The Physics of 911

@McGentrix,

The scientist flees again.

You know so little, you know you know so little, so you offer so little so you don't get yourself caught out.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Instead, you should watch the video and then write a 3 page, double spaced, 500 word minimum essay telling me what it says. This will be due tomorrow no later than 5 pm est.

It says that the fire in the Tower was exactly like a blast furnace. Of course this flies in the face of the fact that there were survivors on the upper floors who were not burned to a crisp.

And of course, the issue of what any of this has to do with the fact that the core structure below the impact zone was not being heated up and yet offered no resistance to speak of to the damaged upper section must not be overlooked.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Here's the reply to your video, McGentrix. In it right at the start are numerous examples of molten steel.

For the Undying 9/11 MORONIC Replies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgCtvTmshZ8

Watch, and then we can discuss.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

And just so we're on the same page, can we all agree that the core structure of the WTCs offered little-to-no resistance, which defies the laws of physics?

There's been no total collapse of a steel structure before, or since, the WTC events. Buildings with fires on every floor have been weakened, but remained standing.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/04/chechnya-high-rise-burns-for-29-hours-with-no-collapse-wtc7/

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

And just so we're on the same page, can we all agree that the core structure of the WTCs offered little-to-no resistance, which defies the laws of physics?

Absolutely, Glennn. The notion that a small block of floors, made of much lighter steel than the much larger block made of the heaviest steel in the building accelerating thru that larger block at ever increasing speed is a ludicrous idea.

A study done, which found serious errors in the Bazant "crush down crush up" theory, first published on September 13, 2001 [odd, right?] calculated that the fall of Tower 1 would have been arrested within two floors.

For anyone who wants to get an image of that in their mind, go to 4:31 of,

Blender Demolition - Case Study: World Trade Center (slowed down)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh3qUmNxC6E

0 Replies

@camlok,

From your FEMA report, I'm wondering if the WTC towers' fire-control sprinklers were active, for the time after the impacts from the planes.

Can't recall anyone saying if there were sprinklers in the buildings, or not.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

And just so we're on the same page, can we all agree that the core structure of the WTCs offered little-to-no resistance, which defies the laws of physics?

Resistance to what?

2 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

From your FEMA report, I'm wondering if the WTC towers' fire-control sprinklers were active, for the time after the impacts from the planes.
Can't recall anyone saying if there were sprinklers in the buildings, or not.

Going by distant memory here so I could be wrong: I believe there were sprinklers but their water supply was severed by the plane crashes.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Crap video, taking no time to even adress the simplest of issues in context.

His furnace is a concentrated forge, and he even stated that it is burning at 300 degrees hotter than jet fuel can burn. He's also toying with a bar of steel, as opposed to an I-beam of rather different structural attributes, and enormously different size.

If that's the best you've got, go to the back of the class, kiddo.

You either don't want to understand or are playing at not understanding the point of the video which was to illustrate that Steel does not need to be melted or cut to become basically useless. His furnace is a fire that heats steel to a certain temperature. Steel is steel. Thickness does not matter, it's the property of steel to become structurally weak at high temperatures.

So, stick you head in the sand and do whatever it is that you do there. But, the video serves up an important point that you can't just dismiss.

3 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Instead, you should watch the video and then write a 3 page, double spaced, 500 word minimum essay telling me what it says. This will be due tomorrow no later than 5 pm est.

It says that the fire in the Tower was exactly like a blast furnace. Of course this flies in the face of the fact that there were survivors on the upper floors who were not burned to a crisp.

And of course, the issue of what any of this has to do with the fact that the core structure below the impact zone was not being heated up and yet offered no resistance to speak of to the damaged upper section must not be overlooked.

*sigh*

Yet again, you fail to understand a point being made because you want to play a literalist game. "like a blast furnace". I actually think is a good metaphor. Small area, lots of fuel and string wind blasting through.

Not sure what survivors on the top floors has to do with anything. They weren't in the "blast furnace". Right, I mean you want to be a literalist.

An airplane fly through the building. You get that, right. It went in one side and blew out the other side. That means it went through the middle of the building and weakened it.

2 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Quote:
And just so we're on the same page, can we all agree that the core structure of the WTCs offered little-to-no resistance, which defies the laws of physics?

