British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

One more thing. I'm sure we at least agree that people were walking about the floors below the impact level for the entire time, including up and down the stair wells within the central columns.

You agree with that, right? Rescuing firefighters coming in and most of those who were in the towers escaping.

I take it from that evidence that the temperatures on these floors (the bulk of these two buildings) were not above 100 or 120 degrees Fahrenheit, as I don't recall reports of extraordinary heat from those coming and going. This tells me that the temperatures in the core column central structures (within which the stair wells were placed) were far, far below anything that would weaken steel. Such is what I would expect, as an airplane fuel fire on an upper story of a high rise building does not have enough energy to seriously heat the bulk of the steel in the entire building.

Then, ten seconds later, there was a cloud of micro-fine dust covering lower Manhattan, billowing up into the sky and settling down to what would become a several inches thick layer of dust, very fine dust.

This required the addition of an immense amount of energy, suddenly, during that ten seconds. This is not the slow accumulation of heat in the steel over the previous hour from the fires on the upper levels.

[Ghent12]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

TPC, I normally enjoy your outlandish view on things. However, in this matter, you are simply wrong. I am only entertaining your inquiries because I wish the best for you, and believing in this conspiracy theory is certainly not conducive to any pursuit of truth.

Have you ever tried soldering a wire to a large piece of metal? It isn't easy. Steel conducts heat quite well. How many BTU's of heat would it take to raise the many tons of steel in the central columns of the World Trade Center towers to melting point.

Do you have any references on your claims that steel will crystallize at 400 degrees C?

The reference I would point you towards would be any textbook on materials or manufacturing processes. Look it up in the sections on the atomic-level structures of materials; if the information isn't fully there, also check the sections on working, casting, or forging, or in the sections regarding tensile or compression strength. I don't doubt the interest you have in genuine inquiry, but I do doubt your understanding of this material. It's not about steel "crystallizing" because it is already in an atomically crystalline structure. It's about recrystallizing, meaning all the grain sizes start to expand and flow and that softens the steel (or any given metal) substantially.

If you work metals, the temperature greatly influences the structure of them. An enormous static load can certainly be considered working the material in this context. If the temperature is between 0.3T(m) and 0.7T(m) where T(m) is the melting point, that is considered warm working. Above that is hot working, below that is cold working. The melting point of steel (and it depends on which steel we are talking about) is rarely more than 1500 degrees C, which is 1773 K, of which the 400 degrees C (673 K) is over 30%.

Steel does indeed have great thermal conductivity. However, it's not a thermal superconductor. The heat energy was concentrated on a few floors which is exactly where the point of collapse started.

Are you aware that the main fires had pretty much been extinguished on Tower 2 and firefighters were walking around the floors where the plane impacted? Most of the jet fuel from the plane that hit Tower 2 blew out the side at the time of impact, because the plane didn't make a straight on, dead center, hit.

And what of Building 7, which had just limited fires on a couple of floors, before collapsing at free fall speeds?

Where exactly are you getting this information about the fires from? The video clearly shows the impacted areas still very much on fire, and the reports I remember said that there was a ton of initial confusion, delaying firefighter response. Regardless of firefighter response, and regardless of what percentage of jet fuel went this way or that way, at the time of each collapse an enormous portion of the impacted area of the tower in question was on fire across multiple stories. This is indisputable. You can see the innumerable videos of it for yourself.

Building 7 suffered damage to a critical column in the lower levels from the fires in it, and possibly from the damage sustained during the collapse of the other towers. But who knows. Maybe the initial collapse of two of the largest buildings on the planet and the resultant death of thousands wasn't enough. Maybe the government/military/CIA/Mossad thought they needed to add insult to injury by finally detonating their last remaining charges in tower 7 many hours after everyone had been evacuated. :rolleyes: C'mon now...

And what of -all- other high rise steel frame buildings that have ever had major fires, some infernos lasting many hours, that have -never- collapsed into a cloud of dust?

