The Physics of 911

@camlok,

I didn't have time to add the following edits before Able2Know edit time ran out. The link for the paraphrases, there could be some small errors in my transcription, of the UofA-F is below.

The quoted/paraphrased items all start around 18:00. But the whole speech is very instructive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IegkDCBJxjY&index=4&list=PLUshF3H0xxH0-LxNZYGPIJqIp8-roEJY4

1 Reply

@camlok,

Also watch Peter Ketchum's roughly 13 minute speech.

Truth Is Where Our Healing Lies | Part 5: Peter Michael Ketcham Makes First Public Appearance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb2NOBbD88c&index=5&list=PLUshF3H0xxH0-LxNZYGPIJqIp8-roEJY4

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Calm down. My name is Olivier. I am not Farmerman, although I take your confusing us as a compliment.

I am well aware of that. Why would you take that as a compliment? Do you understand the meaning of the word? He, farmerman, [small f, in case you haven't noticed], purports to be a scientist, but he like you has studiously avoided everything as regards science.

Sorry, I take that back. You have tried to address the science in a much much better fashion than fm.

It's really puzzling. Why would a "scientist", who screams loudly that he has a slam dunk case refuse to even once discuss the science?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

Really? You mean to tell me that all this time you didn't know what I've been referring to when I've been talking about the upper and lower block, and you never bothered to ask for clarification? I don't believe you. The context in which I've used the terms left nothing to the imagination.

Sorry but it means nothing very clear in this context. These buildings were not made of "blocks". So please define what you mean by the "upper block" and the "lower block", or ever better, try and find a more precise vocabulary, e.g. a floor number would be more accurate than a vaguish and non-existant "block".

It's important to use precise concepts in order to think precisely. You cannot understand this very simple idea of a fire spreading through a pile of rubbles because your concepts are vague. E.g. you seem to think there are distinct "blocks" in a pile of rubbles.

You also use the term "basement" as if it was a thing. But there's no "basement" post-collapse, only a pile of rubbles.

In that pile, there is ample flammable material, and there are bits and pieces already on fire. The fire spreads through the pile of rubbles. The heat is trapped by the rubbles. Temperature goes up. A few metalic pieces in the rubbles start to melt like in a bloomery.

It's all very simple if you THINK of it with the right concepts, whereas if you think in terms of ill-defined "blocks", vanished "basements" and vague "termites", it all becomes very complicated.

2 Replies

@camlok,

Have you ever tried to argue with an "hyperskeptic", like a Holocaust denier or a climate change skeptic? It's very hard to nail them to any particular position. While you're busy proving one of their absurd points, they have already moved to their next absurd point. And that's how you know they argue in bad faith: because they don't want to inspect any of their beliefs for too long.

They just vaguely evoke a "point" and move quickly to the next "point" because deep down they KNOW it's all a house of cards. None of their "ideas" can sustain rational inspection.

I suspect Farmerman got tired of debunking one stupidity after another, and realized you were not arguing in good faith, and that's why he left you guys.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

It's all very simple if you THINK of it with the right concepts, whereas if you think in terms of ill-defined "blocks", vanished "basements" and vague "termites", it all becomes very complicated.

Firstly, the plural of rubble is piles of rubble. Secondly, Glenn has already clearly defined what he's speaking of, when describing the "upper block". And thirdly, you were the one who described the basement as a "crater".

Be precise, you said, while being nothing of the sort.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

While you're busy proving one of their absurd points,

should read: "While you're busy proving one of their absurd points WRONG,"

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Have you ever tried to argue with an "hyperskeptic",

Most assuredly! Olivier5 and farmerman come quickly to mind.

How did you miss this?

Professor Leroy Hulsey [in bold]: "The Uof A-F study found that there is no justification at all for NIST's notion that WTC7 came down as a result of fire.