There's been no total collapse of a steel structure before, or since, the WTC events. Buildings with fires on every floor have been weakened, but remained standing.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/04/chechnya-high-rise-burns-for-29-hours-with-no-collapse-wtc7/

Yeah, did those buildings have an airplane fly into them?

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Yeah, did those buildings have an airplane fly into them?

You mean an aluminium tube with a pair of engines hanging off the wings?

Both WTC towers were designed to withstand impacts from jetliners. The engineer/architect who designed them agrees that there's no way the plane impact, nor the kerosene fires that resulted, brought the towers down.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

You either don't want to understand or are playing at not understanding the point of the video which was to illustrate that Steel does not need to be melted or cut to become basically useless.

I am sure that a steel girder, or I beam, is vastly different in strength, and characteristics, compared to a thumb-sized bar.

Quote:

His furnace is a fire that heats steel to a certain temperature. Steel is steel. Thickness does not matter, it's the property of steel to become structurally weak at high temperatures.

His furnace is a concentrated forge, that, by his own admission, creates heat that is three HUNDRED degrees hotter than that possible with kerosene alone. Did you even watch your own video?

Quote:

So, stick you head in the sand and do whatever it is that you do there. But, the video serves up an important point that you can't just dismiss.

The video is so easily debunked, by the guy's own admission of the temperature generated being hotter than is possible in the circumstances we are discussing. Nice try, but no banana this time.

Now count how many floors beneath the fire zone were not even remotely affected by any heat source, or impact, and get back to us.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Going by distant memory here so I could be wrong: I believe there were sprinklers but their water supply was severed by the plane crashes.

I've not actually heard a single thing about fire sprinklers being activated in these towers, but I do know that each floor is fed from a separate line, and damage to floors above or below do not affect the flow of water to each floor.

Fairly basic plumbing involved, there.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Resistance to what?

"G" of course.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

I think the obsession that rules these guys minds does NOT allow for anything rational to permeate. I notice when you bring up a point of fact they duck and attempt to argue with an unrelated subject.
There seems to be a concerted belief that NO airplanes even flew right through the WTC I and II, and turned those segment of the buildings into a bomb target.
Then they call the planes "aluminum tubes " as if the delivery system of the bomb is of no issue.

I think these guy are at the end of their obsessions.

I always wonder ,Suppose this were a plot by some rogue government agency or the executive. "What would this plot accomplish"

What had it accomplished?

Wheres the evidence tht such things as cutter charges were in place. HAs everyone who was part of this been paid off or killed ?

__________________________________________________________
THIS IS TO THE SICK TRUTHER MINDED AMONG US

Its easy being a TRUTHER because any cockamamie story and pseudo-science gibberish will satisfy your fevered mind.
During the period, I had assocition with a company that was doing the "Closure" of FRESHKILLS LAndfill. After 9/11 much of the structural steel was stored there for forensic examinations. I had a chqnce to "Walk among the tombstones"> I was with a gurd and an engineer because we had some monitor wells nearby and hadda go through that area. That area,and it was creepy, was treted like q site from the Holocaust. It was almost a FUCKIN SHRINE with all sorts of guys from well known companies (like McCrone) were reverentially ,sampling, cross sectioning ,cross checking , matching and coding, and doing Xrf and chemical swabbing work. The USGS was using another landfill segment as a sample reception point.

Your stupid obsession, as far as Im concerned, dishonors not only the dead, but the THOUSANDS of technical scientific folks who carefully poked prodded and argues about every single piece of evidence. A couple of totally obsessed untrained rookies like you have no standing in your haranguing, which appears to be based solely on posting dumass websites done by really insane folks whose only scientific argument is "NO ITS NOT"

Why not go back to your mamas basements and play video games and dont act like youve discovered something that the thousands of folks (Not prt of your conspircy) had failed to recognize. The weight of data that scientifically concludes what really happened is amazing. Yous stuff is a peehole in a snowbank in comparison. And, may I say, your arguments are getting tiresome since theyve essentially not changed since day one. The only thing thats changed is your leaders are using more spiffy cartoons.

Youre kind of disgusting.

3 Replies

@Builder,

You don't know that it's a girder melting on that vid. It's not even certain to be metal, though it looks like it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Well said. There is something fundamentally disgusting about their obsession, indeed.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Except for the fact that that's exactly what happened.

0 Replies

a top expert weighs in

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i39/2/4/18/frabz-its-thermite-paint-e97a1b.jpg

0 Replies

The Physics of 911

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know