The Physics of 911

Chuckles.... so this is another of your ploys, young fella?

Your demeanour and mannerisms are regressing page by page.

I love you too JTT.

So who do you think did it? God? The devil?

Apologies, Roger. Someone's got to do it.

Well, all this confirms my version of the events. Small quantities of steel could have well melt in the rubble...

Note that nobody is talking of underwater fires, or spectacular thermitic reactions... Just a regular enclosed fire melting various metals, "like in a foundry", right?

Bloomery=foundry.

The firemen on 9/11 fucked up big time. Some of them "heroes" even looted shops near ground zero.

Still chasing opinions? On a physics thread?

You've been out of your depth from the start.

Yeah, tiny particles mixed in with cement dust. Builder has even produced a video of a homemade bloomer which shows what kind of fuel and air supply are necessary. But it means nothing to Olivier.

Yeah, like in a foundry. I've already provided you with testimonies from reliable witnesses who discovered molten steel seen flowing down in the basement levels among other places.

Source?

And let's say that some of them did the evil deed. What does that have to do with what the others reported?
_______________________________________________

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.

Okay, thanks for confirming my version of events.

Langewiesche's book on the clean-up operations.

NY firefighters are not a credible source of information on 9/11. They have too much ****-up to hide, and too much undeserved glory to protect.

Why don't you explain your bizarre and absurd story yourself? Why is it always up to little me to explain the **** that comes out of your mouth? Are you stupid or what? Explain it yourself.

It means nothing, period.

You were only correct in your description of what was going on in the lower levels of the WTCs. However, we've already pointed out to you that pulverized office furnishings mixed with cement dust does not qualify as bloomery fuel.

Whether it's pulverized or not makes no difference. Small bits of carbon burn as well as big bits. And for the 1000th time, there was a lot of flammable stuff in that pile, not just furniture. Papper in particular was in vast amounts.

Cement, by the way, melts at 1200 C or so if memory serves, in any case at a lower temp than steel. So there should be vastly more melted ciment in the rubble than melted steel. Somehow this escaped the rubble cleaners and onlookers...

The small quantities of melted metal observed in the rubble are perfectly normal, given the raging enclosed fire at the time. There's no mystery there whatsoever.

Good. Now how about producing the excerpt that shows that he saw firefighters stealing stuff. And when you fail at that, please explain how even if it were true, testimonies from all firefighters concerning explosions and signs of controlled demolition are made null.

You're only being asked to explain the **** coming out of your mouth.

Are you getting angry, Olivier? I'm sorry, but I can't help you with that. In fact, I'm going to have to make you even more angry by asking you to bring me an excerpt from Langewiesche in which he says that he saw firefighters stealing stuff? When you fail to do so, we will all see that your character is such that you are happily willing to accept hearsay that degrades the credibility of professionals who died in the line of duty just so you can save face here. Actually, that shouldn't make you angry. It should make you ashamed. But you won't be ashamed. You'll just get more angry, and you'll look for others who might throw under the bus in order to save your damaged credibility.
________________________________________

Now please 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.

You have yet to explain how a diminishing fire on the 78th floor of the South Tower crashed through all those 78 floors below it, and then made its way down into the basement levels where it somehow created pools and flows of molten metals and melted steel girders.

And you've already tried to make the case that in all of the pulverized compacted concrete, bits of things were on fire and migrated to other bits of stuff farther down through the pulverized concrete and cement dust. Nobody has forgotten that.

Are you under the impression that I have any responsibility in your education? God in his mercy made me neither your mother nor your teacher.

There is no proof that any of the melting happened IN the ex-basement. What you sources say is that the melted metal flowed down to the basement area.

Your "memory" has been caught in lie after lie, and here you relate some more doozies.

I dare say that you are less trustworthy than farmerman.

LOL... You are handing out credibility chips now? That's hilarious. How much credibility do you got in bank? Last time you dared to say something, it was that water could very well stay liquid at 1500 °C... That must be the most ridiculous statement ever made on A2K.

You were so despised and ridiculed here by nearly every one that you had to come back under another moniker. I am making you a favor by addressing you here. Should I let you hang dry, like everybody else does?

Cement melts at 1,450 °C. Still lower than the melting point of steel. If termites had been busy heating up the whole rubble pile at 2000 °C or more, like the truthers imply, the whole damn rubble pile would have melted, steel and cement included... This did not happen and therefore there were no termites in there.

QED