9/11 Third Tower Mystery 'Solved'?

BTW, when flyig KC-135s, which is the military version of a 707, 600 mph actual airseed was rare indeed, mach .087 was about tops unless almost empty of fuel and or cargo and then at higher altitudes, not sea level. Also if an aircraft is painted, top speed is reduced by anywhere of 20 to 30 knots.

The American Airline Corporation aircraft are normally a bit faster than most other airlines aircrft. Theirs are polished aluminum.

I got my info from Wakipedia and it also gave the Boeing 707 and 767 specs. Some models of each type were heavier and some were slighly faster, maximum fuel loads were near the same, I misread that figure.

I guess your argument is the buildings were designed to withstand a crash of a 707 and they were struck by 767s and a 707 has a higher top speed. So what? ___ The major differences is the larger size holes which would be made in the buildings and the far heavier weight, by about 70,000 pounds of the 767.

The buildings did withstand the aricraft strikes. So what is the argument all about in the first place? It was not the holes they made or the structural damage by their entry, it was the extremely hot fires which the designers obviously did not figure correctly, and neither did the NIST. Nor did the designers figure the amount of fire proofing of steel beams and trusses correctly. That fire proof insulation is five times thicker on the new building Seven BTW.

You ask what about aircraft coming in to land at an airport? When within anywhere from 100 to 200 miles of a selected airport, a gradual decent from altitude normally commenses and engine power and speed are reduced well below normal cruise speed. Commercial aircrft are restricted to speed when under command of takeoff and approach traffic controlers.

When within 100 miles of JFK or EWR in Newark for example, speeds are normally near the 250 to 300 mph range, depending upon the amount of flight traffic, which is normally quite high. The closer you get, the slower you go.

For example, coming in to JFK or EWR from the south, the A/C speed would be reduced to near 260 when passing over Philadelphia, which is about 100 miles to the south. I seriously doubt the building designers EVER considered a 707 flying at TOP speed at a low altitude near the WTC. They would most likely have figured takeoff and landing speeds of a 707. ___ At least that makes sense.

The fact that the aircraft were somewhere near the 500 to 550 mph speed shows that they figured correctly, the aircraft did not destroy the buildings by hitting and entering them.

Anyway I found it strange that you ever brough it up, for it really is a moot issue as the aircraft strikes did not destroy the buildings, fuel and aircraft fires and the buildings unusual designs caused the ultimate result.

KEM,

You mistake my argument, when you say"The entire debate here is your contention that the 707 would cause more damage because it has a higher TOP SPEED"

The crucial issue is the design of WTC towers to withstand a crash, and for the same speed, the 767 would calculate to higher energy release, 395/336 ≈ 18%, not that much more damage ( and the fuel load is insignificantly different, 2398/2300 ≈ 4% ).

I got my numbers from BOEING site that I provided links for -- exactly where did you get such different information ? The site I visited has the manuals for these planes.

You say that I "star[t]ed an argument which is really senseless. No one would figure how much damage an 707 airliner would cause flying at TOP SPEED"This odd, since the larger of the two estimated crash speeds, was in excess of the specified top speed for the 767.

You may have been able to reconstruct the WTC structural engineer's thinking, along the lines of nominal 707 jet speed near a city -- which would ignore a deliberate attempt at destruction maximizing the speed for higher energy release.

On the other hand, perhaps the design was based on a fog covered tower and a jet with failed navigation coming in from Europe ( over water ).

Either way, these number are moot,

as you've acknowledged that the collision energy was a secondary factor.

Although it is useful to understand these values, relative to the energies required to pulverize concrete floor, or structural collapse from gravitational potential energy of falling a floor or two. That is, if you were interested in the math and actual numbers.

I read Boeing specks that the 767 cruise speed is 567 knots and the latest model 707 with fan-jet equipped engines as 540 knots. So our figures do not agree do they. The speed the 767s were traveling when they struck the toweres was estimated not actual. The official reports I've read state they were traveling near 500 mph. They were going fast enough to enter the buildings, have fuel explosions and then burn for an hour.

The entire debate here is your contention that the 707 would cause more damage because it has a higher TOP SPEED which is just another detracting argument, becasue it could not attain top speed at sea level and top speeds were not available from the Boeing specks I asked for. It states the top speeds were comparable for the 707, 757 and 767, none were designed to break the sound barrier but would attain a bit above (mach eight) speeds.

I'd personaly much rather be hit by the 707 than the 767 if I were a high rise buileing, mainly becaue of the additional fuel load of the 767. The bulding's structures would very likely have easily withstood the strike of the aircraft at near 600 mph if fuel was not a factor. The aircraft strikes obviously did not cause the buildings to collapse, especially building seven.

You stared an argument which is really senseless. No one would figure how much damage an 707 airliner would cause flying at TOP SPEED, because no airliners ever fly anywhere near top speed, or even cruising speeds at low altitiudes or near any cities.

The fact is, the 767 is much larger, the fuselage is 4 feet wider, it has a longer wing span and is far heavier, (73,000 pounds) heavier. and carries much more fuel and would do more structural damage than a 707 for those reasons.

KEM,

I still don't understand the limitation of lower elevation, limiting the cruise speed, other than per safety or engine efficiencies with thicker air.

The South tower was hit at 60 mph higher than its specified top cruise speed of 530 mph, so it appear the craft can do more than the 500 mph that you mention.

You are correct that for the same speed the momentum would be significantly higher for the 767, but the math wasn't the issue, it was the speed to use in the math.

You are overtly critical for no reason, other than to apparently make me look worse. It didn't work.

I said above at 12:39 … heavier 767,
… the 707s have a higher top speed.Which is exactly true at 30,000 ft normal cruise.

Well that's kind of odd, because the links I provided at 12;46, are direct from Boeing. Like I suggested, you likely used the earlier prototype 707 data from '54 ( my link has data for both ).

Perhaps you failed to notice that the data I provided did have the 767 outweighing the 707 by ~ 30 tons?

Perhaps you failed to notice that the data I provided did have the 707 cruise faster than the 767 by ~ 67 mph?

Now days, kids that don't show their work don't get credit, as I know from my son's sometimes unexpected grades.

As far as your saying "Neither aircraft would be able to attain speeds of 600 mph at altitudes below 8,000 feet"

I record shows that the speed of impact of UA Flight 175 [ South tower ] was 590 mphThis is about 1% less than the speed you mentioned.

It seems there's more smoke than fire in your data, but since your didn't do any calculations, your math is OK.

I got the current data from Googling Boeing 700 series aircraft. The 767s out weigh the 707s by tons and are far larger, heavier and carry more fuel. If a fully loaded 707 struck the towers at the same speed as a fully loaded 767 it would do far less damage. Your math is flawed once again.

The top speed of either A/C is near the same and the cruising spped of a 767 is greater; so what? Neither aircraft would be able to attain speeds of 600 mph at altitudes below 8,000 feet so your arguments are senseless.

The buildings did not fall due to the aircraft initial strikes, that is quite obvious, so why ask why they didn't fall. They fell due to the fires and an hour or more of excessive heat. They were not designed to withstand the force and fires of a 767.

The link you just posted BTW is just another goofy article which is just more bullshit and could be written by anyone. It's like the supermarket papers. It says "LEAKED" information by the NIST, blah, blah, blah, bull. If that's where you gain your information, it is little wonder you are so messed up. I am really tired of arguing with you and you are not the person I thought you were. Go fool ~Sue~` or someone else. ___BYE-bye.

