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

[Liability]

The NIST report does not make that exact claimed conclusion. It does make the tentative conclusion, but that's hardly the same thing especially considering how they originally didn't even grasp how much of the building had been so extensively wrecked from the debris of the collapsing Towers

The 7 WTC investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[39]

In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I hate wiki, but it does serve a purpose as a point of departure, only.)

The ACTUAL "conclusions" from the NIST report are found HERE (starting at p. 89 of 130 and listed under section 4.2): http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Why don't you try citing the NIST final report Iinstead of wikki then ?


Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.



"column 79 the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events"


NIST and the World Trade Center

I provided the link to the actual conclusions from the pdf version of the actual NIST report, and from that version I could not copy and paste. So, I directed folks to the precise page. Get over yourself, id-eots.

And the conclusions of NIST are not universally agreed upon. certainly you troofers disagree with many of their findings when it suits your petty purposes.

More of the building was blown away then they originally knew. Fires BURN better when they have ready access to an air supply and with the kind of massive hole (not even including structural damage), the fires that raged unchecked for hours got all the air they needed.

You are free to draw your own conclusions, but yours are unpersuasive.

For your moron theory to be true, effectively ALL of the support columns would have had to have been blown up and that would have entailed doing it pretty much at the same time. And it would have required a SHITload of explosives all being properly wired and ready to blow without any of the folks who worked in that 47 story building "noticing" that people were wiring it to blow. Fucking ridiculous. You lousy scumbag dishonest id-eot troofers will try to peddle ANYTHING.

Tell us, stupid, what does the NIST report say about the notion that the building got explosively rigged to blow? I mean as long as you place such high stock in their findings and all.

 

[PhysicsExist]

In other words, the Windsor tower collapsed. What do you suppose caused that collapse?

if you are a complete moron I suppose the word partial makes no difference but clearly to engineers and all those who died in the collapses the difference is highly significant

A "partial" collapse is still a collapse. What do you suppose caused the collapse of that part?

Are you comparing the Windsor tower, which burned for over a DAY, and only had a partial collapse of its upper floors? What world do you live in to have to comfort your reality with that bunk? WTC Towers were 100 stories, when the collapsed, there was ONLY THREE STORIES of RUBBLE. where did it all go? It was vaporized with explosives.

When the towers fell, they showed no jolt and gravitationally accelerated though the path of greatest resistance. Impossible.

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, collapses at FREE FALL. proves demolition. No other way to remove 8 floors of structural steel. Windsor tower took 26 hours to just burn partially, WTC7 burned 5x less longer and collapsed FASTER than a REAL LIFE DEMOLITION ever has.

NIST report has been debunked and proven to be a farce by the Citizens. since Nov 2008 the NIST report has proven 9/11 has been covered up, and thats why 1,400 architects and engineers have been steadily educating the public about the fallacies in the Govt's reports.

Physics do not lie, your eyes do not lie, but the government does.

 

[DiveCon]

if you are a complete moron I suppose the word partial makes no difference but clearly to engineers and all those who died in the collapses the difference is highly significant

A "partial" collapse is still a collapse. What do you suppose caused the collapse of that part?

Are you comparing the Windsor tower, which burned for over a DAY, and only had a partial collapse of its upper floors? What world do you live in to have to comfort your reality with that bunk? WTC Towers were 100 stories, when the collapsed, there was ONLY THREE STORIES of RUBBLE. where did it all go? It was vaporized with explosives.

When the towers fell, they showed no jolt and gravitationally accelerated though the path of greatest resistance. Impossible.

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, collapses at FREE FALL. proves demolition. No other way to remove 8 floors of structural steel. Windsor tower took 26 hours to just burn partially, WTC7 burned 5x less longer and collapsed FASTER than a REAL LIFE DEMOLITION ever has.

NIST report has been debunked and proven to be a farce by the Citizens. since Nov 2008 the NIST report has proven 9/11 has been covered up, and thats why 1,400 architects and engineers have been steadily educating the public about the fallacies in the Govt's reports.

