The Physics of 911

@Olivier5,

Quote:

And in fact I proved as much on one occasion: you misundetstood what your own sources said about vaporized lead.

You didn't offer the source, you never offer any sources. You said that you, Olivier, are the source. And you are, the source of much laughter.

I'm not sure if your English is at a level where you really understand. Quote the portion you mean and describe what you mean.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

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

Get any source that you consider credible. That's how science works.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I haven't even discussed the collapse

What source would you use to discuss it? NIST, USGS, FEMA??

Are you knowledgeable enough on this subject to know what there is out there that supports the US official story?

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

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

Get any source that you consider credible. That's how science works.

No, science is not about finding "any source you consider credible"...

YOU asked for a "credible source". I am prepared to search for one, but only for one that YOU will find credible. Otherwise it's a waste of my and your time.

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Quote:
And in fact I proved as much on one occasion: you misundetstood what your own sources said about vaporized lead.

You didn't offer the source, you never offer any sources. You said that you, Olivier, are the source.

You keep confusing the two (2) arguments I have made during our discussion. These two points are completely independent. Try and focus. Take your prescribed ADHD medication if you need to.

These two points are as follows:

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

Point 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.

I derived point 1 from common sense alone and haven't bothered looking for another source yet. But I DID provide a source for the second point (p.21):
http://www1.ae911truth.org/documents/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp_.pdf

Try and read it. Then, try and understand what it says. It's not that hard.

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Quote:
I haven't even discussed the collapse

What source would you use to discuss it? NIST, USGS, FEMA??

Are you knowledgeable enough on this subject to know what there is out there that supports the US official story?

But you don't consider them credible, so why should I even bother with them?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I am not moving to a new issue until we conclude on the previous issue. Your buddy JTT (camlock) has agreed that girders could well have melted in the pile of rubble. Why don't you follow him?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

tell him about the coal mine fire in Centralia Pa where the fire is propogating against air flow and gravity. Its totally methanogenic yet is still burning at 1500 F. It will continue because the O necessary for continuous burning is being acquired by chemical breakdown of Sulfate and Carbonate minerals where the molecules are mostly OXYGEN

GLENN.

You are a lying sack of hit. This was my point re Centralia. This fire has been propagating in an almost reducing environment environment, and when it hd been oxygenated a few times the Bu-mines measured temps waay over 2000 F.
I KNOW the monitoring personnel for the DEP, (They are a consulting company that is on contract to monitor the safety nd environmenta at Centralia to Ashland Pa).

Your original arguments were that the fires en base could not be sustained at the WTC. I countered that with the Centralia story, want me to dig up other mine fires (and trsh lndfill fires throughout the US that are able to melt cans and bumpers?)

As I said you just flip around from point to point when your arguments begin to founder.

I brought up Steve Jones because hes still around leading mny of those "newish un- juried papers and paperbacks" most all of which are self published gibberish. Hes always leading some new batch of Truthers and repackaging old swill as new science.

I like Oliviers hypothesis that you guys are single minded lifetime anti Americans that need some worldview that sustains your hate.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I am not moving to a new issue until we conclude on the previous issue. Your buddy JTT (camlock) has agreed that girders could well have melted in the pile of rubble. Why don't you follow him?

Are you trying the divide and conquer routine? I believe he's already said that the fuel for the fire would not produce steel-melting temperatures.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You are a lying sack of hit.

You need to learn to relax. Your anger is really over the top.

Quote:

Your original arguments were that the fires en base could not be sustained at the WTC. I countered that with the Centralia story, want me to dig up other mine fires (and trsh lndfill fires throughout the US that are able to melt cans and bumpers?)

I believe I've already pointed out your mistake of comparing a fifty-year coal-bed fire to an hour and a half office-furnishings fire.

Quote:

Bu-mines measured temps waay over 2000 F.

I believe I've also provided a link to information from the DEP that does not support what you're implying.

Quote:

As I said you just flip around from point to point when your arguments begin to founder.

Again you're not paying attention. That's what happens when you get angry and lose your balance. I've been talking about pools of molten metal and melted steel girders. Also, at the end of most of my posts, I've asked you--or anyone--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 at virtually freefall speed. In other words, how is it that the lower intact core structure offered no resistance to speak of, which violated the law of conservation of energy? Care to take a crack at it?

Quote:

I brought up Steve Jones because hes still around leading mny of those "newish un- juried papers and paperbacks" most all of which are self published gibberish. Hes always leading some new batch of Truthers and repackaging old swill as new science.

I have nothing at all to do with Jones. This is just you exercising your right to revert back to your Junior High mentality for the purpose of accusing me of having cooties.

Quote:

I like Oliviers hypothesis that you guys are single minded lifetime anti Americans that need some worldview that sustains your hate.

Really, it seems that you are the one full of hate here. Stewing in your own juices as you do will only serve to raise your blood pressure. I'm just asking questions and waiting for answers that involve more than your "I know the guys from DEP, and they said" claims.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

He doesn't know s..t about thermodynamics. But he did say that some beams melted in the rubble. He's quite certain that it did happen... And you aren't. So you're even more of a wacko than he is.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

But he did say that some beams melted in the rubble. He's quite certain that it did happen

The divide and conquer thing is the tool of last resort. Did you know that?