__ K E M __

Were you using the prototype 707 data from 1954 ?

NIST reports Unexplained "jet of flames" shot out of window before implosion of WTC-7

__ K E M __

Here's the numbers and links, max Energy release is within 10% of each other:

From BOEING & 911review(dot)org/Wget/www(dot)nerdcities(dot)com/guardian/wtc/wtc-demolition.htm

================= 767 ===============================
Boeing 767-200ER

Maximum Takeoff Weight________________395,000 lb
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 ft ________530 mph

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was __470 mph
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was _590 mph
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174 _____________ [ North tower ]
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174 _____________ [ South tower ]
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

================= 707 ===============================
Advanced 707-320B

Gross Weight__________________________336,000 lb
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 ft ________607 mph
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

No I'm not, toot toot. Your comments concerning the 707 and 767 aircraft are totally incorrect and lately you are prone to do that type of thing to show your superior engineerng knowledge and attempt to put others down.

the 767 max T/O weight is 315,000 pounds, versus 222,000 for the 707. Big difference.

The fuselage width of the 757 is 16 feet 6 inches versus 12 feeet 4 inches for the 707.

Max speed for either aircrft is listed as unknown but they are comparable and the cruise speed of the 767 is 58 knots HIGHER than the 707 in spite of a wider body.

So do tell us again how the 707 would do more damage to the buildings than the 767 when there is really no comparrison as to size, weight and fuel loads. The 767 would be far more deadly than the 707 striking the buildings. You should be thankful this thread is buried.

And what's this new theory about gassing the passengers? Let me out of here, I'm done.

Okay, you are totally correct as ususal. 707s are faster and heavier than 767s and I suppose you'll say they carry much more fuel? Really?

No one considered 707s striking any buildings at top speed. Give it up. The 767s are much larger, heavier and carry far more fuel than a 707 and their top speeds are near the same, neither is designed to break the sound barrier.

K E M,

_ â—Ž _ I Didn't mean to put any unsavory words into your mouth, sorry. I was only illustrating the degree of moral depravity, and proven ability to disregard public safety over politic agenda.

So it's a degree of planning and implementing the details that you don't believe that the loonitory executioner and dark dick are capable of ? That's probably why they had the MOSSAD do that part.

Bull headed or not, I have a fairly detailed logical and scientific reasoning, that so far has no holes that I've been able to find ( or others ). You forget to mention that the official "conspiracy theory" has more holes than my theory. And significantly, bu$h!t had means, motive, and opportunity.

You may recall, that my hardheadedness was building over a gradual awakening, and that I was open to Jake's debunking initially, so that must account for something, right ?

_ â—Ž _ BYW, I don't believe that remotely piloted planes were used necessarily, but it would guarantee a higher likelihood of mission success, to gas the passengers and run the 767's as UAVs into pre-determined locations in the towers.

_ â—Ž _ As far as what you say "super secret, undetectable explosives" The references I provided show that NANO-THERMITEs were exactly what I guessed was supper secret -- except it is only to public at large that the secret maintains -- as it's widely described in thousands of engineering publications, and has been available for ~ 8 years.

Doesn't it raise your hackles a bit to learn that the same people developing nano-thermites ( for the gov't ) were put into the NIST positions to investigate the building collapses, and feigned no knowledge of thermites or reason to investigate same ?

_ â—Ž _ As far as FAA, FBI, aircraft controllers, Secret Service, and military records and personal testimony, the released recordings are transparently contrived, where 3-6 independent records indicate the opposite of what the 911 commission set out to "prove" on the initial times contact was made.

This contrivance completely hides the military's ( planned ) lack of responsiveness on scrambling fighters, some of which instead of normal procedures were sitting on the deck at OTIS for 20 minutes awaiting approval to go -- and then they were not sent to NYC, but told to go into a holding pattern over water out past long island.

the placing ALL of the blames on FAA & aircraft controllers essentially being blatant IDIOTS, as if they never did anything right ever before, is ludicrous to me. I know that those professionals are well trained, and sincerely did everything pro=forma to save those people in NYC -- including many people as yourself that just tell the truth of what they saw.

The NORAD tapes are extremely twisted for each of the four airplanes, and even a simple trial would show this to be the case -- the gov't & 911 Commission clearly lied and published a white_"house"_wash fallacious report. Of course the fact that the corresponding tapes were conveniently lost for FAA towers, and OTIS field, and many other records were never release is very suspicious, if not damning, compared to live witnesses who report the events opposing the 911 report

_ â—Ž _ The best record available of the interplay of interwoven real expert witnesses that were independently & publicly reported ( including secretaries scheduling teleconferences, and actual gov't officials telling their experiences - before the 911 commission was even created ), is in Griffin's "debunking 911 debunking" book, which goes into the depths of deception used, for every minute of every tape record -- to prove that we has many aircraft available ( not just 2 ), and that the gov't stood down the fighters until it was too late

_ â—Ž _ So if you want to believe the steaming drek dished out by proven liars, murders, and thieves -- go right ahead -- and ignore the type of legal evidence of real investigations comparing the spurious govt tapes, with many many other still available pieces of independent information. But if you do, you loose any credence in accusing me of hardheadedness and lack of objectivity

_ â—Ž _ Actually 707s as designed for WTC towers, have greater momentum,

… than heavier 767, as the 707s have a higher top speed.

Collision energy goes up linearly for mass, but with the square power of velocity

_ â—Ž _ Yep it's comparing different things, The 707 would be a greater challenge for WTC towers to withstand, than 767s.

The actual point of discussion, was the ultimate ability of a 767 to tear into the WTC's steel structure --

AND _ S T I L _ PREVENT CATASTROPHIC FAILURE

… … … … … … … … … … … … … … …

Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man’s need but not for man’s greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King

BTW, I would not attempt to compare 707 airliners with 767 airliners striking high rise buildings. That is comparing apples and oranges also, especially when the 767 airliers were travelling at near 500 mph, which is more than twice the speed than normal for airliners flying at lower altitudes near cities.

You are putting words in my mouth and you know it. You are also talking apples and oranges when you attempt to compare 9-11 with the war in Iraq and you know that also. It is not that I believe they wouldn't do such a thing , it's that I don't believe they could plan and have what occurred on 9-11 accomplished. Your's and many others beliefs on the issue are fairy tales and some are outright idiotic.

You are just being bullheaded about it because you have made your mind up after reading theories written by bullshit artists and you won't back off and accept any sensible arguments. That gives me the option to question your common sense, in spite of your usually sounding like a very decent person. In fact you become angry and outright nasty when some others offer explinations other than your pre-set convictions on this subject.

I would not put anything past Bush or Cheney and or many others of that ilk. However, I don't accept that such a plan as you or others propose, that the WTC buildings were imploded, a rocket struck the Pentagon, the hi-jackings were all well planned, remote aircraft were used, super secret, undetectable explosives were secretly placed, etc, etc.

None of that is at all credible to me and that Bush and Cheney and company planned it all and perhaps a thousand or more, including top, mid and lower level personnel of the NY fire and police depts, the USAF, the FBI, aircraft controllers, etc, etc, were involved in the total plan, ____ It's bullshit. I do believe the official reports are horribly flawed and have said so from the get go.

Engineering trade-offs are always necessary to keep costs down, and to not polish the cannonball ( too much ), if one completes a design and doesn't immediately know several things to do better the next time, then one isn't working very thoroughly.