Physics do not lie, your eyes do not lie, but the government does.

you lie

 

[eots]

The NIST report does not make that exact claimed conclusion. It does make the tentative conclusion, but that's hardly the same thing especially considering how they originally didn't even grasp how much of the building had been so extensively wrecked from the debris of the collapsing Towers

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I hate wiki, but it does serve a purpose as a point of departure, only.)

The ACTUAL "conclusions" from the NIST report are found HERE (starting at p. 89 of 130 and listed under section 4.2): http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Why don't you try citing the NIST final report Iinstead of wikki then ?


Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.



"column 79 the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events"


NIST and the World Trade Center

I provided the link to the actual conclusions from the pdf version of the actual NIST report, and from that version I could not copy and paste. So, I directed folks to the precise page. Get over yourself, id-eots.

And the conclusions of NIST are not universally agreed upon. certainly you troofers disagree with many of their findings when it suits your petty purposes.

More of the building was blown away then they originally knew.

link

Fires BURN better when they have ready access to an air supply and with the kind of massive hole (not even including structural damage), the fires that raged unchecked for hours got all the air they needed.

link as to where the damage supplied extra fuel to the fires

For your moron theory to be true, effectively ALL of the support columns would have had to have been blown up

and that would have entailed doing it pretty much at the same time. And it would have required a SHITload of explosives all being properly wired and ready to blow without any of the folks who worked in that 47 story building "noticing" that people were wiring it to blow. Fucking ridiculous. You lousy scumbag dishonest id-eot troofers will try to peddle ANYTHING.

No according to NIST only column 79 would be required

Tell us, stupid, what does the NIST report say about the notion that the building got explosively rigged to blow? I mean as long as you place such high stock in their findings and all.

They say they discounted it as implausible because the minim charge required would be "as loud a shot gun blast a half mile away in an urban setting or as loud as speakers at a rock concert" ....(whatever that means) and that no such sounds were heard or reported,(which is untrue) ..so they investigated that scenario no further...furthermore NIST used the loudest possible and took no sound damping into consideration

 

[DiveCon]

the NIST also said no evidence of explosives in the buildings


now you will disagree with NIST
how selective you use them

 

[eots]

the NIST also said no evidence of explosives in the buildings


now you will disagree with NIST
how selective you use them

and they also coincide no forensic testing of any kind for the reasons I just cited and I do not find these reasons inaccurate and insufficient

 

[PhysicsExist]

the NIST also said no evidence of explosives in the buildings


now you will disagree with NIST
how selective you use them

and they also coincide no forensic testing of any kind for the reasons I just cited and I do not find these reasons inaccurate and insufficient

why do you respond to the DiveCon bot?

 

[eots]

the NIST also said no evidence of explosives in the buildings


now you will disagree with NIST
how selective you use them

DIVECON thinks
POPULAR MECHANICS got it RIGHT
and NIST got it
WRONG LOL

 

[eots]

the NIST also said no evidence of explosives in the buildings


now you will disagree with NIST
how selective you use them

and they also coincide no forensic testing of any kind for the reasons I just cited and I do not find these reasons inaccurate and insufficient

why do you respond to the DiveCon bot?

He is a useful tool in showing the ignorance of debwunkers and keeping 9/11 threads active and in the mass consciousness

 

[PhysicsExist]

and they also coincide no forensic testing of any kind for the reasons I just cited and I do not find these reasons inaccurate and insufficient

why do you respond to the DiveCon bot?

He is a useful tool in showing the ignorance of debwunkers and keeping 9/11 threads active and in the mass consciousness

He is a useful tool, I agree.

 

[Liability]

* * * *


They say they discounted it as implausible because the minim charge required would be "as loud a shot gun blast a half mile away in an urban setting or as loud as speakers at a rock concert" ....(whatever that means) and that no such sounds were heard or reported,(which is untrue) ..so they investigated that scenario no further...furthermore NIST used the loudest possible explosives possible and took no sound damping into consideration

You can't even handle the extremely simple QUOTE function. The idea that you can grasp anything of what NIST has to say is too ridiculous on its face to even discuss.