What other high rise steel frame building had been impacted by a 767? Not only did it provide some structural damage, a decent portion of the kinetic energy would have been converted into heat as well. As to your second point, any sufficiently large collapsed building will pulverize concrete into dust. That is one of the places the kinetic energy goes.

Once again, do you have any idea how much energy it would take, applied in the space of about ten seconds (that's seriously enormous power) to convert that much tonnage of concrete and steel to micro-fine dust? No office furniture, no commodes or urinals, no computers or phones, no bone fragments bigger than an inch or two, nothing (other than the small percentage that got blown out the side at high velocity during that ten seconds and a few girders, nicely cutoff at a 45 degree angle, near the ground) survived the demolitions.

I have some idea, yes. Each tower weighed approximately 450 million kg. Tower 1 had the top 15% of that mass, minus what was blown out by the impact, plus the remains of a giant aircraft, fall onto the remaining 85% of it. Assuming 10 feet per floor, and that the structural failure was instant (never true, but a reasonable assumption for this calculation), the velocity of an object in freefall (for tower 1, that's 27 stories; tower 2 would be 43) after 10 feet of freefall would be 12.7 ft per second (3.87 m/s). That translates into 505 MJ. That's the energy of the impact of the top 15% of the tower landing onto the bottom 85% of the tower. In the case of tower 2, more than twice as much mass was in the upper section, meaning more than twice as much energy of impact. That, of course, is only a very simplified setup of initial impact of the top section falling onto the lower section, and does not take into account the mass of the entire structure collapsing into the ground, which of course did happen.

[Scot]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Correct. There were some elements of momentary collapse of upper portions when something below them turned to dust first. But in the space of ten seconds all but a few fragments of blown out steel girders was converted to fine dust.

The buildings were essentially two tubes supporting concrete disks with open space in between levels. I'm convinced that concrete level falling onto concrete level over a total of 1300 feet is going to pulverize everything.

This poster for the Oliver Stone movie gives a good picture of just how vulnerable to pancaking these buildings might have been.

[skyson]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

What other high rise steel frame building had been impacted by a 767? Not only did it provide some structural damage, a decent portion of the kinetic energy would have been converted into heat as well. As to your second point, any sufficiently large collapsed building will pulverize concrete into dust. That is one of the places the kinetic energy goes.

I have some idea, yes. Each tower weighed approximately 450 million kg. Tower 1 had the top 15% of that mass, minus what was blown out by the impact, plus the remains of a giant aircraft, fall onto the remaining 85% of it. Assuming 10 feet per floor, and that the structural failure was instant (never true, but a reasonable assumption for this calculation), the velocity of an object in freefall (for tower 1, that's 27 stories; tower 2 would be 43) after 10 feet of freefall would be 12.7 ft per second (3.87 m/s). That translates into 505 MJ. That's the energy of the impact of the top 15% of the tower landing onto the bottom 85% of the tower. In the case of tower 2, more than twice as much mass was in the upper section, meaning more than twice as much energy of impact. That, of course, is only a very simplified setup of initial impact of the top section falling onto the lower section, and does not take into account the mass of the entire structure collapsing into the ground, which of course did happen.

Here are three essays written by Gordon Ross, which specifically deal with energy transfer during WTC collapses, and conclusively demonstrate the kinetic energy from upper floors was not enough for the total collapse:


1.Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1
2.Reply to Dr. Greening
3.NIST and Dr. Bazant - Simultaneous Failure

[Ghent12]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Here are three essays written by Gordon Ross, which specifically deal with energy transfer during WTC collapses, and conclusively demonstrate the kinetic energy from upper floors was not enough for the total collapse:


1.Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1
2.Reply to Dr. Greening
3.NIST and Dr. Bazant - Simultaneous Failure

