Windows Breaking From Heat

[TjW]

And while we're looking at your picture above, can someone please give me an answer to this:

Where does the energy come from to move those tons of debris sideways 300+ feet, when that material must have come from the top of the tower which was only falling at about 20-30 mph? It first got pulverized, then it bounced off something with enough force to move it 300 feet sideways, is that right?

Let me see if I have the reasoning here:

If the towers fall in their own footprint, that's evidence for a controlled demolition.
However, if the towers do not fall in their own footprint, that's also evidence that it was a controlled demolition.

Who can argue with reasoning like that?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey - Olive branch accepted. I started a thread earlier where I admitted my error saying that you had invoked the 3rd law of thermodynamics to explain the symmetry of WTC7, when you had in fact invoked Newton's third law of motion (for every force there is an equal/opposite force). I'm not at all clear how that explains the roof remaining parallel to the ground, but I did apologize for calling you "inane".

I think that thread got deleted, not sure.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

TJW, try harder. Try answering the question of mine you quoted. Where does the energy come from?

 

[DavidJames]

I think that thread got deleted, not sure.

It's on the 2nd page.

Threads being deleted? Wrong forum, you want the LC forum .

Note: Spam threads have been known to be deleted (ask SBrown aka jenabell @ LC) , but generally speaking, you're safe here.

 

[CurtC]

2) Because is is so rapidly expanding, yet clearly defined. Thus the expansion is not blamed on mixing with air, but must be explained by tremendous heat and high pressure.

Well, someone suggested that you had no idea what a pyroclastic flow is, and you've just proved him right.

R.Mackey, I don't think the del-cross-V explanation is going to help.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy asked

1) In my opinion, the popular support given the govenrnment theory is quite like holocaust denial. I think its based on cognative dissonance created when plain facts conflict with deeply held world-views (in this case, the belief that US government officials simply would not, could not do such a thing). I know its offensive, I don't mean it to be, I just have to report my opinion. David Ray Griffin has also made this point on Holocaust denial, and I agree with him. The issue first came up, because us "CT's" have often been lumped in with holocaust denial, as in Popular Mechanics.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning. I think you're missing some very important points, though.

1) Many of us are perfectly willing to believe that the US government or elements thereof are capable of planning and executing nasty operations. I am a political liberal and ardent Bush-disliker. I was against the idea of going to war with Iraq in 2002 and 2003. I believe the Bush administration to some extent promoted, and definitely took advantage of, the fear of terrorism in the US in order to further a political agenda. I am not predisposed to trusting them or turning a blind eye to their misdeeds. And I have seen zero evidence that they either MIHOP or LIHOP. Zero. You can't accuse me of not looking into it. That's what I spend much of my free time doing. I have spent an extraordinary amount of time looking into the truth behind the most common and the most obscure 9/11 CT claims. They do not hold up factually or logically in any way.

2) Many people who post on this forum are not from the US and are not predisposed to giving the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt.

3) Metaphors aside, name an actual Holocaust denier who is on the "debunking" side of this debate. I can name several Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites who are prominent on your side.

So don't compare us to Holocaust deniers. It's wrong, and its indecent.

Because is is so rapidly expanding, yet clearly defined. Thus the expansion is not blamed on mixing with air, but must be explained by tremendous heat and high pressure. The volume of the North Tower cloud expanded to more than 3 x the size of the intact tower, rapidly, without significant mixing. Gravity could only account for it being the same volume as the tower, because any over-pressure caused by falling debris would be matched by a corresponding under-pressure. The air inside the tower was only pressurized at one atmosphere.

1) Therefore, when I open a bag of flour and pour it on the floor, the dust cloud should not expand beyond the volume of the bag.

2) How many people who were caught in the debris cloud were burned to death or suffocated by poisonous gasses? Because that's what happens to people who are caught in pyroclastic flows. Think about the people inside the towers who survived the collapses. Explain their existence, please.

3) Please describe the explosives that could produce the cutting effect you require (and which did not appear on a single piece of steel) and produce the enormous volume of superheated gas you describe.

Also, it just happens to look exactly like the pyroclastic flows from volcanoes.

CTs tell me I look like Robert DeNiro. That means I'm Robert DeNiro, right?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

CTs tell me I look like Robert DeNiro. That means I'm Robert DeNiro, right?

probably, lord knows youre everyone else around here

 

[Bell]

It would be nice if TS1234 got into a lengthy answer on Mackey's and Gravy's posts, as they put a lot of effort into it.

Realy guys, (and all the others) hat off to what you are doing here

 

[KingMerv00]

A few problems with this analogy.

1) The hammer doesn't shatter, only the ice. With WTC, the "hammer" (the upper part of the building) disintergrates along with the lower part. Odd.