Let's simplify things for you, you fucking id-eot.

However "loud" the sound might be, how much of the theoretical "explosive" do you maintain would be minimally required to blow the support structures of the WTC7 building pretty much simultaneously to accomplish the alleged Controlled Demolition you lunatics fantasize about?

Nobody noticed?

The AMOUNT of wiring that had to be rigged to make that thing go "boom" and fall down pretty much simultaneously? How much of that? How many fucking MILES of det cord would be required?

Nobody noticed?

It all had to be coordinated with the obviously PLANNED 9/11/2001 jet liner hijackings and their crashes into the Twin Towers. So aside from planting the explosives (invisibly) and stringing the det cords (invisibly), they also had to coordinate with the mutants who stole the planes and "drove" them into adjacent office towers.

How many fucking people are IN on this massive conspiracy you lunatics project?

NOBODY in a conspiracy of that unfathomable size and complexity has broken the secrecy?

Our God-forsaken government can't even keep military and diplomatic cables from assholes like Julian Assange and WikieLeaks, But, the guys involved in this treasonous plot are powerful enough and secret enough to compel absolute secrecy of a conspiracy of this unbelievable size?

And you're fucking serious?

The utterly irresponsible "charges" you make are baseless enough. But for you guys to make these moronic claims without addressing ALL that would HAVE to be "true" in order for your particular lunatic brand of "conspiracy theory" to be even marginally POSSIBLE is a display of pure cowardice on your part.

 

[eots]

* * * *


They say they discounted it as implausible because the minim charge required would be "as loud a shot gun blast a half mile away in an urban setting or as loud as speakers at a rock concert" ....(whatever that means) and that no such sounds were heard or reported,(which is untrue) ..so they investigated that scenario no further...furthermore NIST used the loudest possible explosives possible and took no sound damping into consideration

You can't even handle the extremely simple QUOTE function. The idea that you can grasp anything of what NIST has to say is too ridiculous on its face to even discuss.

Let's simplify things for you, you fucking id-eot.

However "loud" the sound might be, how much of the theoretical "explosive" do you maintain would be minimally required to blow the support structures of the WTC7 building pretty much simultaneously to accomplish the alleged Controlled Demolition you lunatics fantasize about?

Nobody noticed?

The AMOUNT of wiring that had to be rigged to make that thing go "boom" and fall down pretty much simultaneously? How much of that? How many fucking MILES of det cord would be required?

Nobody noticed?

It all had to be coordinated with the obviously PLANNED 9/11/2001 jet liner hijackings and their crashes into the Twin Towers. So aside from planting the explosives (invisibly) and stringing the det cords (invisibly), they also had to coordinate with the mutants who stole the planes and "drove" them into adjacent office towers.

How many fucking people are IN on this massive conspiracy you lunatics project?

NOBODY in a conspiracy of that unfathomable size and complexity has broken the secrecy?

Our God-forsaken government can't even keep military and diplomatic cables from assholes like Julian Assange and WikieLeaks, But, the guys involved in this treasonous plot are powerful enough and secret enough to compel absolute secrecy of a conspiracy of this unbelievable size?

And you're fucking serious?

The utterly irresponsible "charges" you make are baseless enough. But for you guys to make these moronic claims without addressing ALL that would HAVE to be "true" in order for your particular lunatic brand of "conspiracy theory" to be even marginally POSSIBLE is a display of pure cowardice on your part.

What part of column 79 don't you get simple Simon ?.. one column

 

[PhysicsExist]

* * * *


They say they discounted it as implausible because the minim charge required would be "as loud a shot gun blast a half mile away in an urban setting or as loud as speakers at a rock concert" ....(whatever that means) and that no such sounds were heard or reported,(which is untrue) ..so they investigated that scenario no further...furthermore NIST used the loudest possible explosives possible and took no sound damping into consideration

You can't even handle the extremely simple QUOTE function. The idea that you can grasp anything of what NIST has to say is too ridiculous on its face to even discuss.

