Improbable Collapse

[Anti-sophist]

Especially when the energy sink for "pulverization" isn't actually going to 60 microns, or costs 1.5 kWh/t.

For instance, the 1.5 kWh number quoted in that paper is quoting the power delivered at the input to a pulverization machine. Pulverization is an incredibly ineffecient process, and much of that 1.5kWh is actually converted to heat, in that particular machine.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Especially when the energy sink for "pulverization" isn't actually going to 60 microns, or costs 1.5 kWh/t.

For instance, the 1.5 kWh number quoted in that paper is quoting the power delivered at the input to a pulverization machine. Pulverization is an incredibly ineffecient process, and much of that 1.5kWh is actually converted to heat, in that particular machine.

Prexactly.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Where in those links does it explain the "well understood process" of the falling friction of buildings collapsing CD style resulting in basements swimming with molten steel 8 weeks post collapse? maybe Aggle' let a freudian slip by saying 'a link doesn't make it true'?

We really are straying a long way from NIST's 'natural blast furnace' smelting metal for weeks in the pile .

Again, the building had 850 billion joules of energy just by standing up. When it collapse, all that energy went somewhere. Where did it go? Once we subtract the "energy of pulverization", where did the rest of the energy go? Pulverization is a very ineffecent process, in and of itself, and even in a pure pulverizing machine, much of the energy that goes into it is converted to heat. Again, where does the rest of the energy go? There is only one answer to that question. And running the math on that answer produces alot of heat.

Your continuing denying the basic physics here and claiming it's "unlikely" shows you don't understand the very basics of the first law of thermodynamics.

If the energy didn't go into heat, where did it go?

Noise? some unknown energy force blew much of the twin towers horizontally AND vertically outward and upward away from the pile and the towers footprints and can be discounted from the friction heat equation or do you dispute the filmed evidence of the towers collapsing and toxins being blown away from the crime scene in micro particle?

It's no wonder NIST haven't expended any heat energy on this 'red herring' that'll be the day they really concede defeat and admit 'it's a fair cop'![/i]

[chek]

Especially when the energy sink for "pulverization" isn't actually going to 60 microns, or costs 1.5 kWh/t.

For instance, the 1.5 kWh number quoted in that paper is quoting the power delivered at the input to a pulverization machine. Pulverization is an incredibly ineffecient process, and much of that 1.5kWh is actually converted to heat, in that particular machine.

Except, without knowing what mechanism caused that pulverisation you in turn are guessing about the heat that should be produced in the process.
What was shattering 4 inch thick concrete floors into vast powder fountains within 3 seconds of the initiation of the collapse?
Crushing compression forces don't seem likely.

[jsut_peopel]

Crushing compression forces don't seem likely.

Why?

[aggle-rithm]

Except, without knowing what mechanism caused that pulverisation you in turn are guessing about the heat that should be produced in the process.
What was shattering 4 inch thick concrete floors into vast powder fountains within 3 seconds of the initiation of the collapse?

When I strike a piece of concrete with a sledgehammer, it takes a lot less than 3 seconds to produce what you call a "powder fountain".

Does it seem unlikely to you that a sledgehammer a million times bigger would produce a bigger one?

Crushing compression forces don't seem likely.

Explosives seem less likely, since it would have taken such a huge amount that it's unlikely they could have been smuggled past thousands of office workers and maintenance people and deployed without anyone noticing.

[Anti-sophist]

Noise?

You don't seriously want me to compute the decibel level of the noise generated by 850 billion joules of energy, do you? (PS: What do you think sound energy becomes once it dissipates?)

some unknown energy force blew much of the twin towers horizontally AND vertically outward and upward away from the pile and the towers footprints

Unknown to those without the most basic knowledge of physics, anyway.

It's no wonder NIST haven't expended any heat energy on this 'red herring' that'll be the day they really concede defeat and admit 'it's a fair cop'

NIST hasn't ever dealt with the molten metal claims because they are of little scientific value. Like I said, only conspiracy theorists with a bad grasp of science and physics don't understand how a 800 billion joule energy release in about 15 seconds, can melt metal.

[Anti-sophist]

Except, without knowing what mechanism caused that pulverisation you in turn are guessing about the heat that should be produced in the process.
What was shattering 4 inch thick concrete floors into vast powder fountains within 3 seconds of the initiation of the collapse?
Crushing compression forces don't seem likely.

