Why all the worldwide turmoil? (9/11 thread)

[Wilber]

4 hours ago, hot enough said:

1. What are the temperatures reached in a blast furnace?

Wilber: Did anyone dump 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on those fires that lasted 15-23 hrs? If not, the comparison is meaningless.

hot enough:  I'm pretty sure that's not what I asked you, but please do explain why the comparison is meaningless, Wilber.

Such  a simple straight forward question that is fundamental to what happened that day and all you can do is dance around it spewing manure.

[Wilber]

Oops, del.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Wilber

[hot enough]

6 hours ago, Wilber said:

Oops, del.

What did you "Oops, del.eted", Wilber. Have you hit the wall?

[Wilber]

49 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What did you "Oops, del.eted", Wilber. Have you hit the wall?

Nope but it's OK, I know why you won' t answer the question.

[hot enough]

7 hours ago, Wilber said:

Such  a simple straight forward question that is fundamental to what happened that day and all you can do is dance around it spewing manure.

I'm willing to dance with you for a wee bit, Wilber, which will show that you are the one who refused to answer the salient questions. 

[Altai]

18 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Where do you get the 10 seconds from, did you have some special camera that saw through the massive debris cloud?

There are videos of it in youtube calculating the collapse timing. Big part of it is openly seen, only the below part is not visible.  If there were no resistance, it would last 9.2 seconds to collapse. Buildings collapse within 10-13 seconds according to the various calculations. So very close to the free fall speed. I also said "about 10 seconds". So even if there was only 0.1 second of resistance at each undamaged floors, it would collapse at least 9 seconds later, so totally in 18-19 seconds. 

[Wilber]

12 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I'm willing to dance with you for a wee bit, Wilber, which will show that you are the one who refused to answer the salient questions. 

No you aren't, you want to dictate what gets discussed so your conspiracy claims don't have to undergo any real scrutiny. Your refusal to answer such a fundamental question makes anything else you say not worth listning to. You conspiracy types are all the same. Nothing new here.

 I've made my point and won' t ask again. 

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, Wilber said:

 

 I've made my point and won' t ask again. 

That's what you said last time, Wilber.

How does a 47 storey office tower fall all of a sudden at free fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds, 105 feet, 8 floors when the same structural steel had held it up since 1987? Did the steel wear out instantaneously?

[Altai]

Another part which takes my attention is one of the buildings collapse 50 minutes after the hit and other one collapse 100 minutes after the hit. The one which collapse in 50 minutes has 33 floors above the hit point and the one which collapse in 100 minutes has 17 floors above the hit point. So which has double weigh collapses in half of the time other one collapses. 

what do you think ? Is this logical ? 

If you ask me, this is sooo stupid. Because if we accept the claims as true and steels were melted, they would melt within close proximity. The columns of the building which has less weight than other building would begin to bend a little later but not in twice more time than other building. This is illogical. I cant make definite descriptions because I am not an expert of the issue.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Altai

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Altai said:

If there were no resistance, it would last 9.2 seconds to collapse. Buildings collapse within 10-13 seconds according to the various calculations. So very close to the free fall speed. I also said "about 10 seconds". So even if there was only 0.1 second of resistance at each undamaged floors, it would collapse at least 9 seconds later, so totally in 18-19 seconds. 

Excellent, you are looking at some of the important issues. I agree the free fall speed is somewhere near 9 seconds and the speed roughly calculated by the videos appears to be a few seconds longer. It boils down to how much additional time is added by resistance from support structure below before it stresses beyond point of breaking. Some points to consider:

1. Do you think that time of resistance would be consistent from the top to the bottom, or as the size and speed of the falling mass above increased would the time decrease?
2. You suggest a number of 0.1 seconds, what do you base that on? Why not 1 second? Why not 0.01 seconds?
3. The building was 110 stories tall, but the initial point of collapse was not the top but about 18 or 28 stories below the top depending on which tower we are talking about.
4. Is the resistance the same at each floor, or is there some structural difference that gives some floors more or less resistance? Certainly the two breaks for mechanical floors had some structural differences, and the exterior curtain wall (which would have little bearing on load support) was in I believe 3 story increments.

[?Impact]

29 minutes ago, Altai said:

Another part which takes my attention is one of the buildings collapse 50 minutes after the hit and other one collapse 100 minutes after the hit. The one which collapse in 50 minutes has 33 floors above the hit point and the one which collapse in 100 minutes has 17 floors above the hit point. So which has double weigh collapses in half of the time other one collapses.

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.

Edited March 2, 2017 by ?Impact

[Altai]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Excellent, you are looking at some of the important issues. I agree the free fall speed is somewhere near 9 seconds and the speed roughly calculated by the videos appears to be a few seconds longer. It boils down to how much additional time is added by resistance from support structure below before it stresses beyond point of breaking. Some points to consider:

1. Do you think that time of resistance would be consistent from the top to the bottom, or as the size and speed of the falling mass above increased would the time decrease?
2. You suggest a number of 0.1 seconds, what do you base that on? Why not 1 second? Why not 0.01 seconds?
3. The building was 110 stories tall, but the initial point of collapse was not the top but about 18 or 28 stories below the top depending on which tower we are talking about.
4. Is the resistance the same at each floor, or is there some structural difference that gives some floors more or less resistance? Certainly the two breaks for mechanical floors had some structural differences, and the exterior curtain wall (which would have little bearing on load support) was in I believe 3 story increments.

