Nuclear Demolition

Discuss what you think really happened in New York on 9/11/2001

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:53 pm

Cutting and pasting two responses here


murnut wrote:As crazy as it sounds, and it does sound crazy, I recently came across a guy claiming to explain the lack of debris at the WTC site.

A few things have always bothered me about the collapse.

The lack of debris...like file cabinets and telephones and furniture etc has always bothered me. It is as if portions of the towers has turned to dust.

That the site remained hot for 8 weeks, with Firemen claiming the fires were still burning.

The speed of the actual collapse and the time from impact to collapse

That fact that no high rise has ever collapsed due to fire before.

Now I do not subscribe to the "no plane" theory, or the pentagon "missile" theory....but official explanations of the collapses themselves just seem off to me.

I'm afraid I will end up as the whackjob of the week but I watched all the video's in this series, and the nuclear demolition theory seems to fit with the towers being pulverized, and why the area underground was so hot for so long.

I'm not saying this guy is right on all or any of his points, but he does reconcile some of my nagging questions

Here is the link to the main video page

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/dimitri-kh ... 21675.html


Here are 2 10 minute video out of 26

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_10_26/

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_12_26/





mosfet wrote:
Access Denied wrote:
murnut wrote:I'm afraid I will end up as the whackjob of the week but I watched all the video's in this series, and the nuclear demolition theory seems to fit with the towers being pulverized, and why the area underground was so hot for so long.

Wow, where to start? I suggest the 9/11 forum... :)



I started to read some of that nuclear BS but after a while I had to quit. I had a top secret clearance with the Air Force, might still have, and I had to deal with the NRC, that's nuclear regulatory commission, on a verity of issues, quite frequently, and was also involved with issuing permits for nuclear power plants. So I was familiar with the topic.

I am not a nuclear scientist, however I have some serious doubts about this latest theory and would welcome comment from those more familiar with the topic as I'm sure this is just another line of bull s^~t.


Also I'm an accomplished welder; if you merely bend a steal bar it will generate heat. Iron or steel loses strength significantly when heated. Steel girders in construction are usually encased in cement, not necessarily to increase strength but to provide insulation.

What most people don't understand about the collapse of the twin Towers is that once the "strength" of the supporting steel members was compromised collapse was inevitable. The steel did not have to melt or even become red hot. I don't think the buildings were designed to be insulated from a full tank of jet fuel.

I've also worked in the petroleum industry and all the steel girders are heavily insulated with thick layers of concrete. This is because a refinery is more likely to experience a catastrophic fuel ignition than a towering office building.


The mere collapse and bending of steel within the building itself would generate heat without the addition of any jet fuel.


I'm not a nuclear scientist, and I agree that there are many holes in Dimitri's theory, but I don't think that the collapse itself could generate enough heat to remain hot for two months after the fact.

Nothing else really addresses that.

Other items not addressed is the lack of debris.

I don't agree with all that Dimitri theorizes, but if his science is correct about the crush zone, it explains how much of the towers turned to dust, why the area remained so hot for so long, and the speed of the actual collapse, and why the towers collapsed so quickly from the point of impact.

Say what you will about 911....but the official explanations to me have too many unanswered questions.

I watched all the videos in the series and found it interesting


Before watching these 26 parts of the "9/11thology" presentation, please, make sure to spend only 4 minutes of your precious time on watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPNQoTlacU
because it will remove many potential questions.
Since prohibited on YouTube all Dimitri Khalezov's video-presentation parts are available
to play on-line on this web page:
http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ition.html
and also on disclose.tv video hosting. Here are direct links to each of 26 parts of it:
Full play list (all 26 videos on a single web page):
http://www.disclose.tv/forum/dimitri-kh ... 21675.html
Individual links to each of the 26 parts:


1. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... tion_1_26/
2. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... tion_2_26/
3. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... tion_3_26/
4. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... tion_4_26/
5. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... tion_5_26/
6. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... tion_6_26/
7. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... tion_7_26/
8. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... tion_8_26/
9. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... tion_9_26/
10. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_10_26/
11. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_11_26/
12. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_12_26/
13. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_13_26/
14. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_14_26/
15. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_15_26/
16. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_16_26/
17. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_17_26/
18. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_18_26/
19. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_19_26/
20. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_20_26/
21. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_21_26/
22. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_22_26/
23. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_23_26/
24. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_24_26/
25. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_25_26/
26. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_26_26/
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am


Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby mosfet » Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:23 pm

Recall if you will from your introductory physics course, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Furthermore the transformation of energy is never 100%. It took a lot of energy to create a building in the form of the twin Towers. All that effort and every single foot was contrary to gravity. The entire building is a monument to what is known as stored energy commonly referred to in physics as stored or potential energy. Its collapse likewise in physics is commonly referred to as the release of kinetic energy. The total amount of kinetic energy could probably be easily calculated. And probably enormous. Whether the resulting heat in itself could account for two months of heat is beyond me. However I would seriously like to know who went down there with a thermometer and took heat measurements and furthermore if any of that is reliable. So on top of heat generated by the mere collapse of the building add to that fuel from the jet add to that combustible materials within the building itself, concentrate that into the foot space of the collapsed building and you have generated a lot of heat. Somebody more conversed in thermodynamics then I could probably calculate a reasonably believable amount. But until somebody thoroughly versed in thermodynamics, heat exchange, structural integrity, and a host of sciences beyond my mere comprehension I doubt that any of these conspiracy theories remain other than just that, theories.

However Mur, as you yourself have so often said just because you read it on the Internet doesn't necessarily mean any of its true?

Some of you thermodynamic engineers should pipe in here, now would be a good time
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:32 pm

mosfet wrote:However Mur, as you yourself have so often said just because you read it on the Internet doesn't necessarily mean any of its true?

Some of you thermodynamic engineers should pipe in here, now would be a good time


I agree and I'm not claiming it true.

I'm just looking to resolve inconsistencies with the official story as I see them.

High temperatures months after the collapse and the lack of debris being some of them
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Zep Tepi » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:51 pm

I don't have much time to go into those points right now, but there are answers to all of those questions Mur.

The speed of the collapse for example has been covered countless times before. Suffice to say for now, the towers did not collapse at free fall speed and the time from impact to collapse was not extraordinary, either. I have links, I'll post them when I have a bit more time over the weekend.

Temperatures:

From Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
(Scroll down the page)

Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.

Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"

Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.

Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.

The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.


More at the above link and more later.
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:10 pm

A plume of smoke rose from ground zero until the fires were extinguished on Dec. 20.


http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html


3 months and 9 days the fire burned?
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Access Denied » Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:13 pm

The first question I would ask is why bother crashing planes into the towers if you could have simply blown them up with a nuke or conventional explosives? Nobody would be surprised because terrorists tried to do it before…

1993 World Trade Center bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World ... er_bombing

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042.

The second question I would ask is why is a ground explosion necessary to explain the collapse of the towers? Watching the videos it seems fairly obvious it collapsed from the top down…

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

  • the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
  • the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

I would highly recommend reading the above FAQ in it’s entirety if you haven’t already since it answers many questions posed by conspiracy “theorists” including this one regarding the seismic data…

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

Now as to why the fires burned so long…

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE FIREFIGHTERS; With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/nyreg ... -fire.html

It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete and assorted combustibles are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.

Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said.

The longest-burning fire on earth, in southeastern Australia, is thought to have been started by a lightning strike 2,000 years ago and is slowly eating away at a buried coal deposit. In Centralia, Pa., a fire that began in a landfill in 1962 spread to old coal mines and has been burning ever since.

''When you have a huge mass of materials deeply buried like this, it's sort of analogous to the Centralia mine fire,'' said Dr. Thomas J. Ohlemiller, a chemical engineer and fire expert at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md. ''Very little heat is lost, so the reaction can keep going at relatively low temperatures, provided you have a weak supply of oxygen coming through the debris.''