Column 79 did not buckle under gravity loading

camlok: I should have mentioned that the following portion was not directly tied to the above portion. Below, Prof Hulsey describes further study beyond simply checking NIST's original study, in which NIST advances the absolutely fatuous notion, the completely unscientific idea that a progressive collapse could be free fall.

Are they completely unfamiliar with Newton's Laws of Physics?

... we're looking at progressive collapses, what we found is quite interesting, but no big surprise, the building is not coming straight down, it's actually leaning to the west as it's coming down, so remember the building is not symmetrical, nor is it built to have symmetrical behavior, it's actually built stiffer on one side than it is on the other. So it's gonna have to be forced to come straight down, even a symmetrical structure is not built perfectly, for god's sake, so nothing is ever gonna come straight down unless you force it to come straight down.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I suspect Farmerman got tired of debunking one stupidity after another, and realized you were not arguing in good faith, and that's why he left you guys.

You suspect a lot of things, rarely with any foundation to support them. If you were to go and read farmerman's posts from the very beginning of this discussion on WTC/9-11, [which you won't, of course], you would see so much that is the very antithesis of science.

You would see him obfuscating, bluffing, dropping irrelevant bombs here and there to distract from the science. The kind of things that might see one disciplined for by their profession.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

So please define what you mean by the "upper block" and the "lower block",

No. You're playing dumb, and you're doing so in an effort to bring the discussion to a grinding halt. And the reason you're doing that is because you understand quite well that the damaged upper block of the North Tower did not crush the lower, intact core structure below it. Nor did the upper block fire crash through the entire intact core structure and all the cement floors and then wind up in the basement. Of course, there is also the issue of the damaged upper block falling through the lower intact core structure below at virtually freefall speed. Are you familiar with the law of conservation of energy?

You suggest that the fires in the rubble spread downward through all the steel and compressed cement below it. I think you need to describe that in a lot more detail because it sounds quite ridiculous on its face.

Quote:

you seem to think there are distinct "blocks" in a pile of rubbles.

No, if you will recall, I am the one who made the point that the upper block did not make its way through the intact lower core structure and push its way through to the basement to melt metals and steel girders.

Quote:

You also use the term "basement" as if it was a thing. But there's
no "basement" post-collapse, only a pile of rubbles.

More playing dumb . . .

Now how about explaining how the upper block--the part of the North Tower above the impact zone that sustained the most damage--dropped down and crushed the intact core structure below. How is it that the lower intact core structure offered no resistance to speak of. Again, are you familiar with the law of conservation of energy, and how it applies to the issue of the speed of collapse?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
So please define what you mean by the "upper block" and the "lower block",

No.

Okay so you don't know what you are talking about. I guessed as much. Just another idiot making noize with his mouth.

1 Reply

@camlok,

I am not interested in what your beef with Farmerman is. That's neither here nor there.

I'll tell him that you miss him.

0 Replies

@camlok,

I am not a hyperskeptic. I use none of their tricks, like changing subject constantly. YOU do, though, scared as you are that you'll fall from your bike as soon as you stop moving.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Okay so you don't know what you are talking about.

From my last post:

Now how about explaining how the upper block--the part of the North Tower above the impact zone that sustained the most damage--dropped down and crushed the intact core structure below. How is it that the lower intact core structure offered no resistance to speak of? Again, are you familiar with the law of conservation of energy, and how it applies to the issue of the speed of collapse?
__________________________________________________

So now that you've been brought up to speed concerning what the upper block is, perhaps you'll address the issue of the damaged upper block falling through the lower intact core structure below at virtually freefall speed. Go ahead and explain how the law of conservation of energy explains the virtually freefall collapse.

Also, you suggested that the fires in the rubble spread downward through all the steel and compressed cement below it. I think you need to describe that in a lot more detail because it sounds quite ridiculous on its face.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

That's all you have been doing, but you are forgiven.

The WTC7 study is bunk. Their notions on its collapse mechanisms have zero chance of being true. Why no comments on this from you, Olivier?

