9/11 Weekend - New hypothesis to Explain 9/11 - Part I

[Peter Lemkin]

JO, you seem to always dodge the direct questions. How by the official version - or by your un-zip theory can anything near enough heat be generated to produce molten steel?! Gravitational potential energy is not enough and was used up mostly in pulvarizing everything [well, that was lent a hand by explosives, but I'm sure you don't agree]. How is your unzip theory NOT just a varient of the official version [i.e. that 19 terrorists brought down three towers, though they only hit two [maybe]? It is you that shouldn't be taken seriously....or seriously examined as to what you represent and what agenda you are pushing.

After we deal with the molten steel, we can deal with the pulverization - another feature clearly evident not explained by your theory nor the official theory - and the hair's breath between 'em. :mexican:

[Jeffrey Orling]

Lemkin,

I am not a physicist, nor a chemist. I can't produce the calculations. You have asserted without proof that the heat produced by the communition from friction, abrading and grinding of 400,000 tons of building was not enough to either melt some metal and heat the debris to elevated temps which took months to cool. I think you are incorrect on this.

I realize that this sounds counter intuitive... the production of heat from a collapse. But if you have any experience in working in a shop, grinding, sanding, sawing, drilling and milling materials.. wood, metal... you name it... there is always a lot of heat produced from (destruction of material). Drill a hole in a sheet of steel and it is way too hot to touch. Same for concrete... the mechanical destruction releases heat. This is a fact.

Could this heat be concentrated to high enough temps to melt some metal? I think so. I can't offer a proof. Would the amount of heat raise the debris pile temps enough that it would take months to cool? I think so. How much long does it take to reduce the latent heat of 1 million tons of debris 1 degree? With water at room temp? With ambient air in contact being heated and *removing* some of the heat at the surface?

Take a hot iron frying pan and drop a bit of water on it.. it immediately boils off and hardly lowers the temperature of the pan. Take a million ton pan which is 15 or 20° warmer than the ambient air and shoot streams of water from fire hoses.... How much will this lower the temp of the million tons in a day? How many tons of water can one hose deposit on the pile in a day? How much of the pile is exposed to the water it shoots out?

I don't think you are appreciating the magnitude of the issues here or understand the physics involved.

here's a paper on heat transfer:

http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/tc3...elling.pdf

[Peter Lemkin]

Lemkin,

I am not a physicist, nor a chemist. I can't produce the calculations. You have asserted without proof that the heat produced by the communition from friction, abrading and grinding of 400,000 tons of building was not enough to either melt some metal and heat the debris to elevated temps which took months to cool. I think you are incorrect on this.

I realize that this sounds counter intuitive... the production of heat from a collapse. But if you have any experience in working in a shop, grinding, sanding, sawing, drilling and milling materials.. wood, metal... you name it... there is always a lot of heat produced from (destruction of material). Drill a hole in a sheet of steel and it is way too hot to touch. Same for concrete... the mechanical destruction releases heat. This is a fact.

Could this heat be concentrated to high enough temps to melt some metal? I think so. I can't offer a proof. Would the amount of heat raise the debris pile temps enough that it would take months to cool? I think so. How much long does it take to reduce the latent heat of 1 million tons of debris 1 degree? With water at room temp? With ambient air in contact being heated and *removing* some of the heat at the surface?

Take a hot iron frying pan and drop a bit of water on it.. it immediately boils off and hardly lowers the temperature of the pan. Take a million ton pan which is 15 or 20° warmer than the ambient air and shoot streams of water from fire hoses.... How much will this lower the temp of the million tons in a day? How many tons of water can one hose deposit on the pile in a day? How much of the pile is exposed to the water it shoots out?

