The Physics of 911

You've missed the point. The upper block of the North Tower was where the fire was. You're suggesting that in the process of collapse, the upper block somehow maintained its integrity and pushed all else out of its way and made its way down into the basement. The upper block was the most weakened and damaged part of the Tower, and yet you believe that it made its way to the basement. How is it that you believe that in a battle between the damaged and weakened upper block and the lower undamaged core structure below it, the upper block prevailed and made its way to the basement?

Between 9/11 and 9/21, three to four million gallons were dumped on ground zero. This does not include a water leak from the Hudson River by way of outfall lines into the basement or bathtub. There were also leaks from broken water-mains, as well as problems with the water table because of a hole in the slurry wall. The combined water from hoses, rain, and aforementioned leaks collected at the bottom of the bathtub.

So, again, how did the fire from the upper block of the Tower, make it all the way through the intact core structure below it and then plunge into the bathtub area? And even if we allow for that . . . anomaly, how was steel being melted with all the water and fire retardants that I've just mentioned being dumped into that area?

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

Interesting how the basement "bathtub" is being referred to as a "crater".

The rubble pile was around five stories high, and completely filled the "crater" as well.

If you're not gaslighting, you're obfuscating, or projecting.
Sometimes, all three in the one post.

When a building on fire collapses, the fire doesn't necessarily stop. Most of the times the rubbles keep on burning. It's all very simple.

You certainly are very simple.

Do you have a specific goal in posting on this thread, Olly?

First, you saw the oxygen starved fires that were occurring in the twin towers, fires which never reached high temperatures at all. "However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range".
http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

But lead that had been vaporized was found by the RJ Lee Group, a top US forensic scientist company.

"Accordingly, whereas the 2004 report referred to “high temperatures,” the earlier report indicated that the temperatures were not merely high but extremely high, because for lead to boil and hence vaporize, it must be heated to 1,749°C (3,180°F)."

Ibid

Olivier5: I believe any of these temperatures is achievable in an enclosed fire condition.

Absolutely impossible given that the only fuels that were available were jet fuel and office furnishings.

"WTC Fires All But Defeated - December 19, 2001

"Firefighters have extinguished almost all but the last remnants of underground fires that have burned at the World Trade Center site for more than three months since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. The fires that began with the Sept. 11 attacks had been strong enough that firetrucks had to spray a nearly constant jet of water on them. At times, the flames slowed the work of clearing the site. "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."" [CBS News]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fires_911.html

Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February [2002] seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said. [Philadelphia Inquirer]
Conventional fires doused by millions of gallons of water over a 5 month period do not burn hot enough to melt steel.

The notion that the fires in the WTC wreckage were conventional defies rational belief.

Thermite provides an explanation for the duration and high temperatures of the fires:

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn just as well while underwater, for example, and cannot even be extinguished with water, as water sprayed on a thermite reaction will instantly be boiled into steam. [Answers.com]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fires_911.html

How do below ground fires somehow gain the ability to rise to the melting point of steel [1,500C/ 2,800F] in a terribly oxygen/air starved environment covered by tons of pulverized concrete dust [74,000 cubic yards] when the above ground fires before the collapse only reached 750-800C [1,382-1,472F] temperatures, which is 750C [1,382F] below the melting point of steel.

The only way for that to happen is from thermite. And unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust.

camlok queried of Olivier5

The really amusing part is, this guy thinks we're the crazy ones.

You'll have to point me to a link on vapor lead. That seems highly dubious.

The temperatures in the pile of rubbles after collapse could easily have reached 1500 C, because the fire was enclosed at that point, with almost all the energy released by the fire being trapped under the debris.

Paper, fuel, plastic will release a lot of thermic energy when burnt, and it's what happen with the released heat that matters, not the matetial being burnt. If that heat is trapped, like in a bloomery, the temperature will rise alright. You know that they can melt steel with a simple charcoal fire in a bloomery, don't you?

You'd need to follow the thread. That theory was debunked pages ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw

I found the original source on vaporized lead. They say something very different than what you say: that the energy released during the plane conflagration and later during the collapse -- not the heat released by the fire -- is what vaporized some small amounts of lead but also silicium, carbon and other stuff.

Silicium boils at 3265 °C,. Carbon at
3642 °C. Can your termites do that?

Source (p.21):
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/cache/nyenvirolaw_WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf

They cause a lot of damage, but not the kind you're referencing.

They also described "the pulverization of these items caused by the WTC collapse that liberated and rendered them bio-accessible, thus creating an environmental hazard.

And yet the US government, controlled by Bush et al stated that it was perfectly safe for clean up crews, first responders, firemen and ... .

Why were carbon nanotubes found in the lungs of various WTC people?

I've noticed how slippery you are. Provide what they say which is different from, not "what I say", but that which was described by,

http://www.consensus911.org/panel-members/

Slippery is not the right word. I'm just faster and smarter than you are.

The original source (WTC Dust Signature Report, by RJ Lee Group, Dec 2003) says some lead, silicium, carbon and other elements got vaporised as a result of the planes' impact into the buildings and as a result of the buildings collapse, NOT as a result of very high temperatures.

Do you understand now? This is one more "argument" for termires debunked.

Again you miss the point. The upper block of the North Tower was where the fire was. You're suggesting that in the process of collapse, the upper block somehow maintained its integrity and pushed all else out of its way and made its way down into the basement. The upper block was the most weakened and damaged part of the Tower, and yet you believe that it made its way to the basement. How is it that you believe that in a battle between the damaged and weakened upper block and the lower undamaged core structure below it, the upper block prevailed and made its way to the basement?

Between 9/11 and 9/21, three to four million gallons were dumped on ground zero. This does not include a water leak from the Hudson River by way of outfall lines into the basement or bathtub. There were also leaks from broken water-mains, as well as problems with the water table because of a hole in the slurry wall. The combined water from hoses, rain, and aforementioned leaks collected at the bottom of the bathtub.

So, again, how did the fire from the upper block of the Tower, make it all the way through the intact core structure below it and then plunge into the bathtub area? And even if we allow for that . . . anomaly, how was steel being melted with all the water and fire retardants that I've just mentioned being dumped into that area?

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

That doesn't account for the molten steel, the vaporized steel, all of which was categorically denied by NIST.

Here's a video, which shows the, excuse my honesty, absolute lunacy of such a claim - "that there was no molten/vaporized steel and iron", when here, right at the beginning of the video are scientists describing that same molten/vaporized steel.

911 • Molten Steel And NIST Lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bv95zzBh18

Why would NIST deny the existence of molten/vaporized steel? And why would virtually all the world's media not pick up on it? Exceedingly strange!

If Russia or China pulled this kind of lame stunt, lame in the sense of totally NOT believable, they would be laughed off the planet.

Thanks for the Monday morning chuckles.

Your MO is laughable, as is your pretension to any kind of intelligence.