Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office building went to?
See if you can make the connection here...
Do you know what kinetic energy is or did I confuse you with the term Joules?
You're still confused?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office building went to?
See if you can make the connection here...
I know. The pools of melted concrete, girders, and glass kept rescue and cleanup crews away for weeks. Oh, wait....just the steel melted into hot pools. Try again Bridgeboy.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
I know. The pools of melted concrete, girders, and glass kept rescue and cleanup crews away for weeks. Oh, wait....just the steel melted into hot pools. Try again Bridgeboy.
Only the steel? Are you sure? Do you have samples to back that up or are you just assuming that's what it was?
Again, where did all that energy go? Or has your conspiracy mamaged to find a way to violate the first law of thermodynamics?
Only the steel? Are you sure? Do you have samples to back that up or are you just assuming that's what it was?
Again, where did all that energy go? Or has your conspiracy mamaged to find a way to violate the first law of thermodynamics?
Nice uneducated blind guess you're trying to pass off as reality there. Pretty hilarious indeed. You want to cough up some data, or just paint the sky some more?
Here's the clueless NIST idiots (actually one of the lead idiots) grasping for his own ass hair and outright lying again as per usual....
Oh yeah... NIST disregarded (and outright denied) the pools of metal because it just didn't do anything for them.....well....yeah no kidding eh!. That and the complete absence of the core columns to support their collapse theory. What of the molten steel also found at the bottom of building #7? ....hmmm.... Thermodynamics?......uhm..no.
Some serious magical la la land reality type stuff...love that groovy purple sky...
NIST report = completely useless shite... and some people love eating that shite pie...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Nice uneducated blind guess you're trying to pass off as reality there. Pretty hilarious indeed. You want to cough up some data, or just paint the sky some more?
Here's the clueless NIST idiots (actually one of the lead idiots) grasping for his own ass hair and outright lying again as per usual....
Oh yeah... NIST disregarded (and outright denied) the pools of metal because it just didn't do anything for them.....well....yeah no kidding eh!. That and the complete absence of the core columns to support their collapse theory. What of the molten steel also found at the bottom of building #7? ....hmmm.... Thermodynamics?......uhm..no.
Some serious magical la la land reality type stuff...love that groovy purple sky...
NIST report = completely useless shite... and some people love eating that shite pie...
First, you have to prove that it was molten steel and not some molten slurry of a hundred different metals found in the WTCs, which you haven't.
Second, answer this question...
Again, where did all that energy go? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
First, you have to prove that it was molten steel and not some molten slurry of a hundred different metals found in the WTCs, which you haven't.
Second, answer this question...
Again, where did all that energy go? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
Easy. They have samples of the melted steel. Big huge chunks of it. Show me something that indicates what kind of pure crushing force is required to melt gigantic steel columns. That concept is entirely insane given the model provided. It's ludicrous. You could drop the entire building from miles high and it wouldn't spontaneously combust itself into flowing molten metal ooze. You're taking forces in and around nuclear proportions.
How ironic actually.
It seems you've also swallowed the NIST pancake collapse theory hook, line, and sinker. You're not seeming to understand the floors below absorbing and distributing the forces as the collapse progresses.
The whole thing didn't hit the ground in one shot like boom.....melt power! Each floor was involved and distributed forces as it went down (in reality it didn't do that at all however as it free fell in vacuum with assistance).
Didn't you have a problem understanding the mass density of water not too long ago? Can you name one physicist that agrees with you on this new thermodynamic crushing melting force model of yours?
You cant still be trying to hold up and wave the NIST report are you? That would be kinda silly given the evidence.
.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Easy. They have samples of the melted steel. Big huge chunks of it.
Prove that it is steel and not some molten slurry mix like I described before.
Show me something that indicates what kind of pure crushing force is required to melt gigantic steel columns. That concept is entirely insane given the model provided. It's ludicrous. You could drop the entire building from miles high and it wouldn't spontaneously combust itself into flowing molten metal ooze. You're taking forces in and around nuclear proportions.
