Thursday, April 26, 2007

Responding to a Commenter

A William Schoenecker left the following comments in the top post. As I'm deleting any comments put in that post, I thought I'd pull them out here and respond:

1) the fire: Jet fuel burns at a max of 1300f in open fire.. the jetfuel burned up in about 15 mins.. Steel doesn't soften until it reaches 600c. the fire never averaged over 800f considering it was oxygen starved due to all the black smoke.

Black smoke could be indicative of an oxygen-starved fire, but it could also indicate other things. Plastics commonly burn with a very dark smoke, and the average office is filled with plastic items.

The fire was never very large considering it never went beyond its point of origin.

According to physics.. It's impossible for that fire to have done any structure damage at all..muchless melt steel or iron that doesn't melt until 2800f. Thats 2000 degrees above the average temp. Even if the fires burned at 1300f for 3 hours it would not have done any damage to the steel structure muchless the core of the towers.

Then why, oh, why, do they fireproof steel? If they only knew what you know, they could save themselves a lot of money!

2)No failing structure can crush or pulverize its self into 60micron dust particles.. The building was in a free fall..Free fall means Zero resistance from the structure below the failure.. With zero resistance there is no resistance or force great enough to create the conditions for the pulverizing of 80percent of the steel reinforced concrete within those towers..

The building was not in free fall; that's one of the easiest 9-11 myths to disprove:

See all that debris around the building? It's clearly falling faster than the building itself. So either you think the debris is falling faster than free fall, or the building is falling slower.

You would need massive lower structure resistance with equal or greater down force to create the pressure needed to pulverize the buidling to dust.. Since the buildings gave at free fall speeds..this means the lower structure gave before the down force of the structure above could make contact.. Knowing the laws of physics..The buildings could only have been professionally demolitioned.. Only explosive charges set to take out the lower structure before the above structure could make contact could have made the buildings fall at free or near free fall speeds.. You can't argue physics.. the pancake theory is BS! the Fire Theory is BS!

The building did not fall forever; it did meet resistance it could not match in the earth. And surprise, surprise, we got a big dust cloud. As for your professionally demolitioned (sic), can you show us some other examples of top down professional demolitions? For some odd reason, every one that I see starts at the bottom.

also note.. For a building to come straight down into its foot print would mean that all 4 sides of the structure would have to give all at the the exact time and rate of speed on every floor.. Otherwise the building topples over..

But of course the buildings did not come down straight into their footprints. I believe the current estimate is that they came down into an area 16 times their footprints. And the collapse of the South Tower reveals the fallacy in your argument of toppling. The building did start to topple, but as it did it put extra stress on the remaining columns, causing them to give way.

There is no way in hell that Two 110 story buildings with drastically different structure damage due to un-identical impacts of two different planes could both come down in the exact same way while defying physics..

The buildings did not come down in the exact same way; you have done some research on this topic and aren't just cut and pasting from somewhere are you? The South Tower started to topple as we would expect, given its asymetrical damage, while the North Tower came straight down as you can see in any of the collapse videos, since the radio tower remains pointing up.

The pancake theory also leads you to believe the fires burned at a constant 1300f or more exactly evenly over the entire massive structure on all 4 sides..

The pancake theory isn't current. You do know what NIST attributes the collapse of the towers to, don't you?

BS!Steel and iron conduct heat very well and disperse it through out the entire frame.. steel temps were no more than 430f max at the hottest point.. and the entire steel frame would have much cooler areas..Meaning there is no way in hell the towers gave ghost exactly on all 4 sides and the exact same time and speed. Vertical load.. You could have put tower 1 on top of tower 2 and not have had a collapse.. The core of each building had a max veritical load of twice the actual structures vertical weight. Each floor can hold up to 10x's its load.. Simple facts that are left out of the pancake theory.. and the fact that you are pulverizing steel reinforced concrete would require 10x the kinetic vertical energy with equal or greater resistance from the lower structure.. Which is impossible even if you dropped tower 1 on tower 2 without explosives..

The heat sink argument is nutty, as anybody who's ever observed a blacksmith knows. One part of a piece of steel can be red-hot while a few inches away it maintains its normal color.

According to William, I guess this photo is impossible, since the heat should dissipate instantly?