Not odd at all. Newton's third law says for every action...etc etc. If you drop a cinder block onto another cinderblock from high enough up, both are smashed. Same goes for tons of concrete and steel.

2) Breaking the ice requires not only the hammer hitting from above, but also tremendous resistance from below. Yet, according to NIST, the intact structure below offered "very little resistance". This low resistance, of course, is needed to explain the rapid collapse times.

The resistance wasn't slight objectively speaking. The tower WAS made of steel and concrete after all.

The NIST report is saying that the resistance wasn't enough to slow the fall very much.

3) Swinging the hammer is imparting great energy into the system beyond gravitational potential energy. WTC supposedly crushed themselves using gravity alone.

Fine. DROP the hammer, don't swing it.


My analogy wasn't meant to represent a perfect model of the collapse anyway. I just wanted to show you that downward force can cause lateral motion.

So, if you want to construct for us a valid analogy, try to come up with an example where these two things occur:

1) An object stands there maintaining its shape for a long time.

2) Then, after some internal part of the object fails (for whatever reason) and goes away, the top part falls into the bottom part, and both top and bottom are crushed, and then great amounts of the resulting stuff is thrown sideways, and it all happens within, say 150% of free fall time.

Sounds like the twin towers. I don't see a problem. Which part don't you like?

I am genuinely glad to see that you have retracted the "faster than free fall thing".

 

[apathoid]

2) Because is is so rapidly expanding, yet clearly defined. Thus the expansion is not blamed on mixing with air, but must be explained by tremendous heat and high pressure. The volume of the North Tower cloud expanded to more than 3 x the size of the intact tower, rapidly, without significant mixing. Gravity could only account for it being the same volume as the tower, because any over-pressure caused by falling debris would be matched by a corresponding under-pressure. The air inside the tower was only pressurized at one atmosphere.

Wow, if I read you correctly, you are saying the air pressure wouldn't change in a room that has 450,000 tons of skyscraper falling on top of it? There would be no air rushing out as the room gets compressed from 10 ft to a few inches in less than a tenth of second? That the pressure remains in equalibrium because.......air cannot get compressed?
Explain.

Gravy already gave a nice example of why you couldn't be more mistaken. But, another example is a phenomena called a microburst. A shaft of air races downward toward the ground in a torrential rain storm. After reaching the ground the air flows outward in all directions.

Why does it do this? Because, an immense volume of fluid(air in this case) travelling at high speed has to go somewhere when it meets resistance. The surrounding air offers thousands of times less resistance than the ground below, so thats where it goes. This effect is not limited to fluids and Gravys bag of flour example is good one, perhaps you should actually try it. In your own description of the cloud of debris and dust, you referred to it as a pyroclastic flow, you've basically called the mass a fluid for all intents and purposes....see above.

Now, where are you headed with this? Do you feel the Towers shouldve collapsed into their own footprint? That goes out the window if you actually apply your (mis)use of asymmetry/entropy.

You've also abandoned your fellow Deniers who believe that, not only did the Towers fall into their footprint, they think thats a sure-fire sign of CD. You might wanna give them a heads up and tell them they are wrong.

Also, it just happens to look exactly like the pyroclastic flows from volcanoes.

A cloud that looks like Elvis = Elvis?
Explain.

 

[gumboot]

2) Because is is so rapidly expanding, yet clearly defined. Thus the expansion is not blamed on mixing with air, but must be explained by tremendous heat and high pressure. The volume of the North Tower cloud expanded to more than 3 x the size of the intact tower, rapidly, without significant mixing. Gravity could only account for it being the same volume as the tower, because any over-pressure caused by falling debris would be matched by a corresponding under-pressure. The air inside the tower was only pressurized at one atmosphere.

Also, it just happens to look exactly like the pyroclastic flows from volcanoes.

For interested readers, there is a nice little video showing volcanic flows next to WTC flows.

Wow... this is fantastic...

First the "GWB made the Mormons fire Steven Jones" argument, and now apparantly the WTC looked like a volcano.

Unbelievable.

What a week for stupidity.

By the way, you do realise, if, for example, we take the eruption of Mt St Helens, about 200 million cubic metres of rock were pulverised to ash and deposited over an area of about 60 billion square metres up to 5 inches thick.

Likewise, the 95/96 Ruapehu eruptions produced ash columns with many magnitudes more volume than the solid volume of the material being expelled.

As such, the dust clouds produced by the WTC need only consume a small amount of the concrete and drywall inside the buildings.

Pyroclastic flows travel at speeds of around 150 km/h, have a temperature of hundreds of degrees, and can travel hundreds of kilometers, destroying everything in their path.

