Were the laws of thermodynamics broken on 9/11 in addition to the laws of physics?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Munkle, Feb 9, 2019.

  1. Munkle

    Munkle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    28
    A particularly informative answer at Quora.com which has a meritocratic system of up-voting, very popular. I've found better-explained answers to a broad range of questions at Quora than some academic websites. Good answers link to sources which back up factual assertions.


    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/655977501953364133/


    Were the laws of thermodynamics broken on 9/11 in addition to the laws of physics?

    Yes the official story violates the laws of thermodynamics. If you assumed that all 10,000 gallons of jet fuel - which is only kerosene - spilled into the towers - and that every bit of office furniture was on fire, you still wouldn’t have enough heat-energy to get any significant portion of the tower steel much higher 600F. NIST did not find any samples of steel which reached more than about 500F. Steel is an excellent heat conductor, and the frames were a giant heat sink which wicked heat away from the impact zones.

    You might have pockets of air at 1,000F - 1,200F, or higher, for a few seconds prior to “flashover,” which is a sudden combustion of gases. But even if steel is at 50% strength, which happens at around 1,000F, skyscrapers are made with a five-times maximum load safety factor, meaning at this load you begin to get buckling and partial failures, more creaking and sagging over a period of time, never a sudden disappearance of the whole structure.

    The plane hit damage was negligible to the towers which were 2,000 times an airliner’s weight, steel vs. aluminum. A fully loaded 767 weighs 200 tons. Each tower weighed 450,000 tons, one quarter of that the steel frame. Think of how much you can load up on a 50 pound barbell bar at the gym. Easily 500 pounds without bending, 10 times the weight of the bar. Steel is very strong. The hollow aluminum tubes of the airplanes were shredded like aluminum cans fired at an anvil. The towers were earthquake-proof and already built for plane hits according to building code, since a bomber accidentally hit the Empire State Building in 1945. They were built to stay standing even with half or more of the main vertical support columns cut at the base.

    It is impossible to get steel to forgery temperatures, meaning 2,000F - to 2,600F, with only an open air supply. Air needs to be mechanically forced into a burn in order for steel to become malleable. Such as a bellows or the air pump in a blast furnace, which is how it gets its name, it “blasts” air into the coal or other fuel. You could pour kerosene (which is what airliner fuel is, called Jet A) on an I-beam all day long and burn it, and you’ll just get an I-beam that’s too hot to touch. Carbon steel starts to glow red at 1,100F, and melts at 2,600F. You can easily get your woodstove to 1,000F, and there is no danger of it suddenly dribbling into the ground.

    Steel is forged at about 2,200F, and still requires significant force to bend. At high temperatures steel is mushy like clay. That is why the behavior of the towers on 9/11 is so suspicious. You didn’t see a slow, long sagging to the ground. The towers suddenly, literally, blew themselves apart. There were chunks of frame a football field away. Most of the frame was not twisted or heat-deformed. It was in nice, straight pieces.

    Almost all of the steel below the impact zones was strong and intact. Firefighters in the South Tower radioed that the fires were almost out on the 78th floor, where they were, which was the impact zone of the second plane.

    In the end it is important to understand that open air fires can twist, deform, and cause steel to buckle, but not to the point of total failure of all structural components simultaneously. That requires a pre-wired demolition. The tower destruction line accelerated toward the ground at the same speed as a falling rock. That is impossible and violates the laws of thermodynamics, as well as the laws of physics. It violates the laws of physics because any falling mass that meets resistance goes slower than free fall acceleration. The lower intact towers, even if very hot, would have offered enormous resistance. Steel skyscrapers have burned, fully engulfed, like torches for over 20 hours and never collapsed.

    The idea that the the top one-fourth of each tower suddenly crushed the lower, heavier and stronger three-quarters, in mere seconds is laughable cartoon physics. A few floors falling would not suddenly crush everything beneath it without a lot of help. When you combine this with clear evidence of explosives, such as both reacted and unreacted nanothermite in the dust, the molten pools of steel in the basements, the blown out windows across the WTC complex, the collapse of WTC7 which was not even hit by a plane, and other evidence, and it becomes clear that the official is a farce intended to push the US into war. For more info go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

    Close up of tower destruction
     
    Eleuthera and Bob0627 like this.
  2. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That would have to have been an extremely well coordinated conspiracy Two airliners hitting the two towers on live TV. Tons of explosives carried up to the impact areas without anyone noticing. You don't have to get steel to 2000F to weaken it. I have bent steel in my workshop with a cheap butane torch. It was not even red hot. Structural steel begins to soften around 425°C (800F) and loses about half of its strength at 650°C. (1200F)

    The weight of the twin towers is not relevant because they did not cause the entire twin towers to come down simultaneously. All that jet fuel had to do was weaken the metal structure sufficiently at the impact areas so that the weight of the structure above would cause a collapse..

