The Physics of 911

Not for farmer, but to farmer. I can speak to the fact that he has shown nothing to illustrate he is a scientist and if he actually is his knowing charade is even worse.



There have been no "arguments", just distractions and much confusion. Again, if he actually is a scientist, then that speaks to much worse things about him as a professional.



Don't hold your breath.



Illustrative of your deep confusion.

Keep going, Olivier. You are sinking the US government 911 Ship of Lies faster than even farmerman.

Haven't you gotten the message from NIST; there was no molten metal, or explosives, or thermite or nanothermite?

I couldn't care less about NIST. That's YOUR obsession, not mine. I'm not American, and I don't feel duty-bound to defend anyone in the US administration. You got me all wrong if you think I give a flying rats' ass about any US official. In fact, my main beef with you is that you're giving anti-Americanism a bad name. You do people like me (justifiably concerned about the toxic influence of the US in this world) much wrong by conflating irrational hatred and valid critique.

Speak to farmer all you want but leave me out of it.

What you're saying, and don't know it, is that firefighters were ignorant of the "fact" that all of the water they used on the rubble was all for naught. Wonder why they did it. You believe they could learn a thing or two about futility from you? I would imagine that they were hitting hot spots with all that water. You want everyone to believe that it was all poured evenly over a sixteen acre area. You're being dishonest. You need to back up that assumption.

I've shown you proof that there were several water sources going into the bathtub. You didn't deny it. You've also been shown that lots of eyewitnesses testified to seeing pools and rivers of molten metal and steel girders in the basement levels. You didn't deny it. Now you are going on about the absence of steam. You need to show that there was no steam. I have seen a video of a firefighter at Ground Zero telling a reporter that they have to hold back putting water on hot spots because it will cause so much steam that they wouldn't be able to see anything.

If you require a list of eyewitnesses who said that they saw pools and rivers of molten metal and melted steel girders, just ask. I will be happy to put it in front of your eyes for you.

What you're saying here, and don't know it, is that if planes flew into the Towers, then you don't have to explain how a virtually freefall collapse of the WTC Towers could have happen when there was an intact core structure to offer continual resistance to the collapse. You are also saying that if planes flew into the Towers, then you don't have to explain how there was molten metal and melted steel girders down in the rubble. And I recall showing you a video in which a beam situated in a closed environment along with gypsum board, aluminum, steel, diesel fuel, plastic, and crushed concrete was burned for twenty-four hours and yet was not damaged, much less melted. And I asked you if the guy in the video had put the beam and those elements and the fire in a pit and covered it with pulverized concrete, would it have caused the beam to melt. Still waiting.

Oh, I'm just pointing out inconsistencies with the official narrative.

Now back to the topic. Explain how the energy required to pulverize everything in the building below the impact zone, and the energy required to produce the explosive lateral ejections--as seen in photos and videos of the collapses--still allowed for enough reserve energy to allow for a virtually freefall descent through the course of most resistance.

I know what I am saying, and don't care for your lies about it. So you might wish to stop throwing strawmen around. Or not. Who cares?

What I don't know yet is what YOU are saying. It's facile to laugh at other people's ideas when you have none.

That's what eyewitnesses have said. My point--which you are pretending to be ignorant of--is that there had to have been energy added to that event since the video I provided in which a guy burned a steel beam for twenty-four hours enclosed with aluminum, plastic, crushed concrete, diesel fuel, steel, and gypsum board did no harm to the beam, let alone melt it. I asked you if you believe that if the guy would have dumped the whole burning mass into a pit and then dumped in pulverized and compacted concrete, it would have melted the beam. Still waiting for your response. Just to keep everyone up to speed, here is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YuDKUCALtU

Go to the 4:44 mark.

Try as I might, I couldn't find a rebuttal to anything in this post. Try again.

Really? Why don't you read my posts? I made myself quite clear. For example, what is unclear about the question below?
________________________________________

Explain how the energy required to pulverize everything in the building below the impact zone, and the energy required to produce the explosive lateral ejections--as seen in photos and videos of the collapses--still allowed for enough reserve energy to allow for a virtually freefall descent through the course of most resistance--the core structure.

You keep talking about me all the time, like you're in love or something. But who is behind 9/11, according to YOU? Who did it? How? Did water stay liquid at 1500 C? Etc. etc. You haven't explained any of that. Do you actually HAVE an alternative theory?

None of that is remotely connected to the science which you have spent all your time avoiding. How patently dishonest!

You have never seen iron being melted? Never watched a video where people melt steel with a simple furnace? It's doable, I can assure you. And as explained to you already, it take a slow burn with minimal oxygen intake to get the best results.

I'm not avoiding anything. Do you think water can stay liquid at 1500 C, JTT? Be honest, don't avoid the issue or run away like you always do.

NIST is the group that has provided all the "science" that justifies the wacky US official conspiracy theory. It's a tribute to your "science" that you don't care about the body that advanced the lies. But you have been defending farmerman too.

Have you no sense of shame? People have been falsely accused, millions have died, hundreds of millions of lives have been ruined, truly another Holocaust. And you soldier on in your "science".

You are the one who has hitched your wagon to farmerman.

You and farmerman know exactly what Glennn, Builder and I have been saying and you both have engaged in wild song and dance routines to discuss all manner of nonsense and never the science.

NIST stated categorically - NO MOLTEN METAL.

Typical of your dishonesty, Olivier. It all depends on the volume of water and the volume of thermite/nanothermite, which as you know, neither had any legal/legitimate/moral reason to be at WTC.

Remember welding is done underwater with thermite.

Shame? I would be ashamed if I were YOU. Trashing logic is a crime, in my mind.

Farmerman and I are kinda friends. We disagreed and even argued pretty hard at first, but we've come to appreciate each other. At least that's my impression. I don't disagree with anything he says on this thread, but he's aiming too high for you guys. You cannot understand science the way he is trying to put it out to you. You need simpler, made-it-easy stuff, the way I've been trying to put it.

You need to try and relate to other people too, JTT, rather than tire and anger everybody and then come back under a new moniker to hide your tracks... That's for the dogs.

Whether or not there was some metal melting in the rubble after the collapse is irrelevant to what caused the collapse anyway.

Do you know if any left-handed homosexual Italian-American baseball player died in 9/11? What does NIST say about that?

No. Any water brought to 1500 C would OF COURSE boil up very very fast. It does not depend on anything other than ambient pressure. And when people weld stuff under water, water DOES boil up around the source of heat. OF COURSE it does.