Seemingly thorough, although after reading the first essay I have already found two omissions. The analysis seemingly fails to account for 1) reduced structural integrity of the first several floors to be impacted due to their raised temperature via thermal conduction, and 2) either neglects entirely or is meant as an overall explanation of the effect of WTC2 collapsing, causing a minor earthquake and damage to all nearby buildings. Since the conclusion is that a simple gravity plunge of the top 15 stories would not be enough to cause total collapse, it leaves open virtually everything. The analysis is not thorough enough for me to take its bait.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

TPC, I normally enjoy your outlandish view on things. However, in this matter, you are simply wrong.

au contraire

The essential problem I see in discussing this matter, which I too suffered from for a few years, is that this act is so horrific that we are unable to actually examine the evidence in detail. Our minds escape to justifications to accept the official story.

It's about recrystallizing, meaning all the grain sizes start to expand and flow and that softens the steel (or any given metal) substantially.

Possibly, though I doubt it, but perhaps, for the only time in human history, the few stories near the impacts could have gotten hot enough to weaken steel to the point of sudden collapse. My recollection (sorry, no references offhand) is that other tests and skyscraper fire examples show some bending of steel, but never a sudden catastrophic collapse even after more serious fires than we saw on 9/11.

But the 92 or 76 floors below impact remained at near normal temperatures and without significant damage (except for the bombs and explosives going off, the reports of which are numerous but the details sketchy and suppressed) until the 10 second period in which they were transformed into a fine powder.

Steel does indeed have great thermal conductivity. However, it's not a thermal superconductor. The heat energy was concentrated on a few floors which is exactly where the point of collapse started.

Most of the jet fuel, if I recall correctly, would have burned off within 20 minutes (sooner on Tower 2, where the off-center impact led to an immediate fireball outside the building consuming much of the fuel.)

That leaves the usual materials for office fires to fuel the fire until collapse. Such materials don't heat steel the point of structural failure.

, at the time of each collapse an enormous portion of the impacted area of the tower in question was on fire across multiple stories. This is indisputable. You can see the innumerable videos of it for yourself.

My understanding is that this is so for Building 1, but that Building 2's fires were not across the whole floor and were significantly subsiding when it collapsed.

Building 7 suffered damage to a critical column in the lower levels from the fires in it, and possibly from the damage sustained during the collapse of the other towers.

I am aware of no evidence that Building 7 suffered major damage to a critical column, and I am aware of no evidence that any such building would fall at free fall speeds given the loss of a column or two. Building demolitions have to cut more or less all the major support columns in close synchronization to get a building to drop perfectly in its own footprint at free fall speeds. Never in the history of humankind, except on that one day, 9/11, has simple fire collapsed a steel frame skyscaper. Building 7, did not receive serious impact damage from the towers. It was separated from the two towers by Building 6, which received much more impact damage from the towers.

But who knows. Maybe the initial collapse of two of the largest buildings on the planet and the resultant death of thousands wasn't enough. Maybe the government/military/CIA/Mossad thought they needed to add insult to injury by finally detonating their last remaining charges in tower 7 many hours after everyone had been evacuated. :rolleyes: C'mon now...

Ridicule doesn't help here. One must first understand what actually happened. Then one can fairly ask who or why or by what hidden plan.

What other high rise steel frame building had been impacted by a 767? Not only did it provide some structural damage, a decent portion of the kinetic energy would have been converted into heat as well. As to your second point, any sufficiently large collapsed building will pulverize concrete into dust. That is one of the places the kinetic energy goes.

Will any sufficiently large collapsed building pulverize steel into dust? And I'll wager that even the concrete from typical demolitions is not fine powder, but larger granules.

Will 92 or 76 floors of skyscaper convert to fine dust at free fall speeds? All the steel, all the concrete, all the plumbing, all the metal desks, chairs and cabinets, all the skeletons, all the toilets and urinals? All in ten seconds?

