?Impact

Oh, I don't know. A plane crashing into the building, high temperatures causing beams below to soften. No I have no idea what could cause the floor to sag. b.t.w. you don't need a sagging floor to hold a molten material although that is one of the most likely causes. As the material flows further from the source of heat it will build its own dam, and then there might be natural dams near the walls. Once those dams break, or the floor itself sags or breaks, that is the most likely cause of the start of the flow visible outside. No, we don't have all the answers because we don't have any video evidence from that part of the building.

The right wing fascists

I thought you were already aware of the answer to that one. Yes, when aluminum melts at 660.3°C it will appear silvery. When it is hotter however it will go through a range of colours, just like many other metals. It is not hard to imaging that the pool of aluminum that formed in the sagging floor with the heat from the fire could easily be several hundred or more degrees hotter than that. As it poured out of this pool and down through the air it cooled, and went from the red/orange colour back to a silver colour as we see in the video. I doubt it had time enough to solidify before hitting the ground, but if it did it would remain that silver colour until it had the chance to oxidize and take on a duller silver. The specific alloy that was present in the largest volume also had a lower melting point, and probably lower temperature ranges for its colour transformations. Besides the zinc in the allow, one has to wonder what other materials accumulated in that pool that would have an effect on the colour.

Close. I am not trying to 'make a case', just understand if alternative explanations are possible. As you noticed I didn't say STEEL/IRON pouring out because the video certainly appears that is not the case. You will notice that as the molten metal drops further down and cools, it does not appear to cool to a black colour as iron would. The best explanation for the molten metal we see pouring out a few minutes before the collapse is the 7000 series aluminum alloy used in aircraft. Note 7000 series aluminum alloy has zinc as its main secondary element - zinc will improve the strength but lower the melting point a 100 degrees or more below the 660.3°C of pure aluminum. I am open to other explanations, but I have yet to hear any that have better credibility.

Not to do with the failure that caused the collapse, nor with the molten metal seen pouring out a few minutes prior to collapse, but it might be relevant to the rubble pile and what was found (or thought to be found) in it.

Not sure, but it is a topic worth discussing (perhaps a new thread). This is a he said/she doesn't remember case, but it seems fairly obvious that in her state she couldn't give consent and he also violated his professional obligation.

Certainly there may be threats against Democrats, but they are not in the position of having an administration of people being confirmed before Congress. The problem is not that Sessions met with the Russian ambassador, but that he told Congress he did not. Now he is trying to limit the scope of the question he responded to, but he does not deny that he both met with the Russian ambassador (twice) and that he told Congress that he did not. The written questionnaire specifically qualifies his contact as being 'about the 2016 election' so he has an out there assuming that indeed the 2016 election was not discussed (to be confirmed). At the verbal confirmation hearing his words were “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians” - that sounds very similar to not having sexual relations with that woman, in other words we are to accept his interpretation of what he meant and not his words. The two meeting he had with the Russian ambassador are a quick informal one (sounds like a handshake at some other event), and then an actual sit down meeting. He said he brought along two senior advisors, and possibly one younger one. The press were asking him for the names of those advisors, obviously to further investigate, but he ducked that question.

I don't think he could do worse than Trump.

Yes, that is good math for determining the kinetic energy but what I am still confused is how do we calculate the thermal energy. I guess if we can figure out how much slowing occurred at each floor, we can basically reverse the calculation to determine the loss of kinetic energy and that would become thermal energy also expressed in joules (raise a gram of water by about a quarter of a degree centigrade). I'm wondering if there is a back of napkin calculation we can do based on about 35% slowing overall (ie. a few seconds on top of free fall speed). It sounds like a lot of thermal energy to me. Agreed the slowing for a single floor would not be close enough for the eye to notice. We do know that the eye, and especially the camera, did catch the slowing across several floors by the difference in the descent rate of the tower compared to the parts that broke off and fell outside.

I am far more concerned about the latter. Don't these guys learn, stop lying period. I don't think lying in general is better than lying under oath, only the legal consequences are different. A professional liar is spelt lawyer, and the penultimate professional liar must be Attorney General.

Evidence? According to the video and seismic evidence there was some slowing. You even acknowledged that before for the twin towers. The question I am posing is if we can quantify it, and yes I know there is a lot of variability, can we calculate the thermal energy generated. Some of that thermal energy would be dispersed in the air as it fell, but that would be over a very brief few seconds. I expect most of that thermal energy would end up in the rubble pile, and the lower you are in that pile the higher it would be.

There is a huge source of heat that so far seem to have been discounted. As the tower collapsed, it would meet some resistance from the next floor down and that would momentarily slow down the descent until that floor and supporting columns give way and the combined mass continues its descent. The energy must go somewhere according to my friend Newton, and that kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy. You can experience this by clapping your hands together rapidly, and they heat up as kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy. A 110 story building, weighing in at a half million tons, would have a huge amount of kinetic energy. How much got converted to thermal energy?

