Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

Cascade failures do not propel massive pieces hundreds of feet horizontally.

Explain to us how explosives can. Give us an estimate of the thrust needed to "propel massive pieces hundreds of feet horizontally".

Remember explosives are subject to the inverse cube law so you are probably going to need large rockets.

a reply to: turbonium1

"It's not a square cube, first of all"

Just misunderstanding I'd hope or basic secondary school maths missed the mark on this point.

It's not about a 'square cube', it's the relationship between surface area and volume of a sphere
IE the volume is proportional to the radius cubed while the surface area is proportional to the radius squared so doubling the radius gives 8 times the volume for 4 times the surface area hence 'square-cube law'. The general principal applies to non spherical shapes but it's a little more complex to calculate working in 3 dimensions rather than with a simple radius.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

 Steve Jones claimed he has unpublished data research belonging to USGS (US geological survey) and they according to him found melted Molybenium spheres in the WTC dust..  

This is the inside of the World Trade Center.



The white stuff sprayed on the steel is fireproofing.

The fireproofing was a mixture of mineral wool and portland cement.

This is a portland cement kiln.



In the 70's they got rid of old tyres by throwing them in a cement kiln.

The steel belting in the tyres contain Molybenium wich would melt into small spheres and become part of the cement.

When the building collapsed the fireproofing turned to dust and released the spheres.

That is the source of Jones's Molybenium spheres, and the iron spheres, and the hollow silica spheres.

The spheres were made back in the 70's and had nothing to do with the fires on 911

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: turbonium1

"It's not a square cube, first of all"

Just misunderstanding I'd hope or basic secondary school maths missed the mark on this point.

It's not about a 'square cube', it's the relationship between surface area and volume of a sphere
IE the volume is proportional to the radius cubed while the surface area is proportional to the radius squared so doubling the radius gives 8 times the volume for 4 times the surface area hence 'square-cube law'. The general principal applies to non spherical shapes but it's a little more complex to calculate working in 3 dimensions rather than with a simple radius.

We are always talking about weakened steel, about whether or not explosions were heard, whether or not there is any evidence of any explosives in debris, how many seconds it took for each collapse, and what really happened, or didn't happen...

All of which are important issues, and discussing them, arguing over them, is all good.

Nobody understands the only issue that matters is not being discussed - for obvious reasons, as well....


If two buildings could entirely collapse from such damage, and small fires, within a few hours, saying it's happened before then is simply wrong, and ridiculous. But, these issues avoid the real problem.


To claim that one object, dropped from above another object, will drive itself straight downward, and goes through the entire object below it, to the ground.....doesn't account for reality, nor actual physics, in any way. It cannot.


You create both objects, which are hollow, solid, or whatever you choose, there's no lame excuses to bs your way out of it.


The lower object must fully support the upper object, the same way, of course.



Had anyone ever been able to replicate such a collapse before, in any way at all, they'd have done so, for sure, and many times, without a doubt.

Because nobody can replicate it, nobody has, nobody ever will, replicate it. This proves their claim is complete nonsense.

originally posted by: turbonium1

To claim that one object, dropped from above another object, will drive itself straight downward, and goes through the entire object below it, to the ground.....doesn't account for reality, nor actual physics, in any way. It cannot.

Physics in action.



Are you going to explain to us how to scale gravitational acceleration to match the collapse model?

a reply to: turbonium1

It's not such a mystery to engineers that WTC1 & 2 failed almost the same as each other when considering the 2 towers were of identical (and unique for that time) construction, both suffered catastrophic damage with high speed aircraft impacts followed by uncontrolled fires.

That's a lame excuse.

The idea of a special exception, unique to all other buildings, is pure nonsense. I've heard this excuse many times, for other issues, in sheer desperation to hold up a failed argument.


Let's hear you explain how this would work, specifically...

For example, to explain how a floor can collapse, a structural support weakens below the floor, enough to cause the collapse, right? We could replicate how this collapse happened by using real objects, as well.

The actual building doesn't matter to demonstrate how it could have collapsed, or how it actually caused the collapse, because we know the physical structure of the floors in that building, which allow us to replicate the same physical structure of the building, in exact scale. They make small scale versions of buildings BEFORE they build the real thing, like they did with the twin towers, they used scale models, before the real thing was built...


You seem to believe that the twin towers were built without knowing if it will stand up, or fall like a house of cards from a strong wind!!


They knew EVERYTHING about the towers, what happens if there's small fires, or massive fires. What happens if a plane hits the building, as well. What happens if many planes hit the building were known, in fact. How a powerful wind would be handled, or whatever else. Every scenario was accounted for, BEFORE they ever built them.

How could they have known all that, before ever building them?

They didn't replicate these buildings. They first built scale models of it, and then, they replicated it, with the actual buildings!

Because, as I said, all the physics applies the same for any structure, model or real thing, and that's why any building can be replicated with real models, to scale.


To say these collapses cannot work in scale models is a lousy excuse, and now you know better....or should know better.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: turbonium1

It's not such a mystery to engineers that WTC1 & 2 failed almost the same as each other when considering the 2 towers were of identical (and unique for that time) construction, both suffered catastrophic damage with high speed aircraft impacts followed by uncontrolled fires.

It's not a mystery they used the same method of demolishing nearly identical structures, on the same day, while knowing a total collapse won't happen otherwise, because they tested for the very same sort of scenarios, well before they ever built them. The buildings stood intact, afterwards, from MULTIPLE plane impacts.

