I made this comment to a post earlier today, but I thought it was worth its own post. I can't believe I had never looked this up before. Am I missing something? A jet engine is OPTIMIZED to burn jet fuel the most efficiently possible. Jet fuel burning in a building fire is NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REACH THAT TEMPERATURE! (and even that would not melt steel!) This discrepancy, if as simple as it appears to be, should have been broadcast loud and far long ago. Perhaps this simple fact, if indeed as simple as it seems to be, so clearly indicates the official 9/11 narrative absolutely can't be true, is the reason it seems to have been buried all these years. Please correct me if this is not as simple as it seems.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (103)
sorted by:
This is where you don't understand momentum. Reducing it by any amount in a finite time interval results in a force. Drive a truck into a wall at 60 mph and either or both will wind up being smashed by compressive force. No gravity involved. The falling momentum never got canceled; it was at least restored by another floor's height of falling and addition of falling mass.
This is not a matter of anything being obvious. This is a matter of F = p / t and calculation where p = mv. The whole down-falling force at impact is the sum Ftotal = m (g + v/t), where g is the acceleration of gravity.
I don't think you understand chemistry, either. The end result of thermite (nano or otherwise) is aluminum oxide and iron. The end result of a fire in which the airplane fuselage (aluminum) is burning will also be aluminum oxide and iron. And leftover condensed aluminum microspheres. It is the SAME chemical reaction. I worked in rocket propellant chemistry. Burning aluminum is a primary rocket fuel ingredient. I will be willing to bet that none of these experts considered that the airplane fuselage was involved in the combustion. As it happens, I have been doing my homework for decades, and am open to a logical possibility that you have decided to be closed against.
Yes momentum definitely gets lessened as it deforms anything, plus the resulting heat.
"Unlit" nanothermite was also found and confirmed with mass spec.
The found microspheres were mostly iron not aluminium, and were generated by the intense sparking events that are at least 1000 degrees too hot for the current narrative.
We are talking about different aspects of momentum. Another floor's height of falling would add as much momentum. Addition of falling mass would also increase the momentum. If a compression event happens fast enough, there is no time to deform; the force is communicated as a shock wave through the structure. This gives rise to spallation off the backside of the target, or to shear rather than buckling. I don't know what you mean to mingle heat and momentum in the same sentence.
Unlit thermite is only aluminum powder and iron oxide. Both would have been present from an aluminum fire and exposed iron. There is no atomic difference between aluminum from thermite or aluminum from an airplane fuselage. Or iron raw or iron from its oxide.
I'm not interested in "the current narrative," whatever that is. I have made a point not to read it, to keep myself apart from it. But aluminum burns much hotter than jet fuel, hot enough to cut through iron just like thermite. There is also the possibility that the iron microspheres were formed in the process of shear failure.
More floors add mass but the same mass was supported before the crash.
Momentum gets drained as the building gets deformed and the speed of collapse can't possibly reach freefall speed.
Although the speed isn't any higher than falling material, that doesn't matter: conservation of energy is a law, and momentum has to be lost to either heat or deformation.
Shearing drains even more momentum than buckling.
"Unreacted nanothermitic material", which was found intact and in large amounts, cannot be created by residues.
Aluminium doesn't burn. It's an element like iron. To reach the point of fusion, it needs to drain that much energy from its environment. There was never enough concentrated energy from that environment to heat up either aluminium or steel, to fusion temperatures.
The new mass at the constant velocity adds new momentum.
The momentum ends up in pulverization of the lower stories. (Force of compression.)
The limit load is the limit load, maybe slightly different in each case, but not far apart. It is a limit load because it cannot sustain anything higher, and it does not allow any "resistance" time in defiance of that. If a column is constrained from buckling, it will shear. (Why do you suppose we know about shear, if everything is supposed to buckle? Why do thermite demolitions fail in shear instead of buckling?)
"Unreacted nanothermitic material" is granular aluminum and iron oxide, which can be among the residues of the fire environment. I think you need to brush up on your chemistry. (But---leaping ahead---it is pretty clear you don't even know what that phrase means.)
You are side-splitting hilarious. "Aluminum doesn't burn"? Tell that to the guys who make thermite. It is the aluminum burning that makes the heat. It burns the oxygen out of the iron oxide, leaving behind aluminum oxide and iron. It is the fuel constituent in all modern composite solid rocket motors (think Shuttle boosters). The only things that can burn are "elements." All combustion is about "elements" combining by means of exothermic chemical reactions. Carbon burns to form carbon dioxide. Hydrogen burns to form water. Lithium burns to form lithium oxide. In the Twin Towers, the flame temperature was well above the melting point of aluminum (600 C), and molten aluminum, like water, will evaporate even if not boiling. I think you have hung yourself on utter ignorance about the combustion chemistry of this case.
Even iron will burn. Ever played with "sparklers"? The golden ones are burning powdered iron.