The "pyroclastic flows" from the WTC collapses travelled a little faster than running speed (20-25 km/h for most people), were demonstratably not hot, and only extended out over a small portion of Manhattan.

For reference of scale:

The entire lower half of Manhattan can fit INSIDE the crater of Mt Ruapehu.

Your remarks, your assertations, are not only ridiculous, that show a complete and utter lack of understanding of the subject at hand.

Controlled demoltions produce pyroclastic flows? Indeed. And I am an alien monkey-fighter.

-Andrew

 

[chipmunk stew]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99024504f61c3b197.gif[/URL]

Do you know what a pyroclastic flow is? This is a serious question.

Don't be so quick to mock him, apathoid. He's referring to the second definition:

Term: pyroclastic flow
Definition:

1. a large, moving mass of hot volcanic ash and gases;
2. a large dust cloud of concrete micro-pulverized by exotic explosives and/or nuclear devices.

Example: "The pyroclastic flow at Ground Zero is evidence of a controlled demolition."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1902599#post1902599

 

[Belz...]

1) The hammer doesn't shatter, only the ice. With WTC, the "hammer" (the upper part of the building) disintergrates along with the lower part. Odd.

I thought you said what WAS odd is the fact it didn't desintegrate...

2) Breaking the ice requires not only the hammer hitting from above, but also tremendous resistance from below.

Uh, no.

Yet, according to NIST, the intact structure below offered "very little resistance". This low resistance, of course, is needed to explain the rapid collapse times.

Circular reasoning, Seeker.

3) Swinging the hammer is imparting great energy into the system beyond gravitational potential energy. WTC supposedly crushed themselves using gravity alone.

Scale, seeker. Scale. In order to simulate the impact, you can't just let that hammer fall onto the ice, can you ?

1) An object stands there maintaining its shape for a long time.

2) Then, after some internal part of the object fails (for whatever reason) and goes away, the top part falls into the bottom part, and both top and bottom are crushed, and then great amounts of the resulting stuff is thrown sideways, and it all happens within, say 150% of free fall time.

Building fell down.

 

[Belz...]

[qimg]http://www.erichufschmid.net/July_6_1962_Nevada.JPG[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg[/qimg]

Ah! Since they look alike, they must be the same. Are you Killtown ?

But the stuff didn't break when it hit the ground. It pulverized in mid air.

Speculation. Since you can't see through the cloud any more than I can, you can't know this.

And yes, you can tell plenty about clouds from their shape. A mushroom cloud, such as the one where WTC1 just was, is a very specific phenomenon. Very interesting physics.

Yes, smoke tends to rise.

 

[chipmunk stew]

There's a third option, you know -- pieces breaking because they hit other pieces, or parts of the building that hadn't yet collapsed or were falling slower. Crumbling is an expected part of the collapse itself.


I'm going to try an olive branch here. This is a fair question, and it also lies within a field that I've studied extensively.

The "mushroom cloud" shape is governed by a fluid dynamical phenomenon known as Rayleigh-Taylor instability.

<snip clear explanation>

This is what I love most about this place. You're discussing the collapse of WTC one minute, and the next you're getting a concise primer on the fluid dynamics of mushroom clouds...and it's actually relevant to the main topic.

 

[Hellbound]

But the stuff didn't break when it hit the ground. It pulverized in mid air. And it is NIST that says the structure encountered "very little resistance".

And yes, you can tell plenty about clouds from their shape. A mushroom cloud, such as the one where WTC1 just was, is a very specific phenomenon. Very interesting physics.

Mackey, what makes a mushroom cloud do its thing, and why is there one in the picture of WTC1?

Yes, a mushroom cloud is a very specific phenomena. You see something that resembles a mushroom cloud, but isn't. A mushroom cloud forms for much the same reason that one can make ring-shaped bubbles in water.

uruk chimed in with

Yes, the debris fell down, and expanded rapidly into pyroclastic flows, much resembling those of a volcano. Where the tower stood, a mushroom cloud rose up and billowed out. See the pictures (evidence).

pyro- 

1. a combining form meaning “fire,” “heat,” “high temperature,” used in the formation of compound words: pyrogen; pyrolusite; pyromancy.
2. Chemistry. a combining form used in the names of inorganic acids, indicating that the acid's water content is intermediate between that of the corresponding ortho- (more water) and meta- (least water) acids (pyroantimonic, H4Sb2O7, pyroarsenic, H4As2O7, and pyrosulfuric, H2S2O7, acids). The combining form is also used in the names of the salts of these acids. If the acid ends in -ic, the corresponding salt ends in -ate (pyroboric acid, H2B4O7, and potassium pyrobate, K2B4O7, or pyrosulfuric, H2S2O7, and pyrosulfate, N2S2O7); if the acid ends in -ous, the corresponding salt ends in -ite (pyrophosphorous acid, H4P2O5, potassium pyrophosphite, K4P2O5).

clas-tic

–adjective 1. Biology. breaking up into fragments or separate portions; dividing into parts.
2. pertaining to an anatomical model made up of detachable pieces.
3. Geology. noting or pertaining to rock or rocks composed of fragments or particles of older rocks or previously existing solid matter; fragmental.

