The Physics of 911

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Why do you rely on the 9/11 commission for something you can see and measure by yourself?

But Greening's calculations are based on scientific study.

From the PDF below:

The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

I would suggest that your argument concerning collapse-time is with Greening and science, not me. From the report he did in the PDF I provided, why don't you point out where you think he was mistaken.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

That was a second-hand account by his editor. I don't accept hearsay.

Yes, we've established that don't believe any of the accounts I've presented which speak of melted or flowing steel.

As far as Fornino, the FBI bomb technician, he begins by saying, "The things of interest that we'd find is . . ." Why do you interpret that as him saying, "The things of interest that we'd heard about is . . ."

At what temperature does cement melt?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

From F. R. Greening:

Given the above considerations and a careful evaluation of the seismic data, it is estimated that the first stage of collapse took 11.3 + 1.5 seconds for each WTC tower. We will show in the following Section that the second stage of collapse added 1 – 2 seconds to the total collapse times . . .

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf Page 2

Where did he go wrong?

In videos of the collapse of the North Tower, the upper block is clearly seen dropping down without stopping. You believe that this upper block acted as a pile driver to crush the lower intact core structure below it. But if that were the case, there would have been not only a visible jolt and pause of the downward movenment of the upper block, but also the destruction of the more heat-damaged upper block as it met with the lower block. As such, the collapse would have been arrested because the upper block would have been destroyed easier and faster than the intact lower block. But that's not what happened. Once the upper block is in motion, it does not slow down.

In the case of the South Tower, the upper block (according to you) tipped over the edge of the building, thereby removing the pile-driver effect which is necessary to your theory. So you claim that some collapsing floors pulled the core and perimeter columns down with them.

Oh, and what about the explosion that shook the ground just before the North Tower begins to collapse? Any seismic data on that?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I think the issue is very clear, from a thermodynamic standpoint. There was a large fire in those rubbles, that's a given. Here or there in the rubble, where and when a certain set of conditions where met (some ventilation but not too much; some iron mixed with abondant flammable material; good insullation through successive layers of rubble and air), the temp may have reached 1500 C for some periods of time, like it does in a bloomer, and melt some iron. However, this cannot have happened in large quantities, because then cement would have melted too. We would have had people reporting "rivers of lava" and not just "streams of molten steel"....

Therefore, either those "streams" were small streamlets; or they were composed of some other metal with a lower boiling point (eg aluminium or copper) than steel; or both. Large "rivers of molten steel" are logically impossible in that environment if not accompanied by large rivers of lava...

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Cement melts at lower temperatures than steel.

Any flow of lava in your recollections?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

But why do you rely on any other source for something that you can see and measure by yourself, with your own eyes? I don't understand. I thought of you as a 9/11 skeptic, not an uncritical gobler of anything the FBI said on 9/11...

But perhaps we should make a distinction here: when the FBI says something that seems to confirm your take, you believe them, however absurd and physically impossible it may be (and you even scold me for not believing them). But when the FBI says something that contradicts your opinion, then of course you don't believe them... That in fact would describe the behavior of any denier, including of course the GW deniers and the Holocaust deniers: they always only accept evidence that seem to confirm their opinion, and always reject evidence that goes against their opinion. That's how they (and you) can continue to deny the obvious.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Cement melts at lower temperatures than steel.

At what temperature does cement melt?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I told you three times already. Alzheimer's your friend.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I told you three times already. Alzheimer's your friend.

Direct me to the post in which you mentioned the temperature at which cement melts.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Sorry, time's precious this end. My best answer is 1400 for a totally liquid melt, but cement starts becoming a paste at lower temperatures, around 900 or 1000 C, because the varied components in it have different melting points. Farmerman may know better. I know that common volcano lava is around 1200 C.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

But why do you rely on any other source for something that you can see and measure by yourself, with your own eyes?

Actually, I asked you to point out where you disagree with Greening's conclusion concerning collapse time. Where did he go wrong?

Quote:

But perhaps we should make a distinction here: when the FBI says something that seems to confirm your take, you believe them

As far as Fornino, the FBI bomb technician, he begins by saying, "The things of interest that we'd find is . . ."

Why do you interpret that as him saying, "The things of interest that we'd heard about is . . ."

