9/11

No insult intended but you are terribly uninformed.

9/11: Stabilized WTC2 molten metal (CameraPlanet & National Geographic)

 

There was also molten molybdenum, 3,180F, vaporized steel, 4900F, iron microspheres, 2750F, the latter some 6% of WTC dust, iron microspheres are a major by product of thermite/thermate/nanothermite/nanothermate reactions.

Nanothermite was found in WTC dust. Case closed. There were no Arab hijackers. The only ones who could pull off the controlled demolitions of the three WTC towers were elements of the US government.

 

Can't believe people are still on about this shit.......

 

Can't believe that people not interested in the issue will nevertheless post in the thread.

 

What's there to be interested in? Almost 3' fuckin' thousand folks died to this shit but we've all been to damn busy arguin' about who dun it to pay any mind to what really mother fuckin' matters about it. Goddammit......ok no I'm done tonight is s'posed to be a good night I ain't dealin' with this horseshit right now.... Don't fuckin' worry I'm gone

 

I am not saying there wasn't molten steel. other phenomenon arcing seen from the floors above. what the hell makes welding sparks in a fire

 

Oh you don't have to worry your pretty little hat-covered head about me bein' fuckin' worried about that. I was never worried.

 

aluminum aircraft

 

Well I can honestly say I didn't expect such a response from you storch. Oh well guess it's a night for disappointment. Continue on with your asinine horseshit.

 

You mean "another" night for disappointment.

But if you have anything relevant to add to the discussion, stop snickering and get on with it.

 

Nanothermite now?

So you are just going to make stuff up

 

That you can't see the relevance says it all.

 

Even that wasn't relevant . . .

 

"According to everyone that was there"

As if everyone there was even asked that question, thoudands of rescue workers.

I see a whole bunch of non pulverized concrete blocks in this picture, there are hundreds more like it

 

???

Yeah, and?

Molten metal isnt steel.

 

wait, its wasn't the Russians?..

 

I provided you with on-scene eyewitnesses who described the lack of debris. You've provided not one eyewitness who described an abundance of debris; specifically cement. So where are you now?

And I'm afraid you're seeing what isn't there in your pic. Where are the concrete blocks? I see a lot of twisted steel.

Anyway, it's already been explained to you that the energy to pulverize concrete was just one energy drain on the available potential energy of the Tower. So you're putting all of your eggs in one basket here. And the main issue with the pulverization is that it began within a few seconds of collapse. Go ahead and explain that.
_______________________________________________________________________

Also, you haven't addressed 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

And you haven't answered this:

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?

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.

 

What color is molten aluminum?

 

its colorful mixed metals.

 

Lol, what, a haha hahaha.

You cant see any concrete in that picture?

Oh, man you are kidding me

Plenty of other pictures on the web, but you know that.

A hahahahahaha