The Physics of 911

The principle of a bloomery is to trap heat, so as to get higher and more uniform temperatures than in an open fire, and thus melt metals such as iron. People have been using this technique since the bronze age.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

People have been using this technique since the bronze age.

Yeah, and flooding the "bloomery" with tonnes of H2O always does the trick.

Steel I-beams two inches thick and "bloomeries" don't live in the same era, not even in that fantasyland you're using for the thought process.

1 Reply

@Builder,

How are you doing buddy? Not too cold out there?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

I like the way you guys jump around on a subject. The subject of Centrlia was given as an example of the sustainability of a fire(Something that you guys were denying and hqve been shown to be wrong). You keep ducking and jiving.
As far as the temp at Cntralia, a 50 year old fire has spikes in temp qnd the high temps occur qs the "Boney coke" begins to provide excess heat energy and can make a nice bloomery retort. The minerals of forsterite at Centralia are samples of an iron silicate that forms Fe "sponge" in a bloomery.
The US BuMines had been working there for the first 20 years and as the flare ups occured as the drilled, they jut stopped drilling. They caued spikes of temps up into the high 2000 F rqnge because of the gqs flux exhuded by the "chimneyholes". The purpose of the 1500F degree cap is so that only CO2 is the combustion product (qnd silicate nd sulfide deposits). If it were hotter the production of CO would be the big problem. So they actually "Keep" the temp at 1500 or lower.

NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT-

Quote:

maybe you'd like to explain 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. Are you familiar with the law of conservation of energy and how it applies to the issue of the speed of collapse?

Maybe youd like to explain what the hell youre off about now??. How has the conservation of Mass/energy been violated in your mind??

STILL though. You guys seem to have totally dumped Steve Jones as your leader. Is he still the major article writer that fires up the "Truther" movement? Ive asked this of you and am waiting to hear where he went after they agreed to let him "retire" at Brigham Young U

You guys have been spouting roughly the same **** for 16 years and nothing has changed. SCience still works as it should nd conspiracy theories keep limited minds occupied.

7 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I like the way you guys jump around on a subject. The subject of Centrlia was given as an example of the sustainability of a fire(Something that you guys were denying and hqve been shown to be wrong). You keep ducking and jiving.

Jump around? You're the one who brought up Centralia, and now you're complaining about it? In whose world does that make sense?

According to a report by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), over the years there have been numerous borehole temperature readings in excess of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. The highest temperature ever recorded at the Centralia PA mine fire was 1350 degrees Fahrenheit.

You should probably give the good people at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection a call and explain to them how, and why, they're wrong and you're right. At any rate, it's been interesting watching you try to equate a fire that burned for an hour and a half with office furnishings as fuel to a fire in a coal bed that's been burning for 50 years or so.

Quote:

Maybe youd like to explain what the hell youre off about now??. How has the conservation of Mass/energy been violated in your mind??

Really? You don't have any idea how the mass of the core structures of the WTCs would have affected the speed of collapse? That's okay. Anyone reading this is probably wondering how it's possible that you have no idea what I'm referring to. But to clarify your position: The intact core structure of the Towers offered no resistance during their collapses. And just for the record, in your next post, state clearly and concisely that you believe that the core structures of the WTCs would offer no resistance to the collapse, and that, in fact, allowed for acceleration during collapse. Don't forget to make that statement.

Quote:

STILL though. You guys seem to have totally dumped Steve Jones as your leader. Is he still the major article writer that fires up the "Truther" movement? Ive asked this of you and am waiting to hear where he went after they agreed to let him "retire" at Brigham Young U

You're not paying attention. I've never mentioned Jones. Don't need to.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I like the way you guys jump around on a subject.

I like the way, you, the "scientist" is acting, has been acting totally unscientific.

Glen illustrated clearly that you, once again, sought to deceive. Which is all you are doing in this silly post of yours. Which is all you have been doing in all your silly posts.