BTW, my mistake above for oscillations occurring in right half plane ( not left )

We have reached a point where there isn't much more to say, except that for me, any buildings like WTC 1/2 that are designed to maintain structural integrity with one or two 707 jet liners crashing into them, seems fairly well built. And because we saw the towers come down, in no manner proves that fire and gravity were the only causes of that, nor that the designs were in any manner faulty or insufficient.

I've also found construction photos that scrap the NIST theory of fragile truss' as steel I-beams were used in many places for floors -- where NIST errantly claims the less strong and less rigid truss structures are what caused the floor collapse from heat damage.

The main difference between our ways of thinking

… is that you still retain a strong a priori belief that out gov't could not have done such a dastardly thing to kill 3,ooo folks -- even though you likely do accept that the shrub_in_thief lied about Iraq to essentially murder 4,ooo of our own,

hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead millions running for their lives, and

bu$h!t told EPA to pronounce that NYC air was healthy, that no respirators were needed -- even though that the asbestos laden killer clouds of dusts were extremely serious danger ( it is now expected, over the next few decades, more will have died from that "safe" dust than the 3 building collapses ).

So even though our gov't is proven to condone & commit murder, lie, and not give a bu$h!t about anyone, you appear to not yet be able to broach the reality of that built-in assumption of America_the_good ( 'they couldn't do that to us' )?

If it's easier for you to believe in "bad" engineers scrimping of thick enough steel and fire-proofing, AS CONTRASTED to a "bad" set of gov't officials dedicated to warmongering profiteering -- than so be it.

Namaste « Presence »

Post number 291.

Yep Gertie was not the first engineering mistake, how about the Titanic, and the UN building where they forgot to figure in window washer's connnections. That goof-up caused the firm to go bankrupt and the head designer committed suicide.

WTC center buildlings were "under-designed" to save weight and initial cost. No other high rises have ever collapsed due to fires, but no other high rises were so designed either. The seven hour long fires in Seven had burned down considerably, however they had burned long enough to cause steel beams and trusses to weaken a great deal. ____ BAM!!! The disaster is a no "braner".

I'll have you know, that I high an exceedingly high fiber content"your bran is is washed out on this subject."

Probably one of the most impressive videos I ever saw, while a sophomore in HS - the Tacoma Narrows Bridge failure, from wind hitting upon a sympathetic vibration, with positive feedback ( aka too many poles - ∞'s - in the left hand plane ) causing increasingly larger and larger oscillation until inevitable collapse.

Galloping Gertie

Your comments don't count NAM, becaue your bran is is washed out on this subject.

After the buildings collapsed, fires continued in the basements which were all inter-connected by walkways and subway train tunnels, etc. There were thousands of cars prarked in underground garages, trains, buses etc at the WTC.

Tons of magenesium in those vehicles and vehicle wheels. Mag wheels were very popular in those years. Thousands of gallons of gasoline, also thousands of desks, file cabinets, aluminum and steel melted in the fires, it was like a cauldron down there for days, weeks.

BTW, aluminum and magnesium leave spectroanalysis traces almost identical to thermite. It is near impossible to tell the difference. ___ TOOT--TOOT.

Oh, and it wasn't just horn toots that brought down the walls of Jerico, it was thousands of men marching in step. That can bring down a suspension bridge also. Left, right, left, "sound off, one two, sound off, three four, bring it on down, one two three four, one two __ threefour." "I don know but I've been told__ Eskimo puss is mighty cold, sound off". Hup two three four, hup two three four.

K E M Was that TOOT'ing the same notes
that brought down the walls of JERICHO ?
The horn of the Jews makes more sense to me than anything else here, other than outright complicity in demolition.

Even 18 hr of highly intense fires haven't taken out steel framed buildings ( other than on 9 ! ! ), especially in a synchronized manner where all of the supporting steel gave way at exactly the same instant. I'm not buying the assertion that the new building by being better, proves that the old one was ready to fall down with a few wastepaper basket fires ( or even 10 alarm bright glowing red fires with all the window popped out ).

Fires always favor the areas that have more fuel, they thus move around -- they don't somehow communicate with each other and all pounce upon ALL of the pillars at the same instant in time -- and even if they tried, the buildings STRUCTURAL design was asymmetrical ( as you mentioned ), so a chaotic lopsided collapse is significantly more likely -- than an all at once dropping at free fall speed with no spine left in it.

So why did the penthouse give way just a wee bit earlier than everything else did, is that where the biggest fires were supposed to be burning, not around pillar 179 ?

Witnesses reported that the fires were almost out, when large flames shot out of windows just prior to WTC-7 collapsing.

BTW,
__ where's your the explanation for the vast pools of molten metal, in the basement of WTC-7 ?

And while were on that, exactly how did all of those floors catch of fire, and the stairwell that Barry was descending collapse at about floor 6 ( a so called explosion, at ~10 am ) ?

Way more questions than answers; we need to await a real independent investigation, as those NIST hacks cannot be trusted

It's good to know that buildings are now being designed more safely, but for some reason I though that they always were.

TOOT-TOOT-TOOT. Blowing my own horn again. Should any come back to this buried thread, keep this in mind also.

Bld. Seven was constructed over a large Con Edison relay station building. To accomplish that, they had to erect bridge like trusses, which were inter-connected to the rest of the building's main frame. It was not as good a design as the new bld. Seven is.

Huge fires burned in the building for seven hours and in spite of the structural beams being sprayed with fireproff foam, after seven hours of heat and no attepts to fight the fires due to a serious lack of water pressure and putting all efforts towards saving lives in the Twin Towers, the steel beams and trusses lost a great deal of strength and began to sag and bend and finally collapsed and the entire building then fell straight down.

In the new building Seven, those faults were modified and fire-proofing is now five times as thick for just one of the modifications.

Yes, indubitable sothe __ b u $ s h ! t __ continues,… and the clean up will take decades …

veracity,

I said from the very beginning that the only factors worthy of consideration when discussing PE were mass and height. Those are the only two variables in the equation, as you were the first to correctly state in your post as

E=mgh

Brian pipes in with "Energy = Force x Distance"

Which is correct but has what to do with PE?

Tell me once more how I am wrong and Brian is correct. I must be getting unintentionally obtuse in my old age.

"Hey look boss, we have thermite exposives sprayed on all of the floors, ceilings, walls, and the main support steel beams, when do we set it off?"

"Wait awhile, allow the aircraft fires time to burn down a little".

"I hope the detonators work boss, we never tested them on buildings this big".

"Hey Boss, do you see that big flying saucer up there, where the fuck did that come from?"

And the bullshit continues. ___Throw ya later.

veracity,

You are stating an obvious, but the work was performed and the system is now in a steady state. Who cares about work? An object at rest is performing no work.

The velocity of the towers prior to their falling was zero. If you multiply anything by zero then the product is zero. The PE of the towers prior to falling was not zero.

There is no velocity because the acceleration imparted by gravity is opposed by the structure. Once the opposition of the structure is released, the acceleration of gravity can impart velocity to the mass, PE goes down (as h decreases) and KE goes up (as a square of v).

N I S T __ N E S T __ OF __ N E O C O N s __ & __ A N T H T R A X __ T O O

'The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites' -- by Kevin Ryan

“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”
-- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

the MANDATED requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.

The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.

… … …

---[ # 1 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
NIST was working with __ L L N L __
to test and characterize these sol-gel nanothermites, at least as early as 1999 (Tillitson et al 1999).

