The Physics of 911

@Glennn,

Weeks? Maybe. Air was most likely the source of oxygen. A pile of rubbles is not air-tight.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

This place has been very quiet lately. Maybe the "truthers" have finally seen the truth... :-î (tongue in cheeck)

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

A pile of rubbles is not air-tight.

So your point is that there was an ample supply of air down in the crater to provide enough oxygen to create an environment that would melt steel?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Probably not "ample", or the fire would have burned faster, but sufficient to feed a fire, which enclosed as it was could result in metal melting temperatures. Aluminium melts around 660 degree Celsius, copper around 1000, lead around 350, and steel around 1500 Celsius if memory serves. I believe any of these temperatures is achievable in an enclosed fire condition.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

. . . and steel around 1500 Celsius if memory serves.

So, according to your beliefs, the temperatures in the rubble were sufficient to create melted girders?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Possibly. But it's irrelevant to what brought down the twin towers.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Well if there were melted girders, and you suggest that the melting didn't happen before collapse, that means you believe that it happened after the collapse underground. Correct?

3 Replies

@Glennn,

All I'm seeing here is a careful laying of baited questions, designed to trip you up.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Solved !

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/921/wNPFoI.jpg

Issued by the Trump Ministry of Truth.

1 Reply

@fresco,

The steel from the demolitions was shipped to China for recycling.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-01-27/news/0201270268_1_metal-management-world-trade-center-shanghai-baosteel

0 Replies

@Builder,

Don't get confused. Glenn is the one asking baited questions here, agaim and again and again...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Is this the same Olivier that kept banging on about there being no planes?

Haven't found that light wine, I take it?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I said several times already that it is possible that some metal or another melted in the crater, post collapse. But it's also irrelevant to what brought down the twin towers. You should open a new thread on the physics of 9/12, 9/13, 9/14 and 9/15.

1 Reply

@Builder,

That's a lie. I never said that. on the contrary I have said that the "truthers" cannot logically explain the undeniable presence of the planes.

I don't like liars one bit. Apologize or be gone forever.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Chuckles. Your posts are just above, or a page back.

And the "truthers" are now you people, still thinking the govt didn't feed you some furphies.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Indeed, and my posts say no such ****. Sorry but I don't like liars. I wish you luck though.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I said several times already that it is possible that some metal or another melted in the crater, post collapse. But it's also irrelevant to what brought down the twin towers. You should open a new thread on the physics of 9/12, 9/13, 9/14 and 9/15.

Some metals is not the issue being discussed. I asked you whether or not you believe that steel girders were melted in the basement of the WTC after the collapse, or in the building before the collapse.

This has everything to do with the physics of 9/11, and you are attempting to avoid answering that question by claiming that examination and observance of the post collapse steel says nothing about the collapse. Then we can move on to why, after a "certain point", the core structure offered no resistance to speak of. You can 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.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

I asked you whether or not you believe that steel girders were melted in the basement of the WTC after the collapse, or in the building before the collapse.

Things that may or may not have happened after the collapse have nothing to do with the causes of the collapse, and therefore they are irrelevant to this thread.

I don't know for a fact whether some girders actually melted in the crater or not but it is IMO a physical possibility. It is also irrelevant to this thread. If you disagree, please provide a detailed explanation of why. Otherwise, if you cannot explain your disagreement, I will consider this totally irrelevant point settled to your satisfaction.

Quote:

Then we can move on to why, after a "certain point", the core structure offered no resistance to speak of.

I am looking forward to that, as soon as we settle this irrelevant issue about what happened to the girders post-collapse.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Things that may or may not have happened after the collapse have nothing to do with the causes of the collapse, and therefore they are irrelevant to this thread.

Wrong. One of the lead investigators of the collapse said that he saw melting of girders at WTC. If the melting occurred down in the basement as you suggest, then that points to added energy. The fires were at the top of the Tower. Explain how after the collapse, all of the fire and heat was transferred to the crater where steel was being melted.

Approximately 4 million gallons of water were poured on top of ground zero within the first ten days after collapse, plus flame retardants. If the water didn't reach the basements, that means that not much air/oxygen did either. If the water and flame retardants did reach the basement, that means that the environment was not conducive to the melting of steel. Either way . . .

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

Explain how after the collapse, all of the fire and heat was transferred to the crater where steel was being melted.

You don't need "all the heat" to be "transferred". Flammable material (paper, plastic etc.) in large quantities, some of it already burning, fell with the rest of the towers down and into the crater. The fire spread from the bits and pieces that were incandescent to the other flammable material mixed up with other debris.

They did manage to put down the fire with all this water, didn't they? So what's the issue here? That the water would have prevented any melting of any metal anywhere throughout the whole mess? That's a very big claim which I doubt you can prove.

They didn't start pooring water in the crater immediately anyway. The fire raged for a while in that crater, unattended by a devastated and overwhelmed firefighter corp.

1 Reply

The Physics of 911

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know