How ironic actually.
It seems you've also swallowed the NIST pancake collapse theory hook, line, and sinker. You're not seeming to understand the floors below absorbing and distributing the forces as the collapse progresses.
The whole thing didn't hit the ground in one shot like boom.....melt power! Each floor was involved and distributed forces as it went down (in reality it didn't do that at all however as it free fell in vacuum with assistance).
Didn't you have a problem understanding the mass density of water not too long ago? Can you name one physicist that agrees with you on this new thermodynamic crushing melting force model of yours?
You cant still be trying to hold up and wave the NIST report are you? That would be kinda silly given the evidence.
Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of [pounds*] of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.
My best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustibles, 60% metal and other non-combustible items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.
There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents.
You should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newbie and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).
What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.
A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. But it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.
While a 600GJ bomb would take out ten blocks in any direction, the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theories (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that heat STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”
All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. It was also pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. This force was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. The STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.
At 32,000 sq feet of tenant space per floor and at 4lbs per sq ft of combustible material (at 5 lbs per sq ft NIST found that the fires moved too slowly) for 110 floors (-6 floors for mechanical + 6 for underground) is equal to 14 Million POUNDS of combustible material. Or 7,000 TONS. Clearly a RESPECTABLE amount of burnable material per TOWER. Thus the rubble pile had ~ 28 MILLION POUNDS of combustible material not including what was in the Marriot hotel and its parking garage.
When I was a teenager I attended a fire with the local bush fire brigade. A truck had tipped its trailer up to dump a load of rubble into an eroded creek bed, but the truckie strupidly hadn't looked up first, and raised the trailer into an overhead powerline. Long story short, the truckie got out ok, but truck caught fire. Because the truck was still touching the live powerline we couldn't spray any water on it, so we got to stand and watch. After a while the diesel tanks exploded, causing a very intense fire, and the steel bin on the trailer eventually sagged and dripped away like melting toffee. The steel chequerplate on the steps up to the cab also melted. It was awesome to watch.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
What 'evidence'? I still have not seen any that proves your observation, let alone, any 'theory' you may believe in.
They have 4 entire floors in storage that goes from recognizable steel beams into a ball of goo...I already posted video evidence showing it.
All this gazillions of pounds of material was pulverized into a fine dust mixed with concrete and asbestos. How exactly is that going to burn like a wildfire again? Where's the oxygen coming from in a blanket of dust that would essentially extinguish a fire?
I can't converse if your memory doesn't go past a couple weeks of retention.
The NIST report has you hypnotized it's kinda sad really.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
They have 4 entire floors in storage that goes from recognizable steel beams into a ball of goo...I already posted video evidence showing it.
All this gazillions of pounds of material was pulverized into a fine dust mixed with concrete and asbestos. How exactly is that going to burn like a wildfire again? Where's the oxygen coming from in a blanket of dust that would essentially extinguish a fire?
I can't converse if your memory doesn't go past a couple weeks of retention.
The NIST report has you hypnotized it's kinda sad really.
First, you have to prove that it was molten steel and not some molten slurry of a hundred different metals found in the WTCs, which you haven't.
Again, where did all that energy go? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
All the energy based on the pancake collapse theory which was contrived from the NIST report which is essentially total crap to begin with? I'd bet the whole website you quoted treats the NIST report like holy scripture.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
All the energy based on the pancake collapse theory which was contrived from the NIST report which is essentially total crap to begin with? I'd bet the whole website you quoted treats the NIST report like holy scripture.
You didn't read what I posted, did you?
There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theories (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that heat STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”
Guess that shoots your theory down
Back to business... answer this question...
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
You really don't get it do you?
You are hypnotized by the holy NIST grail. You take their theory then extrapolate and and run with it and also reinforce your beliefs by reading and citing others that do the same. Exactly the same as what you claim the CT'ers are doing.
You're polishing a turd and calling it gold. You missing it entirely from square one. Pancake collapse....so energy created how and going where again and doing what again and how exactly again....
