Add Ground Effect which makes it physically impossible
to hit the Pentagon at the first floor at the stated speed
unless in a dive.
| QUOTE |
| ANYBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS OF PHYSICS KNOWS FOR A FACT THAT EXPLOSIVES WERE USED. AND ANYBODY CLAIMING TO KNOW PHYSICS WHO SAYS EXPLOSIVES WERE NOT USED IS LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH. It's plain and simple, cut and dry, no debate about it. |
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by YID Burning for days or weeks begs the question, how could that much be installed in the towers without anyone noticing? |
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by YID Your sophistry is invoking some type of explanation and when confronted with facts that contradict your theory, you simply change the theory. |
| QUOTE |
| Which factors? The underground heat? I don't knwo but simply picking something out of the air seems to be your process in 'explaining' such things. |
| QUOTE |
Tuesday, December 06, 2005 Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11? Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed: An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano. New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them. A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32) An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event." An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel." The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11. Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view) A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",[/u] even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero." Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake." For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper. |
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 9 2006, 09:24 PM) QUOTE (Guest+Jan 9 2006, 09:09 PM) Sorry about the double post. People are being killed on the basis of a policy based on theories that violates physical laws. Endless wars have been declared on the same basis. After ww2 people were hanged for starting a war on fraudulent pretenses and for committing mass murder. Nowadays the criminals just have their way. This is just harrowing and staggering. This is a political topic, not a physics topic. Pictures of dead people are political statements. If Islamic fundamentalists did not want the USA bombing Iraq or any other majority Islamic state then they should not have declared war on the USA. I agree that the war in Iraq, that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, al-Qeada was not linked to Saddam, that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. Again though that is not a physics topic, period, end stop. |

| QUOTE |
| No it means that YOU (yesitdid) have been relegated into Arthur's classification category.... I don't suppose I could be so lucky as to have this mean that you will ignore my posts from now on. Mostly I ignore yours. I happened to notice my name as I scrolled through. Have a nice life. |


| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by 'galdur' This is a Physics Professor, by definition someone who knows Physics. Now, why don't you try to refute him? http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html |


| QUOTE |
| The abundance of iron (as opposed to aluminum) in this slag is indicated by the reddish rust observed. When a sample is obtained, a range of characterization techniques will quickly give us information we seek. X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) will yield the elemental composition, and electron energy-loss spectroscopy will tell us the elements found in very small amounts that were undetectable with XEDS. Electron-backscattered diffraction in the scanning electron microscope will give us phase information; the formation of certain precipitates can tell us a minimum temperature the melt must have reached. We will endeavor to obtain and publish these data, whatever they reveal. |



| QUOTE |
| Foxx:: Metamars I'm still looking for undoctored / unquestionable pics of this NIST alleged inward bowing - As far as I am concerned they are unsupportable from a structural point of view... the 2 bolts holding the trusses to the perimeter columns would have FAILED Long Before bowing 14" steel columns inwards. I tend to agree with Hoffman that the one picture presented by NIST MAY be an anomalous camera artifact due to heat distortion of the surrounding atmosphere (although I can't provide any supporting evidence of that so far). |

| QUOTE |
| This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) |


| QUOTE |
| This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) |
| QUOTE |
| which would burn in the pile over a period of days or weeks, and inject a great deal more heat into the rubble. |

| QUOTE |
| you're such an arse. you spend way more time attacking people than arguments. |