---[ # 2 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
F o r m a n __ W i l l i a m s,
the lead engineer on NIST’s advisory committee, and the most prominent engineering expert for
_ P o p u l a r __ M e c h a n i c s _, is an expert on the deflagration of energetic materials and the “ignition of porous energetic materials”(Margolis and Williams 1996, Telengator et al 1998, Margolis and Williams 1999). Nano-thermites are porous energetic materials. Additionally, Williams’ research partner, Stephen Margolis, has presented at conferences where nano-energetics are the focus (Gordon 1999). Some of Williams’ other colleagues at the University of California San Diego, like David J. Benson, are also experts on nano-thermite materials (Choi et al 2005, Jordan et al 2007).

---[ # 3 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
S c i e n c e _ A p p l i c a t i o n s _ I n t e r n a t i o n a l (SAIC)
is the DOD and Homeland Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive links to nano-thermites, developing and judging nano-thermite research proposals for the military and other military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007). SAIC’s subsidiary Applied Ordnance Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with lasers (Howard et al 2005).

In an interesting coincidence, SAIC was the firm that investigated the
_ 1 9 9 3 __ WTC _bombing_, boasting that—“After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
our _b l a s t __ a n a l y s e s_ produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible (SAIC 2004).” And the coincidences with this company don’t stop there, as SAIC was responsible for evaluating the WTC for terrorism risks in 1986 as well (CRHC 2008).

SAIC is also linked to the late 1990s security upgrades at the WTC, the Rudy Giuliani administration, and the anthrax incidents after 9/11, through former employees Jerome Hauer and Steven Hatfill.

---[ # 4 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
A r d e n __ B e m e n t ,
the metallurgist and expert on fuels and materials who was nominated as director of NIST by President George W. Bush in October 2001, was former deputy secretary of defense, former director of DARPA’s office of materials science, and former executive at TRW.
Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders in the production and use of nanothermites (Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005). And military and aerospace contractor TRW has had a long collaboration with NASA laboratories in the development of energetic materials that are components of advanced propellants, like nano-gelled explosive materials (NASA 2001). TRW Aeronautics also made fireproof composites and high performance elastomer formulations, and worked with NASA to make energetic aerogels.

Additionally, Bement was a professor at Purdue and MIT. Purdue has a thriving program for nano-thermites (Son 2008). And interestingly, at MIT’s Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology, we find Martin Z. Bazant, son of notable “conspiracy debunker” Zdenek P. Bazant (MIT 2008), who does research on granular flows, and the electrochemical interactions of silicon. Zdenek P. Bazant is interested in nanocomposites as well (Northwestern 2008), and how they relate to naval warfare (ONR 2008). MIT was represented at nano-energetics conferences as early as 1998 (Gordon 1998).

Bement was also a director at both Battelle and the Lord Corporation. Battelle (where the anthrax was made) is an organization of “experts in fundamental technologies from the five National Laboratories we manage or co-manage for the US DOE.” Battelle advertises their specialization in nanocomposite coatings (Battelle 2008). The Lord Corporation also makes high-tech coatings for military applications (Lord 2008). In 1999, Lord Corp was working with the Army and NASA on “advanced polymer composites, advanced metals, and multifunctional materials” (Army 1999).

---[ # 5 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
H r a t c h __ S e m e r j i a n,
long-time director of NIST’s chemical division, was promoted to acting director of NIST in November 2004, and took over the WTC investigation until the completion of the report on the towers. Semerjian is closely linked to former NIST employee Michael Zachariah, perhaps the world’s most prominent expert on nano-thermites (Zachariah 2008). In fact, Semerjian and Zachariah co-authored ten papers that focus on nano-particles made of silica, ceramics and refractory particles. Zachariah was a major player in the Defense University Research Initiative on Nanotechnology (DURINT), a groundbreaking research effort for nano-thermites.

---[ # 6 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
NIST has a long-standing partnership with NASA for the development of new nano-thermites and other nano-technological materials. In fact, Michael Zachariah coordinates this partnership (CNMM 2008).

---[ # 7 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, two years before the NIST WTC report was issued, the University of Maryland College Park (UMCP) and NIST signed a memorandum of understanding to develop nano-technologies like nano-thermites (NIST 2003). Together, NIST and UMCP have done much work on nano-thermites (NM2 2008).

---[ # 8 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
NIST has their own Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST 2008). Additionally, NIST’s Reactive Flows Group did research on nanostructured materials and high temperature reactions in the mid-nineties (NRFG 1996).

---[ # 9 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
R i ch a r d __ G a n n ,
who did the final editing of the NIST WTC report, managed a project called “Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program”, both before and after 9/11. Andrzej Miziolek, another of the world’s leading experts on nano-thermites (Amptiac 2002), is the author of “Defense Applications of Nanomaterials”, and also worked on Richard Gann’s fire suppression project (Gann 2002). Gann’s project was sponsored by DOD’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), an organization that sponsored a number of LLNL’s nano-thermite projects (Simpson 2002, Gash et al 2003).

---[ # 10 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, NIST partners with the
_ N a v a l __ S u r f a c e _ W a r f a r e __ Center at Indian Head (NSWC-IH) on Chemical Science and Technology (FLCTT 2008). NSWC-IH is probably the most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology (NSWC 2008). In 1999, Jan Puszynski, a scientist working for the DURINT program, helped NSWC-IH design a pilot plant to produce nano-size aluminum powder. It was reported that “At that time, this was [the] only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States” (SDSMT 2001), however, private companies like Argonide and Technanogy were also known to have such capabilities. Among an interesting group of contractors that NSWC-IH hired in 1999 were SAIC, Applied Ordnance, Battelle, Booz Allen Hamilton, Mantech, Titan, Pacific Scientific Energetic (see below), and R Stresau Laboratories for “demolition materials” (NSWC 2000).

A tragic coincidence left William Caswell, an employee of NSWC-IH, dead on Flight 77 when it hit the Pentagon. He had for many years worked on “deepblack” projects at NSWC-IH (Leaf 2007).

With this in mind, it is worthwhile to reiterate that nano-thermite materials were very likely used in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings, but most certainly played only a part in the plan. However, other high-tech explosives were available to those who had access to nano-thermite materials at the time. Like SDI, several other organizations with links to military, space and intelligence programs (e.g. In-Q-Tel, Orbital Science) have access to many types of high-tech explosives to cut high-strength bolts and produce pyrotechnic events. These organizations also have connections to those who could have accessed the buildings, like WTC tenant Marsh & McLennan and former NASA administrator and Securacom director, James Abrahamson. In any case, it is important for those seeking the truth about 9/11 to consider what organizations and people had access to the technologies that were used to accomplish the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It is also important to recognize the links between those who had access to the technologies, those who had access to the buildings, and those who produced the clearly false official reports. To that end we should note that NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites, both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long afterward at Ground Zero. This fact would not be inexplicable, of course, if those managing the NIST investigation knew to not look, or test, for such materials.
================= E N D == O F == T O P == T E N ===================

Here's a few other connections I found looking into NIST org chart:

---[ # 11 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
S h y a m S u n d e r
Who is a likely neoCON, how does he get appointed ( with no relevant scientific nor technical experience ) to running the { very crucial for _9_!_!_ investigation } -- "Building and Fire Research Laboratory at NIST? Check out his literally $terling reference$ ( for being a neo CON )

---[ # 12 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
R o b e r t __ C e l o t t a -
Director for NIST's Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology Staff -- was the technical contact for '97 NIST Nanostructure Science Colloquium Series (May 14, 1997), where the lead presenter was Marvin Cohen (Department of Physics, University of California - Berkeley ), which administers LLNL adn hjas extremely close ( even nano-tight ) relations ( use of laboratory facilities, and research funding ).