You're fed disinformation from the get go and drawing further conclusions based on it. Do you even see or realize that?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You are hypnotized by the holy NIST grail. You take their theory then extrapolate and and run with it and also reinforce your beliefs by reading and citing others that do the same. Exactly the same as what you claim the CT'ers are doing.
You're polishing a turd and calling it gold. You missing it entirely from square one. Pancake collapse....so energy created how and going where again and doing what again and how exactly again....
You're fed disinformation from the get go and drawing further conclusions based on it. Do you even see or realize that?
YOU are the one not 'getting it'. NIST report or not, the laws of physics do not care either way.
We can agree the buildings did fall, correct?
So, for or the sixth time...
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
This is not a belief. This is physics. It is also a simple question.
YOU are the one not 'getting it'. NIST report or not, the laws of physics do not care either way.
We can agree the buildings did fall, correct?
So, for or the sixth time...
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
This is not a belief. This is physics. It is also a simple question.
you do realize you are fighting a losing battle don't you? You can ask these questions or even just basic common sense ones like what about the hundreds of people on the planes that died?? and none of the "conspiracy" guys will listen. All they will do is say that you are uneducated, blinded by some believe in something, drank some form of kool-aid or are just completely ignorant for not being able to "see the truth". I just don't even bother with these discussions anymore.
Haven't read all the arguments in this thread. Have seen the clip though and to me those steel beams looks they've been cut with a blowtorch. Isn't it possible that these cuts were made to create access for rescuepersonal? Or during the cleanup afterwards?
Also the blowouts just as building collapses, could very well be pressure escaping. If I understand it right the inside structure was the first to give in. When that started to collapse, it must have created alot of internal pressure in the structure. That pressure will escape through the first weak spot it meets, such as a window....
Edit: Sorry. I thought this was the "Explosives in WTC"-thread.
Roskilde 30-06-00
Berlin 23-09-06
Copenhagen 26-06-07
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-
"This is not wine that I'm drinking tonight. This is Gatorade!" EV-Copenhagen 26-06-07
you do realize you are fighting a losing battle don't you? You can ask these questions or even just basic common sense ones like what about the hundreds of people on the planes that died?? and none of the "conspiracy" guys will listen. All they will do is say that you are uneducated, blinded by some believe in something, drank some form of kool-aid or are just completely ignorant for not being able to "see the truth". I just don't even bother with these discussions anymore.
And surely you do realize that I can flip that around and apply it directly to the 'official theory' guys and the tons of unanswered questions we pose to them, which hold the same amount of common sense as yours, and remain unanswered. You guys don't have the market cornered on listening, truth, or common sense by far...no one does. It's best to just realize you can't force anyone to believe what you want them to or see it the way you're seeing. All you can hope for is level headed discussion. There's no need to get so angry or frustrated when some choose to see things differently.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
you do realize you are fighting a losing battle don't you? You can ask these questions or even just basic common sense ones like what about the hundreds of people on the planes that died?? and none of the "conspiracy" guys will listen. All they will do is say that you are uneducated, blinded by some believe in something, drank some form of kool-aid or are just completely ignorant for not being able to "see the truth". I just don't even bother with these discussions anymore.
man, that is sooooo ironic sayin that to 69charger!!!
as if he doesn't fly off the handle and call ppl names...i always loved his reasoning of:
it's shit!
why is it shit?
it's shit b/c it's shit!!
lol
we can ask why did building 7 fall and usually they get mad b/c they can't answer it b/c the nist still can't come up w/ a good enough story...the funnies was when 69 said it was a disproportionate collapse that fell straight down in uniform fashion! do things that fall disporportionately usually look symetrical?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
YOU are the one not 'getting it'. NIST report or not, the laws of physics do not care either way.
We can agree the buildings did fall, correct?
So, for or the sixth time...
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
This is not a belief. This is physics. It is also a simple question.
