I'd like to elaborate on the above fallacious claim. The only "conspiracy theory" anyone should be concerned with is the US government's unsupported (and/or falsely supported) official 9/11 narrative. Certainly there are other conspiracy theories about 9/11 out there, some quite outrageous, but they are irrelevant. To say it's ALL just conspiracy theories is absolute nonsense, especially given that there have been numerous scientific studies and many papers (some peer reviewed) written by many different experts challenging and refuting the official (NIST) hypotheses, as well as the 9/11 Commission Report. Furthermore, these are all supported by evidence, some by the very same evidence used by both NIST and the 9/11 Commission. There are numerous examples that have been posted in this section of the forum and this thread. But I will cite some examples regardless. In this thread I posted 32 facts that are all verifiable (see Post #498 ). You cherry picked one point (#25) about Rodriguez. Even if you believe Rodriguez lied to the Commission, the fact is that he did testify and his testimony was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. This is not conspiracy theory, it's historical evidence based fact. In the thread called "The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in all its Glory", I posted many scientific articles and papers published by experts, none of these are conspiracy theory, they are all based on evidence and the NIST reports. For example: In Post #417, I linked Dr. Hulsey's peer reviewed report called "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7". The result of a 4-year study based on the NIST's final report of the "collapse" of WTC7 and the actual evidence. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. In Post #436, I posted a Request for Correction filed by AE911Truth and several 9/11 family members based on NIST's final report on the "collapse" of WTC7 and the actual evidence. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. In Post #456, I posted a link to the paper written by the German mathematician Ansgar Schneider that is based on and refutes Zdeněk Bažant's theory. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. The thread called "9/11 - The Legal Initiative" contains links to legal filings by AE911Truth and 9/11 family members based on the official 9/11 reports and the evidence and the many challenges to the official 9/11 reports. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. The thread called "9/11 Whistleblowers" contains a video in the first post all about several 9/11 whistleblowers. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. There are numerous other examples just in this section of the forum that are not 9/11 conspiracy theory and have nothing to do with conspiracy theories, much less based on "very weak and manufactured evidence", unless of course you're referring the NIST reports and the 9/11 Commission Report.
No. I'm not just talking about the atoms in the floor. What's the momentum of the base of your tower? What's the momentum of the top at the moment of impact? How is that momentum conserved?
I don't give a damn if you think that you have the authority to tell someone what hoops to jump through. You have not done the momentum and kinetic energy calculations on your idiotic blocks. So until you do that on the problem no one can see I am not even going to think about doing any calculations on a physics demonstration model that anyone can watch as much as they like. Where are your videos? Too difficult for your vast intellect?
Wait a minute. This is your model. The one that was.. How did you put it in your video? "Similar to the world trade center" I think were your exact words. The blocks were to illustrate to you your mistake about the scalability of gravity. It was too big of a step for us to take apparently. So now we have to take smaller steps. You said it was the inertia of the paper loops that resisted the collapse. That's not what stopped the mass from falling. We'll get there, but you have to figure out how momentum is conserved first.
Where are your calculations for momentum and kinetic energy since you are either lying or cannot figure out which is which?
I don't have to figure out squat. The paper loops were PAPER. A single washer had more mass and inertia than all of the paper loops. Find where I said that. Maybe you will get lost in the process.
You won't find the answer to your question then. Do you not want the answer to your question? Step one is figure out how the momentum of your real world model was conserved.
Additional visual proof that Bazant's hypothesis that the "intact" top 20% section of the tower crushed the lower 80% section is impossible nonsense that did not happen is this video (start at about 1:20) and photo. It shows that at the end of the destruction of the North Tower, there is an approximately 60 story section of the core that remains intact for a short time before it falls:
Another point that I forgot to add and missed the edit window. When you cut a tree at the base, it eventually topples over and never falls straight down into its own path. However in the video you can plainly see the remaining core section, known as the "spire" descends directly down into its own path. Again this is a 60 story connected core section made of structural steel.
Those pictures bring up the bizarre 'dustification' business. Watching the video it looks like the steel turns into powder/dust and blows away as it starts to fall. Then the remains of the steel got shipped out of the country. The so called "scientists and engineers" in this country totally piss me off. Back near the end of September 2001 I expected scientists to be all over the remains of the Twin Towers like white on rice.