---[ # 13 # ] ------------------------------------------------------
L l o y d __ W h i t m a n
Deputy Director for NIST's Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology Staff -- previously worked on nano tech ( likely for NAVY's UWD SEALS ) Naval Research Laboratory. At NRL, Dr. Whitman was most recently the Head of the Surface Nanoscience and Sensor Technology Section, a multidisciplinary research group working at the nexus of nanoscience, biotechnology, and microsystems. ( to make the NAVY a more effective killing machine )

I should have written the buildings floors were primarily attached to the central core of the buildngs. Indeed they were connected ot the outer walls but not LOAD BEARING suports there. The main load bearing of the floors was all at the central core and that design was changed for the new building Severn.

You don't think the central core acted as a chimney? . There was a lot more to the central core than elevator shafts. If you peek once more at the videos, you may notice the smoke from the massive fires poured out of the top of the towers. The core acted like a huge chimney.

The fires in building Seven on the other hand were not concentrated in the building core area and the smoke poured out of windows which were blown out by the heat from the fires.

Another thing to consider when arguing how hot the fires were in the towers, people lept to their deaths from floors far above the floors where the aircraft were burning. It was just too hot above the fires to be able to cope.

K E N D P O T T E R,

You made an common error when you replied to _ B R I A N _ stating:

"Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Potential energy entails no velocity"

Brian is completely correct and accurate when he states that the GENERAL equation for calculating WORK is the integral of the vector DOT product of force (F) and displacement (X) vectors:
Work(scalar) = ∫ F^(vector) • X^(vector) = Energy/time,

Because F^(vector) = m*a^(vector) = mg for gravity, it is the vertical component of gravity's force that only applies, the simple scalar height above ground determines the potential energy stored, regardless of how many floor rides up and down, that brick took to eventually arrive at the roof. The more general equation is thereby integrated to result in the equation you provided:
E = m*g*h

It's that integrated vertical component of the velocity vector that provides the height, relevant for PE calculations.

Namaste « Presence »

* * * * * * * * * * T H E R M A L __ M A S S * * * * * * * * * *

Perhaps the thermal mass or "heat sink" aspect of the massive steel infrastructure has been poorly described for you.

It's like trying to braze a 1" copper water pipe, that still has some residual water in it, if you've ever worked on your house's water pipes. It's basically impossible to have the torch's extremely focused heat, to heat up a small area for brazing ( silver soldering ) -- until the water is boiled away, and that main pipe becomes dry. Even then the heat conductivity of copper makes it a real challenge to make a solid and clean connection -- as I repeatedly had to learn. Having a buddy and another torch, and perhaps putting in a union, would be by suggestion for the next dude trying this.

Essentially all 100+ floors of WTC towers' steel structure were each humongous heat sinks, and were starting at a nominal room temperature prior to the plane collisions.

The detailed equations for heat dissipation are quite similar to those for electrical resistance, as the resistance to heat flowing, and it's eventual conduction to a cooler area. If you've ever replaced a CPU chip in a PC, they use a special heat conducting paste ( usually white ) to maximize the passage of heat across that initial metal-to-metal gap, and if you fail to use this, your chip and warranty are also soon to fail.

The reason I mention the heat sink compound is that the initial radiation or conduction of heat, is significantly dependent on a very tight mechanical as well as filling the interstitial irregularities with the "good" goop -- this is key to creating a very low thermal resistance.

Having a bunch of aircraft debris pilling into some fire-proof coated, and dry-wall covered core columns, is going to limit the majority of the actual aircraft heat being mechanically conducted efficiently, or quickly. In addition, most of that heat would be "wicked away" by hundreds of tons on interconnected steel lattice ( remember it was BOTH welded and bolted ).

Of course the crash's momentum would tear through the floors and walls and fire-proofing, but in a hodgepodge of irregular and random places, while the fires themselves would burn chaotically, and episodically too, moving around for more fuel.

You mention a _ c h i m n e y __ e f f e c t _, but those elevators were very carefully designed to exclude that from ever occurring -- using hermetic blocking between various floor levels. So even if the heat of the fire had gotten into the elevator shafts, how do you expect that ( heat alone ) to punch a whole in the roof, to begin the venting process, to create the convection updraft force ? I sincerely doubt that there is going to be much convection current possible, unless there are holes at both the top and bottom of the shaft -- and that's exactly why the fire-proofing designs work so well.

I'm sorry if this exchange is tiring you out, but I suspect your unconscious mind is trying to get a message to your conscious one.

GLOOP GLOOP
FIZ FIZ,
oh what a
HEAT relief
it IZ

Looks like I missed this from you"The only heavy concrete floor’s attachments were at the building's central core"

The floor's trust system was bridged between the central core system of pillars -- and the external peripheral wall's cross-linked pillars.

It was not some "umbrella" design only being held to the core.

Namaste « Presence »

Brian Brademeyer

"To paraphrase SNL: kendpotter you ignorant slut:"

Brian, you can insult me all you want. However the formula for (P)otential (E)nergy, is now, has been and always will be:

PE = mgh
where
PE = Energy (in Joules)
m = mass (in kilograms)
g = gravitational acceleration of the earth (9.8 m/sec2)
h = height above earth’s surface (in meters)

The only variables you can play with are mass and height, assuming you are on Earth and stay there. It doesn't matter how much you wish it to be otherwise, it is not. It doesn't matter how nasty you get, the formula listed above will still be in every freshman's textbook.

I will explain like I would to a freshman. Suppose you take a given mass (mass as in the formula because unlike weight it is independent of the variable g) at a height (height, not distance - height is a very specific vector of distance in that you determine the vector by drawing a line from your point of origin throught the center of the Earth) of 1000 feet above mean sea-level and fly it around the Earth 1000 times. If you have no change in height, you have not changed the PE of the mass one nanojoule. You have expended significant energy, traveled a great distance and not changed PE in the slightest. It doesn't matter if you are in Tahiti or Timbuktu - If the mass has remained at 1000 feet above mean sea-level, PE has remained constant. Nothing you can do about it. Cry all you want.

Feel free to insult me again. Weight will remain a gravity-dependent measure. Distance, other than in the one specific vector (h), will remain irrelevant. Nothing you can do or say will change that. Call me a shill and that does not bother me. Call me an ignorant slut again and I will smile because you and I, and everybody else reading this will know the truth.

Press Conference with Sen. Mike Gravel
Foley Square, corner of Centre & Duane Streets across from U.S. Courthouse
Take trains to City Hall or Chambers Steet
Thursday, July 10th, 2008 --- 12 noon

Contact:
Les Jamieson
718.492.2192, 917.658.0132

Speakers: Former Sen. Mike Gravel, 9/11 family member Bob McIlvaine, Tony-award winning actress Christine Ebersole, investigative reporter Wayne Madsen, first responder John Feal

Support Grows for NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative

(New York, NY, June 13, 2009) --- On Thursday, July 10th at 12 noon, at Foley Square in New York City, former Senator Mike Gravel, speaking on behalf of the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign, will call for a new and far reaching investigation of the crimes of 9/11. Advocating for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission, Gravel states, “We’re trying to change the paradigm of human democracy, of human governance, and that's what this [NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative] is all about, changing the paradigm of human governance right here in New York City by asserting that you saw something wrong that took place, and you want to address it through using the tool of the Initiative, the legislative power of citizenry to go after that fundamental change.”

