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?

Cap'n, we "conspiracy nuts" have been accused of not referring to peer reviewed papers, so we point you all at some which you then just dismiss, without any reasons whatsoever, not very scientific, is it? I tell you what, after you have studied those papers written by the engineers and scientists, why don't you give us your full reasons why they are wrong. I'll pass those reasons on to the relevant authors of the papers, and get back to you with their replies, can hardly be fairer than that, can I? And as regards your comments about an independent inquiry, the very purpose of an inquiry is to seek out the truth, and if witnesses and documents are unforthcoming, then I would expect the board to be able to issue subpeonas to obtain them. After all, as stated before, that is the very purpose of an inquiry. You do, sometimes, seem to have some very strange opinions..

Haezed, you would like some peer reviewed papers - these any good? http://www.journalof911studies.com/ Oh, and Haezed, take a look at just how independent the 911 Commission was, it might just shock you. Most are cronies of Bush and the GOP's. Should not a public inquiry be fully independent, able to subpeona witnesses and examine them under oath, demand access to important papers etc etc... Need I go on??

Couldn't be sulphur from a thermate reaction could it Cap'n?? See 3/4 way down the page at http://ae911truth.org/twintowers.php Oh dear, I know, I know, another "conspiracy theorist" website. Well, at least that means that you can conveniently ignore these architects and engineers, doesn't it. I wonder just how much of an eminent scientist you are Cap'n? So maybe a good scientist ought to look at all the possibilities before discounting those which are impossible. In ya go Tree.

In response to my question regarding the non-collapse of the steel framed building in Madrid, Insane_Alien commented, a couple of pages back: The reason why I personally have given no response to the question regarding the collapse of the bridge (oh, and by the way, weren't any quantities of steel minute compared to that in the WTC's??) is for exactly the same reasons as Insane_Alien. Now, not being a scientist, I have always been under the impression that bridges are different to buildings, but, of course, you being eminent scientists may argue otherwise. Oh, and by the way, did this bridge fall at free-falls speeds and pulverise all the steel and concrete? Just how much steel did the bridge contain? Also what proportion of truck fuel to steel was there, and also was there any other combustible material available, such as office fixtures, fittings and equipment, or perhaps materials such as bitumen? You see, I'm having a little struggle correlating the similarities here. But of course, I'm different, I'm not a scientist, I'm a "conspiracy theorist". Except, of course, I've not stated any conspiracy, I'm merely questioning exactly how come two 110 story buildings can collapse at free-fall speeds. Now going back to my argument regarding the finite initial potential energy available to each building to both collapse at free-fall speeds (and also the third WTC7 building) and completely pulverise the steel and concrete into what looked liked mostly dust, please do tell me where Dr David Griscom's arguments are in error, see: http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html In anticipation of the outcry which you generally use to dodge the points, no, it is not a peer reviewed paper, but nevertheless it represents an argument based on science and you are, after all, supposed to be scientists (and I readily admit I'm not). So, for the unenlightened such as myself, do, pray, please tell me where this gentleman's arguments are in error. I'd love to know, and then I shall contact the said physicist and put your arguments to him, and seek a reply. I'm very interested. I apologise, I wasn't going to have any further input into this debate, but I am wanting to know information and you all are, after all, holding ourselves out as experts.

Urchin, don't bother - these eminent scientists just can't (or won't) see it. They can't grasp their conservation of energy laws and the vast dissipation of energy used to do the work in pulverising the steel and concrete of the buildings whilst collapsing, and why the collapse is not slowed down due to this work done and energy lost in destroying the structure of the building. If each floor even slowed down the falling building by 1/4 second whilst the huge pulverisation was going on, it would take a further 22 seconds to collapse, assuming that the collapse started around the 90th floor. But hey, their administrator doesn't even question why the collapse at free-fall speeds is so crucial, as he tells us that the steel must have been weakened to the point it had zero strength and resistance, even at temperatures around 300* in the lower half of the building where the firefighters were (not to mention the fact the people were seen waving for help out of the large holes in which the aircraft plunged through the walls, so it couldn't have been that hot, even in that area!!) . Where did all this additional energy come from to maintain the collapse at free-fall speeds?? There was only a certain amount of potential energy at the start of the collapse, and it didn't half do a great deal of work at free-fall speeds. I can't remember the equations exactly, it was a long time since I was taught them at school, but it is something like mass x height for potential energy. But that's it, without any other enery source, there could not have been any further energy. Even assuming that no pulverisation took place, the laws of conservation of momentum would have slowed the collapsing floors. Anyway, I've had enough of arguing with these eminent scientists, most of them are still students anyway. The real scientists, the Drs and Professors in the USA (the psuedo-scientists as theCPE refers to them as) are working on their research to disprove the official story of the 911 Commission. Time will tell. Bye bye all.