    Another major factor was the speed and weight of the aircraft. I beams lose their strength when they are deformed and the weight of those aircraft at their speed would have deformed a lot of the beams.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    Seth Bullock, ronv and Dayton3 like this.
  3. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    2,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Isn't this in the wrong forum?

    And the OP neglects to mention that while it mentions the impossibility of the temperature reaching sufficiently high enough to "melt" steel...steel loses half its strength at only half that temperature.

    Put this BS where it belongs.
     
    Seth Bullock and bigfella like this.
  4. Spooky

    Spooky Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    28,298
    Likes Received:
    11,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are a million things that went on that day and sure not all of them can be explained but I've researched this exhaustively and there is nothing to indicate a conspiracy.

    I've seen pictures of a tornado tearing down an entire block of houses except for one bathroom wall in one house and all the nick knacks on the shelf never moved.

    That is impossible.

    I've also seen a tornado put a piece of straw straight through a tree, that is impossible also but it happened.
     
    Dayton3, ToddWB and garyd like this.
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously not, NIST's hypothesis for the "collapse" of 3 towers on 9/11 is as phony as $3 bill.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you now? And what is it that you came across in your "exhaustive research" that led you to conclude 9/11 was perpetrated by 1 person?

    In any case the OP is about physics and the laws of thermodynamics, neither of which are conspiracies or conspiracy theories. It is also not about tornadoes.
     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    86,259
    Likes Received:
    19,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah. Science is to esoteric for conspiracy theories.
     
  8. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The buildings collapsed just like I would expect them to given the situation. The 200 ton aircraft hits the buildings at nearly 600 mph. That is a tremendous amount of energy which is dissipated in about a hundred yards or so. It bends steel beams and knocks away rock and concrete. Bending the beams weakens them considerably. The fires from the fuel further weakens the iron so that the weight of the buildings above the aircraft finally begins to move downward and gains momentum and additional weight as more and more floors add their weight. That is precisely what we saw in the videos of the collapse.

    I am not sure what was supposed to bring down those buildings in that conspiracy theory, but I saw no evidence of any other kind of explosion or anything else which would explain the collapse. As well documented by video as the collapses were, it should have been readily apparent. As far as debris being in the wrong place, I have done failure analysis where there was catastrophic failure. Piece bounce off of each other. Pieces bend and deform and try straighten out and head off in all directions. Nothing nearly that big, but you end up not explaining every bend and location.

    As to motive, if their was some kind of ulterior motive to bring those buildings down to start a war, just crashing those aircraft into those buildings would have been sufficient justification. There was no need to add explosives to make the job more complete.

    In short, the conspiracy theory is BS.
     
    bigfella and Dayton3 like this.
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's because you weren't there, but the people named in the grand jury petition exhibits who gave testimony were and they each explain the explosions in vivid detail, including at least 2 documented accounts of explosions prior to any airplane impact:

    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/exhibits-index-grand-jury-petition/

    It's called eyewitness evidence, what you think you saw or didn't see is irrelevant. It won't ever be evidence of any kind in any legal action.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
  10. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In general eyewitness evidence is considered the least reliable. It has been tested numerous times and eyewitness testimony is nearly always wrong to one degree or the other.
    I wonder why those explosions did not bring down the towers.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet eyewitness evidence is used in nearly every single court case and is often responsible for convicting suspects of various crimes. In this case, there are well over 100 (156?) corroborating eyewitness claims of hearing, seeing, feeling, being injured by and even killed by these explosions as the exhibits show. There is also corroborating physical and video evidence as well as supporting expert witness testimony. So it may be unreliable to you but the real question is how reliable will it be to a grand jury?

    You can wonder anything you like, the grand jury petition claims otherwise but it's up to a grand jury to determine if further investigation is warranted based on the exhibits/evidence filed with the petition and anything else they would like to examine.
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Each witness would be asked these 2 questions:

    1. Do you know the difference between an explosion and the noises made when supports break?
    2. Would you expect to hear concussive sounds when a massive building collapsed?

