spivver

DH, we are patiently waiting for Cap'n to offer his rebuttal arguments to two peer reviewed papers pertaining to why the physics doesn't stack up for the official 911 Commission's explanation as to why the Twin Towers collapsed at close to free-fall speeds. What is not scientific about that? Just because you may not agree with those peer reviewed papers, you simply try to get the thread locked. Perhaps you would also like to read those scientific papers and tell us why they are in error. Again, as promised to Cap'n, I'll forward your comments on to the physicist and engineer involved and get back to you with their reply.

Insane, I make the point again, this stuff was around for weeks, so why did not NIST investigate what it was. They are your heroes, they have done a super duper scientific investigation, so have they come up with all the answers?? Hardly.

Don't you think that your beloved heroes NIST, if they had done a thorough investigation, should have found out what it was?

It isn't we who are saying it is steel, it is eyewitnesses, they weren't looking at pictures. Suggest you contact them with your silly experiment.

Insane, if I felt that the only question and suspicion surrounding the events of 911 was whether I was using a linear measurement, or the word "viscous" when I should mean "resistance" (forgetting here that solids and liquids are just different states of the same thing) your comment would be relevant. However, there are many many questions surrounding the official explanations of 911, and we've only touched on a very few here on this thread. If a crime is committed, I would expect the police to do a thorough job, look at the evidence, question witnesses, look at motives etc etc. When they do not do that, or evidence comes to light which seems to clear a suspect, don't you think that the investigation should go forward? Clearly not in your opinion. It may be that the original suspect is indeed ultimately found guilty, but, if there are any doubts, should not the real perpetrators of the crime still be sought? Speak soon, I'm off from this forum of so called "eminent scientists", I've got too much work to do. Lord help future science if you scientists don't have open minds to all possibilities. I'll keep checking in occasionally for Capn's rebuttal of those two peer reviewed papers I referred to. Looking forward greatly to seeing that, so don't forget, Cap'n.

Apologies, free-fall time then, better??

Wow Bascule, quite a rant there from you, that video seems to have touched a little nerve?? Explosives?? Have I ever assumed explosives were rigged in the Trade Centre Towers? To rig demolition charges would take weeks of planning and work, hardly something which could have been done by 19 Arab highjackers on the morning of the attacks, can it? I’m querying the scientific reasons for the near free-fall collapses (and yes Alien, even your 70% figure is close to free-fall speeds, but free-fall in a vacuum would take 9.2 seconds, whereas you take 11 seconds, so that is 81% of free-fall speed, but still pretty fast, don’t you think??). Interesting how, in your hypothesis, even weakened steel and concrete lacks viscosity, even steel at temperatures within human survival ranges. Now (as if you need reminding) John Gross, the man in the video I’ve linked to, is the lead engineer in the 911 investigation by NIST (the American National Institute of Standards and Technology), and is it not puzzling to any of you just how unprofessional and superficial their investigation seems to have been? Maybe not, but I hope that when you conduct your own scientific experiments, you are more thorough with your conclusions and comparisons with your observations. If you haven't yet seen the video, judge for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZgYNGGgBP0 I am very puzzled as to why they don’t seem to even be worried that three steel and concrete skyscrapers collapsed that day, one of which was not even hit by an aircraft, as millions of people live and work in skyscrapers, and you would have though that, for safety reasons alone, they should get to the reasons and recommendations, wouldn’t you? And going back to Bascule’s rant, be advised that many many people are telling what they saw and heard. Some are being gagged by the courts, some threatened, most are just being completely ignored by the controlled media. Indeed, I’ve stated earlier on this thread that one eyewitness is coming to Cornwall this very week-end to give a talk of his testimony. He did testify to the 911 commission, but not one word of his testimony was referred to by the 911 Commission report. His tour can be found at http://www.last-man-out.com. I’ve already promised to ask him just how hot it became in the North Tower just before it collapsed, but suddenly Alien argues that this data would be irrelevant.

John Gross, lead engineer of the NIST report for 911 states: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZgYNGGgBP0 Well, says it all really, doesn't it??

It's poppycock because you have not even started to address just how much energy would be needed to break up the concrete, pulverising it into dust. I'm not talking about breaking a ceramic tile in two. It's poppycock because you and your eminent scientific colleagues were earlier arguing that steel weakens at high temperatures, now it seems it can do so at -40* or whatever temperature you quoted. Actually, it is quite clear that you are making things up as you go along. Not very scientific. I won't bother with wasting my time with the rest of your student drivel in that posting. I have to work to earn a living. And maybe you should do much more research into NIST before you reply to Tree.

Insane, did the concrete floors crack, or did they pulverise into dust? Never before have I read such poppycock as your last posting, sorry buddy.