Steven Jones has more integrity in the skin he sloughs off in a few seconds than you have in your whole sorry existence. His science is supported by many other scientists and your shuckin' and jivin' is clear for all to see; you are still stuck on "wutectic", completely unable to address anything as regards science.

The chance of the NIST report being accurate is zero and here you are defending a criminal cover up. Surely, that wouldn't be seen as scientific by your professional association.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

SCience still works as it should

Why no science from you, then, farmerman?

Why, since the discussion began on the fact that it is completely impossible for the alleged hijackers to have caused the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 &7, for many solid scientific reasons, have you failed to address any of them.

Is that what a farmerman "scientist" does?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The subject of Centrlia was given as an example of the sustainability of a fire

Then provide a reputable source which ties your theory to the situation at WTC and then we can discuss your "science".

0 Replies

What motivates all this BS is a simplistic and racist political world view where the USA are always unredeemably wrong and evil. Therefore, the US cannot be a victim of someone else's crime ever, and nobody should ever feel any empathy for them when they appear to fall victims to someone else's crime.

Remember the worldwide sympathy for the US after 9/11? That was most painful and offensive to the truthers; for them it could only mean one thing: that the world was tricked by Americans, because the US are the devil, full of tricks as we know. If there's ANY crime being committed, it must be that the US has some part in it...

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

How has the conservation of Mass/energy been violated in your mind??

What science was put forward to explain the collapse of the twin towers? What theory, what proof?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The principle of a bloomery is to trap heat, so as to get higher and more uniform temperatures than in an open fire,

And you think putting loads of pulverized concrete dust on top of the fuel will help?

As soon as you and the "scientist", farmerman, provide a reputable source that agrees with your loony theory that that was a possible scenario at WTC, we can discuss it.

That farmerman has never discussed the specific science issues surrounding WTC really ought to have given you great pause. His dodging and weaving could see him disciplined if his peers saw and heard him.

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Quote:
The principle of a bloomery is to trap heat, so as to get higher and more uniform temperatures than in an open fire,

And you think putting loads of pulverized concrete dust on top of the fuel will help?

If it helps trap the heat, yes.

Quote:

As soon as you and the "scientist", farmerman, provide a reputable source that agrees with your loony theory that that was a possible scenario at WTC, we can discuss it.

I understand. You fell in love with the farmer. But now you are talking to me.

What would you consider a reputable source, pray tell?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

What motivates all this BS is a simplistic and racist political world view where the USA are always unredeemably wrong and evil.

Your position is that anyone who sees and mentions that the laws of physics were violated on 9/11 must be motivated by a racist world view. That sounds like a cheap way to avoid discussion.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I am not avoiding discussion, just explaining the deeper motives of you truthers. It' of course not the pursuit of truth, but the defense of a world view where the US is the source of all evil.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I am not avoiding discussion, just explaining the deeper motives of you truthers.

And here you do the same thing. You can't stop yourself from assigning derogatory names to people who see and mention that the laws of physics were violated on 9/11. It is apparent that you are doing so to avoid discussing how the intact core structure below the impact zone provided no resistance to the collapse. Everyone sees that but you.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Let's start with any source, besides Olivier5.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The subject of Centrlia was given as an example of the sustainability of a fire(Something that you guys were denying and hqve been shown to be wrong).

What is the fuel source at "Centrlia"?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

I haven't even discussed the collapse but you're already putting words in my mouth...

2 Replies

@camlok,

Let's finish this, rather. What source would you consider credible?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I haven't even discussed the collapse but you're already putting words in my mouth...

I've put no words in your mouth concerning the intact core structure offering no resistance to the collapse. You said you looked forward to discussing that.

You're not showing anything to rebut what's been said about the fires creating molten metal and melted steel. You've just offered your opinion that it could have melted stuff like a bloomery, but didn't take into consideration the fuel available for such a thing, or the water that was present in that environment, or the fact that all the debris had to have been encased in pulverized, compacted concrete.

So let's get started on the physics-defying collapse. You know my position on that, now let's here yours.

1 Reply

The Physics of 911

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know