I should let camlok speak for himself, but I believe his point was that there had to have been added energy to create that phenomenon of pools of molten metal and melted steel girders.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
But he did say that some beams melted in the rubble. He's quite certain that it did happen

The divide and conquer thing is the tool of last resort. Did you know that?

No, I din't know that, probably because it's just BS as usual... You ARE divided on this issue. I am not inventing it, just pointing at it. Secretly I hope you can follow cam's example.

Quote:

I should let camlok speak for himself, but I believe his point was that there had to have been added energy to create that phenomenon of pools of molten metal and melted steel girders.

No, he's talking of nano-termites. Very very small termites I guess...

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

I believe I've already pointed out your mistake of comparing a fifty-year coal-bed fire to an hour and a half office-furnishings fire.

what mistake would that be??? your argument was about the unsustainability of a fire under methanogenic conditions. I showed , and you acknowledged that Centralia has been going on for 50 years in even worse oxygen starved conditions. There are severl more coal mine fires and a few DUMP FIRES in similar conditionss. With enough fuel , once an ignition point nd reaction point is reaached, a fire under reducing environments can continue until all the fuel is gone.
You seem to dwell on what you think is " physics" and forget the chemistry of combution

Quote:

I believe I've also provided a link to information from the DEP

DEP has been in business only since 1996 (tqrted by law in 1995). The Bumines programs had previously measured the fires in order to try Nitrogen blanketing to extinguish them. When that didnt work they noticed tht the fires were actually deriving oxygen from qnionisc Oxygenate salts.

Nobody seems to even want to acknowledge Steve Jones and his crew of " alternate fact" providers

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

what mistake would that be??? your argument was about the unsustainability of a fire under methanogenic conditions.

My argument is that the fire was in the upper floors of the WTC Tower. Your argument is that, instead of ending up on top of the rubble pile, the fires ended up down in the basement where, despite several sources of water flow there, created pools of molten metal and melted steel girders. You see the problem there, right? Also, you're ignoring the fact that what fires there were, were encased in pulverized, compacted cement dust . . . lots and lots of it.

Quote:

DEP has been in business only since 1996 (tqrted by law in 1995). The Bumines programs had previously measured the fires in order to try Nitrogen blanketing to extinguish them. When that didnt work they noticed tht the fires were actually deriving oxygen from qnionisc Oxygenate salts.

And once again you are attempting to compare an underground coal bed with office firnishings in compacted cement dust in order to explain pools of molten metal and melted steel girders. Are you aware of NIST's claim that there was no molten metals or melted steel girders in the WTC rubble or basement? Apparently even they knew better than to admit to pools of molten metal and melted steel girders because they knew they'd be put in the position of having to explain how that occurred.

And I thought I already provided you with the DEP's statement concerning the highest temperatures recorded in Centralia's fire.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

STILL though. You guys seem to have totally dumped Steve Jones as your leader.

The first I'd heard of Steve, was when you mentioned him here.

My first professional opinion of the video played ad nauseum on every TV channel for days after the collapse of the two WTC towers was shared by more than two thousand architects and engineers; professional demolition brought all three towers down.

I've seen more than a few absolutely ridiculous theories presented since, but none have altered the facts, for me, or many. The disinformation industry swung into full force rather early, and certain videos seen on the day, where explosions were audible at ground level, and remarked upon widely, have been dismissed out of hand.

I'd have to wonder what the outcome would have been, had all that money poured into muddying the waters could have achieved, if NIST's team had access to such funding.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

But I DID provide a source for the second point (p.21):
http://www1.ae911truth.org/documents/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp_.pdf

Try and read it. Then, try and understand what it says. It's not that hard.

Why didn't you quote it and why aren't you telling me what it says?

1 Reply

There's several mentions in this video of temperatures of 2800 degrees F, by people at ground zero during the excavation process.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

But you don't consider them credible, so why should I even bother with them?

Because they are the ones who have advanced the "science" that purportedly supports the US government official conspiracy theory. What other possible sources could you have in mind?

Come on, Olivier, this is just plain weird, actually wacko. Notice how cagey farmerman is being about Centralia, about bloomeries, about absolutely everything. He won't commit himself to any science discussion because he knows that he knows precious little about the science and he is scared to death that he will trip himself up.

He already has, by studiously avoiding the FEMA Appendix C which describes a situation that was/is, makes it absolutely impossible for the US government official conspiracy theory to be true.

And yet this "scientist", a professional scientist is denying science because he can't face up to the truth, he can't even acknowledge the possibility. That is most assuredly NOT a scientist.

And he has the temerity, the unmitigated gall, to malign an honest scientist like Steven Jones.

1 Reply

While the dithering continues over imaginary bloomeries and what it takes to turn solid steel into liquid form, I'm still wondering how the titanium jet engines on the plane that allegedly was flown into the Pentagon, managed to enter the building in the middle of the impact zone, as opposed to remaining on their 350 mph trajectory, and striking the building at the measured distance apart of more than forty metres.

2 Replies

The Physics of 911

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know