Good thing you managed to try to pick out one sentence so you could ignore the rest of the major problems with NIST's non-investigation and junk science. The problem is if you can see a tremendous fireball OUTSIDE the building for both impacts, then very few flames seconds afterward, how did all that steel turn to butter in about an hour later give or take? So what about the rest of the post? Ah yeah, it's "No Mystery", jazz fusion at its best.
Correct, this doesn't match reality because it was TOO CONSERVATIVE. The key component missing here for the shotgun test is MASS. A Boeing 767 has a mass of 179,000 kg. A 12 gauge #4 buckshot has a mass of only 0.035 kg. The two Boeing 767's that impacted the WTC 1 and 2 had a velocity of 494 mph and 586 mph, respectively. The kinetic energy created from a 179,000 kg Boeing 767 traveling at 494 mph (220.838 meters per second) equals to 4,364,863,291 Joules. The kinetic energy created from a 0.035 kg 12 gauge #4 buckshot traveling at 412 meters per second equals to only 2,971 Joules. Physics. Know it. Love it. Live it.
Would you be interested in offering a calculation or guess as to how long it would take the heat to be conducted by the structural steel to all other parts of the towers so that they could fail at essentially free fall rates? That is, if it will lose about 90% of its strength at 800 degrees as you say, how long would it take for that heat to be transmitted and conducted throughout the rest of the structure so that it would completely collapse? How much heat for how long a period of time would be required to achieve that?
The curious thing about people talking about physics is how they only present the side that supports the perspective they are trying to promote. But usually by impressing people not really explaining relevant details. How much did the south tower move when the plane hit? The NIST report computed the building motion at the 70th floor from the data collected by a digital camera. The building deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor and oscillated for 4 minutes. Extrapolation would indicate the the south tower deflected less than 15 inches at the impact level. One of the 9/11 survivors said objects on his shelves did not fall off due to the impact. Another said the floor moved like a wave but he did not say that he fell down. So despite the impressive numbers for the kinetic energy of the plane how could low mass fire protection be knocked of by the impact that moved the building less than 15 inches? Notice that we don't hear about those 15 inches much. psik
its a red herring psik, and an improperly framed proposition. I looked at that thought about and shrugged, so what. I dont see any useful information that can be derived from that wacky shotgun example, do you? Well except to impress bozos. If the story were even true the bulk of the energy is from the parts with most mass, strut assy's, engines, tail mount and so forth. The starboard engine since it had no core to stop it should have gone through the other side and we see no hole on the other side. then if you want to see some serious propaganda its worth a watch, look between 6.02 and 6.23 and try to duplicate it in a fea, it cant be done because its purely fraud.
Cite where these issues were addressed chapter and verse then. Otherwise, it would seem that it is you who has not read the report.
You are defending a highly disputed report so the burden of proof is obviously on you. Several omissions have been proposed to you on this thread and you refuse to address them by citing the report which you claim to have studied. You are full of crap and anyone who can read is aware of that fact.
Thanks for agreeing it doesn't match reality. Very little NIST did matches reality no matter which way you want to look. A true investigation INVESTIGATES, always following universally accepted standards/protocol. You agree NIST did not do that, which amounts to a SCAM. The shotgun experiment is only one very minor piece of evidence that comprises the totality of their fraud. You can find much more here (if you have any genuine interest that is): http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/ If your agenda is to defend the official "investigation" and narrative on 9/11 regardless of the facts, then there's no point. You are then no different than all the other frauds who infest this section of the forum. Defend every minutia about the OCT, question none of it and ridicule those who contradict or question it, usually 24/7. Thanks for all that. Unfortunately, none of it has any significant relevance to the many issues I posted. I can't disagree with that. So how do you explain the manner in which the 3 towers were destroyed using physics? Of special interest is the fact that all 3 buildings were destroyed in an unimpeded accelerating wave, WTC7 at free fall and the twins at about 2/3 free fall.
No one ever claimed that the steel girders reached a temperature that they "turn to butter." This is why the towers collapsed... http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
There was enough fire for a long enough time to heat the steel beams and columns enough so that their expansion caused buckling which caused a catastrophic failure.
There just needs to be enough heat distribution to cause the beams and columns to expand to a point that they buckle.
You alluded to that here: Were you also implying 100% of the steel in the towers? If not, what percentage of the steel do you suppose "lost 90% of its strength at 800 degrees" (F or C?). You also said: and How long is that and how do you know how long that went on, at what temperatures, how the temperatures were distributed for what amount of time and where exactly? Or are you just making all sorts of assumptions just because you believe they "fell" (the term you used)? In other words, are you just defending the official story for the sake of defending it? Do you question anything about it? How about the facts surrounding the NIST "investigation" (I provided the link) that even you agreed was not realistic? How does any of that explain the wave of destruction for both WTC1 and WTC2 unimpeded at about 2/3 gravitational acceleration? Why do you suppose NIST did not explain any of that? They were the ones mandated by Congress to investigate and "determine why and how WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed" yet all they did was claim it was inevitable and admit they never investigated the actual "collapse".
Wrong it is not highly disputed at all. The burden of proof is on those claiming that it is a cover up or lie otherwise it stands for itself. You have never read it ad are lying through your teeth and everyone knows it. Put up or shut up
Here is a linear expansion calculator. Have at it. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-thermal-expansion-d_1379.html
Why can't you understand the simple fact that once one (even two floors) gave way, the resulting weight from all the floors above was two great for each floor. It didn't happen all at once. The domino affect happened one floor at a time and each time the weight increased from the material from the floors above. Again, it has nothing to do with the acceleration (2/3 gravity) and every to do with MASS!
Either cite where the commission addresses the issues raised earlier (with page numbers and lines) or shut the frick up. The burden of proof is on you to prove that your ridiculous conspiracy theory is feasible. So far all you have done is repeat boilerplate phony debunking crap. Now get to work or run along skippy!
Soupnazi, please cite the report, page number and lines which addressed these major issues. The burden of proof is on you to prove that these issues were covered. Either come up with the citations or get lost!
Unfortunately that answers nothing about what actually happened to the WTC towers so it's irrelevant. Correct, it happened in an unimpeded accelerating wave of destruction that took a matter of seconds. What you're trying to describe is a pancake type collapse. However, the videos prove no such thing happened. Such a collapse would cause multiple collisions. Multiple collisions cause multiple hesitations (see the law of physics you love so much). An unimpeded acceleration does not and cannot include multiple hesitations. I also noted you've avoided any discussion of what happened to WTC7, not to mention most of my questions.
Why do I have to do the work for you? I gave you a fricking linear expansion calculator..So, use the damn linear expansion calculator and see for yourself how much a beam/column expands given a certain amount of heat applied for a certain amount of time. Are you unable to do such a task???