Try here for starters: http://www.911lies.org/popular_mechanics_911_lying_traitors.html Else Google the words "reply to Popular Mechanics"

Ah yes, Popular Mechanics, been itself debunked time and time again. Do try better. Oh, and why should I know best being an accountant?

theCpe states "1) They [the Twin Towers] did offer resistance and the buildings did not fall at free fall speed, unless of course you have proper scientific proof of such events. And the previous seismic activity that was linked too was hardly evidence of anything and was a direct contradiction to what whomever posted the link was trying to suggest." The basic problem is, theCPE. that those buildings did fall down in around 10 1/2 seconds, around free-fall speeds, which, had the lower steel structure resisted as you maintain, this collapse time would have been impossible. Sorry mate, but read the siesmograph result and also watch the many videos taken at the time. I assume that when you undertake your physics experiments you look at the result, not just assume that what you were expecting actually happened. And this free-fall speed is the nub of the problem, I absolutely agree with what you are saying, the structures should have resisted the upper floors, so slowing down the descent, but the fact is, they didn't. Oh, and as an aside, there are no 'big guns' here, maybe some of the 'big guns' may come in and offer their arguments, I'm just an accountant by profession, clearly not a 'big gun'. That is why I'm interested in hearing the 'proofs' of our misunderstandings from you eminent physicists. Haven't been very impressed thus far.

Insane_Alien, I've never suggested that the men actually stood in the fire, but you and your colleagues assert that much of the heat was created by burning office furniture and equipment, aren't you? At least that was my understanding. And one would therefore surmise that it was the office and corridor areas where the firemen were, but they weren't scorched. Unless you are suggesting that the fires were only near the steel cores throughout the building and everywhere else was relatively cool for people to survive in. How interesting. Maybe you are also asserting that the heat which "weakened" all the steel in the buildings only came from the jet fuel, perhaps pouring down the steel columns?? Please do tell us, we are looking to you eminent scientists to explain to us in clear language what many scientists (or "pseudo-scientists" as CPE likes to refer to them as) are failing to explain to us. Oh, and by the way, here's a short 8 minute film which may be of interest.

Ahhh, thank you the theCPE, for trying to clear up some of my confusion in your article at http://www.heaththecpe.com/physics.php You are clearly a very eminent physicist in the way that you state "Specifically, the repetitious suggestions from pseudo-scientists that are hardly respected in their field and are eager to put their name on any conspiracy theory in hopes of receiving some notoriety." But I am still a little confused, so you being an eminent physicist, perhaps you can help me further. Your mind experiment in the final paragraph explains "If you aren't sure what to believe than do the following: find a piece of metal about a foot long that you can't bend. Find yourself a pair of insulated gloves, heat the metal in a fire and then wearing the gloves try to bend it again, you will feel like superman!". OK so far, but exactly why then did none of the steel columns in the two 110 story Twin Towers (even though they were, as you suggest, bending because they had been weakened), not one column remained standing in the ruins after the collapse. Indeed, they were broken into small lengths. Now you may say that the weight of the falling parts of the building did this, so how come they offered zero resistance, which, I assume, is what you are maintaining. At least, surely you must accept that they cannot have offered any resistance as the concrete and steel was pulverised with the building collapsing at free-fall speeds. And further confusion I have in my mind, I watched a Chinese man cook some food for me in a steel wok a few weeks ago. The fire underneath was fierce, very fierce, I wouldn't have liked to put my hand near the flame. But the wok wasn't at all troubled with the heat. Indeed, the way it clanged down on the cooker meant that, whilst it may have been "weakened" (I assume from what you tell me it would have been), it clearly had much strength left it it. The handle kept straight and attached to the bowl, that didn't warp, bend or melt, all seemed very good with it. And one further puzzlement of mine, if firefighters and other rescuers were in the building, and it was Insane-Alien who kindly suggested that the highest temperatures to allow human beings in them must have been "without protection, 120*C would be unbearable with protection then you could probably tolerate up to around 250-300*C for a short period of time.", how weak would the steel have become in those relatively cool temperatures (and we are talking far far below those reached in kilns and so forth). In addition, those men were in the buildings for up to an hour, is this a "relatively short period of time". I hardly think so.