The Physics of 911

They started to put in fences south of canal street around 10:00 or so, but it was total chaos. The cops and the firefighters were running around like headless chicken, doing totally futile things, or standing there dumbfaced. They were called "heroes" afterwards, and it helped deal with the trauma and all that, but I know for a fact that their response was the worse possible. Those firemen who tried to climb up the stairs went to their certain death, and even slowed down the evacuation so they killed other people with their stupid bravado.

I easily sneaked in through the blocks they were trying to set up. I spotted a few people like me trying to avoid the road blocks to go south towards the towers: most of them (like me) had cameras and were trying to get once-in-a-lifetime pictures. I joined a couple for a while. They were freelance journalists.

I took a lot of pics as well. At some point I had to change my memory chip so got into a bar. Some people had taken refuge there, predominently the young male type. I talked to a few. They wanted to stay and whether the event, excited to live through something "newsworthy" or "historical". Some made nervous bursts of laughter.

Then by noon or so I left the area (better coraled now), managed to get into a cab going uptown with three girls who wanted it too.

You're pretending to not get this . . . again. When anyone says that the laws of physics have been violated in regards to the collapses of the WTCs, they are saying that if you believe that the core structure was not neutralized before collapse, then you are a proponent of the idea that the laws of physics were violated. It requires no special understanding to realize that the core structures of the WTCs would have offered substantial and continual resistance to the collapse instead of offering no resistance at all. Therefore, the intact core structure below the impact zone had to have been neutralized. Now do you get it?

Now, 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.

Also, do you believe that if the guy in the video I showed you had dumped the enclosed steel beam with the plastic, diesel fuel, aluminum, steel, gypsum board, and crushed concrete and all the fire into a pit, and then dumped a shitload of cement dust over it, the beam would have melted?

Sarcasm does get lost on message boards if you don't signal it with a wink or tongue in cheek emoticon or something.

So let's reset the exchange. What do you think DID happen on 9/11? No sarcasm and no projections onto me, nor question about my take nor statements about what did not happen. We've been there and done that. Just tell me what you think happened that day.

If you would like to discuss theories about what happened on 9/11, start your own thread. This thread is about the physics of 9/11.
____________________________________________

Now, 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.

Also, do you believe that if the guy in the video below had dumped the enclosed steel beam with the plastic, diesel fuel, aluminum, steel, gypsum board, and crushed concrete and all the fire into a pit, and then dumped a shitload of cement dust over it, the beam would have melted?

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

That is what we have spent an inordinate amount of time on while you have dithered and run crazy tangents and supported and encouraged a body purporting to be a scientist to do the same.

You want to go off on some silly tangents just to try and keep your silly fantasies about the US alive. Drag those friends of yours here like Eisenhower dragged Germans to the death camps to witness what their government had done. There is very little difference between the two.

People have been falsely accused, hundreds of millions had their lives destroyed, countries destroyed, how many millions murdered. All from USA lies, AGAIN, for the umpteenth time.

Have you no sense of decency? Have you no inkling of humanity in your whole being?

So... insults aside, what do you think happened on 9/11? The Martians did it?

If you want to discuss my beliefs, start a new thread devoted to Olivier5's beliefs. This is a thread about the physics of 9/11. :-î

So you have no clue about what happened on 9/11, from a physics standpoint? Like how would you explain the collapse of the towers?

Just in case anyone is wondering, I am in the process of proving that the "truthers" are cowards, in that they won't tell anyone what their theories are, afraid as they are that sane people will find holes the size of the milky way in them. So they love to criticize other people's theories, but are afraid to express their own.

Note Glenn's constant evasion of my questions. Note the response that "this is out of topic". Can you sense the panic gripping them when asked to put their own ideas on the table for review?

This is a technique that often works well with deniers, from the holocaust deniers to the GW ones. Ask them what they positively think was the case, what they think happened, and most will disappear in a hurry. In my experience they rarely have a precise and plausible alternative account of the events, content as they are to cast doubt at other people's ideas.

That is you in a nutshell, Olivier. A holocaust and you are attempting to deflect from it by avoiding, misrepresenting, lying, cheating, all the things that mark the base nature of the lowest of humans.

Does it make any sense at all to you, better ask this of someone with a measure of morality in their soul, not farmerman, why would a scientist/engineer/PhD of Professor Hulsey' character spend two years of a long career making up things that when subject to peer review would be shown to be false?

Also ask that person why NIST wouldn't allow peer review for their science.

Really, how low can you possibly crawl?

Do you have anything else to say, aside boring, poorly worded insults? Can you at least try and address the question?

What do you think happened on 9/11? Who did it and why? How did they do it? What species of termites did they use?

You're avoiding having to answer about the law of conservation of energy being violated on 9/11 by suddenly shifting subjects. This is old hat. Like so many others, when cornered, you bring out the old tried and not so true ploy of suggesting that if we don't know the who, why, and how of it all, then you don't have to answer to the question of 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. That's the most ridiculous proposition I've ever heard.

The fact is that the intact core structures of the WTCs offered little more resistance than air. You don't have an explanation for that. All you've got is a cowardly insulting characterization of people who ask you to explain how that could be.

Now, do you believe that if the guy in the video below had dumped the enclosed steel beam with the plastic, diesel fuel, aluminum, steel, gypsum board, and crushed concrete and all the fire into a pit, and then dumped a shitload of cement dust over it, the beam would have melted?

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

Rest assured that the law of conservation of energy was not violated.

That's right. And that means that the integrity of the core structures of the WTCs were compromised before or during collapse since they offered no resistance to speak of to the collapses. That's why I'm asking you to 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've also asked you if the guy in the video below had dumped the enclosed steel beam with the plastic, diesel fuel, aluminum, steel, gypsum board, crushed concrete, and all the fire into a pit, and then dumped a shitload of cement dust over it, would the beam have melted?

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

Makes sense. What could have affected the strength of the core, in your opinion?

Edit: I have already answered you question about the vid. The answer is yes, given enough flammable material, and a slow (constrained but open) oxygen flow so that the fire keeps burning for a long time in reductive conditions. A measure of asbestos in the rubble would help too, as it makes for good heat insulation.

In the video, the guy kept adding fuel to the fire . Where did all the fuel for the fire that you say created pools of molten metal and melted steel girders come from?

Thanks, that answers a lot of questions.

Without trapping the heat, adding more fuel is like adding more water to a bottomless bucket... The first thing to do is to add a bottom, so one can keep the water within the bucket.

So the first thing to do in a situaiton like your vid is NOT to add fuel, but to build a well insulated furnace able to trap the heat.

Don't believe a word from Builder. He's a liar.

They could use the old chestnut; "the enquiry was funded to fail".

As stated before, if the money poured into denial was redirected to the enquiry, the public wouldn't be doubting the "official" fairytale.

You are saying that pools and rivers of molten metals and melted steel girders that were present down in the rubble of the WTC were the result of burning office furnishing which were starved of oxygen. These furnishings you speak of were pulverized along with the concrete floors. And of course, this is to say nothing of the fact that the fires were in the impact zone and could not have magically forced their down through all of the pulverized concrete and steel all the way into the lower basement levels. So, with everything in the buildings having been pulverized, what was acting as the fuel for the oxygen-starved fires you believe created pools of molten metals and steel girders in the lower basement levels?

The NIST understood this point, I'm sure, which is why they opted to deny that any steel melted. They knew they would be forced to explain the conditions witnessed by others, and thereby have to use the same reasoning that you are using, which they knew wouldn't fly.