I am only guessing that it wasn't 100% efficient. I'm not guessing how much heat was generated. There is no known mechanism for pulverizing anything at 100% efficient. Some heat WAS generated by the pulverization (in the form of friction), and only SOME of the energy was lost this way. The rest was lost to plain old interior and exterior frictional forces.

Why do you think crushing compression forces aren't likely? They seem likely to me, and I've seen no science to backup your claim. Maybe you can provide some.

[chek]

Crushing compression forces don't seem likely.

Why?

Well it seems unlikely to me that all vertical supports on every floor - and even filing cabinets and water coolers don't crush down to zero thickness - yet everything seems to have disappeared, leaving entire floor pans open to be crushed to dust, if that is what happened and no other force was involved.

[Anti-sophist]

Crushing compression forces don't seem likely.

Why?

Well it seems unlikely to me that all vertical supports on every floor - and even filing cabinets and water coolers don't crush down to zero thickness - yet everything seems to have disappeared, leaving entire floor pans open to be crushed to dust, if that is what happened and no other force was involved.

Do you have anything beyond your own intuition to help you describe why you think it's impossible?

I don't understand? You think that everything should just "crush down" to zero thickness?

[chek]

Why?

Well it seems unlikely to me that all vertical supports on every floor - and even filing cabinets and water coolers don't crush down to zero thickness - yet everything seems to have disappeared, leaving entire floor pans open to be crushed to dust, if that is what happened and no other force was involved.

Do you have anything beyond your own intuition to help you describe why you think it's impossible?

I don't understand? You think that everything should just "crush down" to zero thickness?

Well yes or at least minimum thickness - it would more likely be compacted and compressed, not be sent jetting out in voluminous banana peeling volcano-like clouds of dense dust.
Your mammoth sledge-hammer analogy does not cause that effect.
It usually causes softer types of concrete to break and compress if anything, and hard concrete to break into macro pieces, not to cause every particle bond to release, turn to powder and go flying off into the sunset.

[Ignatz]

Well yes or at least minimum thickness - , it would more likely be compacted and compressednot be sent jetting out in voluminous banana peeling volcano-like clouds of dense dust.
Your mammoth sledge-hammer analogy does not cause that effect.
It usually causes softer types of concrete to break and compress if anything, and hard concrete to break into macro pieces, not to cause every particle bond to release, turn to powder and go flying off into the sunset.

What , like this ? :



Chek, I never fail to be amazed by your inability to see that some of the concrete fell down while some fell outwards. What's so hard to understand about that? That's a real question there? Why does it all have to go one way or the other, in your view ?????

[pepik]

cause every particle bond to release, turn to powder and go flying off into the sunset

I'm sorry, when did that happen? To what building?

[chek]

cause every particle bond to release, turn to powder and go flying off into the sunset

I'm sorry, when did that happen? To what building?

Er.. the ones that caused enough dust to be generated and propelled to cover Manhattan inches deep in powder for miles?
Like a volcanic eruption had just happened?

[chek]

Well yes or at least minimum thickness - , it would more likely be compacted and compressednot be sent jetting out in voluminous banana peeling volcano-like clouds of dense dust.
Your mammoth sledge-hammer analogy does not cause that effect.
It usually causes softer types of concrete to break and compress if anything, and hard concrete to break into macro pieces, not to cause every particle bond to release, turn to powder and go flying off into the sunset.

What , like this ? :



Chek, I never fail to be amazed by your inability to see that some of the concrete fell down while some fell outwards. What's so hard to understand about that? That's a real question there? Why does it all have to go one way or the other, in your view ?????

Ignatz, I also never cease to be amazed that you point to the low percentage of macro chunks left out of 90,000t of concrete and claim it to be representative, when nearly every photo shows, and first responder anecdotal evidence remarks, on what appears to be a steel scrapyard, rather than for instance the bombed rubble of let's say the blitz for example.

Concrete (and every other type of organic matyter lets not forget), crushed or otherwise, does not disassemble itself into powder and propell itself for miles (there was no strong wind that day) creating an inches thick blanket of dust - for miles - by fires and gravity alone.

If you are continuing to maintain that it does you'll really need to show some precedent for that effect.

