The Physics of 911

Not at all. What happened here is that you made the claim that firefighters stole stuff on 9/11. So I asked you to provide a source for that claim. You said that the source was Langewiesche. I then asked you to produce a quote or excerpt from something that will prove your claim that he saw firefighters stealing on 9/11. And then I told you 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. And I see that you have indeed failed to do so.

I will interpret your failure to produce a quote or excerpt as evidence that what I said about your character is accurate.
_______________________________________

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.

Okay. And how will you interpret it if I cared enough to dig a source? Will you accept that your view of my character was INACCURATE?

Your admission that you don't rely on sources, ever, is telling. You have made so many wild ass assumptions about things you know nothing about. As I have mentioned, farmerman won't come anywhere near you and your ideas because he knows that you are blowing all the NIST fantasies to shreds.

----------------------

Exchange between lawyer and Prof Hulsey, lead scientist on the Univ of Alaska Fairbanks WTC7 study.

Daniel Sheehan [lawyer]: "On a scale of 1 to a 100, ... how probable do you think it is, or how possible do you think it is that this building [WTC7] could have collapsed simply because of the fires?"

Professor Hulsey: "Zero."
-----------------------------

Professor Hulsey also said that WTC7 was built asymmetrically, stronger on one side than the other, <for gods sake, even a symmetrically built building cannot come down in this fashion without being forced down>.

<...> indicates that the quote may not be perfectly verbatim but it is accurate.

I love you too, cam.

So who do you think did 9/11? I think it's David Copperfield. He's on record saying he wants to make the twin towers disappear...

NIST's WTC7 study is dead wrong, no surprise there, except to the willfully ignorant, the people, and I use that term lightly, who support the carnage wreaked upon so many of the world's poor all because of these gigantic, wholly transparent lies.

What kind of depraved humans would do something like this? What kind of depraved humans would back this?

That's what I want to know. I'm not so sure about David Copperfield anymore...

I interpret this as your second failure to produce a quote or excerpt from Langewiesche that would prove that he saw firefighters stealing stuff on 9/11.
__________________________________________

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.

We have established that it wasn't the alleged hijackers, so who could it have been?

Your regression to childhood, on the other hand, seems comfortably assured...

I know! The penguins, of course! In a desperate attempt to slow down global warming.

Re. Langewiesche, I checked it out and it turns out that his account was second-hand and that there is a plausible alternative explanation. He said a firefighter truck had been found under the rubble by a cleaning crew with Gap jeans in it from a nearby store. The jeans could have fall onto the truck during the collapse. My apologies. I didn't know about the rebuttal.

Source:
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/nyregion/rebutting-claim-tarnished-valor-research-challenges-account-9-11-looting.html

None of this should distract from the massive confusion that plagued the NY firefighters' response. I rush to say I don't blame them for it. Nobody could have prepared them for a catastrophy of this magnitude. And to their credit, the NYC Fire Department analysed its response honestly and early on.

Many of the fire fighters that went in the towers did splendid work I'm sure, at least in the lobby helping people evacuate. But a few of them decided, on their own accord, to climb the stairs, charged with their very heavy equipment. Up they go for a climb of what, 80 floors to the north tower's fire (less in the south towers but still) with 40 or 50 pounds of equipment on their shoulders... Like, to do what? That's the mother of all futile attempts. All they managed to do was to slow down the people who were trying to get out of the building down the same stairs... These guys' radio was not working. They never heard any of the orders to evacuate. For months, the Fire Department could not say just how many firefighters were sent into the towers, and where they died. It lost track of them, in part because some companies did not inform anyone of their coming. Individual firefighters from all over the city jumped on overcrowded trucks, against policy, to go and "help". Others, ordered off the fire trucks, grabbed rides in cars.

I'm sure they meant well but i see a difference between macho bravado and courage.

[/quote]
Source:
FATAL CONFUSION: A Troubled Emergency Response; 9/11 Exposed Deadly Flaws In Rescue Plan
jim Dwyer, Kevin Flynn and Ford Fessenden, NYT, JULY 7, 2002
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/nyregion/fatal-confusion-troubled-emergency-response-9-11-exposed-deadly-flaws-rescue.html

A review of the 343 cases in which firefighters lost their lives on Sept. 11 has found that 60 of those who died were off duty when they rushed to the burning towers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/nyregion/60-firefighters-who-died-on-sept-11-were-off-duty.html

It's not just them fire fighters too. The whole response by the US government was a mess.

The government was struggling to figure out which planes were hijacked and where they were going, even hours after the initial plane hit the World Trade Center.

 And here is the only "secret" about 9/11: Yes, officials in the Bush administration, NIST and co. and first line responders have occasionally lied, exagerated or misrepresented stuff about 9/11. Yes, the official version of events has holes. But it's not because they planed any of it. On the contrary, it's because they DIDN'T plan any of it. They never ever saw it coming and they totally messed up their response. And they lied because they were determined to hide their failings.

And mind you, that's an important reason why we have a proliferation of conspiracy theorists about 9/11... Like camlock and his crew here running around like headless chicken in search of termites.

Source:
A New Look at the 9/11 Commission
By Dan Fletcher Friday, Sept. 11, 2009, Time
 http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1921659,00.html

Yeah, I know. But I thought it would be more instructive if you came upon it yourself. Here is a better rebuttal to your uninformed accusation against firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/nyregion/rebutting-claim-tarnished-valor-research-challenges-account-9-11-looting.html

Yeah, right. But you should open a thread about the confusion on 9/11. Once again you've forgotten that this thread concerns the physics of 9/11.

Once again, you're off topic.

More insults.

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.

It's the same link I gave.

Note that you pointed me to Langewiesche's account. Now that i think of it, his claims of rivers of molten steel" were probably also second-hand, and probably exagerated. Some demolition crew might have seen rivlets of molten metal. Maybe copper from wires, maybe some iron here or there from a pocket where an intense enclosed fire met with some beam or another... But if steel had melt in large quantities, cement would have melt too. The whole rubble would have been a heap of molten lava. That did not happen.

Human beings are physical, last time I checked. The response was a total mess, and this has two important consequences for this debate: 1. what exactly happened when in that chaos is difficult to tell; and 2. the Bush administration lied to cover their mishandling of the situation. Hence all the conspiracy theories.