So, Truth "Seeker", were the clouds extremely hot biological pices, extremely hot rock fragments, organic acidic fragments, or high temperature organic acids from rocks?

It helps to learn what scientific terms such as "pyroclastic" actually mean before you spout them off. Trying to impress by using big words only works if you actually show an understanding of those words.

Just for completeness:

py-ro-clas-tic

–adjective Geology composed chiefly of fragments of volcanic origin, as agglomerate, tuff, and certain other rocks; volcaniclastic.

Unless you can show a volcano underneath New York, you really need to find a new word.

Gravy asked

1) In my opinion, the popular support given the govenrnment theory is quite like holocaust denial. I think its based on cognative dissonance created when plain facts conflict with deeply held world-views (in this case, the belief that US government officials simply would not, could not do such a thing). I know its offensive, I don't mean it to be, I just have to report my opinion. David Ray Griffin has also made this point on Holocaust denial, and I agree with him. The issue first came up, because us "CT's" have often been lumped in with holocaust denial, as in Popular Mechanics.

You "think". While that remains to be proven, I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt for the sake of argument. Your opinion counts for evidence about as much as the banana peel in my trash can. Call us when you can do, you know, the things that actual scientists, like sociologists and historians, do...research, comparisons, listing specific parallels and why these are unique to the pehnomena, etc. Otherwise, your opinion is nothing but slander and poisoning the well.

2) Because is is so rapidly expanding, yet clearly defined. Thus the expansion is not blamed on mixing with air, but must be explained by tremendous heat and high pressure. The volume of the North Tower cloud expanded to more than 3 x the size of the intact tower, rapidly, without significant mixing. Gravity could only account for it being the same volume as the tower, because any over-pressure caused by falling debris would be matched by a corresponding under-pressure. The air inside the tower was only pressurized at one atmosphere.

Also, it just happens to look exactly like the pyroclastic flows from volcanoes.

For interested readers, there is a nice little video showing volcanic flows next to WTC flows.

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/pyroclastic-flows-911s-smoking-gun_13.html

Again, I would suggest you actually learn what pyroclastic means before you go throwing around a term you understand about as well as you understand basic physics.

But thank you for clearly spelling out that you don't have any idea what the word pyroclastic means, and couldn't be bothered to spend 5 minutes with a google search or 15 seconds with a dictionary.com search to find out. That tells us exactly how important the "truth" is to you.

I could literally show you guys a thousand pictures showing that the buildings were being pulverized as they went. Does anybody else here support Loss Leader on his ridiculous claim that the buildings only puilverized upon hitting the ground?

I'll go even further.

The buildings did not pulverize even after hitting the ground.

Large pieces of debris reamined. Much of it had to be broken up and cut up so it could fit on the 30' trucks that were hauling it away.

There were large enough pieces to form stable areas within the rubble, to create holes and "shelves" and other such structures.

Most of the debris was in chunks. The dust makes up a small percentage of the total mass of the towers. They were not "pulverized", as you're (mis-)using the term.

 

[ponderingturtle]

well i know that, and most relatively intelligent peopel know that, but previously TS1234 had said that steel would copnduct heat away before it would be hot enough to weaken (thus long before it would be red hot) despite being wrong on 2 statements, he still contradicted himself

So what He also put WTC7 16' from WTC1. He is entirely divorced from any reality.

 

[Loss Leader]

The entire lower half of Manhattan can fit INSIDE the crater of Mt Ruapehu.

And I know many people who think that it should.

 

[Belz...]

1) In my opinion, the popular support given the govenrnment theory is quite like holocaust denial. I think its based on cognative dissonance created when plain facts conflict with deeply held world-views (in this case, the belief that US government officials simply would not, could not do such a thing).

What about people from outside the US that don't like the US government or its policies ? How do you explain their support for the official story ?

 

[Belz...]

This is why what something "looks like" is not sufficient to base a hypothesis. It's too imprecise. Does it look 90% like a "mushroom cloud?" 80%? 50%? What does that even mean? The pictures can't tell the whole story. The story that they do tell is consistent with the official story. Doesn't prove it, mind you, but it certainly isn't evidence of anything else.

Very informative post, as usual, Mack.