Even demolitions that cut in a timed sequence all the main supporting beams don't fall as fast, don't convert all to dust and do leave a pile of rubble containing many recognizable pieces that is a few feet high for each story that is dropped.

I have some idea, yes.... That translates into 505 MJ.

You are computing (if I understand correctly) how much energy dropping 27 or 43 floors ten feet will generate. I was asking how much energy it takes to convert the lower 92 or 76 stories to fine dust in 10 seconds.

Watch the videos of the collapse, observe the huge fast moving smoke clouds upward and sideways and the steel girders being ejected at high velocity to stick in the sides of neighboring buildings. Observe the tiny, less than a story or two tall, pile of finely ground rubble that formed immediately. Note the blanket of dust inches thick that covered lower Manhattan.

[skyson]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

1) reduced structural integrity of the first several floors to be impacted due to their raised temperature via thermal conduction,

1.plane impact and fire cause damage mostly to upper floors. 2.upper floors are structurally weaker.

essentially, we can see upper floors and lower floors as two objects colliding into each other. upper floors as the smaller and less density object, vs. the lower on the larger(WTC 1 about 6.8 times larger, WTC 2 about 3.2 larger) and more density object.

for any two objects (call them 1 and 2), Newton's third law states that any force that is applied to object 1 due to the action of object 2 is automatically accompanied by a force applied to object 2 due to the action of object 1

hence, when stating upper floors fell into and destroyed lower floors, the reverse is also true: lower floors will exert same force and cause same damage to the upper floors too. in essence, when upper floors destroyed the topmost floor from the lower section, then lower section would destroy the lower most floor of the upper section. in the end, the final effect of this two sections collision would have stopped due to the smaller upper sections exhausting their total mass.

this is basic physics. the following video sequence exactly demonstrated the fact that upper section were totally destroyed in midair, no upper floors left to destroy the lower floors:
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/st_nbc1.html
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/...rth_tower.html


both Dr. Bazant and Dr. Greening's total collapsing models rely on the assumption that the upper floors remain intact and retain full mass and total energy to completely destroy the lower floors, until it destroys itself upon impacting the gound.

this is fundamentally flaw.

and 2) either neglects entirely or is meant as an overall explanation of the effect of WTC2 collapsing, causing a minor earthquake and damage to all nearby buildings. Since the conclusion is that a simple gravity plunge of the top 15 stories would not be enough to cause total collapse, it leaves open virtually everything. The analysis is not thorough enough for me to take its bait.

without going into too much details, here is the quote from Ross's essay:

"Thus we can see that, in reality, the energy of the falling upper section of the tower would not be utilised to crush only one storey of the tower, but would in fact be distributed throughout the upper section as well as storeys in the lower section. Energy would be absorbed over many more storeys than the first impacted storey of the lower section.

This is both obvious and intuitive. In a collision, energy is dissipated in both the impacting and impacted objects in proportion to their relative strengths, characteristics and construction. To give an easily visualised analogy, imagine a large truck parked with its rear end against a solid wall and a car accelerated headlong into the front of the truck. Many things may happen, but one possibility which can easily be ruled out is that the car will pass all of the way through the truck, suffering no damage as it totally destroys the truck, until such time as it strikes the wall, at which point it is itself destroyed. This scenario is precisely what Dr. Bazant would have us believe with his "crush down - crush up" theory."

[Crazyfingers]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

I have never bought the official story. And I will never believe it.

Have no idea what actually happened but my gut tells me we are being sold a lie. It is the lie that all the lies since have evolved. The rest of the world knows it. Their main objective is to keep the lies secret from the American people. Thats why Dick Cheney is back sprucing himself up all over the news again(the official salesman of the CIA). He knows that once all the lies are revealed his goose is cooked. Thats why he is trying his best to keep support.

Our secret underbelly of the nation has one main objective, keep their dirty deeds out of view of the American public. If the people found out, they would be outraged and not support it.

