RE # 4 - each tower weighed 500,000 tons. In order for "several hundred thousand tons of flaming rubble to land on building 7", that would imply that the majority of the mass of the North tower's fall was ejected onto building 7. Very little material reached the south face of building 7. Additionally, 7 fell in a symmetric manner in terms of all four base corners and edges. 7 also conveniently contained thousands of SEC filings / many of which did not have backups. These were lost.

Whether it be Fort Sumter, the sinking of the Maine, sinking of the Lusitania, "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin or the recent "Ghost Riders in the Sky" (one scenario for the 9/11 plane attacks), the banking cartels tend to do very well during wartime.

Of course all of this is just so much noise when you consider that:
1. The Mets are playing tonight and I got my Tivo set to record Dancing with the Stars.
2. That 24 ounce porterhouse on the BBQ is smelling really fine.
3. My old lady -- she got a sparkle in her eye.

Several hundred thousand tons of flaming rubble did not fall on building seven crushing it. Watch the video of its implosion. It was intact when it fell, in fact it was declared fallen by British media 30 min before it fell.

The diagram for the temperatures tells us that the steel would have to attain a consistent temperature across the entire beam of way over 1500-1800 degrees, a point stress is not enough to induce failure, and there is no way to a localized temperature peak this high without the heat conducting to the rest of the beam. This is shown by the transfer equation is governed by the composition and shape of the beam, Shape is vital in that an I-beam or box had a high surface area to volume ratio, This means heat loss radiated away form the source of the heat is going to be very high, also humidity in the air will absorb the heat faster as water can take a lot of heat before raising it's temperature so initial heat transfer AWAY form the steel will be even higher.

If as they will say that the fireproofing was all blown away by the impact makes it even harder, as the steel can radiate more heat if it is uncovered.

We can also calculate the rate of heat transfer INTO the steel beams. It is a function of the differential temperature, the specific heat of the steel, the surface area of the expose material and the R value of the air or any remaining building materials between the flame and the steel, as well as the airflow ( mass flow rate of hot air).

Al these factors except R can be definitively identified. using the maximum value for R, you'd run out of fuel ( assuming 100% fuel loading on the plane with zero for elevator shaft and fireball) before you got a 700 degree T-rise anywhere.

But the Kean Commission weenies also state that vast amounts of fuel poured down the elevator shafts to account for the damage to the ground floor. So where that that leave us?

Found this today. I'm not physicist, but it reads pretty neat
"Weakened steel does not fail explosively. It gradually loses strength along it's stress-strain curve and then only in the areas that attain the temperatures required to fail. Steel is an excellent heat conductor and will conduct heat away from the point of application. The materials "specific heat" will show you how much it has to absorb in order to get hot. This is measured in BTU's / mass. You can have flames as hot as you like but if there is not enough heat energy available to heat up the material you will do nothing.

There was not enough heat value in the jet fuel to come anywhere close to making the steelhot enough to fail. You will run out fuel long before that happens and the math is straight forward.

You simply take the tons of steel in question, the amount of BTU's it would take to make thesteel hot, including the concrete and the air and you just can't do it.

In fact it is so far from possible, the fires cannot be a factor, the temperature would not have even come close to the starting of the elastic region.

Anyone who repeats the jet fuel burns at xxx and steel loses yy% of it strength at xxx temp is an idiot or a liar or just cannot understand the physics involved here.

That this was an official explanation tells me that they are lying. When a suspect lies, ask any cop what that tells him.

As an aside, jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees all right IN A JET ENGINE. A jet engine forces air through a compressor to get enough volume and mass of O2 to support the combustion. You cannot get the fuel to burn at anywhere near that temp in open air, there is not enough mass air flow for an optimal stoichiometric ratio.

Even if you could, which you can't kerosene only yields 18,500 Btu/lb in perfect conditions.

In open air you'd be lucky to get 20% of that efficiency, but even at 100% efficiency there aren't enough BTU's to heat up the steel past about 700 degrees.

If you use a full fuel loading with zero gallons burned in the fireball and zero gallons sent down the elevator shaft to blow up the lobby you still only have enough fuel to to get the steel up to 500 degrees or so. That's with optimal heat transfer into the steel, best case conditions of delta-T and R values, with worst case delta-t for the heat LOSS from the steel. As material heat up they radiate and conduct heat AWAY at a rate governed by the temperature and ambient factors. So the hotter the steel gets the more heat it LOSES. This is why steel mills use crucibles to hold the steel as well as the heat.

