0
   

The Physics of 911

 
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 12:14 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
My first guess: .


Your guess? How laughable. A guy who has no interest in science, illustrated by your complete lack of any type of science related discussion, offers up a guess.
Have you ever heard of research?

Quote:
Because most of the core beams had been severed by the impact of the airplane


Have you ever heard of research? It could go some lengths towards you not illustrating that you are a fool.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 12:16 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
A low speed glancing impact with little fuel on board, not a high speed head on crash while full of fuel.


Provide your source for your lie.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 12:20 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
You don't actually think I've been wasting my valuable time by watching 9/11 conspiracy videos?!?!?


Yes, I do think you have. US government official conspiracy theory videos. How else could you be so ignorant of the issues?

1. NIST said no free fall for WTC7. Discuss the events surrounding this, how it came to be and the final results.

2. NIST denied molten metals at WTC. What metals were involved, who has described them? Discuss and explain the important events surrounding this denial.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 01:48 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
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.


Please do explain.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 02:18 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Severing the water pipes had a very significant impact on the flow of water through those pipes.


Pressure-sensitive valves shut off the damaged sections of the plumbing network. That isn't exactly new technology.

Still not sure if the buildings were fitted with sprinklers. Some say yes, and most don't know for sure.

0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 02:26 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
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 demonstrating a lack of knowledge of the demolition process. Cutting charges are used to melt key structural supports in sequential patterns, and most certainly does that process melt steel. It actually cuts the columns accurately on inward angles, assisting the building to land in its own footprint.

That process can be witnessed clearly in WTC7's almost freefall collapse, after NOT being hit by any plane.

The upwards motion, and "mushrooming" effect of the 1 and 2 towers is more complex, due to the perimeter support columns being exterior to the structure, except for the massive internal colums, supporting the elevator shafts, and the inner floor spanning beams.

These inner columns were also heavily coated in asbestos sheathing.

I'd have to research whether the outer columns also were protected by said sheathing.
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 03:22 pm
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

These inner columns were also heavily coated in asbestos sheathing.



Why is that?
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:39 pm
@McGentrix,

Quote:
Why is that?


Is that a troll comment? Why would anything be clad in asbestos sheathing? To stop it freezing, of course. :-)
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 06:24 pm
@Builder,
But if a fire in a building can't get hot enough to melt steel, why waste the money encapsulating it in asbestos?
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 06:31 pm
@McGentrix,
Why indeed? Imagine the cost to demolish those old structures, what with all that asbestos in there.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 07:05 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
But if a fire in a building can't get hot enough to melt steel,


Not "if". UNLESS.

Jet fuel and office furnishing cannot burn hot enough to melt steel.

Unless exotic explosives like nanothermite,
--------------------

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites
Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08

...

This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are hightech
energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG
metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other
compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by
adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and
then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their
intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a
porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.
The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher
rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites
“high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel nanothermites,
are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular
composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often
used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004).
Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with
thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite
the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials.
It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government
scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998,
Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that --
“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating
technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various
substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries
to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the
hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”
(Gash et al 2002).

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 07:09 pm
@McGentrix,
Asbestos in the WTC

Towers' Destruction 'Solved' Asbestos Problem

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 08:24 pm
@camlok,
Quote:
Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the
hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”


Very interesting. Negating the need for intricate time-delay wiring.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 08:43 am
Post: # 6,370,682, which is the post before the one the link takes you to.

https://able2know.org/topic/370398-2#post-6370683
Builder
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:25 pm
@camlok,
There's probably more people "suspiscious" of the official report now, than initially.

Another notable is the crass attitude of those who still believe the hocus pokus of the class A criminals in power at that time, towards those of us who doubt it.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 03:03 am
Interesting experiment debunking the sulphur from gypsum theory the believers fall back on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 08:42 am
As I explained on the other thread (fascism in the US), you keep ignoring the challenge that those planes pose to your little theory... Forget about the darn molybdenic details already. You cannot really understand the science at hand there anyway. Whatever you happen to think of yourself, you lack the required understanding of physics.

Focus on the big picture: why the planes? Why even bother getting them in the picture if the CIA had already ladden the building with termites? What purpose do they play in your alledged conspiracy?

OTHER than not explaining the darn molybdene, I mean... I am already aware of that. The question I ask is very different: what can explain THEM PLANES?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 09:49 am
@Olivier5,
Abandon all hope, ye who enter this thread!

-- Paraphrased from Dante
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 09:51 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Focus on the big picture: why the planes?

That's what I find baffling. Here is a link to a very interesting piece written by an Englishman who once ran an interesting freethought forum and has now evolved into a Brexit-loving, Trump-affirming, racist. The quality of this essay remains high but I don't endorse much of anything else you'll find on his site.
Quote:
There is no 9/11 conspiracy theory, there are hundreds of them and they contradict each other as well as common sense.

The first question to ask is why would the US government need the Twin Towers to collapse?

Think about this one. Imagine that the towers didn’t collapse. The fires were brought under control. Dead and wounded were evacuated by helicopter. George W Bush and Mayor Giuliani supervise the amazing and daring rescue missions. Several blocks are evacuated and a few weeks later the damaged towers are brought down by controlled explosions as hundreds of high speed film and video cameras capture the scenes for posterity, complete with the logos of the companies involved in the demolition and defiant messages left by the demolition crew themselves as huge sound systems blast out the Star Spangled Banner. At the same time all around the world every tall building and every airport dims its lights.

Can you imagine that this scenario would not be just as traumatic as the events as they did unfold? There would be more media material available. There would be injured and traumatized people to interview, people from above the impact site, people who saw their colleagues jump to their deaths, people who had smelt the stench of burning flesh and plastic and who could tell of their agony as they decided whether to wait or jump. There would have been patients to stick all that specially donated blood into. From the point of view of the United States government the propaganda value of 9/11A and 9/11B would be very similar. Surely it was the audacity of the attack that mattered, a plane load of people plus some others and an iconic building hit, the precise numbers dead or injured didn’t really matter. If it had been 500 dead or 15,000 would the big picture response have been any different? Either number is small on the scale of total war or the scale of the more than three hundred million people in the United States.

I really cannot see any good reason why it would have been necessary to demolish the Twin Towers to produce the response which was subsequently manipulated into support for an invasion of a country that had no involvement in the attacks. Simply crashing into the towers was all that was required to create the most extraordinary terrorist attack in history. The collapse of the towers was unnecessary. Thinking from the point of view of either a terrorist attacker or a terrorist faker the conclusion is the same: hitting a building with a plane scores the goal. Hitting three was the biggest terrorist coup in history, a few hundred casualties on the ground helps make a bigger statement, completely destroying the Twin Towers was quite literally overkill. It was not necessary to make the world take notice.


complete text





centrox
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 11:31 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
Here is a link to a very interesting piece written by an Englishman who once ran an interesting freethought forum

Martin Willett, a complete tosser, and author of "Paedophilia is Not a Crime". "Freethought" often is the same as "bullshit".



 

Related Topics

Physics of the Biblical Flood - Discussion by gungasnake
Suggest forum, physics - Question by dalehileman
The nature of space and time - Question by shanemcd3
I don't understand how this car works. - Discussion by DrewDad
Gravitational waves Discovered ! - Discussion by Fil Albuquerque
BICEP and now LIGO discover gravity waves - Discussion by farmerman
Transient fields - Question by puzzledperson
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Physics of 911
  3. » Page 9
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/13/2024 at 12:04:48