Did anyone happen to catch the pair of underwear on ABC that was supposedly worn by the crotch bomber? I have had worse bottle rocket wounds. The whole story was a sham.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

I have never bought the official story.

Your B.S. detector works better than mine. I'm impressed.

I bought the official story for several years, enthusiastically advocating the bombing of some Middle Eastern countries, distrusting any Muslim by practice or descent, and enthusiastically supporting Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

That has changed.

[Crazyfingers]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Your B.S. detector works better than mine. I'm impressed.

I bought the official story for several years, enthusiastically advocating the bombing of some Middle Eastern countries, distrusting any Muslim by practice or descent, and enthusiastically supporting Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

That has changed.

Thinking back, I was fooled at the beginning as well. What I should have said is the official 911 commission report. By that time, things didnt add up to me. The people on the commission were hand picked and their findings were to scripted. At the beginning I was shocked, angry, and full of revenge like everyone else.

[tombat1913]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

:rolleyes:
I find it odd how people just can't grasp the plain truth that the impact of a giant airliner and subsequent fire brought down the towers (and the hours of rampant fire and damage to tower 7 eventually made it succumb). If you refuse to accept engineering principles, then you have no business talking about cause and effect of structural failures.

I love how only part of the post is in regards to the British Institute of Nanotechnology, which appears to be just a web forum with only one (1) poster. The rest of skyson's post is in relation to pseudo-legal BS and the like. Sigh...

There weren't rampant fires in building 7. The firefighters stated that there were small sparatic fires and announced the fires were contained shortly after going into the building. Don't start blabbering about "the palin truth" if you don't have the simple facts straight.

How do you people reconcile Larry Silverstein admitting on tape that they "pulled it"?

[tombat1913]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Why not just use the nano-thermite, skip the airplanes, and blame it on the terrorists? After all, they'd already tried once before with conventional explosives? I mean, we attacked Iraq based on shaky grounds. Why blow up our own building just to go after some two bit terrorist? Its not the individual parts of the truther argument that are so illogical. Its the sum of the parts. Too many things had to be set in place. Any conspiracy that complicated almost always falls apart. A failed conspiracy is very dangerous to the conspirators. Ask Count von Stauffenberg.:eek:

I'm no engineer, but I find it perfectly feasible that the buildings merely collapsed like the official report said. You have be able to get your mind around the sheer size of those towers. Each floor was one acre. Thats over 43,000 sq ft. Now add all the floors above the damage. Now drop that massive section 10-30 feet down. Its going to keep moving folks. Down, down, down. Picking up momentum and more weight as it falls. Pancake city. Sure it looked like the demolitions we see all the time. I thought that also at the time I saw it happen. It was a demolition of sorts. Only instead of starting at the ground floor, it started many stories above the ground.

As far as building seven goes, the ground floors were obviously undermined and damaged by the twin towers collapsing around it. Where do you think 110 stories of rubble goes? It doesn't just pile up around the other buildings. It goes through them! It has not happened before in history because we've never had two 110 story sky scrapers collapse before! I read the force of the collapse was the equivalent of 1/5 the Hiroshima bomb. To think a building next door could escape serious foundation damage is not logical. I've seen failed controlled demolitions where the building failed to collapse first but later came down. Why is this any different?

Once again another one who doesn't have the facts straight because they haven't done even minimal research. There were buildings in between the twin towers and building 7. A whole paragraph wasted .

[Ghent12]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Well you probably have more energy than I do in trying to defend your position. I might reply with more later if I feel like wading through this swamp of misunderstood physics, especially from skyson. For now though I'll simply address a quick point about the fires and about horizontal ejection.

Possibly, though I doubt it, but perhaps, for the only time in human history, the few stories near the impacts could have gotten hot enough to weaken steel to the point of sudden collapse. My recollection (sorry, no references offhand) is that other tests and skyscraper fire examples show some bending of steel, but never a sudden catastrophic collapse even after more serious fires than we saw on 9/11.
...
Most of the jet fuel, if I recall correctly, would have burned off within 20 minutes (sooner on Tower 2, where the off-center impact led to an immediate fireball outside the building consuming much of the fuel.)