Already been done, many times over. Groupon is probably the better know, but there are many examples. b.t.w. I didn't think you were interested in being a millionaire.

So you are suggesting that the new Attorney General should be impeached?

If you lie to Congress about not meeting with the Russians, do you have any shame? If you are found out are you embarrassed? If you refuse to resign, where is your shame? Will your boss fire you for lying to Congress, especially after he fired another one for lying to the Vice President? If he doesn't, does he have any shame?

We still don't have the dollars that Trump is asking for, but he said he wants one of the largest increases in military spending in history. He also just said he wants a 12 carrier navy, those additional 2 carriers he wants are a few billion alone.

Speaking of sources. Do you have any real sources that have real evidence of molten steel, or nanothermites? I am not making any claim to their existence or non-existence because despite your claim there is not voluminous proof. There are many extrapolations based on flimsy evidence, to which there are a multitude of other possibilities. You want to question the official story, but when anyone questions your far flung theories you go off and attack them. Yes, there are holes in the official story you can drive a dump truck through. The problem is there are holes in your theory that you could drive the moon through.

There was an explosives expert who was responsible for large towers that estimated a single one of the twin towers would have taken his team of 12 over 72 days to rig based on experience. That means about 6 months for the 3 towers. Of course his team doesn't do it as a covert operation, they don't have to hide their work behind panels, they are able to run the cabling out in the open, etc. You don't think an operation of that scope, in buildings with over 50,000 people running around every day (and night) would be found out?

Yes, excellent term. So: Concerning your blowing up the towers theory, how long did it take to rig the explosives in these 3 towers?

The science surrounding 9/11 is fairly complex, and we don't have a million ton laboratory filled with many complex components to study. It is important however to note that many of the claims being made are ignoring some fairly well understood basics of science. Again I repeat my question from yesterday: Concerning you blowing up the towers theory, how long did it take to rig the explosives in these 3 towers?

That is not what I understand the Salah to be. There are several prayers, that roughly mean: Glory to my Lord, the Most Magnificent Allah listens and responds to the one who praises him. O our Lord! And all praise is for You. Glory to my Lord, the Most High Most Praiseworthy May Allaah grant you peace and security, and may His Mercy be upon you Yes there have been instances of 'sermons' that have proven otherwise but they are not part of the rituals as far as I understand it.

Time for another chemistry tangent related to iron. I already brought up the other day that I was able to burn/melt/vaporize steel the other day, using nothing but a low temperature match and could accelerate it with some added oxygen (gently blowing on it). Lets take it a step further and see what is burning or combustion. As you might remember from high school chemistry, burning is a chemical reaction. First look at the normal 'carbon' burning we are familiar with (e.g. paper, wood, gasoline, etc.). These are all carbon based materials and they experience an exothermic reaction with oxygen and produce a gas (generally carbon dioxide and/or carbon monoxide). This process is known as oxidization, and the oxygen comes from the air. When NASA wants to send a rocket into space where there is no oxygen to sustain such a reaction, they bring it along in either compressed or liquid form (e.g. cryogenic liquid oxygen used in Saturn V rocket) or bound up with some other elements in a solid (e.g. ammonium perchlorate on the shuttle solid fuel booster rockets) or liquid (e.g. dinitrogen tetroxide on the Lunar Excursion Module) known as an oxidant (or oxidizing agent). One of the challenges with carbon oxidization is that the high volume of carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide will tend to displace any airborne oxygen so you need to keep feeding the fire with oxygen or it will extinguish. A similar oxidization also occurs with elements other than carbon. My burning of steel is also an exothermic reaction with oxygen. In that case the oxygen also comes from the air, by gently blowing on it I am adding more air and accelerating the oxidization reaction. There product of the reaction however is not carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide because it is the iron in the steel that is being oxidized; therefore the product will be iron oxide, better known as rust. The iron oxide is however not a gas like in the carbon based combustion, it is a solid and therefore does not displace the air. Iron combustion tends to pull more air towards itself instead of smothering itself. While iron oxidation (rusting) occurs at all temperatures, with enough oxygen and a little heat (ie. well below melting temperature of iron) it becomes an exothermic reaction which will help it to self sustain or accelerate.

Yes, that is a good question. Related would be how the planes hit the two buildings. The north tower was hit close to the center, and straight into the building. The south tower was hit offset, and at an angle. There is also a 100mph difference in the estimated speed of the planes (south tower faster). While the planes themselves were very similar, there would be big differences in how they caused damage because of the different ways they hit the tower.