Accompanying Sen. Gravel will be 9/11 family member Bob McIlvaine who lost his son in the south tower, Tony-award winning actress Christine Ebersole, first responder John Feal, and former NSA analyst turned investigative reporter Wayne Madsen. Mr. Madsen, has recently voiced his support, stating many current and retired intelligence professionals as well as members of foreign intelligence agencies would testify what they know about 9/11 in the venue provided by this new investigation.

This campaign comes in the wake of several developments which underscore the need for a truly independent, thorough, fact-driven investigation into the events of 9/11. Consider the recent book by NY Times veteran reporter Philip Shenon titled “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation”, the book by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton titled “Unprecedented”, and Articles of Impeachment nos. 33-35 by Dennis Kucinich which list hard evidence showing dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance by the Bush administration. Consider the revelation of the destruction in 2004 of CIA tape recordings of suspects in Guantanamo Bay which were requested by the 9/11 Commission. The list goes on and on…

However, Congress nor any other government body aren’t likely to take action. But through the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative the voters of NY City can create the conditions that would lead to the investigation which as many as 84 million Americans, according to a CBS/NY Times poll, needs to occur to review the mountain of information which was never addressed by the government’s own investigation.

Nearly 20,000 NYC voters have already signed the petition to create this public referendum. Many 9/11 family members, first responders, and peace organizations also support this campaign.

Please join with us at this press conference which will focus on this unprecedented, historic campaign, the NYC 9/11 Ballot. Visit www.nyc911initiative.org for further details

Thank you._____ That was funny.

Somethng funny please.

HI ~KEN~ I didn't believe you were starting a fight with me over the Atomc bomb issue. I enjoy fair and fun debates without the name calling or insults. Of course I almost always respond with vulgarity when someone insults me or my intelligence.

I will freely admit, that sometimes I go a bit too far in that respect and allow my temper to flare. A regular Dutch/ Irish/ Frenchman blood line and according to Winston Churchill's Nobel Prize winning book, "The Island Race", we Europeans offspring all have some Italian blood in us. So I do apologize to any rude pricks I have called lousy names here.

Try Googling Japan's atomic bomb program ~KEN~ and I do believe you will find it is quite interesting. If you do disagree after reaing those reports, please let me know why you disagree, because I often respect your opinions.

It was also finally published in Japan's largest newspaper in 2007 and I don't believe any were attempting to re-write history. That is a very prestigeous newspaper and they really didn't wish to report the facts of what their government was doing in regards to atomic weapons, especially after all of their severe criticism of what we did to them in that regard, but they finally did report it.

The Japanese top nuclear wizards were well aquainted with Albert Einstein and he stated the men were as good as they come. There is very strong evidence they indeed did test a nuclear bomb and also were prepared to use "dirty" atomic bombs and bacterial weapons on any potential landing forces. They had used biological weapons against the Koreans and the Chinese.

On the German U-234 articles, one states exactly what you wrote here and several others state otherwise, so I'm not sure which are totally correct. The point I was making is, the Germans shipped several tons of uranium to Japan over a period of three years and when Truman became aware of that, he was more than concerned. I don't blame him.

There were also both rocket and jet engine powered aircraft in that cargo and technical books for those. We had already lost somewhere near twenty five naval ships to the rocket powered BACA bombers at Okinawa alone. We could not track them very well in order to shoot them down. As it turned out, Japan had 3,000 of those, well hidden and fully prepared for our potential invasion of their home islands. It would have been a bad day for us if we did attempt to invade Japan.

Wow, way off the subject but this thread is already buried in the cellar. ___ ~NAMASTE~ I cannot discuss math with you. Allow me tosay this and perhaps give it some serious thought without overdoing it.

First, the fires in the towers had to be far hotter than the NIST has ever stated. For one thing, molten metal was observed oozing from the openings of the buildings where the aircraft entered.

Those extremely hot fires were within the central core of the buildings on at least one floor. There is no way those aircraft fuselages did not penetrate the interior walls of the buildings and smash up into the central cores steel beams and the elevator areas, which prevented the aircraft fuselages from travelling all the way through and out the other side, ___ that's just common sense.

Now I never claimed any steel beams were melted, I say the temp of a burning 767 aircraft is hot enough to melt steel. I believe SOME steel beams probably did melt, but I cannot prove that, no one can now. We can safely reason that many main building support beams were heated enough to warp, and as Dr. Ecgar states, the beams at the location of the fires would have lost 80% of their strength. Many must have warped out of shape to cause the building top to tilt and also "twist", as it certainly did.

Now as a layman, picture how those buildings were designed to stand for hundreds of years. The only heavy concrete floor's attachments were at the buildng's central core. The central core warped way out of shope and twisted and tilted several feet. The floor's attachments above the point of the twisting and bending would surely have been ripped out of the support beams.

The buildings were NOT DESIGNED to twist and bend several feet like they did, they were desingned to sway several feet in windy conditions, as are all high rise buildings. What happened that day was not a normal swaying, they tilted and twisted and the floor's supports werealos weakened from excess heat, which had been blasting up the cental core like a large chimney. They ripped out of the maion beams.

You say that cannot be proven. I say it makes co sense and you cannot prove explosives were the cause of the collapse. And I've heard that story abou the explosive sniffer dogs being retired the day prior ot 9-11.

Uh huh. Well, if your assumption is correect that explosives that could not be detected by dogs were used, why would the dogs have been pulled? Now I watched the continual newscasts for weeks after 9-11 and there were teams of explosive sniffing dogs there from several other states. No evidence of explosives were ever found by dogs or well trained people.

And I find that your repy to me about how the explosives were set off, after they had figured the math of when the well planned aircraft strikes would arrive, etc, is very funny. Thank you for the humor there.

I also have the same opinion that ~Kendpotter~ has about a thousand or more people not ever speaking out about the evil master plan. Yes, the Manhatten Project was kept secret. Well, not from the Russians, but generally it was kept secret. But if the Manhatten Project had been set up to use atomic weapons on Americans and American cities, the secret would have been compromised by many___ right from the get-go. The theory that the WTC building were imploded, is just as screwy as the crazy story of a rocket hitting the Pentagon.

As for Building Seven collapsing? I contend it was the building design features, NONE others like them. There were MASSIVE fires in that building, in spite of what some contend. Those fires were not as hot as the those in the towers were, but they raged for several hours in building Seven and the main beams and support brackets were weakened from excess heat and finally the foors began to fall, just as they did in the two towers. It was fire and the unusual design of the buldings, not exposives.

No higher math formulas are reqiired to have common sense. Even un-educated hicks can have common sense and they often do. Sometimes they spel wurds wrong, ___ I are done. ___ Blast away, and write somethng funny please.