[Ignatz]

Ignatz, I also never cease to be amazed that you point to the low percentage of macro chunks left out of 90,000t of concrete and claim it to be representative, when nearly every photo shows, and first responder anecdotal evidence remarks, on what appears to be a steel scrapyard, rather than for instance the bombed rubble of let's say the blitz for example.

Concrete (and every other type of organic matyter lets not forget), crushed or otherwise, does not disassemble itself into powder and propell itself for miles (there was no strong wind that day) creating an inches thick blanket of dust - for miles - by fires and gravity alone.

If you are continuing to maintain that it does you'll really need to show some precedent for that effect.

That's because they were primarily steel-constructed buildings.

London was mostly bricks+mortar plus concrete.

What would you expect to see in those two scenarios?

[pepik]

Er.. the ones that caused enough dust to be generated and propelled to cover Manhattan inches deep in powder for miles?
Like a volcanic eruption had just happened?

So you are saying that an accurate description of what happened to WTC 1 and 2 would be that every particle bond was released, turn to powder and went flying off into the sunset.

Of course I am keeping in mind you have suggested that the collapse of the WTC after being hit by a 500,000 pound jet travelling at 500mph and exploding in a ten thousand gallon jet fuel fire proves you can do controlled demolition by "lighting a match".

[chek]

Ignatz, I also never cease to be amazed that you point to the low percentage of macro chunks left out of 90,000t of concrete and claim it to be representative, when nearly every photo shows, and first responder anecdotal evidence remarks, on what appears to be a steel scrapyard, rather than for instance the bombed rubble of let's say the blitz for example.

Concrete (and every other type of organic matyter lets not forget), crushed or otherwise, does not disassemble itself into powder and propell itself for miles (there was no strong wind that day) creating an inches thick blanket of dust - for miles - by fires and gravity alone.

If you are continuing to maintain that it does you'll really need to show some precedent for that effect.

That's because they were primarily steel-constructed buildings.

London was mostly bricks+mortar plus concrete.

What would you expect to see in those two scenarios?

2 x 90,000t of concrete rubble in addition to the steel would seem a reasonable expectation.

[chek]

Er.. the ones that caused enough dust to be generated and propelled to cover Manhattan inches deep in powder for miles?
Like a volcanic eruption had just happened?

So you are saying that an accurate description of what happened to WTC 1 and 2 would be that every particle bond was released, turn to powder and went flying off into the sunset.

Of course I am keeping in mind you have suggested that the collapse of the WTC after being hit by a 500,000 pound jet travelling at 500mph and exploding in a ten thousand gallon jet fuel fire proves you can do controlled demolition by "lighting a match".

The buildings, as we know and would expect, survived the impacts.

Even in the impact zones, some people seen at the edges and the firemen making their ways up the stairwells, survived the fires.

The airplanes/fires/collapse scenario is widely discredited, hence the change in public perception that now disbelieves the government sponsored myth.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Noise?

You don't seriously want me to compute the decibel level of the noise generated by 850 billion joules of energy, do you? (PS: What do you think sound energy becomes once it dissipates?)

some unknown energy force blew much of the twin towers horizontally AND vertically outward and upward away from the pile and the towers footprints

Unknown to those without the most basic knowledge of physics, anyway.

It's no wonder NIST haven't expended any heat energy on this 'red herring' that'll be the day they really concede defeat and admit 'it's a fair cop'

NIST hasn't ever dealt with the molten metal claims because they are of little scientific value. Like I said, only conspiracy theorists with a bad grasp of science and physics don't understand how a 800 billion joule energy release in about 15 seconds, can melt metal.

Look, stop deflecting questions and start answering, what percentage of these alleged multi billion joules of "friction" heat energy impacted on the pile and basements where the molten steel collected and was discovered several weeks post collapse given the fact so much material ie.concrete in micro particle and steel beams heavier than a 767 were ejected outward and upward by an energy source you are qualified to understand but are not prepared to divulge. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheet/faqs_8_2006.htm bottom of page 6 point 13. NIST tell us the the condition of the steel post collapse was irrelevent to the task of finding out why the buildings fell (I kid you not) but suggest it was "combustion within the pile" that resulted in molten steel in the basements weeks after.No mention of "friction".