It was Judy Wood's hypothesis that some kind of directed energy weapon destroyed the towers. I don't ascribe to her hypothesis but there's no denying that the "spire" looks like it turns to dust in the video as it's descending. It could just actually be that there is some kind of dust cloud or the video loses clarity. After all, lower Manhattan was blanketed by dust into the Hudson River and even as far as New Jersey. There is no question this was not an ordinary controlled demolition so who knows what kinds of sophisticated incendiaries were used besides thermitic products. Scientists who failed to go along with the official 9/11 fairy tale were ridiculed and called "conspiracy theorists" or worse and lost their jobs. Companies would not risk their lucrative government contracts. Even to this day the corrupt ASCE does everything in its power to block all papers that challenge the official 9/11 narrative: ASCE: The holy scripture of 9/11 will not be challenged Richard Johns, co-author of a long-censored technical paper on the Twin Towers’ destruction, and AE911Truth’s Ted Walter are this week’s guests on 9/11 Free Fall. They talk with host Andy Steele about the latest developments in the decade-long saga involving Johns’ paper, which he and co-author Tony Szamboti first submitted to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) Journal of Engineering Mechanics in 2011. Their paper was critiquing an earlier paper by Zdeněk Bažant and Jia-Liang Le that purported to explain how, through gravity alone, the top of the North Tower could crush through the structure below it without observably slowing down. Their paper was finally rejected as “out of scope” in 2013, more than two years after they submitted it. One of the editors who rejected it, Kaspar Willam, was a contractor on the NIST WTC investigation. The other editor, Roberto Ballarini, was a co-worker and active co-author of Le’s. Nine years later, Johns and Szamboti are still fighting to have their paper published. Walter also updates listeners on a separate paper that civil engineer Jonathan Cole submitted last month to the ASCE’s Journal of Structural Engineering, critiquing a new paper by Bažant and Le. Cole’s paper was rejected just two days after submission by editor John van de Lindt, whose Center of Excellence for Risk-Based Community Resilience Planning at Colorado State University receives $4 million per year in funding from NIST and works directly with NIST WTC investigator Therese McAllister. https://www.ae911truth.org/news/881-asce-the-holy-scripture-of-9-11-will-not-be-challenged
LOL Sounds like denialism to me. Nothing else in the video gets fuzzy. I have no idea what could cause what we see, but there is no denying that I see it. It looks very weird. The steel being shipped out is soooo suspicious.
I can't argue that, steel doesn't turn to dust. Do you have any theories? Deliberate (criminal) destruction of evidence, plain and simple. It's listed as #1 out of 32 facts posted in the thread called "The 9/11 Commission Scam Exposed in all its Glory" (Post #498 ).
Nope, I have a mental box for stashing weirdly interesting but totally unexplained ****. Ever heard of Ian Stevenson ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson Of course physics stuff that experts refuse to investigate properly is a subcompartment all its own.
In NIST's case given their Congressional mandate and the critical nature of the event I would classify it as criminal fraud and even conspiracy to coverup the worst terrorist attack on US soil in modern history.
A brilliant presentation by Jonathan Cole. Using the scientific method, via experiment, Cole shows why all the theories for the collapse of the twin towers are wrong except for the Explosive Demolition theory. He addresses all the major theories, Pancake Collapse, Crush Up/Crush Down, Directed Energy Weapon (Dustification), Mini-Nukes and Aluminum Sprinkler. Note that NIST has NO theory, merely stating without supporting evidence that the collapse was inevitable. He shows why the "spire" (the 60 story section of the core left standing following the "collapse") is the Achilles' Heel of all these theories. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is or how smart you are, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!" - Richard Feyman
Part two of Jonathan Cole’s incisive webinar series: ‘9/11 and the Scientific Method’ In part two of this series, Cole summarizes the results of his experiments regarding the extreme temperatures observed at the World Trade Center. He shows how none of the various hypotheses put forward — except controlled demolition using some form of thermite — can explain the multitude of evidence related to extreme temperatures. https://www.ae911truth.org/news/890...tHZImATN-_dXcckURPF9m4YU4wotObOQ0gTxUEJFf0CBM
Hi Bob, I intend to watch that, but don't have the time at this moment. As you know I'm totally onboard regarding the many falsehoods of the Official Conspiracy Theory. For the sake of discussion, might you condense the findings and/or conclusions by Mr. Cole regarding those observed extreme temperatures at WTC?
Cole experimented with thermitic products and found that it does cut thick steel beams and cause extreme temperatures. He also experimented with several "debunker" theories and found that they have no basis in reality. That the very general gist of Cole's experiments and findings.
