9/11

Riiiight. It's so quoted that you can't copy and paste the segment that shows that I contradicted myself. Do yourself a favor and bring the quotes that indicate a contradiction on my part. Otherwise, it looks as if you're grasping for straws that aren't even there. And the reason it looks that way is because that's the way it is.

 

The only crazy people are all the ones who think that skyscrapers can collapse like that. It's absolute lunacy to think planes flying into buildings can cause that much destruction. You have to be a fucking idiot to believe the official story.

 

Yeah, I've provided lots of on-scene eyewitnesses who were consistent in their accounts of the pulverization of everything. You have produced nothing to refute them except for your insistence that since they were there and you weren't, we should listen to you. How insane is that? So, since the condition of the debris has been established, we can get back to my point.

REQUIREMENTS ON CONCRETE FOR FUTURE RECYCLING

C Müller
Aachen University of Technology
Germany

Whereas in the first case, the aggregate recovered (> 2 mm) could normally be reused up to 100 % without a negative influence on the concrete properties, the content of crushed concrete with attached cement paste has to he limited in the new concrete. At the moment digestion rates of around 60 % can be attained with electro-mechanical crushing methods (sonic impulse). This method is nevertheless not competitive compared to common mechanical crushing methods (impact crusher: roughly 1.5 kWh/t concrete)

Requirements on concrete for future recycling
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Assuming this is correct (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), how many kilowatt hours of energy is required to crush/pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete? just multiply 1.5 x 90,000. It comes out to 135,000 kilowatt hours.

2.2.1.5 Progression of collapse

"Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules (400,000,000 joules) of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure."

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-9168/403_ch2.pdf

400,000,000,000 joules translates to 111,000 kilowatt hours of energy. Therefore, the total energy stored in the construction of the North Tower is 111,000 kilowatt hours. That means that there was not enough energy in the structure to pulverize the concrete. And this is to say nothing of the energy required to bust up the core structure as well. Nevertheless, there are still people who think that it is completely reasonable to believe that the upper block of the North Tower should have descended through the course of most resistance for the first 360 feet at a rate just 40 feet shy of freefall.

Keep in mind that the observed lateral ejection of concrete and steel from the get-go not only required kinetic energy from the upper block to do so, but reduced the mass and kinetic energy of the upper block at the same time as well. Also, the pulverization of that concrete and steel took yet more kinetic energy from the descending upper block. So where did the energy to do all this, with enough left over to clear a path for the upper block to drop through the intact lower core structure at virtual freefall speed, come from?

 

Ok, and how do you know they knew it was steel?

 

I don't know for sure. I can only take their word for what they saw and believe them or not, and I do.

 

On the concrete thing, I have been playing with you, because I know where you are getting it from.

How much of the concrete in the buildings was pulverized down to less than 2mm like in your impact crusher. 40%, 80% 99% what?

Argument is useless unless you can tell me what that is.

No one knows that. And even if they did, so what? What would it prove. What is your actually argument? Are you going to say it out loud? CIA planted explosives or something.

But i told you, thats not how you work out potential energy

 

Everyone who was at ground zero attests to the fact that that the debris was pulverized--EVERYONE. It really doesn't matter that you disagree with them because your disagreement is based on the fact that it proves you wrong.

And my case was explained in my last post. But you disagree with it. And again it really doesn't matter that you disagree with it because the numbers are right there. You're hoping that your assurance that potential energy has nothing to do with the energy necessary to pulverize the contents of the Tower and bust up all of the core structure will convince others that you must be right. But I've already posted links to people who understand exactly what it means, and they seem to disprove what you believe about potential energy.

Remember this:

A considerable amount of energy would be required to pulverise the concrete into the fine dust which was evident from the photographic and other evidence. To quantify this energy it is necessary to use the fracture energy value, but this has a variable value dependent on, among other factors, the size of the concrete piece, and its constituents, most notably, aggregate size. There is no typical value. In order to assess the energy consumed I will refer to the work of Dr. Frank Greening [2]. It should be noted that Dr. Greening, like Dr. Bazant, does not, as yet, support the contention that the tower collapse was caused by anything other than the damage caused by aircraft impact and subsequent and consequent fires.

An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of velocity, equal to the velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favour of collapse continuation.
This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.

This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrel plates or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.

Momentum Transfer in WTC1

Apparently you have no idea what it means that, from the moment the upper block begins its descent, it falls through the intact core structure below as if it wasn't there. You seem to not understand that when a moving body collides with a body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed down, and the stationary body is moved. In your world, the stationary body is moved, but the moving body is NOT slowed down. Go ahead and try to convince us that there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that effect.

This should be good.

 

So in other words, you have no idea what percentage of that concrete was pulverized


Everyone on the ground "EVERYONE" attests to all the concrete being pulverized?

That everyone would include the rescue workers with the cadaver dogs searching through the rubble, including what looked like Big concrete blocks, the aerial phiotos of all the rubble, the rubble underground. But maybe all those videos and photos were fake, or maybe the CIA planted paper mache made to look like concrete rubble.

8 months to clear the site, 100,000 truck trips, never any concrete bigger than 2mm in any of them

What percentage of the concrete was pulverized?

 

What I don't understand with a lot of the back and forth jargen is;

One person says they heard something from someone. There's no evidence. There's not anything but heresay, they believe it.

Then the other person says they heard something else, again it's heresay but they believe it.

So, basically you're putting arguments against one another, based on someone else's story or opinion, and you're basically holding those statements to be true without the slightest idea of the actual truth.