I don't think you are appreciating the magnitude of the issues here or understand the physics involved.

here's a paper on heat transfer:

http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/tc3...elling.pdf

You are certainly correct on not understanding physics and the fundamental laws of entropy and thermodynamics. Energy can not be created. Calculations by most all physicists and chemists who've looked at the matter [I can provide the scientific papers and calculations] have shown that there was NOT...repeat NOT! enough energy in the potential gravitational energy of the building to either pulverize the building to the extent observed NOR to heat the contents to the point to melt steel...i.e. there was an external energy source other than gravity....it wasn't spaghetti..it was some explosive and exothermic agent...as nanothermite was found in the dust it is logical to assume that nanothermite was pre-planted in the three collapsed WTCs and set off [by computer control] on the day of. Anything other is only stalling on the truth. And by the way, how come you've been kicked out of so many '911 truth sites'? I am more than willing to expand on any of what I've said before.....but your unzip to allow the pancake [minus the syrup] is, IMHO, either grossly naive and self-serving, or [more likely] a knowing modified limited hangout for the perps of 911. Sorry. Our very nation's future depends on how we [as a group] see and respond to 911...and your 'view' IMHO is on the side of danger and allows the perps to get away.

NB - there are several kinds of PE [potential energy]. In a standard building and in the WTC buildings YOU push on others there is ONLY gravitational potential energy [released if and when the building's atoms fall downward]. Well, hate to tell you, but over and over again calculations show there is NOT enough gravitational potential energy to do either [let along BOTH] of observed evidence from 9-11. 1] Not enough to pulverize the concrete, gypsum and all inside but the largest steel beams not melted into dust - even throwing some of the beams, weighing tens of tons LATERALLY hundreds of yards. 2] not enough potential energy to cause heating sufficient to melt lead, let alone steel! Now there are other chemical sources of potential energy...such as explosives and cutting charges, et al.....nanothermite is a good example and one found in the dust [along with the residue of reacted nanothermite]. ONLY something like that would explain what was seen.

I'd almost believe you were just eccentric with your lone unzip theory were it not that every time someone opines against the official version of events YOU post to try to counter theirs [with just that subtle Sunsteinian let-me-put-in-just-a dollop-of-'doubt']...you have completely given yourself and your 'game' away, IMHO> You support the official version, even though you claim not to!

[Jeffrey Orling]

Let'se see the calculations. Note that bldg 7 collapsed... much like a CD and all the concrete likewise turned to dust. Th collapse of WTC 7 looked very different Lemkin yet produced the same amount and quality of dust. Why?

Because the dust was from the concrete which was ground up and crushed and the floors broke apart. When you have no stone aggregate, light weight concrete of that mass crashing down it DOES grind itself up and produced dust.

When you show the calcs we'll run it by some other physicists.

[Dawn Meredith]

Let'se see the calculations. Note that bldg 7 collapsed... much like a CD and all the concrete likewise turned to dust. Th collapse of WTC 7 looked very different Lemkin yet produced the same amount and quality of dust. Why?

Because the dust was from the concrete which was ground up and crushed and the floors broke apart. When you have no stone aggregate, light weight concrete of that mass crashing down it DOES grind itself up and produced dust.

When you show the calcs we'll run it by some other physicists.

So Jeff what did Silverstein - the owner who had just insured for top dollar- mean re building 7 when he said "we decided to pull it?". And what do you make of the BBC reporter on tv saying Building 7 had fallen BEFORE it fell? And you expect us to beleive that the "terrorists" got so lucky that they flew into the WTC the very same day that simulated training exercises of planes flying into these very buildings were occurring??? Talk about co-incidence. And remember the passport they said they found: Atta's???
Did you really believe THAT?.

Dawn

[Peter Lemkin]

Let'se see the calculations. Note that bldg 7 collapsed... much like a CD and all the concrete likewise turned to dust. Th collapse of WTC 7 looked very different Lemkin yet produced the same amount and quality of dust. Why?

Because the dust was from the concrete which was ground up and crushed and the floors broke apart. When you have no stone aggregate, light weight concrete of that mass crashing down it DOES grind itself up and produced dust.

When you show the calcs we'll run it by some other physicists.

No one agrees with you and the calculations have already been done and I've posted them. You are only here, IMO, to stall things to bring 'question and doubt /cognitive dissonance' into the mix. Physicists and others have done the math and the calculations and you are wrong - there is not the energy unless there is an exrta input from some 'energetic' and we'll have to make that explosives and/or cutting charges. You're just playing the child's game of always saying 'no' last to whatever is said. I don't even get the gut feeling you believe in what you write - your just an obstructionist to the horrible alternatives to the official Big Lies of 911. NOTHING about the official version, other than the day, is true.