See also this for more about what mosfet was talking about…

Was molten metal in the basements caused by demolitions materials?
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/c ... olumnsandb

According to a study by the U.C. Davis DELTA team, the tower collapses, as destructive as they were, expended less than 1% of the potential chemical energy that was stored in building contents, oil spills, and automobiles in the WTC parking garages.

More here from the above the site…

Links for 9/11 Research
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/

"The Obi-wan Kenobi of debunkers" –Stephen Lemons, Phoenix New Times

"The Yoda of 9/11 reality...If this site is not to your liking, then you have melded with the ju-ju, and are beyond the enticements of reason.".–Physicist Manuel Garcia Jr.

The "most effective" opposition to the 9/11 truth movement––2007 truth movement poll

"He's betraying this country and humanity!" –Jason Bermas of Loose Change

"An absolute demon."––Alex Jones, alt-media personality

February, 2009. Hi there. The 9/11 "truth" movement has dried up and blown away, having achieved none of its stated objectives or even bothering to get a single significant claim correct. See the "What's New" section below to get an idea of the type of people who still cling to kooky 9/11 delusions. I've only spent a few hours updating this site since early 2008, and won't be updating it in the future unless big news arises. I have several hundred links that I could add to the several thousand here, but enough is enough.

However, let's remember that 9/11 won't be the last major internet-age event about which people with agendas – whether they be government spokesmen or basement-dwelling crackpots – aggressively spread falsehoods. Unfortunately, falsehoods about the 9/11 attacks have their strongest foothold in Muslim countries (see poll results below), where this website has no effect.

You should also read that ACS article you posted carefully, it talks about all the different types of material found in the debris…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:44 am

I did read it.

You didn't watch the video's though because the questions you asked about are answered.

Assuming you aren't going to watch them, short story according to Dimtri is the towers were demolished by our side to stop the death of 6 million NY'ers

I don't mind debunking the story, but you should know what the story actually is first
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Zep Tepi » Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:28 am

"That fact that no high rise has ever collapsed due to fire before."
The speed of the actual collapse and the time from impact to collapse

I wrote the following back in 2006 in this forum, regarding the claim that no other skyscraper in history has ever collapsed due to fire.

me wrote:How many skyscrapers in history have had a fully laden jumbo jet crash into them at over 500mph?
Source

The answer is none, obviously.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner.
Source

Conspiracy sites say the towers collapsed at free fall speeds (close to 10 seconds) yet the actual time was closer to 16 seconds.

Image

"In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high."
Source

Lack of debris
The towers are estimated to have weighed approx. half a million tons each, sufficiently massive to utterly pulverise everything but the steel beams. As Tom mentions above, the link you provided to show when the fires were eventually extinguished, also shows how particles from many of the "everyday" materials such as carpets, office furniture, plastics etc. were present in the dust that hung around in the air for so long after the collapses. In addition to these materials, many of the victims bodies were ""rendered into dust" when the 1,100-foot skyscrapers collapsed, one concrete slab floor onto another." Source

That said, there are some examples of "standard" debris which was found and can be viewed at the Bearing Witness to History website, just as there are many examples online (I won't link to them) of various body parts that were found in the pile - the majority of these look more like small pieces of paper than anything else. Hard to imagine that is what can happen to a person in that situation :(

You don't need a nuclear explosion to explain the pulverisation or the long burning fires, just the basic facts. Sadly, many of the so called "truther" websites don't seem all that interested in facts.

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Access Denied » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:49 am

Great stuff Steve, I know how frustrating it can be having to explain all this over and over again…

murnut wrote:I did read it.

So do you accept the explanations given for why the site burned for so long? For example, in addition to what Steve pointed out about the debris from the ACS article you linked to, there's this about the fires from it…

The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

And…

Clearly, the pile was still hot and was giving off very fine particles." Yet very fine particles, he said, are more characteristic of a very high temperature process, such as a coal-fired power plant, a smelter, or a diesel engine. The pile at ground zero wasn't hot enough to generate such fine particles.

