Speaking of aluminum, I should have invested in Alcan. Their tinfoil sales must surge at this time of year.
Remembering 9/11
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
You mean other than this?
NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our usual
purely scientific articles, in that it contains some
speculation. However, given the timing and the
importance of the issue, we consider that this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. Obviously,
the content of this article is the responsibility
of the authors.
Fine,...but the original post on this was by fuji, stating that the collapse alone would have melted metal, not could have.
I simply have a problem with people (fuji and promo) making definitive statements without any thing to back it up, other than a theory, and trying to impress people with their high school math,...why even state it in the 1st place, just a waste of bandwidth.
FAST
Once again, should I be flattered that you enjoy reading all of my posts, or concerned for your mental health.
Every time you feel the need to initiate reply's to my posts, YOU always include an insult,...you initiate insulting posting,...as does fuji,...who the hell promoted you to hall monitor anyway.
And now you have appointed yourself to define what a "fun insult" is,...after realizing that you can't initiate reply's without an insult, you are like the 4 year old who goes crying to mommy,..."he hit me back,...I don't like it".
You know the old saying,..."If you can't take the heat,...STFU".
FAST
The evidence of molten steel or iron cannot be called “irrelevant,” given the fact that the building fires, as NIST pointed out, cannot explain it. The only explanation NIST suggested was that, if there was molten steel or iron, it would have been “due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile.” But NIST claimed that the buildings were brought down by building fires, which at most could have reached 1,000°C (1,832°F.) So the idea that burning debris from these buildings could have reached anywhere close to the temperature needed to melt structural steel (1,482°C, 2,700°F), [11] without the help of explosive or incendiary material, is implausible.
http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/
The collapse of the building itself generated far more heat than the fire that caused the collapse. Enough to melt many kinds of metal, to deform steel, etc.
Stop reading those pseudoscientific garbage sites.
There's no evidence that structural steel did anything more than deform and possibly get hot enough to glow. Other forms is metal certainly would melt.
As described above, explosives are just implausible. The planes crashing into the building and setting fire to everything would either have set them off, and destroyed any wiring. And what sort of mission impossible scenario ate you imagining where the conspiracy required the successful hijacking of two jets and then piloting them expertly into the exact right floors? Not a few above or below. The exact right floors.
Kooky!
It's too bad you have no understanding of physics and mathematics.
In order for the tower to have “collapsed” gravitationally, as we’ve been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity could really be
* On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analysis designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC “collapses” fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a “pancake collapse” cannot account for what happened. The “pancake collapse theory” explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.
It is utterly impossible for a “gravitational collapse” to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC “collapses” can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down “collapses” reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
Pot? Kettle?
Have you actually tried to apply any scientific method to the conspiracy claims?
And as for math and physics.
Gravitational energy in each building
~10^12 Joules
Specific heat capacity of steel
~ 480 J/kg K
Melting point of steel
~1400 C
The energy to raise 1 kg of steel from room temp to its melting point
6.6 x 10^5 J
That means that if no energy was lost to other sources there was enough energy to get 80 million kg of steel to its melting point. According to a quick search there was a bit over 200 million kg of steel in the entire complex, each of the two towers would probably contain pretty close to that 80 million kg of steel. So yes, theoretically there was enough energy to get pretty much all of the steel to the melting point.
Of course energy was lost to a variety of other sources but it sure is a theoretical possibility for steel to melted.
Gravitational energy in each building
~10^12 Joules
Specific heat capacity of steel
~ 480 J/kg K
Melting point of steel
~1400 C
The energy to raise 1 kg of steel from room temp to its melting point
6.6 x 10^5 J
That means that if no energy was lost to other sources there was enough energy to get 80 million kg of steel to its melting point. According to a quick search there was a bit over 200 million kg of steel in the entire complex, each of the two towers would probably contain pretty close to that 80 million kg of steel. So yes, theoretically there was enough energy to get pretty much all of the steel to the melting point.
Of course energy was lost to a variety of other sources but it sure is a theoretical possibility for steel to melted.
look who's talking, have you ever applied any scientific method to your conspiracy claims?
I listen to scientists who do their own research, not just accept what NIST spoon feeds everyone.
White Paper on NIST's Omissions, Distortions, and Fraud
Why is it NIST had to ignore FEMA's own findings? Bet you can't answer that!!! (or don't want to)
So please explain in detail what you think happened. Lets apply scientific method and test your theory.
And quoting a truther site in a scientific discussion makes me quite eager to hear your ideas.
It's not about finding an alternative as much as people just don't buy into the official 911 story. If this was a criminal case, they would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what happened. IMO
You are lacking basic knowledge of the subject matter and what NIST ignored in their own report.
Until you can answer what evidence NIST ignored from FEMA's own findings, there is no pointing trying to debate you.
Architects, Engineers and other academics who have examined the evidence for themselves and have published their own peer reviewed studies.
Unfortunately there are people like you, who put their head in the sand instead of questioning and learning.
And what "fact" do you have that confirms that the metal structure of the tower was melted simply by the building collapsing,...???
Waiting for you to open your mouth with a "fact",...not another one of your fuji "theories".
FAST
So you admit it is unscientific conspiracy theories based on the need to believe there is more to it.
As for trial, do you doubt that:
- planes flew into the sides of the buildings?
- the planes caused massive holes in the outer load bearing structure?
- large fires occurred at the impact areas?
- the collapse started at the impact points?
If this were a trial then the defense would either have to show that the above were wrong or provide an alternate theory that matches those observations. As I said, I'll wait.
Says a guy who relies on self-contradictory conspiracy blogs.
You claimed to be a follower of science and math. If you are you should be able to put forward an alternate theory to be examined about how the buildings were brought down that better matches the observed data.
There is no other way for a tower to collapse. This comment reveals EXTREME ignorance on your part.
There's no reason to think so, this is just more of your EXTREME ignorance.
Once a falling mass has enough inertia to smash through a floor it picks up inertia EXPONENTIALLY. Meaning that after falling one or two floors it has so much energy that any resistance is negligible versus the force.
It's hitting subsequent floors with many TIMES the energy it hit the first floor, after a few floors the resistance of the building below it is insignificant compared to the energy of the falling mass.
Not only does the falling mass increase with the addition of each collapsed floors mass, but the velocity at which the mass is falling accelerates. With each floor it falls through its energy MULTIPLIES further.
This is basic physics.
The rest of your post is based on your failure to understand how gravity and inertia work.