Again. You still don't see it right in front of your eyes. You still believe what you are being told instead of actually thinking about it. That's the problem right there. You keep assuming the pancake collapse thing was real. This is where the problem lies. It's kinda funny...you've stuck yourself in a loop to the point where you're actually repeating yourself. Your interpretation of the impossible physics involved set forth by the NIST report is the problem.
The NIST guys themselves claim they only look at conditions leading up to the collapse...after that they say basically it's anyones guess. I suppose all the physicists around the world that that have shredded this same report have the same inability to comprehend? Who's physics makes sense? The essentially freak of nature concept outlined in the NIST report? I've already told you the forces are distributed throughout the structure itself like 5 posts ago....:rolleyes: If you're hanging the entire thing on where'd the energy go then...forget about it. It's pretty obvious where it went. Into the structure itself, and outwards into the environment in various forms also. Like really so what? You're also skipping the fact that NIST denied molten steel...then changed their story. Actually they keep changing their story. Not only that.... it still hasn't finished changing yet...
Seeing the pattern?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
you're comparing an open fire compared to a chimney type fire in a building wrapped in mesh. the wtc fire would have been much hotter.
do people forget that the steel was liquid when it was formed into beams. or do they think beams are mined out of the ground?
Nobody on any side claims the heat was enough to melt the steel. You won't find anyone saying that. You're by yourself on that one.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Again. You still don't see it right in front of your eyes. You still believe what you are being told instead of actually thinking about it. That's the problem right there. You keep assuming the pancake collapse thing was real. This is where the problem lies. It's kinda funny...you've stuck yourself in a loop to the point where you're actually repeating yourself. Your interpretation of the impossible physics involved set forth by the NIST report is the problem.
The NIST guys themselves claim they only look at conditions leading up to the collapse...after that they say basically it's anyones guess. I suppose all the physicists around the world that that have shredded this same report have the same inability to comprehend? Who's physics makes sense? The essentially freak of nature concept outlined in the NIST report? I've already told you the forces are distributed throughout the structure itself progressively like 5 posts ago....:rolleyes: If you're hanging the entire thing on where'd the energy go then...forget about it. It's pretty obvious where it went. Into the structure itself, and outwards into the environment in various forms also. Like really so what? You're also skipping the fact that NIST denied molten steel...then changed their story. Actually they keep changing their story. Not only that.... it still hasn't finished changing yet...
Seeing the pattern?
then it should be easy to duplicate the pancake collapse using your theory. that's how we do things. we make models and try to duplicate what happened. the problem is; no conspiracy theory has been able to duplicate the fall of the towers. implosion experts admitt that even with the access to cut beams and the tons of explosives needed; they couldn't bring down the towers with such control. experts that can find parts of exploded planes on the ocean floor; reassemble those planes and find exact causes cannot duplicate the towers fall.
however; a 10th grade student can recreate the fall using the guidelines of the official report. how do you explain that away?
1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.
2. Those 200 foot flames were acting on a single support truss that was fastened to the two columns pictured here. That truss (and the connectors that fastened it to the columns) represents a small fraction of the steel that would have been found on a single floor of the towers or WTC 7. So again, far more heat focused on a single truss and no way to redistribute the load once that truss was weakened.
3. You'll notice that despite the intense fires ability to weaken the truss and connectors that there is NO mention of molten metal in the debris
4. You'll notice that the concrete roadway that "pancaked down" on the roadway below did not cause the lower freeway to collapse. Nor has the concrete disintegrated into a fine powder.
5. You'll notice the columns were not torn down by the collapse, nor did they evaporate into thin air, rather they are still standing (having only lost the the truss and connectors that held the roadway to them.)
So to quickly recap:
White-hot 200 foot flames acting on a single truss (and no ability to redistribute the load once weakened.)
No molten metal and certainly no thermate found
No column failure
No evaporation / pulverization of concrete
No "pancake collapse"
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
you do realize you are fighting a losing battle don't you? You can ask these questions or even just basic common sense ones like what about the hundreds of people on the planes that died?? and none of the "conspiracy" guys will listen. All they will do is say that you are uneducated, blinded by some believe in something, drank some form of kool-aid or are just completely ignorant for not being able to "see the truth". I just don't even bother with these discussions anymore.