How is it that when witnesses--reporters, FBI investigators, engineers, or news correspondents--make mention of something that doesn't support your idea, you simply deny the accuracy of their perception? Perhaps before taking the word of an FBI investigator, we should first consult you in order to determine whether or not they're mistaken about what they'd seen.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

My best answer is 1400 for a totally liquid melt,

The melting point of concrete lies in the range from about 1600° to about 1750° C.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5538764.html

Quote:

But given that cement melts at a lower temp than steel

1600 degrees Celsius translates to 2912 degrees Fahrenheit. Now tell me what the melting point of steel is

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

In videos of the collapse of the North Tower, the upper block is clearly seen dropping down without stopping. You believe that this upper block acted as a pile driver to crush the lower intact core structure below it. But if that were the case, there would have been not only a visible jolt and pause of the downward movenment of the upper block, but also the destruction of the more heat-damaged upper block as it met with the lower block. As such, the collapse would have been arrested because the upper block would have been destroyed easier and faster than the intact lower block. But that's not what happened. Once the upper block is in motion, it does not slow down.

In the case of the South Tower, the upper block (according to you) tipped over the edge of the building, thereby removing the pile-driver effect which is necessary to your theory. So you claim that some collapsing floors pulled the core and perimeter columns down with them.

Oh, and what about the explosion that shook the ground just before the North Tower begins to collapse? Any seismic data on that?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Actually, I asked you why you need to rely on and believe others when you could just as well measure the time of collapse by yourself, and see with your own eyes that the buildings are collapsing far slower than the free-falling objects are moving.

It's not that I reject testimonies that contradict my ideas. I reject second-hand testimonies that allege supra-natural events. I'm French, and we tend to be logical, rational people. So if I am told that something physically impossible happened, THEN I conclude that it must logically not have happened. Either that or my understanding of what's physically impossible is inacurate. But generally in my case it's the former.

Eg it is physically impossible that the law of conservation of momentum be broken. Therefore I concluded as soon as you mentioned it that it simply never happened and that you were lying. And loh and behold, when I checked on the video, I indeed saw that the top of the south tower was TIPPING FURTHER AND FURTHER... thus not breaking the law of conservation of angular momentum. Surprise surprise...

Your way of thinking is very different. If you are told that something physically impossible happened, you believe it immediately because it "proves" that something bizarre happened on 9/11... And then you ask me to explain it, WITHOUT EVER CHECKING THE FACTS YOURSELF.

What's wrong with you? Don't you mind looking like a total idiot?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Actually, I asked you why you need to rely on and believe others when you could just as well measure the time of collapse by yourself, and see with your own eyes that the buildings are collapsing far slower than the free-falling objects are moving.

Show me the video that accurately shows the collapse times that you use for your own calculations.

As far as Fornino, the FBI bomb technician, he begins by saying, "The things of interest that we'd find is . . ."

Why do you interpret that as him saying, "The things of interest that we'd heard about is . . ."

In videos of the collapse of the North Tower, the upper block is clearly seen dropping down without stopping. You believe that this upper block acted as a pile driver to crush the lower intact core structure below it. But if that were the case, there would have been not only a visible jolt and pause of the downward movenment of the upper block, but also the destruction of the more heat-damaged upper block as it met with the lower block. As such, the collapse would have been arrested because the upper block would have been destroyed easier and faster than the intact lower block. But that's not what happened. Once the upper block is in motion, it does not slow down.

In the case of the South Tower, the upper block (according to you) tipped over the edge of the building, thereby removing the pile-driver effect which is necessary to your theory. So you claim that some collapsing floors pulled the core and perimeter columns down with them.

Oh, and what about the explosion that shook the ground just before the North Tower begins to collapse? Any seismic data on that?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Okay so you don't mind looking like an idiot...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

it is physically impossible that the law of conservation of momentum be broken. Therefore I concluded as soon as you mentioned it that it simply never happened and that you were lying. And loh and behold, when I checked on the video, I indeed saw that the top of the south tower was TIPPING FURTHER AND FURTHER... thus not breaking the law of conservation of angular momentum. Surprise surprise...