This molten metal phenomenon from falling mega joule friction heat energy must be common to all building collapses comparable to the three at the WTC 9/11, why no links?

[aggle-rithm]

Look, stop deflecting questions and start answering, what percentage of these alleged multi billion joules of "friction" heat energy impacted on the pile and basements where the molten steel collected and was discovered several weeks post collapse given the fact so much material ie.concrete in micro particle and steel beams heavier than a 767 were ejected outward and upward by an energy source you are qualified to understand but are not prepared to divulge.

I'll divulge it: Millions of pounds of falling concrete and steel. Do you have any reason to believe that this would not release a huge amount of energy?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheet/faqs_8_2006.htm bottom of page 6 point 13. NIST tell us the the condition of the steel post collapse was irrelevent to the task of finding out why the buildings fell (I kid you not) but suggest it was "combustion within the pile" that resulted in molten steel in the basements weeks after.No mention of "friction".

Right. NIST was tasked with finding out why the buildings fell, and not with why the rubble pile burned the way it did.

If they DID investigate this fully, then I'm sure you would come up with something else they didn't investigate, such as "why was there so much dust found miles away from the site; it should have been X amount, but it was Y amount?" You would conclude that they are therefore trying to hide something, and we need a NEW investigation! Am I right?

This molten metal phenomenon from falling mega joule friction heat energy must be common to all building collapses comparable to the three at the WTC 9/11, why no links?

That's right! Every single 110-story building that has collapsed has behaved the same way.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Look, stop deflecting questions and start answering, what percentage of these alleged multi billion joules of "friction" heat energy impacted on the pile and basements where the molten steel collected and was discovered several weeks post collapse given the fact so much material ie.concrete in micro particle and steel beams heavier than a 767 were ejected outward and upward by an energy source you are qualified to understand but are not prepared to divulge.

I'll divulge it: Millions of pounds of falling concrete and steel. Do you have any reason to believe that this would not release a huge amount of energy?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheet/faqs_8_2006.htm bottom of page 6 point 13. NIST tell us the the condition of the steel post collapse was irrelevent to the task of finding out why the buildings fell (I kid you not) but suggest it was "combustion within the pile" that resulted in molten steel in the basements weeks after.No mention of "friction".

Right. NIST was tasked with finding out why the buildings fell, and not with why the rubble pile burned the way it did.

If they DID investigate this fully, then I'm sure you would come up with something else they didn't investigate, such as "why was there so much dust found miles away from the site; it should have been X amount, but it was Y amount?" You would conclude that they are therefore trying to hide something, and we need a NEW investigation! Am I right?

This molten metal phenomenon from falling mega joule friction heat energy must be common to all building collapses comparable to the three at the WTC 9/11, why no links?

That's right! Every single 110-story building that has collapsed has behaved the same way.

your evasion and failure to answer is noted

[aggle-rithm]

Concrete (and every other type of organic matyter lets not forget), crushed or otherwise, does not disassemble itself into powder and propell itself for miles (there was no strong wind that day) creating an inches thick blanket of dust - for miles - by fires and gravity alone.

If you are continuing to maintain that it does you'll really need to show some precedent for that effect.

Any controlled demolition produces this effect, and the dust is clearly produced by the final collapse of the building, and not by the explosions that initiated the collapse.

Of course, they don't produce quite as MUCH dust, for several reasons:

1. The buildings are smaller
2. Most of the materials within the building that could produce additional dust, such as sheetrock, are removed before the building is destroyed

[pepik]

Even in the impact zones, some people seen at the edges and the firemen making their ways up the stairwells, survived the fires.

And how many people from above the impact zone escaped the building?

[chek]

Even in the impact zones, some people seen at the edges and the firemen making their ways up the stairwells, survived the fires.

And how many people from above the impact zone escaped the building?

Some did. Some reported locked doors didn't help others much though.
http://www.mjbarkl.com/locked.htm

[Ignatz]

That's because they were primarily steel-constructed buildings.

London was mostly bricks+mortar plus concrete.

What would you expect to see in those two scenarios?

2 x 90,000t of concrete rubble in addition to the steel would seem a reasonable expectation.

There you go again - where's the 90,000t of macro rubble?. That's not a "reasonable expectation" at all, it's an impossible demand for evidence that can never be presented. And in its absence you'll cling on to the Prophets' words.