The specific heat of steel is 240 btu/ton per degree > to raise the temp from ambient to 1800 degrees would require 432,000 btu/s ton at OPTIMAL efficiency. The concrete requires even more over 800,000 btu's.

The the air also has to heat up, and air being a poor conductor and all the humidity in the air, the specific heat of water is 8 times higher than steel and 5 times high than concrete.
It's a rather long equation but not really complex. Bottom line, not enough BTU to make the steel hot enough to fail. Can't be done. Something else brought the buildings down. If they didn't fall immediately after the impacts there is now way the fires could have triggered it as the tensile and compressive strength of the steel did not change at all ( reference the stress-strain diagram for structural steel) after the fires did their work. It never exceeded it's maximum working stress, if it did, the top would have fallen over towards the point of maximum damage. It would have done this slowly as the stress progressed along to top of the curve to the point of maximum or ultimate strength. The metal would be very deformed at this point.

From the the origin to the point called proportional limit, the stress-strain curve is a straight line. This is called Hooke's Law that within the proportional limit, the stress is directly proportional to strain up to the elastic limit. That is the limit beyond which the material will no longer go back to its original shape when the load is removed, or it is the maximum stress that may be developed such that there is no permanent or residual deformation when the load is entirely removed.

The structural damage by the impact either failed the structure right away or the it brought it past the elastic limit. If it reached a certain point the curve here is actually longer that the portion from 0-the EL, the steel will start to deform plastically, that is bend like taffy. There was zero evidence of this."

Again.....you are just avoiding answering and unable to converse about simple concepts. Ignorance is bliss, no doubt.

Now go vote for who the media tells you to like a good dog.

Again you you put words in my mouth....
I never stated you were a "deranged "conspiracy theorist"."
Some folks just cant stand a simple explanation or believe their lying eyes!.

With respect, you are dissembling. You absolutely said that. You said:
"I love the conspiracy theorists that suggest the twin towers were blown up. In order to believe that you have to #1...disbelieve the lying eyes of everyone in Manhattan that was there when the airplanes actually flew in to the building! ".
---you just made the claim that if a person believes the buildings were blown up/exploded, etc.. that person is not acknowledging that planes flew into the buildings. That is 99% of the time false.

I made no contradictory statements. I asked questions that correspond to the same thing, the pulverizing of the contents of the buildings. If the buildings collapsed, there would be large chunks piled up, not powders and tiny fragments. I have no idea how you can think those two questions are contradictory, being honest.

A cover up or a "conspiracy" is not comforting in any way. (the 9/11 Commission Report is a "conspiracy theory" as well, by the way) That is also an absurd claim. It is the "official" explanation and the redacted testimony and evidence that is comforting to the general public - you have it reversed. NIST refuses to provide their computer modeling data to show that the planes caused the collapse - is that comforting to you? My guess is the answer is yes. If things are just as they appear, then you need to provide explanations to my questions - the subject of my questions is exactly how things appear in real life.

Just because I question mass media and government sources doesn't make me a deranged "conspiracy theorist". I also questioned weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nation-building Afghanistan instead of killing Bin Laden, the wisdom that we needed to hire ISIS to take out Gaddafi and our supplying ISIS with weapons and intelligence in Syria. That makes me prescient and reasonable. You probably supported all of those things, because things are "just as they appear" apparently.

You are re-stating what I said...I never said ...." that every person who is part of the 9/11 Truth movement believes that no airplanes flew into the buildings. "
You then made 2 contradictory statements in your post.

(A) If you can explain how all the concrete, all human bodies, and almost every piece of furniture and computer was pulverized into dust and tiny particles from a "collapse"
(B) "if 100 stories of steel, concrete and office stuff "collapsed", why am I looking out of a 1st floor window?

I do understand that some mass..possibly government...conspiracy and cover up is comforting to some....but sometimes in life, things are just as they appear.

You are making very incorrect assumptions. You make the claim that every person who is part of the 9/11 Truth movement believes that no airplanes flew into the buildings. That is an extremely small percentage, and morons, and there is evidence that the entire "no plane" crap is an astroturf project.

As for the demolition set-up, there are many interesting factors to address that. An elevator was under construction, there was work going on after-hours to install new security systems, etc... I won't get into all of those, but it is entirely possible since the inner core is not visible.

If you can explain how all the concrete, all human bodies, and almost every piece of furniture and computer was pulverized into dust and tiny particles from a "collapse" then you would win the prize.