Forgive me for any possible misunderstanding here Alien, but it has been over 35 years ago that I studied physics, admittedly only to lower university level. Now when I studied the equation 'work = force x distance', my understanding was that this pertained to the work done moving an object, not the pulverisation of it. I seem to remember that we moved bricks, not smashed them into dust. I'll let the next man I see breaking up concrete in the street with a pneumatic hammer know that he is wasting his time, there is such little work to be done. Now another point regarding pulverisation. All you eminent scientists keep telling we "conspiracy nuts" (as Alien likes to refer to us as) that the steel in the columns was so weakened by fire that they simply gave up all their strength, and hence the upper floors could simply collapse through them at near free-fall speeds. But surely one of Newton's laws is that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. A car colliding head on into a parked stationary car will have both their fronts smashed in, is that not so? Now why is it that all your hypotheses seem to be based on just the lower part of the building disintegrating (that is, I assume until the top part of the building hit the floor). Would it not be reasonable to assume that, due to heat rising, the top falling part of the buildings were fiery hot (and we did see smoke coming from the top parts). However your hypothesis assumes that all these upper floors remain intact. But, if a lower floor they hit was pulverised (so dissipating much energy), then why shouldn't the bottom floor of the upper falling part also pulverise? So to take this question further, if the upper floors were also pulverising, then at what stage could the mass become so insubstantial that they could not break through any more floors below. Remember, the lower floors weren't heated to that degree, after all, fire-fighters and people were in the building, and survived (on that note, see my comment below regarding a witness in the building) If there were say 20 floors above, and 80 below, would that not make the general pancaking hypothesis a nonsense, bearing in mind I saw substantial pulverisation of the towers as they fell, indeed, almost all the material in the towers was reduced to dust!! Perhaps you eminent scientists will tell me that what I saw was not what I saw. So pray, and going back to my main point here, from the original finite potential energy of the pre-falling buildings, just where did all this energy come from to smash its way through a building, pulverising all the concrete in its way, throwing out huge clouds of concrete dust, not to mention the forcible ejection of steel sideways, sometimes for many metres, and all this done taking 1.8 seconds (using Alien's calculations) longer than if it were falling through a vacuum. And what energy made the molten pools of steel? For they were steel, not aluminium as someone keeps kidding here? Actually, I have a little confession to make here, not all of my arguments and thoughts are original, see http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml. Now I know that you will simple dismiss this as another "conspiracy site" and hence dodge the issue, but I have had such a struggle in my own mind to counter this physics, which has been written in laymens' language, indeed, I am minded to agree with it completely. So just where are the calculations on this page so in error? Now my comment regarding a witness in the building. I have a Mr William Rodriguez coming to my home to stay this coming week-end. You may have heard of him, if not google it, or else visit our website at http://www.cornwall911truth.info. He entered the North Tower three times, opening stairwell doors, helping firefighters get quite a way up the building, letting many people escape. decorated a hero even by George Bush, shall I ask him just how hot the interior of the North Tower got?? I'll let you know his answer, won't be until next Monday though, so you'll have to be a little patient, just like I am being patient eagerly waiting for Capn's arguments and counter figures for the two papers I have referred him to.

Why?? Pretty much the whole building was pulverised!!!

I'm a patient man. And Insane_Alien, I've studied those calculations you have linked to. Now my problem is this, these calculations do not appear to take any account of energy used in doing work, that work being the pulverisation of the steel and concrete during the collapse. At least, and not being myself a scientist, I cannot see anything in them which leads me to believe any account is taken of energy loss as a result of work done (I assume you will agree that the pulverisation of the steel and concrete will take energy, and I also assume that you saw the pulverisation going on in the many videos available on the Internet). Anyway, you are the scientists, maybe you can point me in the direction as to where in the calculations provision is made for this. My interpretation of the calculations is that they pertain to inelastic collisions only??

OK Cap'n, I'm going to take it that you are unable to argue why these scientists' hypothesis are wrong at http://www.journalof911studies.com . I had assumed http://www.scienceforum.net was a science forum, and also assumed you had all science branches here, no?? One I mentioned earlier is specifically to do with the collapse - of course, you all ignored it at the time http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html I'll let Dr Griscom know your specific arguments as to why his writings are wrong, once you've had a chance to write them. In addition, this one also deals with the collapse: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf Again I'll be more than willing to let Gordon Ross know of your reasons why you think his paper is flawed and then get back to you. I'm looking, however, for specific scientific arguments as to why they are wrong, not simply "this part crashed through that part" type of arguments, you are, after all, eminent scientists, the CPE advises me so. Both Dr Griscom and Gordon Ross have detailed out their hypothesis, so it is incumbent upon you also so to do. Unless, of course, you are unable to?? Insane_Alien states of the lower floors "they would offer nearly insignificant resistance" as the top was collapsing. Really?? Oh, and Cap'n, pertaining to your last line above, don't forget that there is agreement between NIST and the "conspiracy nuts" about the times of the collapses, pretty much at free-fall speeds. Oh, and another thing, you've not taken into account the energy required for the extreme pulverisation of the concrete and steel which was going on. Energy calculations, momentum, finite potential energy at start of collapse, conservation of energy (kinetic energy the moment before impact of a lower floor must be virtually the same as the kinetic energy the moment after impact (and I'm talking here of micro split seconds before and after impact for the avoidance of any doubt)... come on guys, you're the scientists.

Cap'n, you're all supposed to be the eminent scientists, how about you tell me why those peer reviewed papers I have pointed you to are in error, and I'll run your reasoning across the physicists and engineers who authored them. I believe that you either haven't got the guts, or you are unable to displace their hypotheses. And as regards an inquiry board, these do normally have the powers of a court. And my exact words were "independent inquiry", don't change the wording to obfuscate the arguments, a tactic I note is quite usual for this forum of "scientists" And Jennifer, you're not a scientist, and neither am I, so I don't see that as any problem. Indeed, that is why I am seeking proper scientific explanations from the eminent scientists here (for I know that theCPE tells me he is one), as to why some scientists who assert that the towers could not have fallen at speeds approaching free-fall are wrong. Not having much success so far. Try this out for yourself, as a non-scientist, just tell me in the diagram below which top block of the tower you would expect to hit the street first, the left hand one or the right hand one?