Do you realise that an average grain of sand is around 600microns? i.e. 10x the diameter and around 100x the mass of the much-touted 60micron dust?

Why would smashed concrete - ranging in size from powder to sand to brick to fridge - sit on top of the metal pile waiting to be photographed?

[jsut_peopel]

Crushing compression forces don't seem likely.

Why?

Well it seems unlikely to me that all vertical supports on every floor - and even filing cabinets and water coolers don't crush down to zero thickness - yet everything seems to have disappeared, leaving entire floor pans open to be crushed to dust, if that is what happened and no other force was involved.

Why does it seem unlikely to you. What specifically makes you think it unlikely.

All you have done is to repeat your opinion that you think it unlikely, you have given no reason as to the why.

[Bushwacker]

To look at the matter from another point of view why, in any event, would demolition charges cause every single piece of concrete to be reduced to fine powder? To bring down the building, the charges would presumably be attached to the steel structure, any concrete floor in the immediate area might be shattered, but what mechanism could possibly cause the entire concrete floor to be pulverised?

In the rush to generate some numbers to indicate a huge amount of energy present, it seems to have been overlooked that any demolition charges would be set to cut the steel, not to attack the floors.

[chek]

To look at the matter from another point of view why, in any event, would demolition charges cause every single piece of concrete to be reduced to fine powder? To bring down the building, the charges would presumably be attached to the steel structure, any concrete floor in the immediate area might be shattered, but what mechanism could possibly cause the entire concrete floor to be pulverised? .

The how it happened is a mystery that defies easy explanation, I don't deny that.

In the rush to generate some numbers to indicate a huge amount of energy present, it seems to have been overlooked that any demolition charges would be set to cut the steel, not to attack the floors.

According to standard CD theory, that's true. And yet nearly all non-ferrous material was powdered, except for paper. Apart from 'it happened' I haven't seen any explanation that credibly accounts for that.

[Patrick Brown]

To look at the matter from another point of view why, in any event, would demolition charges cause every single piece of concrete to be reduced to fine powder? To bring down the building, the charges would presumably be attached to the steel structure, any concrete floor in the immediate area might be shattered, but what mechanism could possibly cause the entire concrete floor to be pulverised?

In the rush to generate some numbers to indicate a huge amount of energy present, it seems to have been overlooked that any demolition charges would be set to cut the steel, not to attack the floors.

Well that last comment seemed to draw the battle to a close!

Yes I my self keep hearing people talk about explosives being used on the concrete and I don't see it. Our 911 'debunker's in fact help us with their scientific calculation, if they're correct of course.

This is a quote from a recent post of mine:
[snip]
There is far to much speculation about what the substance seen pouring from the tower is. The key point here is temperature. It is possible that temperatures did get high enough to melt aluminium but it’s also possible that thermate was used on the joints of the trusses (steel floor joists). I did think that they may have used it where the trusses join the outer skin although I think it’s more likely that the thermate was used on the joins to the core columns mainly because they would be easier to set / lay. Haven’t seen any plans of WTC but from the images in the documentaries structural access would seem to be easiest from the elevator shafts. Also worth noting that they would have calculated how many to cut so as to keep a degree of structural integrity. Themate would have probably been used on many of the columns. Once the thermate had done it’s thing the core as well as the remaining trusses would be cut with shape charges and then the incendiary devices used to start the cascade of the skin (walls). Without the core fully supporting the skin it would just collapse once the cascade had begun.
[/snip]

The above is pure speculation but it would take into account the kinetic energy i.e. the pulverization of the concrete due to the mass of the building. You will also note from my quote that I don't even suggest every 'external' floor is blown as the weight of forty stories would certainly start a cascade. We also have the interviews with some chap that ran the servers for some data center on the eightieth floor in which he comments on heavy construction work going on above his floor several weeks before 911. The floor in question was unused!

So too recap the kinetic energy was used to crush concrete, and everything else it seems, as well as bending steel and ejecting matter from the buildings.

There is another issue here to do with how each tower fell. The first tower goes core first pulling, seemingly, the skin (external walls) with it as it falls. The second tower falls skin first, seemingly, pulling the core apart as it falls. Not sure what we can glean from this although it is a fact.