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:
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.
Real collapses break concrete into large chunks. Explosives pulverize it instead, and spread the dust over a large area.
The columns were designed to hold way more than the weight above them, and there was no challenge on their strength for most floors of the building, invalidating the spontaneous collapse scenario and the limit load theory.
Plus, bucking and shearing both take away lots of momentum, invalidating the spontaneous collapse scenario and is not consistent with the observed near freefall.
The unreacted thermite were a uniform mix of these two things, at the nanoscale, and in the form of flakes, none of which can occur in a scenario other than sabotage.
Thermite requires a uniform mix of aluminium powder and iron oxide to work. You can't get thermitic reactions from burning a building that contains rusty iron and aluminium frames.
Massive iron beams are an entirely different story: they don't sparkle.
Well, you continue to demonstrate your lack of knowledge about real things. I point something out, and you just glide by. But "aluminum doesn't burn" was a howler. Especially when you completely forget that probably on the order of 50 tons of aluminum was present in the fuselage of the crashed airplanes, which is what I was referring to. Aluminum in the building? We used to cast molten aluminum in junior high school metal shop from a gas-fired forge. I'm afraid you are unteachable.
In a fire, burning refers to combustion, which is a chemical reaction.
Casting aluminium doesn't burn it. Melted aluminium isn't burned. In order for chemical reactions to occur in a fire, reactants need to be mixed thoroughly. Steel framed buildings don't do thermitic reactions in the presence of aluminium components.