Let's simplify things for you, you fucking id-eot.

However "loud" the sound might be, how much of the theoretical "explosive" do you maintain would be minimally required to blow the support structures of the WTC7 building pretty much simultaneously to accomplish the alleged Controlled Demolition you lunatics fantasize about?

Nobody noticed?

The AMOUNT of wiring that had to be rigged to make that thing go "boom" and fall down pretty much simultaneously? How much of that? How many fucking MILES of det cord would be required?

Nobody noticed?

It all had to be coordinated with the obviously PLANNED 9/11/2001 jet liner hijackings and their crashes into the Twin Towers. So aside from planting the explosives (invisibly) and stringing the det cords (invisibly), they also had to coordinate with the mutants who stole the planes and "drove" them into adjacent office towers.

How many fucking people are IN on this massive conspiracy you lunatics project?

NOBODY in a conspiracy of that unfathomable size and complexity has broken the secrecy?

Our God-forsaken government can't even keep military and diplomatic cables from assholes like Julian Assange and WikieLeaks, But, the guys involved in this treasonous plot are powerful enough and secret enough to compel absolute secrecy of a conspiracy of this unbelievable size?

And you're fucking serious?

The utterly irresponsible "charges" you make are baseless enough. But for you guys to make these moronic claims without addressing ALL that would HAVE to be "true" in order for your particular lunatic brand of "conspiracy theory" to be even marginally POSSIBLE is a display of pure cowardice on your part.

I dont understand how the level of "DIFFICULTY" determines whether or not something was able to be done. In real investigations this is the last type of practice they do. But you are suggesting its the main premise to the 9/11 question. This is the last thing the people afraid of the truth use; that it is 'too hard' to keep it all a secret and 'somebody would of seen all the wiring and bombs' and that the 'govt is too stupid to do this' etc etc. Classic case of denial.

You can use your 'assumptions' such as these, but then you go right back around and IGNORE Newtonian Physics? You IGNORE the videos that prove Control Demolition, you IGNORE the facts that prove there is a coverup, you IGNORE the facts that prove a reinvestigation is required. You need to realize how naive you sound when posting responses with such loose credibility, it makes you look scared.

WTC7 collapses in freefall for 2.25 seconds = Proves Controlled Demolition
WTC Tower tilted, then stopped, and then fell at gravitational acceleration = Proves Controlled Demolition
WTC Towers were vaporized into 3 stories of rubble = Proves Controlled Demolition
WTC dust has explosive residues and unexploded Nanothermite chips.
www.firefightersfor911truth.org

 

[eots]

* * * *


They say they discounted it as implausible because the minim charge required would be "as loud a shot gun blast a half mile away in an urban setting or as loud as speakers at a rock concert" ....(whatever that means) and that no such sounds were heard or reported,(which is untrue) ..so they investigated that scenario no further...furthermore NIST used the loudest possible explosives possible and took no sound damping into consideration

You can't even handle the extremely simple QUOTE function. The idea that you can grasp anything of what NIST has to say is too ridiculous on its face to even discuss.

Let's simplify things for you, you fucking id-eot.

However "loud" the sound might be, how much of the theoretical "explosive" do you maintain would be minimally required to blow the support structures of the WTC7 building pretty much simultaneously to accomplish the alleged Controlled Demolition you lunatics fantasize about?

Nobody noticed?

The AMOUNT of wiring that had to be rigged to make that thing go "boom" and fall down pretty much simultaneously? How much of that? How many fucking MILES of det cord would be required?

Nobody noticed?

It all had to be coordinated with the obviously PLANNED 9/11/2001 jet liner hijackings and their crashes into the Twin Towers. So aside from planting the explosives (invisibly) and stringing the det cords (invisibly), they also had to coordinate with the mutants who stole the planes and "drove" them into adjacent office towers.

How many fucking people are IN on this massive conspiracy you lunatics project?

NOBODY in a conspiracy of that unfathomable size and complexity has broken the secrecy?