    Untrue. There is only poorly analysed physical evidence which has far simpler explanations, video evidence showing compressive puffs you mean? and "expert" testimony that amounts to "it looks like".

    Speculation at best.

    Aha, so they are assessing the evidence to see if it is incriminating.
     
  13. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There have been numerous tests and demonstrations showing how unreliable witnesses are. Many times the confuse the order in which events occur. The power of suggestion can influence their recollections. Some just flat lie.
    And what did this grand jury do?
    If this was a big enough explosion to bring down a building or contribute to bringing down a building the size of the towers, it would have been felt throughout the tower and would have been visible outside the tower. Take for example where buildings are demolished with controlled explosions. Evidence of those explosions can be see as they occur and they can be heard for miles.
     
  14. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    68,271
    Likes Received:
    11,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The towers were not built to withstand a plane hit. They were not brick ànd morter.
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    These experts are nobody to sneeze at and they all say pre-planted explosives brought down the towers and building seven.

    ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version)


    Architects Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org - YouTube.mp4


    Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org


     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you know what each witness will be asked? I seriously doubt a grand jury will ask any eyewitness to assess what they witnessed. I can't see why a grand jury or anyone would pose any of these questions to those who claim to have heard and felt them prior to any airplane impact or to those who were injured or killed by them.

    The evidence speaks for itself, you don't speak for the evidence nor are you an expert witness of any kind who has any standing to argue what expert witnesses have concluded.

    The question mark at the end of the sentence denotes speculation, brilliant conclusion.

    They are assessing ALL the evidence, period. They are not assessing English language or legal definitions/terminology.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does that have to do with what I posted? 156 eyewitnesses who corroborate what they witnessed and are supported by other evidence are all confused or lying?

    Grand jury deliberations are not public. As I understand it they have only recently been empaneled.

    You can file a Amicus Curea brief with your opinion if you like explaining the above to the grand jury and I would suggest you include what standing you have as an expert witness that led you to that conclusion for all 3 WTC towers. The grand jury also has the NIST reports in their possession that includes NIST's excuse for their failure to investigate for explosions, explosive elements or incendiaries as well as their failure to address (or interview) over 100 eyewitness claims. It somewhat matches your opinion. You should also explain how all these exhibits that include expert witness analysis are all incorrect.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They didn't. If you look at the videos and photos taken prior to their destruction, there's a big hole in each tower. WTC7 however did not experience any plane hit. None of that has anything to do with the OP (laws of thermodynamics and physics on 9/11).
     
  19. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, we have a grand jury using eyewitness testimony for events which took place seventeen years ago. That is just about as bad as it can get.
     
  20. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    68,271
    Likes Received:
    11,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The twin towers always had a problem with occupancy so back in 1993 after a bombing incident the head leasing guy claimed they were built to withstand airplanes. It was a marketing lie.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, 17 years overdue. And the grand jury is not investigating it on eyewitness testimony alone, much of which was recorded 17 years ago when it was fresh.

    It could be worse, there could be no grand jury investigation of 9/11 at all, one of the worst crimes in American history.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Logic Bob, give it a go. In the absense of any of them having seen it planted or detonated, it is speculation at best.

    Hey calm down Bob, the evidence speaks for itself, it says speculation at best. Unless any of these people saw it being planted etc.

    Thanks.

    Yes Bob, to see if it is incriminating. That's what they do.

    Cool, thanks for clarifying your poor repeated interpretation again.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Speak for yourself.

    Yes your belief that your questions will be raised by the grand jury is speculative. And talk about logic, extremely unlikely and no chance at all for those who experienced explosions prior to plane impacts, as well as those who were injured or killed by them.

    The grand jury does not need to have any eyewitnesses personally see that anything was planted in order to conclude a crime was committed or that there were explosions or that a thorough criminal investigation is required. That's like saying there is a requirement for an eyewitness to have seen a person shot in order to conclude a crime was committed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  24. Munkle

    Munkle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The plane hits were insignificant, and the towers were specifically designed for multiple hits. Hollow aluminum tubes are no match for the latticework of four-foot-wide steel columns in the core. The planes were shredded like they were going through a giant cheese grater, and you can see the cut pieces of what was left on the ground.

    1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling,The Seattle Times:

    [​IMG]
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I was. I was asking you to try it for once.

    OMG - you claim explosions before the planes hit? What ludicrous hogwash.

    No it is not. An eyewitness who sees somebody fleeing the scene is ok. One saying they heard "explosions" during immense buildings collapsing is a bit more unrealistic.
     

Share This Page