Cahill sent one of his instruments to a colleague in New York who started measuring ambient air on Oct. 2. As Cahill looked at the data, he began to think that perhaps the WTC debris pile was acting like an oxygen-poor municipal waste incinerator, "an enormous ground-level waste incinerator that burned for three months."

In other words it was hot, but not hot enough to require radiation from a sustained nuclear reaction to explain it and the heat generated by an underground nuclear explosion would have dissipated fairly rapidly underground so that doesn’t explain it either.

murnut wrote:You didn't watch the video's though because the questions you asked about are answered.

Sorry, I only watched the first of the two videos you linked to in your OP. That was enough for me to realize this guy was a crackpot and his nuclear detonation “theory” is a “solution” to a nonexistent “problem”…

murnut wrote:Assuming you aren't going to watch them, short story according to Dimtri is the towers were demolished by our side to stop the death of 6 million NY'ers

I don’t understand, perhaps you misunderstood my first question. How did flying aircraft into the towers help save the lives of 6 million? That wasn’t necessary to bring down the towers correct?

murnut wrote:I don't mind debunking the story, but you should know what the story actually is first

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize there was more to it than what you already told us. Let me know which of the videos explains why the aircraft were flown into the towers (not to mention the one that was flown into the Pentagon and the one that crashed in Shanksville) and I’ll watch it.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:03 am

Zep Tepi wrote:"That fact that no high rise has ever collapsed due to fire before."
The speed of the actual collapse and the time from impact to collapse

I wrote the following back in 2006 in this forum, regarding the claim that no other skyscraper in history has ever collapsed due to fire.

me wrote:How many skyscrapers in history have had a fully laden jumbo jet crash into them at over 500mph?
Source

The answer is none, obviously.


Hollow aluminum tube against all that steel?
Generally aluminum doesn't win a battle with steel, even at 500 mph.
It also doesn't explain why the first tower hit was the last to collapse.
It also doesn't explain why WTC7 collapsed, it wasn't hit by any plane.


Zep Tepi wrote:
There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner.
Source


That's just the official theory.
Other official theories include the air was safe to breathe.....how did that work out?
Yeah...there were a lot of firsts alright....3 buildings collapse in on themselves...seemingly uncontrolled and randomly....but straight down...just like a controlled demolition.

I'd say the odds are long

Zep Tepi wrote:Conspiracy sites say the towers collapsed at free fall speeds (close to 10 seconds) yet the actual time was closer to 16 seconds.

Image

"In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high."
Source


I never said free fall speed. I said it's collapse was faster than I expected

Zep Tepi wrote:Lack of debris
The towers are estimated to have weighed approx. half a million tons each, sufficiently massive to utterly pulverise everything but the steel beams. As Tom mentions above, the link you provided to show when the fires were eventually extinguished, also shows how particles from many of the "everyday" materials such as carpets, office furniture, plastics etc. were present in the dust that hung around in the air for so long after the collapses. In addition to these materials, many of the victims bodies were ""rendered into dust" when the 1,100-foot skyscrapers collapsed, one concrete slab floor onto another." Source

That said, there are some examples of "standard" debris which was found and can be viewed at the Bearing Witness to History website, just as there are many examples online (I won't link to them) of various body parts that were found in the pile - the majority of these look more like small pieces of paper than anything else. Hard to imagine that is what can happen to a person in that situation :(


I don't dispute that pulverization took place, but I'm unconvinced about the speed of the pulverization, and the explanation of the complete pulverization. I'm aware of the official theories about pancaking concrete slabs

Zep Tepi wrote:You don't need a nuclear explosion to explain the pulverisation or the long burning fires, just the basic facts. Sadly, many of the so called "truther" websites don't seem all that interested in facts.