So there's not much point posting a video or an article of someone's opinion or story because it's still heresay. Someone heard explosions. But did they? You don't know. I don't know. The next person doesn't know either. All you've got is a little blind faith and if it suits your opinion on what happened then it'll be gospel to you.

 

You concentrate on arguing on one small pont like this video, in this case the firefighters believe they saw molten something...then that leads to an explanation more along the lines of intense fire...and away from secret CIA explosives, why would well timed CIA explosives melt metal?.

Kind of sounds contradictory.



You say anyone that believes the official cause is an idiot. But you want to believe these fire fighters because instantly they know what they are talking about. Why? Oh just because they do...and even though it points towards the official version.

How does believing these fire fighters stengthen rhe case for secret CIA explosives?

Dont you see, you get caught up in the argument rather than the logic of it. How does it actually look like to everyone else?

 

Pretty much sums it up

Explosions could have been any loud noise

 

Molten steel suggests that something along the lines of thermite was used to cut steel girders. The fires in WTC would have never melted steel. They certainly wouldn't have caused the building to collapse. And they didn't. It was a controlled demolition of some fashion. I don't know who orchestrated it, the CIA or whoever. Unfortunately if you have enough money and power you can get away with pretty much anything in this world of ours. Nobody's going to listen to the little guy. On the contrary, people will become completely outraged if anyone suggests that their beloved authority figures might be lying to them and the little guy will be made out to be some kind of lunatic.

I don't know why that is. I imagine it's just because people need their sense of security so much. I guess it really upsets some people's worldview to believe that maybe the people they're following aren't the good guys after all. And it must be scary to think that so many people can believe in something so absurd. What does that mean about the rest of the things you do...that they might just be dumb?

Yeah, I believe the firefighters, honest working class people. And you believe the Bush administration. I don't know who is responsible. I know it wasn't 19 hijackers from the Middle East, who barely knew how to fly, performing incredible aerial maneuvers the likes of which even skilled pilots can't perform. If it was, I'm sure they were absolutely shocked that the buildings collapsed, as flying two planes into two skyscrapers wouldn't ordinarily cause such utter devastation.

Think about it. It's not like they could have ultimately planned what actually happened. As if they knew the buildings would collapse. And if they hadn't collapsed? The drama wouldn't have been nearly sufficient an excuse for declaring all out war on basically the entire Middle East wherever the powers that be see fit. What happened was absolutely necessary that the people who wanted those wars could justify them, and that's all it was good for.

Obviously the status quo was on your side from the very beginning. See planes hit buildings and hear the word "terrorist" and 99% of the public automatically knows what happened.

 

According to everyone who was there and in a position to observe the site, everything but steel was pulverized. Perhaps you have some testimony from others that would contradict those peoples' statements. But we know you have no such thing, or you would have provided it by now to avoid looking silly. I'll tell ya what I'll do. I'll take away 10,000 tons of concrete from the equation. That still leaves an energy requirement of 120,000 kilowatt hours to pulverize it, which is still more than the 111,000 kilowatt hours of potential energy built into the Tower. And of course that doesn't even take in to account other energy sinks which I've provided in links for you.

Remember this:

An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of velocity, equal to the velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favour of collapse continuation.

This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.

This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrel plates or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.
___________________________________________

And the fact of the matter is that you are avoiding the main point here. The pulverization of concrete is just one of the energy sinks. In other words, there wouldn't be sufficient energy available from the potential energy of the upper block to satisfy all of the energy demands to facilitate a virtual freefall right from the beginning of the upper block's descent. So tell me how it is that you've come to accept the impossibility of the upper block's smooth acceleration through the intact core structure below it at a rate just 40 feet shy of freefall through the first 360 feet of drop. Keep in mind that the observed lateral ejection of debris and steel from the get-go not only reduced the mass and kinetic energy of the upper block, but also required more kinetic energy from the upper block to do so. And the pulverization of that concrete and steel took yet more kinetic energy from the descending upper block. So where did the energy to do all this, with enough left over to clear a path for the upper block to drop through the intact lower core structure at virtual freefall speed, come from?

Oh, and by the way, where are the quotes I asked you for concerning my alleged contradictory statements about the amount of fuel that burned in the building? As I recall, it was you who was caught inflating the number of gallons that burned on the impact floors.

 

Are you saying that there was no melting of steel at the WTC?

 

Because it was verified by so many different sources. USGS, RJLee Group, FEMA, Leslie Robertson, Harrit et al, Steven Jones, the molten steel seen flowing out WTC2 just before it was blown up.

 

It was obviously elements of the US government. The US government/military nanothermite that was found in WTC dust tells us that for only the US military scientists know how to make it. It is a US proprietary new generation of super explosives.

Unreacted particles of this nanothermite were found scattered throughout WTC dust, along with the by products of these nanothermitic reactions. Some 6% of WTC dust was iron microspheres, a major by product of thermitic reactions.

All three towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions using US proprietary nanothermite.

 

Here is a more expansive list of the evidence for molten/vaporized WTC structural steel.

911 • Molten Steel And NIST Lies

 

You are saying Fema verified what these guys saw. Not saying there wasnt any molten steel. But theres no way anyones going to be sure what these guys saw was molten steel.

 

considering much plastic was in the building. u can look into a backyard bonfire and it looks like molten steel..
them dudes was fatigued also. mind plays tricks.

 

They all confirm what was there, molten and vaporized WTC structural steel. As I said many scientists confirmed the presence of molten/vaporized steel, including the NYT. Watch the video I provided.