That leaves the usual materials for office fires to fuel the fire until collapse. Such materials don't heat steel the point of structural failure.

I don't recall any other skyscraper receiving nearly instantaneous substantial fires throughout multiple stories (and most or all of the affected floors) after being subjected to the impact of the giant plane. The force involved with the impact of the plane was absolutely enormous. That's something you need to wrap your head around.

As for debris, dust and the like; the towers were filled with air. That air had to go somewhere when the floor above it met the floor below it. It went out--horizontally.

Let me also just ask a few parting questions. Can your nanothermite bombs withstand the fire and impact of the airliner as well? Can their remote detonators withstand it? If not, then how exactly did the top sections of the tower collapse onto the lower parts? Your conspiracy theory, being what it is, is filled with an unlimited number of holes. You perhaps should wish it to never become the official story, lest it be endlessly questioned (on much more substantial ground).

[flintlock]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Well you probably have more energy than I do in trying to defend your position. I might reply with more later if I feel like wading through this swamp of misunderstood physics, especially from skyson. For now though I'll simply address a quick point about the fires and about horizontal ejection. I don't recall any other skyscraper receiving nearly instantaneous substantial fires throughout multiple stories (and most or all of the affected floors) after being subjected to the impact of the giant plane. The force involved with the impact of the plane was absolutely enormous. That's something you need to wrap your head around.

As for debris, dust and the like; the towers were filled with air. That air had to go somewhere when the floor above it met the floor below it. It went out--horizontally.

Let me also just ask a few parting questions. Can your nanothermite bombs withstand the fire and impact of the airliner as well? Can their remote detonators withstand it? If not, then how exactly did the top sections of the tower collapse onto the lower parts? Your conspiracy theory, being what it is, is filled with an unlimited number of holes. You perhaps should wish it to never become the official story, lest it be endlessly questioned (on much more substantial ground).

Well said.

1) Many ignore the force of a 150(?) ton aircraft flying 550 miles hour. They focus on fire alone. The real wonder is that the buildings did not collapse immediately.

2) Air pressure explains why puffs of smoke are seen blowing out while the building collapses. That occurred to me immediately after seeing the claim it was "explosions".

3) good point about the detonators.

It would not surprise me if there were some cover ups. But more likely they are to cover up incompetency, not conspiracy.

I am still amazed some can't understand that building 7 was damaged by the towers collapse. They act as if a 110 story building collapsing next door is like a 2x4 hitting your door. Just bounces off. :rolleyes:

I'm afraid the only way we'd ever convince the Truthers that it was merely the planes that brought down the towers would be to fly another plane into another building. A very expensive experiment indeed. Fortunately, its something that just does not happen normally. It really drives me crazy when I hear people say, " If so, it was the first time in history a building ever collapsed like that". No kidding. A skyscraper has never been brought down by a cruise ship either, but if you could find a way to drive one into the building, you might be surprised it would work.

[flintlock]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

I agree there was something fishy about the investigation. But the reason is to hide screw ups within the intelligence community, not a conspiracy. It's a giant case of CYA going on. (cover your ass). Political correctness and incompetence allowed those terrorists to succeed in spite of all odds. They may in fact, not even be who they claimed to be. It's not unusual for spies to use fake IDs. You have to understand how beaurocracies work. All they really cared about is finding an story that doesn't embarrass their bosses. Everyone gets a gold star on their record, maybe a raise, and everyone is happy. Have you noticed almost no one got sacked in all of this? How does that happen? Its better they tell the people , "We know who they were and we know they are all dead" than say, " we don't have a clue who the fuck these people were, we were too busy trying to please our political masters than protect the country, sorry".