Cheers,
Steve


There is a difference between a nuclear explosion above ground and below ground. It wasn't an explosion that (according to the video you didn't watch) brought down the tower.

As far as a long burning fires, Centralia is a coal fire...the fire has fuel.

What exactly was the fuel for a 3 month 9 day fire at the WTC?

The basic facts are that the towers collapsed.

But all I have seen are theory's to explain the collapse, but I have not seen any real evidence that says the official theory of the collapse is correct.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:49 am

Access Denied wrote:Great stuff Steve, I know how frustrating it can be having to explain all this over and over again…

murnut wrote:I did read it.

So do you accept the explanations given for why the site burned for so long?


Not really...yes the article offered explanation and theories as to why the fire burned so long.....but if everything was pulverized, what was the source of the fuel that burned so hot for so long? Concrete? Carpet? Paint? Glass?
The jet fuel was long gone. Even in the data from the article I linked is conflicting in many areas. Theories are offered but there is no absolute proof.

Access Denied wrote:
The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."


Doesn't offer a theory to why it was so hot below


Access Denied wrote:And…

Clearly, the pile was still hot and was giving off very fine particles." Yet very fine particles, he said, are more characteristic of a very high temperature process, such as a coal-fired power plant, a smelter, or a diesel engine. The pile at ground zero wasn't hot enough to generate such fine particles.

Cahill sent one of his instruments to a colleague in New York who started measuring ambient air on Oct. 2. As Cahill looked at the data, he began to think that perhaps the WTC debris pile was acting like an oxygen-poor municipal waste incinerator, "an enormous ground-level waste incinerator that burned for three months."

In other words it was hot, but not hot enough to require radiation from a sustained nuclear reaction to explain it and the heat generated by an underground nuclear explosion would have dissipated fairly rapidly underground so that doesn’t explain it either.


Define exactly the term "fairly rapidly" as it relates to temperatures of underground nuclear detonation. One day? One week? One month? One year? Is there a chart that tracks how the temperature dissipates over time? What happens when steel is added to the mix?

Access Denied wrote:
murnut wrote:You didn't watch the video's though because the questions you asked about are answered.

Sorry, I only watched the first of the two videos you linked to in your OP. That was enough for me to realize this guy was a crackpot and his nuclear detonation “theory” is a “solution” to a nonexistent “problem”…


The guy very well be a crackpot, I don't know. I'm not a nuclear scientist specializing in underground nuclear testing.
Dimitri claims he is
Access Denied wrote:
murnut wrote:Assuming you aren't going to watch them, short story according to Dimtri is the towers were demolished by our side to stop the death of 6 million NY'ers

I don’t understand, perhaps you misunderstood my first question. How did flying aircraft into the towers help save the lives of 6 million? That wasn’t necessary to bring down the towers correct?


That's not the premise. I can't summarize 260 minutes worth of video down to a couple of sentences to help you understand. There are many parts I disagree with Dimitri's theories. Dimitri makes a case that the US govt believed there was a credible nuclear threat that day. That's why he said the "doomsday" plane was flying, and the Cheyenne Mountain blast doors were closed.

I never once said that any of Dimitri's theories were true...I only said it resolved in my mind of considering how the towers were pulverized and why the are remained so hot

Access Denied wrote:
murnut wrote:I don't mind debunking the story, but you should know what the story actually is first

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize there was more to it than what you already told us. Let me know which of the videos explains why the aircraft were flown into the towers (not to mention the one that was flown into the Pentagon and the one that crashed in Shanksville) and I’ll watch it.


If you are interested, watch them all.

If you are only interested in supporting the official theory, without taking the time to understand what his theory actually is, keep doing what your doing.

As I said...there are plenty of holes in his theories.
But there are plenty of holes in the official theories also.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby mosfet » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:53 am

As I recall from watching the incident on television after each impact there was paper flying all over the place. These were office buildings and one thing about office buildings is that they are always stocked with reams of paper. Imagine all the paper in all the office buildings. I don't know if anyone has ever estimated the amount of paper in those buildings but I bet you it would be the equivalent of an entire forest.