And that's why nobody can replicate such a collapse. in reality, either.

a reply to: turbonium1

Do you disagree that the floors were only designed to hold up themselves with an appropriate safety factor?
I don't have the data on hand but it was a pretty good rating from memory. However, the floors didn't directly hold the building up except for the fact that they provided the horizontal rigidity between the core and outer wall to stabilise the entire structure. Without the floors, the entire building became unstable so core column welds snapped and bolts failed in the outer walls.

The buildings were proven strong over their lifetime under 'normal' circumstances but the events of that day were about as far from 'normal' as you could get.

a reply to: waypastvne

You need an explanation of how explosives explode? Really? Is your mind really that simple, or are you just desperate in making such a statement?

I can appreciate how frustrating it is to attempt to defend an indefensible theory, because I did it myself for a number of years early on in this 911 fiasco.

But really, you demand an "explanation" about how explosives explode.

ROFLMAO, yes, you are way past Vne.

a reply to: Salander

Ok?

You totally ignore the video evidence. Then there is the the audio evidence, and the seismic evidence. And the fact the slurry wall was not breached. And the fact the bases of the core columns had to be cut from their foundations. And the fact there was no frozen pools of steel under the WTC pile in the basements of the twin towers.

With fire related failures on WTC 5


There is no evidence of the WTC being brought down by planted pyrotechnics unless you have actual physical evidence to cite? Not your tainted logic, and ignoring the recorded events.

The jest hit the twin towers. Let’s go with WTC 2. The WTC was known to have deficient fire insulation. The jet hit. Took out outer and inter vertical columns. Left floor panels hanging. The impact stripped fire insulation from the structure. The impact not only severed vertical columns. It cut water pipes and electrical services. The impact may have breached an elevator shaft and cut elevator cables. The jet impact and resultant fires made it impossible for any controlled demolition systems to survive to initiate the collapse as recorded on video. The fires heated up the floor trusses on the damaged floors. The floor trusses still boxed in on either end encounter resistance when they tried to expand in length from being heated. Being under load, it was easier for the floor trusses to droop downward. Upon cooling, the floor trusses contacted to cause
vertical columns on the damage floors to bow inward. Once the bowing became great enough, the columns buckled. The building above the buckling fell into the building below. The falling mass broke floor connections. There where vertical columns still standing after the complete collapse of the floor system. The vertical columns toppled from loss of later support provided by the floor system. The vertical were not cut.



If my account is soooo wrong, then outline what detailed conspiracy theory you believe is more credible. Then argue those points. What are the truth movement choices after 18 years?

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Fire extinguisher bombs?
Plasma?


Did I miss any?

So which one are going going to champion? If you cannot state which truth movement “theory” I should find more credible,

Your pictures prove nothing but the desperation of your claims NF.

The official story is intellectually bankrupt, from start to finish. A 'cascading collapse' does not blow thousands of tons of steel outwards, and it does not generate 'hot spots' visible from space. Nor does it generate molten iron for 3 months, nor does it make humans contract radiation sicknesses and cancers.

a reply to: Salander

Then what truth movement fantasy are you going to champion, argue, and provide physical evidence of?

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Fire extinguisher bombs?
Plasma?

Did I miss any?

a reply to: Salander

So why is a collapse zone around a structure set at 1.5 times the building height ??

Is it because that debris might be thrown that far as the structure collapses ??

WTC towers were 1360 ft in height at 1.5 times the building height the collapse area will be over 2000 ft in all directions


This is reality , not you person fantasy...…..

a reply to: firerescue
What would cause the hot spots visible from space?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

You need an explanation of how explosives explode? Really? :

They go BANG....... Where's the BANG. You have never shown us even one BANG.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The hottest being 1000k. Which is about 730 Celsius? 1340 Fahrenheit?

Fires in the ruble. Like when fire fighters extinguish a large structure fire and monitor it for hot spots that might restart the fire if left unattended.

Conspiracists. They take something that is expected, and then spin it into something fantastical.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

You need an explanation of how explosives explode? Really? :

They go BANG....... Where's the BANG. You have never shown us even one BANG.

I think Salander’s partner has the same complaint.... all talk, no bang.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Fires

The debris pile, which had collapsed into the basement, burned for 3 months afterwards

Firefighters/police searching the pile for human remains/evidence would often shift the rubble to have flames shoot out
as fresh air hit the smoldering rubble

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: turbonium1

Do you disagree that the floors were only designed to hold up themselves with an appropriate safety factor?
I don't have the data on hand but it was a pretty good rating from memory. However, the floors didn't directly hold the building up except for the fact that they provided the horizontal rigidity between the core and outer wall to stabilise the entire structure. Without the floors, the entire building became unstable so core column welds snapped and bolts failed in the outer walls.

The buildings were proven strong over their lifetime under 'normal' circumstances but the events of that day were about as far from 'normal' as you could get.

They simulated what would happen to the towers being hit by multiple planes, at the same time, anywhere a plane could hit the structures. BEFORE they ever built them. It was also known, because everyone knows, that over the future years, planes will continue to be larger, heavier, and faster. And they also knew, like everyone knows, that planes hold a lot of fuel, which is extremely combustible, upon impact. Which means they accounted for any fires resulting from those plane impacts, as well the damage itself.


Nobody needs to account for who flies the planes, because it doesn't matter if it's an evil terrorist aiming for it, or an innocent pilot lost in a fog bank hitting it by accident.


Speed is not a factor, either. They might assume a plane would be at a slower speed, but they account for maximum speed as well, because it could happen, at ANY speed, even greater speed than planes had at the time, because - once again - they knew future planes would have greater speed, size, mass, and hold more fuel too, which would create larger fires than before.


There was NO difference between what happened on 9/11, and what they tested, which proved the buildings would withstand such events, if they happened.


The 'not normal event' excuse doesn't work, in any way.