A L L,

I had intuited the fabrication of NANO-THERMITE
, and now there's extensive supporting evidence of EXPLOSIVE ( not merely incendiary ) reactions, just as I predicted.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

K E M,

this same article has a

lot about _ D U _ as well ( in the 2nd half )

Namaste « Presence »

As far as bricks BE'ing "at rest", are you referring to ( a.) a local theoretical quasi-"inertial" reference system, or

( b.) the one the surface of Earth, with both rotational and revolutionary velocities around it's axis and the sun, respectively, or

( c.) one superimposing item ( b.) along with proper rotation of solar system around center of milky way galaxy, or

( d.) one superimposing item ( c.) along with proper rotation about Andromeda, or

( e.) one superimposing item ( d.) along with proper motion toward Vega super cluster , or

( f.) one superimposing item ( e.) along with proper motion the "great attractor", or … … …
I guess it all depends on where you see yourself as being at "home", where thing really slow down … relatively of course.

To paraphrase SNL: kendpotter you ignorant slut:

You should just admit your previous error and either plead sloppiness or confusion. You just keep digging yourself deeper, rather than displaying any intellectual honesty or integrity.

You first stated, and repeated, that PE = mass X Height,
which disagrees with your "freshman moron physics" relation: PE = mgh.

Certainly both of your previous posts cannot be true.

Now you claim:

"I ignored the constant ‘g’ because it is a constant (at least in the Earth’s gravity well), and because it is not relevant in all instances of potential energy."

But you claim to be talking about the WTC towers, so just what potential energy are you talking about other than *gravitational" potential energy? Electric potential energy?? Elastic potential energy?? Pyramid energy?? The above rationale is a total lie, and an obvious one.

Then, you again mistakenly claim: "The two variables are mass X height." Wrong! It is WEIGHT (force) times height (distance). There is absolutely no reason to "cancel" a constant term from the potential energy calculation, especially not gravitational acceleration when computing the gravitational potential energy.

As was noted by another poster, you're a "sidler" and IMO a shill, who won't acknowledge even obvious errors and lack of understanding of basic physical principles.

K E N D P O T T E R

OK, so I mistyped a K for a P --
sling a rope over a tree.

My previous ¶ clearly provide the correct context, nonetheless, thanks for pointing out my TYPO

( and BTW, the units and use of constants do matter, to balance the equation's other units )

Namaste,

"Indubitably, that brick on the 100th floor had lots of KE at the top, and somehow it has much less on the ground floor, so it must have occurred during the dismantling & movement process"

Actually, the brick has no KE at rest. Until it started moving all the energy it possessed was in the form of PE. As the brick started into motion, it would exchange its PE for KE until it hit the bottom and h becomes = to 0. It reaches its maximum KE right before it hits ground or reaches terminal velocity.

Jesus Christ,

Excuse me, I mean Brian, what is wrong with you

PE = mgh (I posted this simple formula above already)

where
PE = Energy (in Joules)
m = mass (in kilograms)
g = gravitational acceleration of the earth (9.8 m/sec2)
h = height above earth’s surface (in meters)

I ignored the constant 'g' because it is a constant (at least in the Earth's gravity well), and because it is not relevant in all instances of potential energy. The two variables are mass X height. Of course it doesn't have to be released as KE but I assumed we were talking about the twin towers here. WTF is the matter with you?

Brian...I'll check Amazon or what I call "the poor man's Amazon...the library for Feynman..thanks.

The "official theory" certainly is sui generis", as never in the history of steel girdered buildings has a fire caused ANY to collapse...even when they burned many, many more hours. Of course, Silverstein wasn't there to say "pull them".

They pulled something OK..and it wasn't just WTC 7!

willybill,

Your "layman's theory" also has the added benefit of precedence, in that the scenario you describe has actually occurred before, whereas the "official theory" is sui generis.

I suggest Feynman for your Phillipines trip.

H O O K S __ L A W,

Is used to describe the forces acting on a mass ( m ) by a spring ( mounted to a wall ) of near constant counter force proportional to displacement ( linear operation ), which for simplicity the mass slides upon a frictionless surface

F = - k x D

When you pull the spring toward oneself a distance " D ", the force is directed the opposite way ( 180 degree )

I wont bore you with the details of conservation of energy, as _BRIAN_ has already done a great job describing the equations, although not too rigorously.

Lets me say that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. Entropy will always win out ( eventually ), so friction and splinters happen, and the universe slowing cools down.

It does get down to lots of details, but all of the stored potential energy has to be released through a very slow kinetic energy ( elevator & wheel barrow speed ). Work is energy over time ( J/s ) and is defined as the integral of the "dot (vector) product" of force ( direction ) and incremental distance ( over the overall distance - or path - traveled )

Indubitably, that brick on the 100th floor had lots of KE at the top, and somehow it has much less on the ground floor, so it must have occurred during the dismantling & movement process

Namaste « Presence »

Hmmmm...Interesting..there's that "obtuse" word again....hmmmm...

Anyway..Allow a layman to add his two cents worth.

Someone (I believe "kenpatrick/potter" mentioned applying Occams razor. Which if I remember and may paraphrase a bit, is simply looking for the simplest solution. Here we are, applying all sorts of metalurgy, physics/mathematics to come up with a solution as to WHY these towers were brought down by two terrorist piloted aircraft.

Seems to me THE SIMPLEST solution is to say they were blown the hell up by controlled demolition. In which case, all the physics, mathematics and metalurgy was left to the perpetrators and not to some
theory of how two planes and a resulting fire could bring down two of the largest and most well constructed buildings in existence.

But, what the hell do I know..I'm just a layman.

Sure do appreciate all these physics lessons, though. It's made me decide to pick up a physics book to read on my upcoming trip to the Philippines.

Kendpotter:

Potential energy = Force x Distance. Where do you see a velocity???

The gravitational potential energy of the building components was achieved by workmen *lifting* them through a distance up to their final placement position. How fast they lifted them is not relevant, only the *distance* that they were lifted.

Same for moving a charged particle a *distance* through an electrical force creates its electric potential energy. Same for moving a mass a *distance* through a gravitational force gives its its gravitational potential energy. Same as moving an arrow a given distance against the spring tension of the bow gives the bow its potential energy.

Potential energy *requires* moving a force through a distance. How fast it is moved is not relevant to the gain in potential energy.

And by the way, releasing potential energy does not require gaining kinetic energy. The workers could dismantle a building and bring its components down piece by piece, relieving their potential energy without any kinetic energy being involved.

You started this with your asinine statement that:

[kendpotter July 8th, 2008 3:20 pm]
"If we are going to pick nits, I was correct - Potential energy = mass X Height."

You still haven't admitted to the above colossal mistake. Everything you've said since that error has only compounded it.

"Brian Brademeyer July 8th, 2008 4:15 pm
Kendpotter:

I told you: Energy = Force x Distance"

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Potential energy entails no velocity. It is not Kinetic energy. Just precisely how much distance had the Twin Towers moved prior to their falling down (position of greatest potential energy)? Kinetic energy involves the release of potential energy. How much energy is involved when a bow string travels no distance?

Kendpotter:

I told you: Energy = Force x Distance

For your bow case, it is spring tension (force) times drawback (distance). For gravitational potential energy, it is weight (force) times height (distance).

Potential energy is not any different kettle of fish; in fact, definition of potential energy is the integral of force over distance.

Perhaps you just mistook mass for weight, as is easy to do in english units.

Brian,

Would you at least figure out what the discussion is about before wading in and insulting me? Potential energy is a completely separate kettle of fish.

I am perfectly willing to insult you back if you want to keep it up.