1) It may be different but I accept it the same. So yes with each collapsing floor, it becomes much heavier but as I said before, each below floors "have to be" more solid than one above floor. Therefore we could roughly accept the resistance power as the same for each floor. But if there is no resistance in floors, yes collapse would accelerate with each below floor.

2) I have considered 0.01 seconds too and it seem like irrationally short because below I will put a video and you can see how a steel ball resist to 500 tons of press at the contact moment. So I think 0.1 seconds is quite fair. According to the Wikipedia, there were about 100 columns and if we accept there were 100.000 tons above, each colums were carrying 1000 tons. I think these huge and vertical colums would resist much more than a round steel ball. 
 

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Altai

[Altai]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

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.

Both planes reach to the same depth. South building is wounded closer to the surface while North building is wounded in the middle. So South building should have been more resistant than North one. This factor would bring their collapse times more closer to each other. 
 

 

 

[hot enough]

What a ludicrous argument!. Advancing a lie for which you have zero proof. A child wouldn't make such a silly argument. But you are.

We aren't talking about history, we are talking about science. That you unscientific folks want to make it personal illustrates just how desperate you are. You know the deep deep evil that this has caused and here you are, defending the equivalent of the Holocaust.

The science that Professor Leroy Hulsey is doing at UofA-F. The science that says NIST's investigation is a fraud. The science that other scientists have done that that NIST won't even look at. The lies and the cover ups of NIST and you folks keep defending the deep evil. 

 

[Wilber]

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What a ludicrous argument!. Advancing a lie for which you have zero proof. A child wouldn't make such a silly argument. But you are.

We aren't talking about history, we are talking about science. That you unscientific folks want to make it personal illustrates just how desperate you are. You know the deep deep evil that this has caused and here you are, defending the equivalent of the Holocaust.

The science that Professor Leroy Hulsey is doing at UofA-F. The science that says NIST's investigation is a fraud. The science that other scientists have done that that NIST won't even look at. The lies and the cover ups of NIST and you folks keep defending the deep evil. 

 

Balls, you have decided this is a conspiracy, so you have to dig up anything that might support your claim while ingoring or trying to discredit all the real evidence that contradicts it. That is the exact opposite of science.

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Balls, you have decided this is a conspiracy, so you have to dig up anything that might support your claim while ingoring or trying to discredit all the real evidence that contradicts it. That is the exact opposite of science.

 

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

 

Wilber, twice you have said that you are going to flee and now you are back, AGAIN. Making all sorts of silly sounds about science. Do you want to try again, Wilber? Ot will you run away again?

[Wilber]

I never said I was going anywhere. I said I was not going to ask that question again because I already know why you won 't answer.You my friend are no scientist, otherwise you would be conforming to the scientific method.

[?Impact]

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.

[hot enough]

33 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

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).

Why do you have time for tangents that, while they talk about science, they don't address the science involved surrounding the events of 911?

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. 

How did US, military scientist invented, US patented, non-commercially available nanothermite come to be at WTC on 9-11-2001? A material that CAN produce the temperatures that were needed to melt the steel, Mo, vaporize the lead, vaporize the steel.

Edited March 2, 2017 by hot enough
clearer explanation

[hot enough]

55 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I never said I was going anywhere. I said I was not going to ask that question again because I already know why you won 't answer.You my friend are no scientist, otherwise you would be conforming to the scientific method.

Ask it and they will come.

[?Impact]

19 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Why do you have time for tangents that, while they talk about science, they don't address the science involved surrounding the events of 911?

 

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.

19 minutes ago, hot enough said:

How did US, military scientist invented, US patented, non-commercially available nanothermite come to be at WTC on 9-11-2001? A material that CAN produce the temperatures that were needed to melt the steel, Mo, vaporize the lead, vaporize the steel.

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?

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

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?

Then why do you so studiously avoid getting to this "science"? 

I didn't blow up the towers. That is apparent, even to back yard scientists.

So right after pleading for calm so we can discuss the science, you go into speculative nonsense.

Regarding WTC7, Danny Jowenko, a top Dutch demolitions expert, after watching WTC7 said, "This is controlled demolition". He was asked, "Are you certain?" He replied, "Absolutely".

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

speculative nonsense

Yes, excellent term.

Quote

Regarding WTC7, Danny Jowenko, a top Dutch demolitions expert, after watching WTC7 said, "This is controlled demolition". He was asked, "Are you certain?" He replied, "Absolutely".

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

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, excellent term.

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

I couldn't begin to know. Do you?

Danny Jowenko - WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3

 

[DogOnPorch]

8 minutes ago, hot enough said:

 

I didn't blow up the towers. That is apparent, even to back yard scientists.

 

 

How old were you in 2001?