do they get the energy to dig that **** forever?

I know that in your mind, this answers my question, but it doesn't. So I'll repeat it for you.

Explain why after a "certain point", the core structure offered no resistance to speak of. Explain how the energy required to pulverize everything in the building below the impact zone, and the energy required to produce the lateral ejections as seen in photos and videos of the collapse still allowed for enough reserve energy to allow for a virtually freefall descent through the course of most resistance.

I also made this point:

And contrary to your idea that there were no melting of girders, I believe that it's been pointed out more than once in this thread that one of the lead investigators into the collapses said he saw melting of girders at WTC. If you are trying to convince me that you know better than him because he was there and you were not, I'm not buying.

What part of "you wouldn't understand or accept the answer anyway" did you fail to understand?


Oh, if it has been "pointed at", it must be true then...

You talk like we are in the minority, when it's now the NIST believers who are in the minority. But that doesn't mean I'd want to call you names, or undermine your personal status. I'd prefer to continue sharing why we know the govt is lying, and why they're still lying, about what they claimed to be the most significant terrorist attack on US soil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAE6zX5wlt4&t=9m54s

The opening scene in this documentary, clearly shows, the impact of the second plane, and how the fuel mostly blows out the exit hole.

The following poll results are from 2012


New PollFinds Most Americans Open to Alternative 9/11 Theories


One in Two Surveyed Have Doubts About Government’s Account of 9/11.

46% Suspect Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 after Viewing Video Footage of Collapse.

On the 12th anniversary of 9/11, a new national survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the government’s account of 9/11, and after viewing video footage of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse, 46% suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11.

The poll was sponsored by ReThink911, a global public awareness campaign launched on September 1. The campaign includes a 54-foot billboard in Times Square and a variety of transit and outdoor advertising in 11 other cities, all posing the question, “Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?”
Among the poll’s findings:

38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it;
46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7’s collapse, only 19% know the building’s name;
After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:
46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know;
By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it. (end quote)

You're welcome to keep your eyes and ears closed to new information, of course, but it's quite comical to watch apparently grown men, resort to name calling and insults, in the vain hope that knowledge and insightful information, might just go away.

And, for those readers who might be curious as to why we know the NIST report is a fabrication, here are the top 40 reasons why there were doubts initially, leading many people to do their own detailed research, finding glaring holes in the official stories.

http://www.911truth.org/the-top-40-reasons-to-doubt-the-offical-story/

What part of "Explain why after a "certain point", the core structure offered no resistance to speak of. Explain how the energy required to pulverize everything in the building below the impact zone, and the energy required to produce the lateral ejection as seen in photos and videos of the collapse still allowed for enough reserve energy to allow for a virtually freefall descent through the course of most resistance" don't you understand?


It was not pointed at; it was pointed out. You heard it from the horse's mouth, so why are you pretending to be confused about it?

I've seen this before. A buddy of mine refers to them as undertakers because their presence in a thread is for the purpose of burying pertinent posts under their nonresponsive, belligerent tirades.

Ok, pointed out it is. I stand corrected.

Anyway, even if one could find some reliable eye witness of molten metal on ground zero, it's not a proof of any conspiracy. The crater could have melt some metalic stuff, girders or trusses or office furniture or anything. That's to be expected with an enclosed fire. It does not prove that the girders themselves melted as a cause of, and therefore before the collapse of the building.

So, an hour after standing corrected on the melting of girders issue due to your failure to even glance at what others have provided you--including a video of one of the lead investigators saying, "I saw melting of girders at WTC,"-- you're up and running again to offer a possible cause of the melting of girders.

I see.

Now, explain why after a "certain point", the core structure offered no resistance to speak of. Explain how the energy required to pulverize everything in the building below the impact zone, and the energy required to produce the lateral ejection as seen in photos and videos of the collapse still allowed for enough reserve energy to allow for a virtually freefall descent through the course of most resistance.

Or, for the express purpose of turning a discussion into a virtual bitch-slapping event.

Interesting that those who profess to have a science background, aren't interested in scientific evidence.

Well, you know what they say: Live by the bitch-slap, die by the bitch-slap.

They're more the hit-and-run style of drive-bys.

Present a rational response, and they won't be seen for dust.

Before we go there, do you agree with what i just said, i.e. that molten metal witnessed in the crater could have been melted there, in the crater afyer the collpase rather than be a cause of the collapse?

First, let's clarify what you're saying. You're saying that molten metal was witnessed in the debris of the WTC rubble. You are also saying that steel was among the molten metals witnessed in the WTC debris. Now, what was fueling the fires after the collapse that raised the temperature to the point where steel was melted?

Actually, no. I am saying that whether or not molten metal was witnessed at ground zero is irrelevant to the issue of what brought down the twin towers, because such alledged melting could well have happened after the collapse.


I don't think that you and I know for a fact that any steel was melted in the crater. But it could have happened, I think, in a enclosed fire situation similar to a bloomery.

I suppose papers, plastics, wood, etc. from the buildings could have fuelled the fire in the crater during several days.

And what would have been the source of oxygen to create the conditions under which temperatures could exceed 2700 degrees in the basement for weeks after collapse.