The Physics of 911

Still no science from the scientist, only more diversions. A bomber flew into the Empire State Building, a building not specifically designed for the hit from a 707. Massive fires, not like the massive fires on myriad other steel frame buildings that have never ever collapsed, but still it didn't collapse.

And the idea that these buildings collapsed is ludicrous. They were blown up.

You avoid the molten steel, the nanothermite, all the science that describes events that the alleged hijackers couldn't have done.

You inject silly discussions of emotions. That has no place in science. Are you really a scientist?

You have acknowledged that you know very little about the science of 911 and you proclaimed loudly that you didn't have the time to address the science, so what do you do but engage in the most unscientific, off topic diatribe that a first year engineer, architect, budding scientist wouldn't think of doing.

It was all explained in a video produced by an engineer who makes a living doing experiments to prove and disprove things. That's how science works, by doing experiments that prove or disprove scientific theories.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-Richard P. Feynman

This quote, above, was in the video too. How did you miss it? Why don't you understand the evidence presented well enough to stop you from asking a silly question like, "Resistance to what?"?

This video refuted the silly point that the blacksmith, in his ignorance, tried to make. Are you guys, McGentrix, Farmerman, Olivier, Oralloy, ... now aligning yourselves and taking scientific advice from this blacksmith?

For the Undying 9/11 MORONIC Replies

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

is F till = to mass times acceleration? (F=ma).

Ive given only sound rasoning and calculable events.(Too bad youre too dumb to understand) Youve only presented bumper stickers of phrases of which you probably dont have any personal knowledge or experience Correct?

Ive seen the twisted steel qn hve seen the way it was deformed. HAve you? (besides being fed lies and crap from conspiracy websites)

A blacksmith, McGentrix, producing a video that used a silly gambit that you, a scientist, was not able to see thru?

I gave a video from a scientist, an engineer who makes his living performing scientific experiments to prove/disprove theories, like the NIST theories, like the Bazant theories, like all the theories that have been advanced to offer support for the official US government conspiracy theory.

None of these theories have ever been backed up by experiment, which is the foundation of science.

Watch the video. The blacksmith's point is bogus. Telling though that you it has fooled all the defenders of the official US government conspiracy theory.

Yes, you've already demonstrated to everyone that your emotions get the best of you, as evidenced by this post which offered no information, no rebuttal, and no counter argument to the points that have brought up. And you wrap that failure in a lengthy ad hominin attack. You're a walking fist.

So many lies in so short a space.

Why was WTC steel melted? Alleged hijackers had no fuel to melt steel.

Yes, thickness is crucial to the science. Odd that Farmerman, who is a scientist, hasn't pointed this out to you, a scientist.

It's actually one of the properties of steel to wick away heat.

Read up on the Cardington Test Fires

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

More outright lies, MCcGentrix. There was almost no wind on 911. Not small area, large area. Each floor was an acre in size, 43,560 square feet. Not lots of fuel, everyone, including NIST described most of the fuel being ignited, outside in the huge fireballs.

You have eyes, don't you?

I have referred to this before. Why has it been studiously ignored by all the scientists?

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

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

...

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001: WTC Structural Engineer Says Trade Center Designed for 707 Crashing Into ItEdit event
Leslie Robertson.
Leslie Robertson. [Source: Publicity photo]
Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the Twin Towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,” though does not elaborate further.

[CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 9/12/2001; KNIGHT RIDDER, 9/12/2001] The Twin Towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane. [ROBERTSON, 3/2002; FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, 5/1/2002, PP. 1-17] The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly. [GLANZ AND LIPTON, 2004, PP. 138-139, 366] A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing (see February 27, 1993). In 2002, though, Robertson will write, “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.” [ROBERTSON, 3/2002] The planes that hit the WTC on 9/11 are 767s, which are almost 20 percent heavier than 707s. [SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 10/9/2001; NEW YORKER, 11/19/2001]

http://historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

[bolding is mine]

Why are you being so stingy with your knowledge, Farmerman?

[quoteNot sure what survivors on the top floors has to do with anything.][/quote]

You offered a video of a blacksmith heating a small bar of steel in a crucible to prove that the steel in the Towers was being weakened by fire. The fact that firefighters had reached the impact zone where there were survivors shows that the environment was not a giant crucible.

And you never did answer whether or not you thought the FEMA investigator who was one of the ones leading the investigation into the collapse of the Towers was lying about seeing melted girders.

Also, you didn't explain how the undamaged core structure below the badly damaged upper block offered no resistance to speak of.

I've asked, why are you, a scientist, so stingy with your expansive knowledge of 911?



But you are not a structural engineer. But you are a scientist. Please explain how all of the events witnessed and described by this "Structural Engineer" could possibly have occurred, especially the parts I have bolded.

==========

September 19-October 2001: Structural Engineer Finds Evidence of Extreme Temperatures at WTC

An engineer investigating the remains of the World Trade Center sees melted girders and other evidence that the towers experienced extreme temperatures on 9/11. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001; CBS

He examines numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001] Astaneh-Asl will describe the WTC as “the best-designed building I have ever seen.” [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 10/22/2001] Yet he notices unusual warping and other damage in its remaining steel:
bullet At a recycling center in New Jersey, he sees 10-ton steel beams from the towers that look “like giant sticks of twisted licorice.” [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001] He shows the San Francisco Chronicle a “banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel” that has “twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack.” [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 10/22/2001]
bullet

He later recalls, “I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.” [PBS, 5/10/2007]

bullet He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.” [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001]

bullet Astaneh-Asl says that steel flanges have been reduced “from an inch thick to paper thin.” [BERKELEYAN, 10/3/2001]

bullet He finds a foot-long twisted shard of steel that is “like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel.” He comments, “I haven’t seen anything like this [before].” [BERKELEY DAILY PLANET, 10/20/2001]

bullet He finds “severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes].” He believes this is the result of the planes having destroyed the elevator walls, thereby allowing burning jet fuel to pour down into the building, igniting fires hundreds of feet below the impact floors. [CBS NEWS, 3/12/2002]


===========

A low speed glancing impact with little fuel on board, not a high speed head on crash while full of fuel.

Severing the water pipes had a very significant impact on the flow of water through those pipes.

So his question was why the core beams failed to support the weight of the floors above the crash?

My first guess: Because most of the core beams had been severed by the impact of the airplane.

You don't actually think I've been wasting my valuable time by watching 9/11 conspiracy videos?!?!?

Setting aside for a moment the reality that there was no such molten steel, if the buildings had been blown up, that would not have produced molten steel.

If there were actually molten steel present, that would be evidence against the buildings being blown up.

You're not going to watch any video, and obviously you're not going to read anything put before you. That way you can claim that there was no melted steel. Here's what you missed:

An engineer investigating the remains of the World Trade Center sees melted girders and other evidence that the towers experienced extreme temperatures on 9/11. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001; CBS

He later recalls, “I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.” [PBS, 5/10/2007]
___________________________________________
You may now take your place among the others who are of the opinion that
this investigator is lying?

Also, if you are not going to look at anything presented, don't expect any answers to your uninformed questions.

I skimmed your post if that's what you mean.

It would be asking too much, I think, to expect me to click a link however.



If you don't clarify what you mean when people ask, you will not get many answers to your questions.

Of course it would. You don't understand any of the science, you can't discuss the science, you can't do anything but make silly, fatuous comments.

You are dead wrong. The flow would not have been reduced at all, any more than people flushing toilets or turning on taps would reduce flow. It had behind it, the mighty power of the New York water department. It actually works the same way in your town.

What is a fellow with this level of ignorance and incompetence doing offering opinions on any subject?