Right. The law of conservation of energy and momentum was not broken on 9/11. From watching the collapse of the north tower, it is clear that the upper block never encountered any resistance on its downward path. This means that resistance did not exist.

I've already pointed out to you that if the top of the South Tower kept tipping and went over the edge, as you have stated, then all that was left to act as a pile-driver was the floors, which you believe pulled down the core structure which was designed to resist vertical loads, plus the perimeter columns.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Okay so you don't mind looking like an idiot...

That's not an answer or an argument. As far as Fornino, the FBI bomb technician, he begins by saying, "The things of interest that we'd find is . . ."

Why do you interpret that as him saying, "The things of interest that we'd heard about is . . ."?? Are calling him an idiot?

In videos of the collapse of the North Tower, the upper block is clearly seen dropping down without stopping. You believe that this upper block acted as a pile driver to crush the lower intact core structure below it. But if that were the case, there would have been not only a visible jolt and pause of the downward movement of the upper block, but also the destruction of the more heat-damaged upper block as it met with the lower block. As such, the collapse would have been arrested because the upper block would have been destroyed easier and faster than the intact lower block. But that's not what happened. Once the upper block is in motion, it does not slow down.

In the case of the South Tower, the upper block (according to you) tipped over the edge of the building, thereby removing the pile-driver effect which is necessary to your theory. So you claim that some collapsing floors pulled the core and perimeter columns down with them.

Oh, and what about the explosion that shook the ground just before the North Tower begins to collapse? Any seismic data on that?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

As far as Fornino, the FBI bomb technician, he begins by saying, "The things of interest that we'd find is . . ."

Why do you interpret that as him saying, "The things of interest that we'd heard about is . . ."?? Are calling him an idiot?

No, I'm calling you an idiot. I don't know him. How could I know if he is an idiot?

In the same breath as he mentions the "firearms", and the temperatures of "3000 or 4000 degrees", he says "we were told". "3000 or 4000 degrees" is also imprecise, a sign that Fornino is drawing on memory and has a vague sense of the particulars of that case.

He then moves on to a more credible example: an engine made of aluminium and steel, where the aluminium had melt and not the steel. Did you listen that long?

Quote:

you claim that some collapsing floors pulled the core and perimeter columns down with them.

Yes, that's what I see on those videos. That's also what your pdf concludes.

Quote:

Oh, and what about the explosion that shook the ground just before the North Tower begins to collapse? Any seismic data on that?

I didn't hear any explosion.
[/quote]

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

In the same breath as he mentions the "firearms", and the temperatures of "3000 or 4000 degrees", he says "we were told".

Wrong! Now you're being dishonest.

Here is what he said:

"In certain instances, firearms were found in some of the vehicles that had completely melted down, and the temperatures that we were told were in the area of 3000 to 4000 degrees . . ."

The only thing he mentions as far as what they were told was the temperature that produced the effects they saw. Now who's the idiot?

Quote:

Yes, that's what I see on those videos.

What you don't understand you're saying is that even without the pile-driver which is necessary to your disproven pancake theory, after the top of the South Tower tipped over the edge, the floor below started a domino effect that pulled down the whole intact core structure below, plus the perimeter columns in fifteen seconds. Of course, you understand that the purpose of the core structure and perimeter columns was to support the floors; not the other way around.

Quote:

I didn't hear any explosion.

Lots of people including first responders reported hearing loud explosions before collapse. There is video from a camera on a tripod that was visibly shaken twelve seconds before the North Tower collapsed. I take it you haven't seen it.

Now how about you tell me at what temperature steel melts. Recall that you said that cement melts at a lower temperature than steel. And if you would, can you please produce the video that accurately shows the collapse times that you use for your own calculations? I'd like to see it.

Also, in videos of the collapse of the North Tower, the upper block is clearly seen dropping down without stopping. You believe that this upper block acted as a pile driver to crush the lower intact core structure below it. But if that were the case, there would have been not only a visible jolt and pause of the downward movement of the upper block, but also the destruction of the more heat-damaged upper block as it met with the lower block. As such, the collapse would have been arrested because the upper block would have been destroyed easier and faster than the intact lower block. But that's not what happened. Once the upper block is in motion, it does not slow down at all.

1 Reply

The Physics of 911

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know