1 Reply

@camlok,

No, i have been sticking to two (2) points, as follows:

1. girders could have melted in the fire within the pile of rubble after the collapse.

2. The traces of vaporised lead (and silicium, carbon, etc.) mentioned by RJ Lee Group in their report to Deutche Bank were in their report attributed to the energy released during the planes conflagrations and/or during collapse, not to extreme heat.

Do you understand those two points or do I need to explain a little more, say for another couple of weeks? Some people are a bit slow among the truthers, I find.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

the upper block-- the part of the North Tower above the impact zone that sustained the most damage

Given that 1) such a part never formed a "block"; 2) you apparently want to limit this rather bizarre terminology to the north tower alone, for some reason... given all this I recommed that you drop this confusing term in favor of "the part of the building located above impact". unclear concepts make for unclear thoughts.

Quote:

perhaps you'll address the issue of the damaged upper block falling through the lower intact core structure below at virtually freefall speed. Go ahead and explain how the law of conservation of energy explains the virtually freefall collapse.

Perhaps indeed. I am also eager to get there but before we do, let's try a bit harder to find agreement on the issue of whether the girders could have melt in the fite located within the pile of rubble post collapse.

If you can't understand something as simple as a fire spreading through a pile of rubble, how could you possibly get the complex science involved in understanding how a damaged building can reach a point of collapse, and how fast it can fall after that? Let's be realistic. You need to move by baby steps.

Quote:

you suggested that the fires in the rubble spread downward through all the steel and compressed cement below it. I think you need to describe that in a lot more detail because it sounds quite ridiculous on its face.

Now you attribute what YOU say to ME. I never said "through all the steel and compressed cement". YOU say so.In a debate, it's important to stay clear about who says what, you know?

I say: the pile of rubble at ground zero was not inherently different from any pile of rubble, just bigger. And in any pile of rubbles there are many holes, gaps, cavities and interstices through which a fire can spread.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

In a debate, it's important to stay clear about who says what, you know?

Certainly; you said repeatedly that there were no planes impacting the buildings. You referred to a five-storey pile of rubble as a "crater", and you've stated that building materials alone, created enough heat to melt two-inch thick steel I-beams, even under five stories or rubble(s) (sic) in a "crater" that was filled with H2O.

0 Replies

A few of my posts on the issue of the planes. I am arguing that the undeniable reality of the two planes that crashed into the twin towers on 9/11/2001 logically rules out any additional conspiracy theory.

-------------------------------------

“Why use the planes as a diversion? Who piloted them? Because whoever did that committed suicide that day. Are CIA operatives likely to sacrifice for the cause like that? No, they aren't. Your theory doesn't hold water. If the CIA wanted to bring down the towers by explosive, it didn't need the planes.”
https://able2know.org/topic/317633-17#post-6369588

“As I explained on the other thread (fascism in the US), you keep ignoring the challenge that those planes pose to your little theory... […] Focus on the big picture: why the planes? Why even bother getting them in the picture if the CIA had already laden the building with termites? What purpose do they play in your alleged conspiracy?”
https://able2know.org/topic/369947-9#post-6371320

“Focus on the planes. They were real. And their presence means your theory is baloney. If the CIA framed AQ, then their job is done. What's the point in bringing down the WTC with termites? err sorry thermites.”
https://able2know.org/topic/317633-17#post-6369839

“The undeniable presence of those planes makes any additional conspiracy logically impossible. Let's call the conspiracy to torch the buildings with planes Plan A. Plan B is the conspiracy to bring down the buildings with thermites. Why oh why implement both plan A and plan B? They are redundant […] Therefore, there is no plan B. There's only one conspiracy's here: Plan A was implemented and led to the buildings' collapse. ”
https://able2know.org/topic/369947-10#post-6371520

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

1. girders could have melted in the fire within the pile of rubble after the collapse.

That is impossible. Do you have a source?

1 Reply

The Physics of 911

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know