Our God-forsaken government can't even keep military and diplomatic cables from assholes like Julian Assange and WikieLeaks, But, the guys involved in this treasonous plot are powerful enough and secret enough to compel absolute secrecy of a conspiracy of this unbelievable size?

And you're fucking serious?

The utterly irresponsible "charges" you make are baseless enough. But for you guys to make these moronic claims without addressing ALL that would HAVE to be "true" in order for your particular lunatic brand of "conspiracy theory" to be even marginally POSSIBLE is a display of pure cowardice on your part.

I dont understand how the level of "DIFFICULTY" determines whether or not something was able to be done. This is the last thing the people afraid of the truth use; that it is 'too hard' to keep it all a secret and 'somebody would of seen all the wiring and bombs' and that the 'govt is too stupid to do this' etc etc. Classic case of denial.

You can use your 'assumptions' such as these, but then you go right back around and IGNORE Newtonian Physics? You IGNORE the videos that prove Control Demolition, you IGNORE the facts that prove there is a coverup, you IGNORE the facts that prove a reinvestigation is required. You need to realize how naive you sound when posting responses with such loose credibility, it makes you look scared.

Indeed the debwunkers soon resort to the assumption filled narrative of the world of bungling governments and secrets that can not be kept.. when science and scientific method fail them

 

[DiveCon]

and they also coincide no forensic testing of any kind for the reasons I just cited and I do not find these reasons inaccurate and insufficient

why do you respond to the DiveCon bot?

He is a useful tool in showing the ignorance of debwunkers and keeping 9/11 threads active and in the mass consciousness

you're a fucking moron thats why i respond to you

 

[DiveCon]

why do you respond to the DiveCon bot?

He is a useful tool in showing the ignorance of debwunkers and keeping 9/11 threads active and in the mass consciousness

He is a useful tool, I agree.

you are also a fucking moron

 

[PhysicsExist]

Messed up the key part to the topic title lol, new thread here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/148712-you-cannot-get-2-800of-degrees-with-any-hydrocarbon-fire.html

 

[PhysicsExist]

A lot of people cannot grasp this:

You can melt steel inside of a blast furnace, BECAUSE YOU HAVE PURE Oxygen.
Pure Oxygen Enviorment allows you to get to 3,000oC.

In air, you have 1/3rd of the Oxygen you would normally have.

You have to heat up molecules of Nitrogen & others in order to get a hydrocarbon based fire to reach steel's melting point.

You can only get 1/3rd of the temp needed to melt steel OUTSIDE of a blast furnace, BECAUSE the OXYGEN in the AIR is NOT enough.

You can only get to 1,800oF Degrees in a carbon based fire inside of a building.
Reason: because you need to heat up the OTHER molecules, but DO not have the oxygen to do so, because AIR only consists of 1/3rd Oxygen.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_QWk2fFUzw[/ame]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

A lot of people cannot grasp this:

You can melt steel inside of a blast furnace, BECAUSE YOU HAVE PURE Oxygen.
Pure Oxygen Enviorment allows you to get to 3,000oC.

In air, you have 1/3rd of the Oxygen you would normally have.

You have to heat up molecules of Nitrogen & others in order to get a hydrocarbon based fire to reach steel's melting point.

You can only get 1/3rd of the temp needed to melt steel OUTSIDE of a blast furnace, BECAUSE the OXYGEN in the AIR is NOT enough.

You can only get to 1,800oF Degrees in a carbon based fire inside of a building.
Reason: because you need to heat up the OTHER molecules, but DO not have the oxygen to do so, because AIR only consists of 1/3rd Oxygen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_QWk2fFUzw

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEhDZN0RFjw&feature=rec-exp_fresh+div-1f-46-HM[/ame]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Messed up the key part to the topic title lol, new thread here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/148712-you-cannot-get-2-800of-degrees-with-any-hydrocarbon-fire.html

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEhDZN0RFjw&feature=rec-exp_fresh+div-1f-46-HM[/ame]