The Physics of 911

@TomTomBinks,

camlok: Highly illustrative of just how effective the propaganda program surrounding the events of 9-11 was.

TomTomBinks: How does this even REMOTELY address if we should be working with or against President Trump? I wish we could just stay focused here.
===========

It doesn't, even REMOTELY. Is there some reason you think it should?

0 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

I just got it, TomTom. Pretty funny.

Feel free to discuss whatever you like here. I know that most people are capable of handling more than one thought at a time.

But what really puzzles me is how people will go to extreme lengths to cover up such an important issue.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

But what really puzzles me is how people will go to extreme lengths to cover up such an important issue.

The "issue" (there's quite a few more than one) has been thrashed out here dozens of times over the years. There's those who know the NIST report did exactly what it was set up to do (fail dismally) and there's those who have to believe it, because to do otherwise, completely shatters their faith in the system under which they live.

Plenty of fence-sitters, in between, but the govt-sponsored denial program is generally quite effective, even on swinging voters.

2 Replies

@Builder,

I agree with all you said.

But when there is unequivocal proof, proof that sends a scientist scurrying for cover, folks should know, well, actually, as you have said, they do know but ... extreme cognitive dissonance.

1 Reply

@camlok,

And the new prez and his advisers were well aware that many Americans still want answers.

I wonder how much money was pumped into that particular denial industry.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
We have no proof here that this even happened, and we know they didn't need to melt to account for the collapse.

Actually, my question to you was why you quoted me saying something that is not even in my post. So, what about that?

Because you made the OP without the use of an actual quotation reference. You made it italicized, but did not attribute who made the quote. You have asked twice, but should know why.

1 Reply

@Builder,

the issue of how much strength is lost by the alloy steel girders under thermal stress under loading. The studies Ive seen disclosed a varying temperature of the fire (due to jetting) of over 2400 F
. At 1800 F the girders would have lost more thn 85% of their strength a required in the design engineering.

Couple that with the fact that many girders and skin panels were actually hanging free until the deformed under heat and weight. Compressive forces had also induced"selective anatexis" on several layers of metal (Funny thing is, melting was only a surface phenom) and was densest at flex points (kinda like quartz veins in folding rock under pressure.

Heat Pressure and Time, theres yer culprit.

The denial industry has yet to make a reasonable case that disproves anything. Dr Jones has been debunked so often that he is oretty much ignored by the (and I shudder to call them this) "The TRUTHERS"
Theyre a bunch of obsessed idiots who are easily led by opportunistic self adoring clowns.

_____________________________

PS, fresco brought up the response to "what these guys oughta provide as far as evidence before they start claiming something" It was not up to fresco to provide the data, HE is not make the assertion.

3 Replies

This, please read.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

You made it italicized, but did not attribute who made the quote.

Here is what I said, which makes clear that I was reporting what another poster had said in another thread. I've bolded the operative words for you.

This subject has been brought up off topic in another thread. The poster who brought it up has made a claim regarding melted metals. He has said: . . .
_________________________________________

If anyone wishes to refute his claim, they may do so in this thread.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

This, please read.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

It's too bad that that magazine let this guy represent them during this interview. They should have sent someone with a little more savvy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abe6rLCgO3M

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

This subject has been brought up off topic in another thread. The poster who brought it up has made a claim regarding melted metals. He has said:

Focus on the molten metals. No one has ever suggested that the alleged hijackers had anything but jet fuel, which can only create temperatures of about 1,800F. Molten steel was in abundance, melting temperature about 2,750F. Vaporized steel, a much higher temperature. Molten molybdenum 4,750F.
_________________________________________

If anyone wishes to refute his claim, they may do so in this thread.

Good day.

This is the OP. Who is "he" and how do we attribute upon "he" to respond to you?

Do you really not see the confusion?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

PS, fresco brought up the response to "what these guys oughta provide as far as evidence before they start claiming something" It was not up to fresco to provide the data, HE is not make the assertion.

No. Fresco implied that there were materials in the WTCs that would account for the necessary temperature to melt girders. Therefore, the onus is on him to provide something to support his implication.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

This is the OP. Who is "he" and how do we attribute upon "he" to respond to you?

You are telling me that there is no way to infer from my OP that I am not the one who made the claim about melted steel, when in fact, the poster who incorrectly attributed the words to me had to have pulled those words from another thread, thereby showing that he was fully aware of who said the words. It isn't confusing at all.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Your theory explains deformation (twisting, buckling, bending) adequitely. Our sports complex (indoor cricket and soccer) burnt to the ground, and the girder steel frame did deform quite dramatically.

The question still remains about visibly molten metal seen pouring from several levels of the towers prior to collapse. There's also the evidence of huge pools of molten metal, beneath the rubble piles of these buildings. These heat signatures were detectable for weeks after the cleanup began, and are again visible during the excavation of the sites, as physically molten material.

Given the evidence that a pancake collapse caused the rapid destruction of the floor's concrete components, what became of all the reinforcing steel that held those concrete slabs together? And the steel spans that supported those slabs?

1 Reply

@Builder,

"HUGE POOLS"???? just how big were these "pools"?? I dont recall reding anything about that.(Although, as the years go by, the legends of what wa found actully grow. Could this be one of those tles???)

I can, from experience , tell you about "Iron bloomery" where Iron silicate is formed from two separate chemical phases of two or more compounds.
"Fayalite" is the materiel produced in a bloomery and I wonder whether they are dealing with that?

Id seen a few metallurgic thin sections from the WTC I and II and saw something that looked like "surficial anatexis" (Pressure induced melting of rock) on the rubble when they were cleaning up and gathering samples for forensics and engineering testing as defined by ASTM.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Do you deny that two jets plowed into the WTC I and II?
Do you deny a huge fire erupted in the building at the floors where the jets hit?

Do you deny that both buildings began to fail at the areas where the jets hit?

You seem to be invested in some belief that the govt was involved for some reason n that plot was cooked up. A plot which required amazing coordination of severl dozen technologies

I feel really bqd for the families of those pqssengers on all the planes that were used as missiles tht day. Those people all exist and have been identified and memorialized

Did you ever consider that the leaders of the "TRuthers" may just be fucked in the head and are quite insane?

6 Replies

@farmerman,

We can't even find out what "alleged hijackers" are and you want more from him?

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

Thanks. I do hope this will be the gathering place for everything 9/11.

I was hoping it would crater Blatham's thread since he's such a creep.

But I couldn't bring myself to keep posting about such a tedious subject so as to foster that result.

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

centrox wrote:
and we know they didn't need to melt to account for the collapse.

Why do you say that?

It is common knowledge that steel does not have to get hot enough to melt for it to lose its strength and give way to gravity.

And there is decisive evidence that this is exactly what happened with the World Trade Center.

2 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

On the molten metal issues, it was visibly pouring down the sides of the building in several commonly-used videos.

Molten aluminum was visibly pouring out of one corner at one point. That is not evidence for this imaginary "molten steel".

1 Reply

The Physics of 911

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know