What do the people on the planes have to do with anything? How bout the people on both sides getting mowed down in Iraq. Life is so precious so it's impossible? Really that is just incredibly naive.
However I believe you exemplify the bulk of the American mindset. When something, or someone, doesn't tell me exactly what I want to hear I dismiss it (and them) and just stop thinking about it altogether. I call it purple sky painting...little pink houses for you and me syndrome.
A sad chain of events right there.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
then it should be easy to duplicate the pancake collapse using your theory. that's how we do things. we make models and try to duplicate what happened. the problem is; no conspiracy theory has been able to duplicate the fall of the towers. implosion experts admitt that even with the access to cut beams and the tons of explosives needed; they couldn't bring down the towers with such control. experts that can find parts of exploded planes on the ocean floor; reassemble those planes and find exact causes cannot duplicate the towers fall.
however; a 10th grade student can recreate the fall using the guidelines of the official report. how do you explain that away?
The (cough) pancake collapse theory? Are you serious? You actually want me to respond to this?
I thought it was pretty clear already.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Nobody on any side claims the heat was enough to melt the steel. You won't find anyone saying that. You're by yourself on that one.
maybe you should talk to people that work in foundries. they melt steel every day. or maybe talk to welders. thier life is melting steel.
or maybe aliens turned invisible and melted the steel with thier ray-guns because the government ordered them to. that story holds as much weight as yours.
if you are so knowledgable in this field; why are you sitting on a message board? wouldn't you be out trying to prove what you say instead of blowing smoke up our as**s? historically; those conspiracy theorists that attack explainations; are not smart enough to understand the explainations. for example; the magic JFK bullet. 30 years later a recreation proves the original explaination by exactly recreating the path of that bullet.
Comments
You're still confused?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I know. The pools of melted concrete, girders, and glass kept rescue and cleanup crews away for weeks. Oh, wait....just the steel melted into hot pools. Try again Bridgeboy.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Only the steel? Are you sure? Do you have samples to back that up or are you just assuming that's what it was?
Again, where did all that energy go? Or has your conspiracy mamaged to find a way to violate the first law of thermodynamics?
Nice uneducated blind guess you're trying to pass off as reality there. Pretty hilarious indeed. You want to cough up some data, or just paint the sky some more?
Here's the clueless NIST idiots (actually one of the lead idiots) grasping for his own ass hair and outright lying again as per usual....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=e
Oh yeah... NIST disregarded (and outright denied) the pools of metal because it just didn't do anything for them.....well....yeah no kidding eh!. That and the complete absence of the core columns to support their collapse theory. What of the molten steel also found at the bottom of building #7? ....hmmm.... Thermodynamics?......uhm..no.
Some serious magical la la land reality type stuff...love that groovy purple sky...
NIST report = completely useless shite... and some people love eating that shite pie...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
First, you have to prove that it was molten steel and not some molten slurry of a hundred different metals found in the WTCs, which you haven't.
Second, answer this question...
Again, where did all that energy go? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
Lol. Are you suggesting that it frictionalized as it went down?
Primarily, it was felt and absorbed as a seismic event.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Easy. They have samples of the melted steel. Big huge chunks of it. Show me something that indicates what kind of pure crushing force is required to melt gigantic steel columns. That concept is entirely insane given the model provided. It's ludicrous. You could drop the entire building from miles high and it wouldn't spontaneously combust itself into flowing molten metal ooze. You're taking forces in and around nuclear proportions.
How ironic actually.
It seems you've also swallowed the NIST pancake collapse theory hook, line, and sinker. You're not seeming to understand the floors below absorbing and distributing the forces as the collapse progresses.
The whole thing didn't hit the ground in one shot like boom.....melt power! Each floor was involved and distributed forces as it went down (in reality it didn't do that at all however as it free fell in vacuum with assistance).