My questioning began the day of, and I honestly don't have answers to those questions yet. But, the big moment was looking at the TIME magazine cover. It was an image of a firefighter standing on rubble with the 30' tall windows of the lobby in the background. The question flashed in my head: "if 100 stories of steel, concrete and office stuff "collapsed", why am I looking out of a 1st floor window? There should be a 200 feet of stuff piled up. Like I said, no definitive answer yet, but I find 25% of a building causing a full collapse of 75% of a building and pulverizing concrete an absurd explanation.

Maybe.

Pressure from the upper floors collapsing down the center of an enclosed tube (WTC was built this way to prevent its falling over for obvious reasons) would have easily caused enough air pressure to rupture even the strongest of windows. BTW that cloud above the areas that were circled in the image as "proof" would be that debris, tons of it, falling down the shaft that I mentioned.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...

It will not be the first time I was fooled. It will not be the last. It is imperative, however, that I correct my possible mistake by sharing what I have just learned about Rebekah Roth, author of Methodical Deception and Methodical Illusion:
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com...

and this:

https://youtu.be/xziyAGfWB6A

Hello BrettRocketSci,
It is a theory... and there is a history of false flags...
"Remember the Maine!" :)
Respectfully,
O.A.

I suspect that was an autospell/autocomplete error when sj wanted to type 'no.'
What SJ might be missing is, for example, how a karate expert can break multiple boards stacked up with one blow...

In most cases, the boards are separated by spacers, so when the expert breaks the top board, the momentum in his fist AND in the first board's breaking BOTH contribute to the force on the second board, third, and so on.

When several floors of a VERY tall building collapse straight down onto The Next Floor Down, there's no way in hell a building can be designed (feasibly or economically) to withstand cumulative forces like that!

I really don't understand why more people, the media included, seem to ignore Facts Of Nature like that...

Oh, and the "there were explosions" quotes are equally ludicrous. Do you know Anything About Human Beings Today???

A person who hears ANYTHING RESEMBLING a "big bang" immediately assumes it was a gunshot or an explosive being set off. It doesn't matter what the source was or if any real explosives were involved.... they hear Bang, they assume Bullet or Explosive. Human nature. Fallible.

Critical Thinking is Still Dead...

And you can also download a free pdf version of their "Beyond Misinformation" publication at https://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50694/...

Let me get something straight before I continue. I am an Architectural Engineer who did his Thesis on a new Sprinkler system that (I contend) would have kept the towers standing.

They fell completely symmetrical because they were standing straight up after the impact. Modern skyscrapers have a strong core (often concrete) and a strong exterior shell (often steel). If the initial impact didn't make the top lean over (significantly), then the resulting failure would be vertical itself.

The towers fell at Free Fall speed because the energy the top section had after falling a mere 20 feet would have far, far exceeded to material crush strength of the remaining building. I.E. Each floor wouldn't stop the falling mass and slowly (relatively) fail structurally at each stop. What happened was the complete material destruction of the concrete and steel. After the first few floors, the energy only built. That's why it didn't pancake down.

Several hundred thousand tons of flaming rubble and wreckage fell on Building 7. What do you expect to happen after that?

They do not appear as explosive collapses. And they don't appear as Structural Failures either, because it was material failure. That's what happens when you heat up structures and strip them of their fire proofing.

On balance, the terrorists are (and were at the time) running the fedgov.

That's a very poor explanation sir, and completely bogus. How could they fall perfectly symmetrical? At nearly free fall speed? And building 7? Why do they all appear as explosive collapses, not tumblings such as from structural failures? There was zero plastic deformation such as seen is this clever but largely misunderstood demonstration.

Respectfully back to you, Occams Razor was enough for me until I discovered a few too many curiosities and amazing coincidences with the official explanations. Such as the call to Ted Olsen from his wife, which was the source of the box cutter account. The technology to connect from a cell phone in those conditions in 2001 was very spotty and immature. And the data records from the cell phone carrier showed the connection lasted 0 seconds--only an attempted call that failed. Hmmm...you shouldn't take my word for it, and you can't. You have to do more digging than what you'll find in the mainstream popular press. They all have still failed to report that Robert McNamara admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag attack to justify the Vietnam War, which ultimately killed over 50,000 US solidiers and how many Vietnamese? Very hard to face that reality but it is out there.

I said it elsewhere, but I'll summarize it here. Basically the impact knocked off the fire proofing (which slows down heat transfer so that steel doesn't lose significant strength), cut a significant amount of structural steel members (~25%), and introduced a large amount of fuel for the fire (jet fuel). That's why these steel buildings fell where others didn't.