And then in addition to that, each office with furniture, desk, chairs, PCs all of that, even if fiberboard and plastic as combustible materials. So when you consider all of the combustibles and much of that busted and pulverized, confined and concentrated into a small space, the footprint of the building, relative to what once was a tall building you have in effect created a condition much like the continuing underground fires in the coal mines in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

I would imagine that even in areas where an ignition source such as hot metal was not directly present the circulating heated air would be sufficient to ignite pulverized combustibles. If you've ever blown sawdust into a flame it's very similar to igniting gasoline.

The concrete and steel would retain heat and provide an ignition source in the form of circulating superheated air and eventually igniting a significant portion of all the combustibles even in remote corners of the concentrated debris field. So it wouldn't be surprising to me to learn of the long lasting ignition within the footprint.


Also in the video of the "shaking tower" it's the camera shaking not the tower, smoke doesn't shake.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:32 pm

Just think about all the firsts that happened on that day....all the things that had to happen just so.

Two massive towers collapse, supposedly because of jet fuel, and aluminum damaging steel.....uncontrolled but remarkably orderly into their own foot print...not once but twice.

Another building collapses because of fire alone. Never has happened before.

Fires burn for 3 months underground....except for a coal mine fire....this never has happened before.

We are told many things about what happened.

We were told the area was safe to breathe.....officially.

Clearly that was not the case..

So it is possible for official theories to be incorrect.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Zep Tepi » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:57 pm

Mur, I'm just finishing up a project for a client and as soon as I have, I will be responding to your points. - That is, if nobody beats me to it!

So you know what is coming, I will say this for now:

supposedly because of jet fuel, and aluminum damaging steel
Wrong and wrong. Strawman.

uncontrolled but remarkably orderly into their own foot print
Wrong.

Another building collapses because of fire alone
Wrong.

None of that actually happened and are the types of strawman arguments pushed by the radical truthers. Like I said, all of this was covered and explained years ago.

As for the fires burning underground, my first post in this thread was intended to show exactly how such a thing is possible in relation to this specific event.

Zep Tepi wrote:
From Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
(Scroll down the page)

Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.

Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"

Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.

Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.

The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.


More at the above link and more later.


I agree with what you say about the area being safe to breath, but that isn't the same as saying because that was wrong, then everything else could be as well. Everything else has been subjected to the most rigourous investigation and peer review process that it is simply not possible to fool anyone with outlandish claims anymore.

As I seem to say a lot, more later :)
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby mosfet » Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:26 pm

I don't think the amount of deposited jet fuel was ever considered in fire prevention design criteria, nor the prevention of or protection of the fire prevention systems (from a full speed jet airliner) in these buildings and even others like them.

It's obvious that these systems were either destroyed, overloaded or inadequate. In any case the steel supporting structures which were subjected to an inordinate amount of heat beyond a certain time merely had to lose structural integrity. Once one supporting member collapsed the burden would fall to remaining members and a cascade effect would begin first within the floors affected and then as the upper floors collapsed onto the lower floors the entire building cascaded into itself. There's nothing mysterious to me about this. If you've ever bent steel there is no need to even get it red hot. Given the amount of time the fire persisted the scenario is perfectly logical.


Furthermore it would be my guess that even now structural measures could not protect a building from a direct hit from a terrorist controlled airliner. Might as well protect buildings from meteorites. One possible design change could possibly be in the placement of fire prevention systems using expanding foam and possibly operationally independent of one another and placement on each floor. But as in most design decisions somebody would have to weigh the likelihood of another attack versus of this nature and magnitude and the incremental costs for exceptional structural and fire prevention solutions.


But I agree it was a rare circumstance. But then many accidents seem to be the result of several un-anticipated events or circumstances coming together in a unique focus leading directly to a catastrophic consequence, be this car accidents, bridge failures, even simple home accidents.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Next

Google

Return to 911 - What Really Happened?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron