9/11 Proof: Basic Physics. Can you handle it?

[westwall]

no, not liars, but they are not metalurgists that would be able to tell the difference between molten steel and molten lead

Or molten aluminum.

i know, but i used lead as having the lower melting point

Don't worry Al has a melting point 600 degrees below his "magic" number.

 

[DiveCon]

The molten steel story is pure crap because the people who said they saw it said it was molten ONE MONTH after 9/11. How much energy would it take to keep it molten for a month?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then? Please address your slander.

Use your eyes man.

No but they don't know the difference between molten steel or molten aluminium. There were tons of aluminium in that building and it melts at a very low 1220 degrees. You may go away now.

there were also a lot of batteries in that building
HUGE UPS backups type batteries

 

[uscitizen]

I seem to melt steel very well with oxygen and Propane.

And my Plasma Torch does it well with an electric arc and compressed air.

 

[DiveCon]

Edited-No changing Quotes.

ah back to the same spam bullshit

 

[PhysicsExist]

i'll address any FACT you actually post, when you actually post a fact

Reference: http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-physics-can-you-handle-it-8.html#post3156320

Here are some FACTS I POSTED for you to ADDRESS, DiveCon.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

NIST Collapse Model
More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”


Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded

The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”


Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

REFERENCES

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington

Stop running away from the facts. Do not fear the truth, it will set you free.

Care to address these like promised?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I didn't realized that was flowing metal there. I just thought it was fire in that picture.

OK, we have a series of metals that melt at various temperatures in that building. It is a big structure fill of all kinds of things and there is a lot of stuff of fire. We know that in order to make one metal melt you need a constant temperature over 3800 in a closed retort. In order to make another metal melt, all you need is 600*. We see open fires going in a structure, which is burning around 1200-1300*. We know it is not steel melting there. The temperature is not high enough. We know that in a structure full of all kinds of cool things, there are more than one metal.

One very good suggestion for other metals would be lead. which has a low melting temperature, there were about 5lbs of lead in each Computer monitor and that building would be full of computer monitors which are mostly plastic that burns at high temperatures (the controller cards) in addition to the low melting temperature metals.

So what you are probably seeing is lead. There was a lot there, it melts way below the temperature of the fires, and it has a silver appearance that someone might confuse with steel.

As for mr Physics Exists, don't play with Occam's razor. You will get cut.

 

[PhysicsExist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc

Care to address these FACTS you like to AVOID?

LOL!

A demand to answer crap that you think we are avoiding while, at the same time, YOU are avoiding the incontrovertible fact that your citation to that magic meteorite is hogwash.

We have proof of the most complex conspiracy in the history of complex conspiracies. The conspirators conspired to make unburnable paper!

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

NIST Collapse Model
More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”


Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”


Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

REFERENCES

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington

Stop running away from the facts. Do not fear the truth, it will set you free.

Don't run DiveCon.

 

[uscitizen]

In early america we used to use charcoal and air to melt iron in crude stone iron furnaces.

 

[Liability]

Ok, PhysickExits:

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel

 

[westwall]

In early america we used to use charcoal and air to melt iron in crude stone iron furnaces.

Yes but a bellows was used to get the temperature high enough. mr. physiscs was specifically referencing a non bellows assisted burn. Which is easily accomplished.

 

[uscitizen]

In early america we used to use charcoal and air to melt iron in crude stone iron furnaces.

Yes but a bellows was used to get the temperature high enough. mr. physiscs was specifically referencing a non bellows assisted burn. Which is easily accomplished.

I am referring to non bellows use as well.

Today we picture smelters as giant contraptions spewing sparks hundreds of feet, but in colonial America a tiny smelter could be made no bigger than some backyard barbeque pits. The fundamental design required a chimney into which fuel could be poured, holes along the side to allow air into the fire box, and spickets at the bottom which could be opened up to draw off the molten iron into pre-made pathways in sand where pigs could be formed.

To start the burn, a smelter required large amounts of charcoal -- made from burning wood into briquettes -- some crushed lime, and a large quantity of sorted raw iron ore. These fires would go on for several days sometimes and result in hundreds of rough iron bars, mysteriously known as pigs since medieval times.

Early American Iron Smelting

I habve been to a couple of old still standing Iron furnaces in KY.

 

[PhysicsExist]

In order to make another metal melt, all you need is 600*.

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Molten Matters.

An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:

Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat.

Fact: Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)
Answer: Nanothermite

Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

 

[DiveCon]

Don't run DiveCon.

who ran? dipshit

 

[Baruch Menachem]

an interesting article on the steelmaking process prior to Bessemer.

Amazing what you can do with carbon and steel.

The Catalan forge represented the first important metallurgical advance in iron smelting since classical times. The hearth was usually a slightly cup-shaped stone about thirty inches square, built up with stones at the front and on two sides to a height of three feet. Since the furnace was generally placed against a hillside the hill itself formed the back wall of the structure. A short distance above the hearth near the base of the front wall, was an opening for the admission of the nozzle, or tuyere, of the leather bellows. As furnaces grew a little taller and a stronger draft was needed, a flue was extended from the top of the furnace along the surface of the ground a short distance up the hill. The hearth was filled with charcoal to the level of the tuyere. On top of this layer, charcoal and iron ore were piled in two separate columns, the charcoal at the front of the furnace and the ore toward the back. A blast of air from the bellows caused the burning charcoal to give off hot carbon monoxide gas which combined with oxygen in the ore, reducing it to a pasty mass of iron, essentially free of slag. The lump of iron was removed from the hearth and hammered to compact the metal and to drive out any remaining cinders and slag. Afterwards it was beaten into bars which were marketed to the smiths. The furnaces preceding the Catalan forge were capable of producing only fifty pounds of iron at one time. The Catalan forge could yield 350 pounds of metal in a five-hour beat and for this reason assumed importance as a commercial producer.

 

[PhysicsExist]

LOL!

A demand to answer crap that you think we are avoiding while, at the same time, YOU are avoiding the incontrovertible fact that your citation to that magic meteorite is hogwash.

We have proof of the most complex conspiracy in the history of complex conspiracies. The conspirators conspired to make unburnable paper!

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

NIST Collapse Model
More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”


Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”


Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

REFERENCES

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington

Stop running away from the facts. Do not fear the truth, it will set you free.

Don't run DiveCon.

Anyone here care to address the FACTS with rebuttals that have actual proof behind them? Physics don't lie. stop running.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

But lead melts at 600*, and there were huge quantities of it on each floor. Each computer monitor would have 5lbs of the stuff.

Plus there were, as noted, UPS battery packs as well.

 

[DiveCon]

But lead melts at 600*, and there were huge quantities of it on each floor. Each computer monitor would have 5lbs of the stuff.

Plus there were, as noted, UPS battery packs as well.

there were HUGE UPS banks in the buildings
not just the small desktop ones

 

[PhysicsExist]

But lead melts at 600*, and there were huge quantities of it on each floor. Each computer monitor would have 5lbs of the stuff.

Plus there were, as noted, UPS battery packs as well.

a quick GOOGLE search could answer this for us. But you ARENT LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH, you're looking for something to COMFORT your reality that you DO NOT wish to leave from. Stop being so afraid.

Molten Lead:

Molten Steel:

Now lets take a look at the molten liquid squirting out the side of the south tower.

9/11 Molten Liquid Evidence:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

Anyone here care to address the FACTS with rebuttals that have actual proof behind them? Physics don't lie. stop running.

as i have told another of your troofer morons, your paranoid delusions do not equal facts

 

[DiveCon]

molten aluminum