Cole showed thst the thermite had to be configured in a proper manner so that the heat was focused to destroy the steel. You can't just lay a pile of thermite on some steel and ignite it a say, "See, thermite can't melt steel!" It is like so many people want accept simplistic arguments but if you make things just a little bit complicated their minds explode.
Thermite charge The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition. https://patents.google.com/patent/US7555986B2/en
Those that think it was done by international terrorists, rather than domestic alphabet agencies are the insane ones.
I wouldn't call them insane just gullible and misguided. Some of them have another agenda and others who defend the official 9/11 narrative may be cognitive dissonant.
OK, so Bob's two videos above and the claim of "molten steel". Firstly who says it's steel? Observers? Secondly, this pile of rubble is as perfect as you can get to replicate the conditions of a blast furnace. We have a very well aerated pile of combustible material that is already burning. Thirdly, if you have a situation where steel is in a molten state for long periods, materials around it will also be molten such as aluminum, tin, lead, copper, glass. Clearly this was NOT the case. The implied claim is that magically, all the "thermite" has gathered in a pool, is still activating for some unknown reason and is not causing anything next to it to burn and/or melt. Scientifically, how the hell does that work? Suppose we take the upper limit of the thermite's heat combustibility. Then work out the duration of its natural cooling time. Oh wait, someone else did that here: "There is a tradeoff between the parameters M, the initial mass of molten steel, and T, its initial temperature. We can either let M be the mass of the thermite and T the thermite combustion temperature of about 2,500 C, or we can let M be the mass of (the thermite plus some melted structural steel), in which case T will be somewhere between 2,500 C and the melting point of steel, around 1,400 C. Either approach should give about the same answer, since in both cases we're dealing with the same amount of energy. Let's take the former approach. What is the greatest mass of thermite that could plausibly have been planted in one of the towers? I'm going to start with a figure of 10 tons, and make the further assumption that, even though the thermite is putatively distributed into a number of different charges in different parts of the building, all the molten iron flows down and collects in a single spherical blob. A large fraction of the thermite will turn to aluminum oxide and be lost, but we will ignore this and assume an initial 10-ton sphere of molten iron at 2,500 C. The density of molten iron is around 7,000 kg/m^3, so 10,000 kg of iron occupies about 1.3 m^3, in the form of a sphere with a diameter of about 1.2 m. This sphere is surrounded by rubble, mostly crushed concrete. Steve Dutch at the University of Wisconsin calculates (see https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM) that the crushed concrete fills the 18-m-deep bathtub below the towers and forms a pile about 15 m above the top of the bathtub. We can now simplify a bit. Steel is a good conductor (k = 50 W/m.C) compared with crushed concrete (k = 1 W/m.C), so we will assume that all the molten steel is at a uniform temperature at any moment. We neglect any heat lost due to radiation, since we assume the crushed concrete is opaque to radiation. Given the great thickness of the crushed concrete layer compared with the molten iron blob, I think we could approximate this as an infinite expanse of crushed concrete, initially at 0 C, surrounding a sphere of iron of diameter 1.2 m, initially at 2,500 C. (I accept that 0 C is too cold for the New York atmosphere, but it's a small adjustment and it makes the math easier.) So heat will flow out of the iron quickly at first, more slowly as the crushed concrete warms up. If we look at a time interval short enough that the temperature of the iron is still around 2,500 C, the temperature of the crushed concrete at a distance r meters from the centre of the iron blob is T = (0.6 * 2,500/r) erfc ((r-a)/2sqrt(alpha * t)) (This is equation 9.10.2 from Carslaw and Jaeger, Conduction of Heat in Solids, where "erfc" is the complementary error function, "alpha" is the thermal diffusivity of crushed concrete, 9*10^{-7} m^2/s, and t is time elapsed.) We plot this for a piece of crushed concrete at 0.01 m out from the surface of the blob: This looks reasonable: the concrete heats up, then approaches a steady-state temperature. If we evaluate the temperature at two points a short distance apart, we can also calculate the rate at which heat is flowing away from the blob: So the rate of cooling of the blob falls with time, and after 20,000 seconds (about 5.5 hours), it is cooling at about 100,000 W. How long would it take to congeal? It has to lose (10,000) * c * (2500-1400) J, where c is the specific heat of iron, about 400 J/kg.C. This is 4.4 GJ, so at a cooling rate of 100,000 W, it will congeal after 44,000 seconds, which is about 12 hours. This is a crude calculation, but most of the approximations have favored longer cooling times, so I think this is sufficient to show that we would not expect molten iron to be present weeks after the collapse."