Veracity, Brian,

I have only one question to ask you - If gravity is a necessary component to potential energy,

(freshman moron physics expression)
PE = mgh

where
PE = Energy (in Joules)
m = mass (in kilograms)
g = gravitational acceleration of the earth (9.8 m/sec2)
h = height above earth's surface (in meters)

then what does a drawn bow and bowstring do? Are you trying to say because the potential energy involved is stored in a piece of wood rather than a mass at a height that it doesn't exist? Yes I simplified things but only to show that potential energy does not involve movement as someone who shall remain nameless stated earlier.

Hi KEM,

I am not trying to pick a fight here. But unless the Axis possessed some technology that we have yet to rediscover, they never had any more highly-enriched (weapons grade)uranium (HEU) than a few milligrams. They simply lacked the massive infrastructure necessary. K-25 is a U-shaped building which when unfolded is a mile long. The barriers themselves are marvels of science. Imagine making a membrane with holes in it that are so precisely sized that a U-235 atom can pass through, but not a U-238 atom. One other little thing - The uranium hexaflouride gas is so corrosive that there was only one substance that could seal the units, polytetrafluoroethylene, commonly known as Teflon. Teflon was a product of Dupont and was unknown outside the Manhattan Project.

The other enrichment effort (dumped because it was not as efficient as gaseous diffusion) employed at Y-12 depended on massive amounts of electricity to power the calutrons. Likely more than was consumed by the entire city of Tokyo if not the entire island of Honshu. The calutrons required so much metal for the windings that 15,000 tons of silver bullion was taken from the Treasury to help make them.

Even between these two projects, as massive in scale as they were, we still only produced a few pounds of HEU -Enough for only one bomb.

Since there is no postwar footprint of such massive size anywhere in Japan or Germany, and they lacked the fundamental resources (the concrete poured at just the Oak Ridge site, was equal to Germany's entire yearly production) to make such a huge investment, I must conclude that someone is trying to rewrite history.

There probably is decent money in it, but they won't get any of mine.

K E M,

Asks me "how many tons of explosives would be required to do that"

[ ※ ] The approximate amount isn't really relevant to HOW this was likely done, although pragmatically I acknowledge that 100 fold size increase would likely entail different approaches to materials movement. Let's just assume that whatever materials were used were deployed as windows of opportunity opened up, so the thermate ( which contains _n o n e_ of nominal explosives' high nitrogen content -- I suspect is exceedingly difficult for dogs to distinguish ).

I suspect that some "real" high nitrogen content explosives were used, and were installed right after they canceled the bomb smelling dogs on the day before _9 ! !_. Practically, if I were planning this project, I would have already installed the wiring and radio/optic coordinating infrastructure -- and have tested it out w/o connection to real explosives.

Do you or anyone here know if "bomb sniffing" dogs are trained to react to Al-, Fe-, and Mg-powders ( the raw materials for thermite )?

Asks me "how did they manage to plan it so the building would fall straight down aan hour or so after being struck by huge airliners?"

[ ※ ] By having the bigger plan in mind, knowing when the planes should arrive +/- some errors in navigation/speed/etc …
knowing or watching when the plane's fire's were self-extinguishing, as a possible trigger event
using pre-installed redundant explosives and wiring connections to 'work-around' any possible aircraft damage sites, as the locations would be difficult to predict accurately ( similarly the roll, pitch, and even yaw of the final flight vectors with respect to central core columns "target"

[ ※ ] Straight down is only possible when the cascading weight coming down from above, is literally always in free fall, and only hits the dusty clouds of the synchronized demolition of the floors below ( somewhat hidden by the PURPOSELY overlapping mushrooming clouds above )

[ ※ ] Timed sequences to demolish massive sky lobby floor structural integrity, was likely VERY critical, in that starting those cutting beams couldn't occur too soon -- or the bottom portion would start to drop faster and before that of the onrushing collapsing upper portion -- in fact this is seen on the videos, the non-causal advancing expects of explosive demolition BEFORE the hazy crush zone reached those points at faster to or equal to acceleration of gravity.

Asks me "And again, no explosive residue and no matter what type of explosive was supposedly utilized, the dogs would have detected it. __ Come'on."

[ ※ ] SHow me the dogs training procedures that include the thermite materials, and I'll back down.

Explain why rescue dogs are cross-trained to detect more than human remains as well, as I somehow doubt that would be effective as locating explosives ( that no-one suspected or were therefore looking for )

And even if they did react to explosives, whose to say what procedures or FEDERALLY mandated protocols were detailed in advance to pass that next step of isolating what they reacted to, to those already in on the job ?

KEM Comments "The building’s central core beams were serioulsy warped out of shape by excess heat."

[ ※ ] That is derived information, as yet very difficult to prove.

Consider a simple yard stick to represent the lattice of central core beams ( AS IF one thing ), and that the two building had different floor locations where their respective planes hit, and the thermal damage was concentrated Even stipulating the extreme temperatures you suggest,

they could only occur along a certain proportion of that 'yard stick' and

couldn't have totally encircled ~ 40x40x40x40 periphery of the core structure --

so the heating had to be asymmetric
Further, the assumption that all of the top floors cut loose ( every bolt and weld inner and outer ) and fell inside hidden from view, mandates that the fires evaporated all of the central column above or somehow severed all of those interconnections, while that also simultaneously occurred on the periphery walls cutting loose ( but still appearing to be whole )

KEM Comments "the top portion of the building tilted several feet before it fell."

[ ※ ] Yes, and that ~ 23 degree TILT is direct information, that conservation of momentum arguments ( on long 911 thread ) prove that that upper portion would have kept tilting -- unless some-other UNKNOWN force ( like demolition ) acted upon those floors ALL together, to convert that rotational energy of a large object to many smaller objects ( dust & debris ) spinning without form. Remember how I went into describing the physics of the ice skater arms and speed movements changing, to prove this ?

KEM Comments "That severe tilt caused the top ten floors to fall as their support brackets were ripped out."

[ ※ ] Simple to say, but hard to prove. Those supports were cross-linked and 360 degrees around the towers. The design is created to distribute unequal forces throughout the 3-d lattice, and although total structurally failure CAN occur with enough force, the force of this instances fire & gravity alone just isn't enough, by a long shot

KEM Comments "They fell and as each succesive floor fell the concrete floors exploded becaue of the weight and forces delivered and were mostly pulverized to dust."

[ ※ ] Again simple to say, but hard to prove. Those floors would just stack up like donuts on a stick, as pother similar pancaking ( Turkey quake's apartment building ). There isn't enough energy to move, deform undamaged floors, cause cascading collapse -- and crush to dust.

KEM Comments "It was not explosives, it was a poorly designed, "

[ ※ ] Of course building designs improve, but as with most buildings, the WTC towers were carefully OVER-designed to last for perhaps a century, and anyone who argues that they were just ready to fall down, has no understanding of the dynamics of ( for decades safely ) balancing gravity loads, live loads ( like wind and people )

Namaste « Presence »

Kendpotter:

Energy = Force x Distance (as *veracity* told you), NOT Mass x Distance.

You sir, should remain silent rather than, by speaking, prove your ignorance beyond any possible doubt.

K E N D P O T T E R,

kinetic energy = 1/2 m * v2

Energy UNITS kg-m/s2

¿ Did you go to the _J_O_K_E___N e w t o n _ school for remedial physics ?

¿ Have you ever done dimensional analysis to discover that the units on one side of the equation do not match those on the other ?

Do you want us to believe that energy = mass X Height

Energy UNITS are kg-m ?????

Ya might also have heard of Einstein's E = mc2, as my proof

As far as remorse, and mass hysterical murder ( & secrets ), have yo