Didn't you have a problem understanding the mass density of water not too long ago? Can you name one physicist that agrees with you on this new thermodynamic crushing melting force model of yours?
You cant still be trying to hold up and wave the NIST report are you? That would be kinda silly given the evidence.
.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Prove that it is steel and not some molten slurry mix like I described before.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of [pounds*] of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.
My best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustibles, 60% metal and other non-combustible items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.
There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents.
You should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newbie and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).
What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.
A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. But it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.
While a 600GJ bomb would take out ten blocks in any direction, the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theories (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that heat STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”
All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. It was also pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. This force was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. The STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
What 'evidence'? I still have not seen any that proves your observation, let alone, any 'theory' you may believe in.
-C Addison
They have 4 entire floors in storage that goes from recognizable steel beams into a ball of goo...I already posted video evidence showing it.
All this gazillions of pounds of material was pulverized into a fine dust mixed with concrete and asbestos. How exactly is that going to burn like a wildfire again? Where's the oxygen coming from in a blanket of dust that would essentially extinguish a fire?
I can't converse if your memory doesn't go past a couple weeks of retention.
The NIST report has you hypnotized it's kinda sad really.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
First, you have to prove that it was molten steel and not some molten slurry of a hundred different metals found in the WTCs, which you haven't.
http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm
Second, answer this question...
Again, where did all that energy go? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
All the energy based on the pancake collapse theory which was contrived from the NIST report which is essentially total crap to begin with? I'd bet the whole website you quoted treats the NIST report like holy scripture.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You didn't read what I posted, did you?
Guess that shoots your theory down
Back to business... answer this question...
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
You really don't get it do you?
You are hypnotized by the holy NIST grail. You take their theory then extrapolate and and run with it and also reinforce your beliefs by reading and citing others that do the same. Exactly the same as what you claim the CT'ers are doing.
You're polishing a turd and calling it gold. You missing it entirely from square one. Pancake collapse....so energy created how and going where again and doing what again and how exactly again....
You're fed disinformation from the get go and drawing further conclusions based on it. Do you even see or realize that?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
YOU are the one not 'getting it'. NIST report or not, the laws of physics do not care either way.
We can agree the buildings did fall, correct?
So, for or the sixth time...
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
This is not a belief. This is physics. It is also a simple question.
you do realize you are fighting a losing battle don't you? You can ask these questions or even just basic common sense ones like what about the hundreds of people on the planes that died?? and none of the "conspiracy" guys will listen. All they will do is say that you are uneducated, blinded by some believe in something, drank some form of kool-aid or are just completely ignorant for not being able to "see the truth". I just don't even bother with these discussions anymore.
Also the blowouts just as building collapses, could very well be pressure escaping. If I understand it right the inside structure was the first to give in. When that started to collapse, it must have created alot of internal pressure in the structure. That pressure will escape through the first weak spot it meets, such as a window....
Edit: Sorry. I thought this was the "Explosives in WTC"-thread.
Berlin 23-09-06
Copenhagen 26-06-07
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-
"This is not wine that I'm drinking tonight. This is Gatorade!" EV-Copenhagen 26-06-07
And surely you do realize that I can flip that around and apply it directly to the 'official theory' guys and the tons of unanswered questions we pose to them, which hold the same amount of common sense as yours, and remain unanswered. You guys don't have the market cornered on listening, truth, or common sense by far...no one does. It's best to just realize you can't force anyone to believe what you want them to or see it the way you're seeing. All you can hope for is level headed discussion. There's no need to get so angry or frustrated when some choose to see things differently.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
man, that is sooooo ironic sayin that to 69charger!!!
as if he doesn't fly off the handle and call ppl names...i always loved his reasoning of:
it's shit!
why is it shit?
it's shit b/c it's shit!!
lol
we can ask why did building 7 fall and usually they get mad b/c they can't answer it b/c the nist still can't come up w/ a good enough story...the funnies was when 69 said it was a disproportionate collapse that fell straight down in uniform fashion! do things that fall disporportionately usually look symetrical?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Again. You still don't see it right in front of your eyes. You still believe what you are being told instead of actually thinking about it. That's the problem right there. You keep assuming the pancake collapse thing was real. This is where the problem lies. It's kinda funny...you've stuck yourself in a loop to the point where you're actually repeating yourself. Your interpretation of the impossible physics involved set forth by the NIST report is the problem.
