The Physics of 911

I have no reason to believe that some intern "cooked it up." If you know something I don't about the integrity of the good people at the 911 Museum, then let's hear it. Otherwise, this will appear to be another case where you are all too willing to call the honesty of others into question in order to back your belief about something.

Sorry but alleged email don't constitute scientific evidence in my book. If i get a email from them saying there was no thermites in the WTC, will you believe them?

Now let's get into those collapses. The top of the South Tower started tipping, as seen in photos and videos. Now according to Newton and his law of the conservation of momentum, that upper block should have kept tipping on over because there was nothing there to stop the momentum of its rotation. Your thoughts?

And then there's the issue of the tilting top not exerting a symmetrical pressure on the floors and core below, and yet causing all of the forty-seven core columns below to fail and produce a symmetrical collapse; and in freefall style to boot.

So your answer is that you believe that someone just made up the part about the molten steel and that no one, including debunkers, have corrected them yet. Okay.

They are not in possession of thermites. However, they are in possession of the Meteorite. See the difference there?

I won't believe anything but a proper scientific examination by a competent person, sorry.


Many people see deformed metal and they think it must have melt. They don't even know what "melting" means. It's not the same thing as a metalic object getting all red and deformed. Melting is becoming completely LIQUID.

You have to stop before you leave no doubt in farmerman's mind that you are an individual who would not stop at doing any manner of evil.

====================

I've already provided eyewitness testimonies of molten metal flows. They didn't describe objects getting red and deformed. And it doesn't matter whether or not you believe the Meteorite contains steel or not. No one has challenged the museum curators as to the accuracy of their statements, except for some anonymous internet personas.

Now let's get into those collapses. The top of the South Tower started tipping, as seen in photos and videos. Now according to Newton and his law of the conservation of momentum, that upper block should have kept tipping on over because there was nothing there to stop the momentum of its rotation. Your thoughts?

And then there's the issue of the tilting top not exerting a symmetrical pressure on the floors and core below, and yet causing all of the forty-seven core columns below to fail and produce a symmetrical collapse; and in freefall style to boot.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

No one has seen their statement either...

Since no one has challenged their claim that the Meteorite contains molten steel, the onus is on you to show that it does not. I called them and asked whether it was aluminum or steel. The woman said it was steel. You should call and tell them that you--an anonymous internet persona--are highly suspicious of their claim. Why do you think that they would make up something like that? What would be their motive to do such a thing?

Now let's get into those collapses. The top of the South Tower started tipping, as seen in photos and videos. Now according to Newton and his law of the conservation of momentum, that upper block should have kept tipping on over because there was nothing there to stop the momentum of its rotation. Your thoughts?

And then there's the issue of the tilting top not exerting a symmetrical pressure on the floors and core below, and yet causing all of the forty-seven core columns below to fail and produce a symmetrical collapse; and in freefall style to boot.

No one has ever SEEN THIS CLAIM that the "Meteorite" contains molten steel, so of COURSE no one could possibly challenged it. No one challenges non existant claims.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

There are pictures and videos, links to which you have previously been given.

a real metorite or is it a "pet" name that somebody ha given to a ball of melt from WTC??

If its a real meteorite we can learn lot from its widdmenstaten xls. , its chemical content andRRE content. (We can pretty much establish it home town)
Its probably a ball of melted cemwnt tht contins shards of metals.

Thats typical "reverse scientific methodology". Its very similr to Trump's assertions that he was "bugged " by Obama. He sys something nd were supposed to accept it as fact nd go find something to support that its Not true.

Why do you truthers ignore ll the rel science about the **** you shout out??

When they did the thermite study at Sandia and UNM, they discovered that nanothermite qnd thermite burns too damn slowly to even propogate a melt unless the structure is severely weakened (presumably by cutting).

When th WTC was bombed in 1993. they found Taggants (unique to our blasting , mining, and demo industries) all over. You claim that thermite was used nd explosives. QHERE ere the taggants. You guys claim that the l2)3 and FeO and Fylite "melt" is enough to convince you. That is totl crap.

Steve Jones was the first to sample and chemically analyze some structural steel that he said was cut with thermite. YET, when asked about his own chain-of-custody -data, he refused to share any of thqt. Chemical sampling nd forensic analyses is mature science in which ALL SIDES of the case in point get to share the data (We call it ll discoverable)> WHY would n honest scientist deny such important QA evidence tht would easily support of deny his assertions. HMMM?

When you said back few pages that you NEVER heard of Steve Jones, I sorta suspected that you were lying , mostly because he has been severely criticized and debunked qs a well degreed and published HACK SCIENTIST who has been behind much of the continuation of most of this "TRUTHER" garbage for almost 15 years. JTT published a bio of some truther scientist on another thread. I hve no idea what someones credentials from pst reseqrch hs any beqring upon a career path that deviates strongly from those publications.

Your research skills are as abysmal as your "scientific" ones.

9/11: The WTC Meteorite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wW1Wqx-ojk

You don't even know anything about the events of 911, let alone the science.

Jonathan Cole - 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate - AE911Truth.org

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamecech9m4

Silly silly silly. That is completely untrue.

NIST is the one that refused to share its science.

And you can't even remember his name? You fled that thread when you saw his academic credentials.

Are you really a scientist?

Yeah, that's gotta be it. After all, who would know better, you, or the people in possession of the artifacts? It's a no-brainer, right? You need to give them a call and straighten them out.