The Physics of 911

I don't have a very good opinion of Australians right now

particularly their treatment of Muslim refugees

I am not suggesting the video is lying. I am suggesting that you are making stuff up.

It is absurd that you can divine all of this "physics" from a YouTube video.

It is amusing, but no one is taking you seriously who wasn't already a believer.

Maybe the French did it. You know how they are... They can't be trusted.

September 11th melted steel is NOT myth

Structural steel loses 75 percent of its strength at 21 C (70 F), when heated to 600 C (1100 F)

The studies Ive seen disclosed a varying temperature of the fire (due to jetting) of over 2400 F

The trusses under each floor were designed to hold up a static (unmoving) load consisting of the weight of that single floor.

False, they were designed to hold live loads and dead loads.

The trusses under each floor were not designed to hold the weight of the entire building above them.

That is a totally inconsequential red herring.

And they were definitely not designed to support the weight of the entire building above them striking them as a dynamic (moving) load.

Another nonsensical red herring.

You can actually hear the impact of the floors slamming into each other, slowly at first and then faster and faster. It sounds at first like semi-auto gunshots, then like a machine gun, and then like a gatling gun.

The center of the World Trade Center (where all the elevator shafts were) had a dense cluster of vertical steel beams (much like the beams surrounding the exterior of the building).

You aren't even willing to say that the secret military non-thermite that some conspiracy theorists talk about can do this.

https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives

ONE thousand years ago, black powder was prepared by grinding saltpeter, charcoal, and sulfur together into a coarse powder using a mortar and pestle. Since then, the equipment for making energetic materials-explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics-has evolved considerably, but the basic process for making these materials has remained the same. That, however, is changing, thanks to an explosive combination of sol-gel chemistry and modern-day energetic materials research.
At Livermore Laboratory, sol-gel chemistry-the same process used to make aerogels or "frozen smoke" (see S&TR, November/December 1995)—has been the key to creating energetic materials with improved, exceptional, or entirely new properties. This energetic materials breakthrough was engineered by Randy Simpson, director of the Energetic Materials Center; synthetic chemists Tom Tillotson, Alex Gash, and Joe Satcher; and physicist Lawrence Hrubesh.

These new materials have structures that can be controlled on the nanometer (billionth-of-a-meter) scale. Simpson explains, "In general, the smaller the size of the materials being combined, the better the properties of energetic materials. Since these `nanostructures' are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar. In addition, these `nanocomposite' materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods."



Energy Density vs Power, the Traditional Tradeoffs
Energetic materials are substances that store energy chemically. For instance, oxygen, by itself, is not an energetic material, and neither is fuel such as gasoline. But a combination of oxygen and fuel is.

Energetic materials are made in two ways. The first is by physically mixing solid oxidizers and fuels, a process that, in its basics, has remained virtually unchanged for centuries. Such a process results in a composite energetic material such as black powder. The second process involves creating a monomolecular energetic material, such as TNT, in which each molecule contains an oxidizing component and a fuel component. For the composites, the total energy can be much greater than that of monomolecular materials. However, the rate at which this energy is released is relatively slow when compared to the release rate of monomolecular materials. Monomolecular materials such as TNT work fast and thus have greater power than composites, but they have only moderate energy densities-commonly half those of composites. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

The trusses under each floor were designed to hold up a static (unmoving) load consisting of the weight of that single floor.

The trusses under each floor were not designed to hold the weight of the entire building above them.

And they were definitely not designed to support the weight of the entire building above them striking them as a dynamic (moving) load.

As each subsequent floor had the entire weight of the building slam into it, that floor's attachments to the core beams simply snapped off.

Your key argument is based on dubious claim that you are making with no real reason behind it.

You are making up the "fact" that one structure is "passing through" another structure. You are stating this as fact without based on what you see in the video. I don't see it, sorry. As you know I did analyze it carefully at your request and came up with the conclusion that the antenna in question is accelerating at a slower rate than the normal acceleration of gravity.

You assert that this is "science" (it isn't). It is just something you made up. I have looked at the video carefully several times and nothing their[sic] changed my mind.

The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
Graeme MacQueen
Tony Szamboti
April 22, 2009*
In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its explanation of the
total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. [1]
Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted
in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a
hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In
fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false.

In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:
• easy to understand but reasonably precise
• capable of being stated briefly
• verifiable by any reader with average computer skills and a grasp of simple mathematics.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

You are making the claim that one structure is "passing through another structure". That sounds like magic to me.

Of course the beams offered some resistance. Upto a point they certainly did. So when a joker says "offered no resistance to speak of", he is just lying. Glenn was not on site measuring the girders resistance as temperature rose. He speaks out of his ass.

Where's your Evidence?

...

If the upper storeys were suddenly allowed to fall through a vacuum of the same depth of the tower height, they would reach bottom in about 9.5 seconds. If allowed to fall through a vat of custard of the same height they would take about 20 seconds to cover the same distance. The largest estimate of collapse duration that I have found is about 16 seconds. Although this estimate does not bear examination, we can use it to say that the resistance offered by the steel structure below the collapse front lies somewhere between absolutely nothing and custard. What is the official explanation for the sudden and complete transformation of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel to a state which does not even rival confectionery?

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id6.html