And wrong on the floor materials 'just turning to dust'.....the actual materials have been evaluated and calculated and not only that but all the glass, desks, phones, computers, chairs, carpets, ceiling tiles and supports....everything that makes up a building was pulverized into a pyroclastic [small particles, hot] cloud - only seen volcanoes and extensive explosive damage....not in collapsing buildings. It never happened before or since and only in your and those who hide the truth of 911 - that puts you in pretty bad company, IMHO.

[Albert Doyle]

Is it possible all the pulverized material in the Tower accumulated into the pile and became a burn-able mass? This would be like a furnace insulated on top, fed with materials in the middle, and vented with oxygen from the pavilion tunnels underneath. The fires burning in the Towers would serve as the 'hot coal" for this furnace.

[Peter Lemkin]

Is it possible all the pulverized material in the Tower accumulated into the pile and became a burn-able mass? This would be like a furnace insulated on top, fed with materials in the middle, and vented with oxygen from the pavilion tunnels underneath. The fires burning in the Towers would serve as the 'hot coal" for this furnace.

NO! [size=12]Do some homework. All tests have shown that there was almost NO combustible materials in the dust - what had been combustible had been consumed prior to / during the explosions and pyroclastic cloud formation. Second, there was little oxygen to feed any combustion and lots of water and special foams sprayed on by the fire department. The high temperatures and the continued temperatures for many months high enough to keep steel molten are nothing short of suspicious and the smoking gun. Your making up scenarios to fit a pre-determined outcome, rather than taking the evidence as it is and the science as it is. JO does much the same - all 911 Deniers do....they have to....the facts and evidence - even the laws of physics, chemistry and logic are not on their side.
[/SIZE]

[Lauren Johnson]

Here is a video that demonstrates sequential explosions and the witnesses to those explosions. Orling easily explains the explosions as the breaking support beams.



There are witnesses reporting being told that that the building would be brought down. You know, as in pulled.

[Albert Doyle]

NO! [size=12]Do some homework. All tests have shown that there was almost NO combustible materials in the dust - what had been combustible had been consumed prior to / during the explosions and pyroclastic cloud formation. Second, there was little oxygen to feed any combustion and lots of water and special foams sprayed on by the fire department. The high temperatures and the continued temperatures for many months high enough to keep steel molten are nothing short of suspicious and the smoking gun. Your making up scenarios to fit a pre-determined outcome, rather than taking the evidence as it is and the science as it is. JO does much the same - all 911 Deniers do....they have to....the facts and evidence - even the laws of physics, chemistry and logic are not on their side.
[/SIZE]

There's something that isn't right here. A volcanic pyroclastic flow is something that incinerates that which it covers. I saw plenty of firemen and other civilians who got pretty covered in dust but they weren't burnt. Sorry, Peter but I think you're getting slightly carried away here. You might be conflating the concept of concrete dust and shredded combustible materials. Also, I'm not entirely satisfied that you know the oxygen venting pattern from the underground pavilion tunnels under the WTC Plaza. Your information is suspect because I watched coverage of the pile and at no point was it covered in foam. Not even nearly. The water could enter the drainage pattern of the pile and be shunted away from the burning parts. Sorry, but I think you're exaggerating.

WTC 7 is more curious. I'd like the person who said "It will either fall on its own or be taken down" interrogated to hear where they got that from? There seems to be a matter of when the alleged WTC 7 charges were placed and how they knew the building would be damaged and catch fire?

Did you notice they put no time comparison on the loud boom witnessing? Maybe it was a transformer?

I've seen videos of thermite packs burning. It burns with a bright sparkler-like flame. And I would bet it makes a distinct smell too. Something I don't think would be missed by the fire-science trained witnesses focused on the Towers.

Also, did you notice the video makes a claim of captured explosive booms but then ends with an explanation of how thermite cutter charges were used. Well, which was it?

By the way, what was the explanation for the south Tower collapsing first out of sequence?