The NIST guys themselves claim they only look at conditions leading up to the collapse...after that they say basically it's anyones guess. I suppose all the physicists around the world that that have shredded this same report have the same inability to comprehend? Who's physics makes sense? The essentially freak of nature concept outlined in the NIST report? I've already told you the forces are distributed throughout the structure itself like 5 posts ago....:rolleyes: If you're hanging the entire thing on where'd the energy go then...forget about it. It's pretty obvious where it went. Into the structure itself, and outwards into the environment in various forms also. Like really so what? You're also skipping the fact that NIST denied molten steel...then changed their story. Actually they keep changing their story. Not only that.... it still hasn't finished changing yet...
Seeing the pattern?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
you're comparing an open fire compared to a chimney type fire in a building wrapped in mesh. the wtc fire would have been much hotter.
do people forget that the steel was liquid when it was formed into beams. or do they think beams are mined out of the ground?
Nobody on any side claims the heat was enough to melt the steel. You won't find anyone saying that. You're by yourself on that one.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
then it should be easy to duplicate the pancake collapse using your theory. that's how we do things. we make models and try to duplicate what happened. the problem is; no conspiracy theory has been able to duplicate the fall of the towers. implosion experts admitt that even with the access to cut beams and the tons of explosives needed; they couldn't bring down the towers with such control. experts that can find parts of exploded planes on the ocean floor; reassemble those planes and find exact causes cannot duplicate the towers fall.
however; a 10th grade student can recreate the fall using the guidelines of the official report. how do you explain that away?
1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.
2. Those 200 foot flames were acting on a single support truss that was fastened to the two columns pictured here. That truss (and the connectors that fastened it to the columns) represents a small fraction of the steel that would have been found on a single floor of the towers or WTC 7. So again, far more heat focused on a single truss and no way to redistribute the load once that truss was weakened.
3. You'll notice that despite the intense fires ability to weaken the truss and connectors that there is NO mention of molten metal in the debris
4. You'll notice that the concrete roadway that "pancaked down" on the roadway below did not cause the lower freeway to collapse. Nor has the concrete disintegrated into a fine powder.
5. You'll notice the columns were not torn down by the collapse, nor did they evaporate into thin air, rather they are still standing (having only lost the the truss and connectors that held the roadway to them.)
So to quickly recap:
White-hot 200 foot flames acting on a single truss (and no ability to redistribute the load once weakened.)
No molten metal and certainly no thermate found
No column failure
No evaporation / pulverization of concrete
No "pancake collapse"
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
What do the people on the planes have to do with anything? How bout the people on both sides getting mowed down in Iraq. Life is so precious so it's impossible? Really that is just incredibly naive.
However I believe you exemplify the bulk of the American mindset. When something, or someone, doesn't tell me exactly what I want to hear I dismiss it (and them) and just stop thinking about it altogether. I call it purple sky painting...little pink houses for you and me syndrome.
A sad chain of events right there.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The (cough) pancake collapse theory? Are you serious? You actually want me to respond to this?
I thought it was pretty clear already.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
maybe you should talk to people that work in foundries. they melt steel every day. or maybe talk to welders. thier life is melting steel.
or maybe aliens turned invisible and melted the steel with thier ray-guns because the government ordered them to. that story holds as much weight as yours.
if you are so knowledgable in this field; why are you sitting on a message board? wouldn't you be out trying to prove what you say instead of blowing smoke up our as**s? historically; those conspiracy theorists that attack explainations; are not smart enough to understand the explainations. for example; the magic JFK bullet. 30 years later a recreation proves the original explaination by exactly recreating the path of that bullet.