The Physics of 911

@Olivier5,

Quote:

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.

Here is a page of links that you should check out. You will find that what you call bizarre terminology is in fact common terminology that is used when discussing the collapse of the WTC Towers. What irony, huh!?

I recommend that you stop bringing up non issues. It gives the impression that you're stalling.

Quote:

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.

Yeah, you've already made the point that you believe that even though heat rises, the fire in the rubble nevertheless spread down through all the compressed concrete and steel and wound up in the basement to create pools of melted metals and steel girders. That's ridiculous. I've asked you to explain that process in detail, but all you've provided is the same old tired statement that fire spread through the pile of rubble. I suspect that this is you at your best . . .

I see that Builder has also pointed out to you your proposal 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. And I also see that you've avoided answering for that, choosing instead to push the idea that if planes hit the Towers, then fires can penetrate stories of compressed concrete and do anything you need it to do in order to not look like the fool here. You've also decided that if planes hit the Towers, then the law of conservation of energy can be violated and the collapse can occur through the course of most resistance as if that resistance were nonexistent. Your problem is that you're not thinking anything through before writing it and hitting reply.

Quote:

I never said "through all the steel and compressed cement".

You're just ignorant of the fact that your conjecture concerning how a bunch of fire got into the "crater" and created pools of melted metal and steel girders must necessarily include the idea that the fire had to fight its way downward through the stories of compressed concrete. That is what you believe but won't say. And let's not forget about the water, either.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Why would it be impossible?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

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.

The reason it is limited to the north tower is because there were many more videos of it.

It was, most assuredly, a block before the towers were blown up. To deny that is to deny reality. It didn't stay as a solid block for long because if it had it would have stopped within two floors.

The only way to keep the, at first, solid top block, which turned into the explosively dismantled top block moving down was with the easy to see explosions below the block that was removing all resistance, allowing the building to accelerate.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

the fire had to fight its way downward through the stories of compressed concrete.

I have already answered that. There were plenty of holes and cavities in the 911 rubble, as there always are in any pile of rubble. Those are not neatly organized, air-tights constructions. Here are a few pictures to illustrate the idea. They say a picture is worth a thousand words... As you can see, there's plenty of cavities and low density parts through which a fire can spread.

Note the smoke. No smoke without fire...

http://11even.net/wp-content/uploads/These-rescue-workers-are-dwarfed-by-the-enormous-pile-of-rubble-at-the-site-of-the-World-Trade-Center..jpg

http://www.septclues.com/SIMCITY/RUBBLE%20RESEARCH%20GROUND%20ZERO/FEMAphoto_WTC%20-%20362.jpg

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5341874.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/911.jpg

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Note the smoke. No smoke without fire...

Note the smoke and mirrors.

And for your second act, a lie. There is often smoke without fire.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Do you have a source?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

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.

Actually, it was just the beginning of the US government official conspiracy theory.

One that has completely unraveled - molten/vaporized steel; WTC7 study revealed a fraud; NIST WTC1&2 revealed a fraud;

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Do you have a source?

Yes, I do. I'm the source.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

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.

We've presented evidence that the buildings were engineered to withstand impacts greater than they encountered by the planes. The leading engineer stated that the fuel fires, while deadly at the impact level and a few floors below, would not create anywhere near enough heat to cause a total failure of the structure.

I've shared a video where a steel beam was subjected to the exact same circumstances you are basing your assumption on, with no damage evidenced, despite the fire raging for a full day, and extra fuel being added to the fire.

Your assumptions aren't evidence; they are logical fallacies.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Yes, I do. I'm the source.

Well, you couldn't be any worse than farmerman. I suppose.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Quote:

We've presented evidence that the buildings were engineered to withstand impacts greater than they encountered by the planes.

and the Titanic was unsinkeable.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

chimneys take a normal wood fire qnd make it a smelter.

This camlok clown is our old JTT, who was then, and still remains , totally batshit.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

No, it wasn't, and you are still doing what you have done since the beginning, nothing scientific.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

chimneys take a normal wood fire qnd make it a smelter.

Wow, even more science. Impressive, farmerman.

Address the nanothermite found at WTC, the molten steel/vaporized steel that I directed you too at the outset, the science that you studiously avoided, like all the other science, Mr Wutectic.

0 Replies

@camlok,

how many patents do you hold JTT?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Wow, even more science, farmerman. You really aim to impress.

1 Reply

@camlok,

not with you. I just abhor your piteous attempts to sound as if you know of what you speak.

Ok , if youre running from my question about how many patents you hold, HOW many papers have you had published in journals (Ill include editorial columns and columns in science newsletters.

Or did you move upstairs when your parents left so that you dont have to live in the basement anym ore

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

chimneys take a normal wood fire qnd make it a smelter.

Are you, as a scientist, farmerman, always so prone to this type of terrible exaggeration, used so terribly out of context?

Yes, rocket stoves, bloomeries, etc can create very high temperatures. But that was not even remotely close to what happened on 911. Let's put these myths to rest, shall we, Olivier?

You, farmerman, being a scientist, really ought to know better.

From supporters of the US government official conspiracy theory.

Quote:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso

...

The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated.

It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3

It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C.

However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

0 Replies

So with that, we come full circle to the issue of the vaporized steel/eutectic steel that you, farmerman, were shown very early in this discussion, which you ignored, as you do everything as regards science.

The alleged hijackers could not have caused the molten steel, the vaporized steel. They have been falsely accused and you, farmerman, realized it before, and you realize this now yet you want to continue with this charade.

How low does a person have to get to falsely accuse others; especially a scientist, the scientists at NIST, who really ought to know better.

Are you really going to keep going lower and lower?

And these false accusations have been extended exponentially to hundreds of millions around the world.

Quoting Joseph N. Welch,

"At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I have already answered that. There were plenty of holes and cavities in the 911 rubble, as there always are in any pile of rubble.

Well, actually you've simply restated that you believe that fires in the rubble can spread downward into the "crater" and create molten metals and melted steel girders even though water was present, and even though the collapse had created floors of compressed concrete. Now you've added some pics, presumably to show that some smoke in the rubble proves that the fire spread downward through the concrete floors and created molten metals and melted steel girders. I'm sorry to tell you, but that smoke doesn't prove anything of the sort. Most people would look at that smoke and use the term smolder. But you look at it and determine that it is proof that there are pools of molten metal and melted girders in the crater.

1 Reply

The Physics of 911

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know