Damn, now I'm jealous. Kidding aside, I'm seriously astounded at the amount of dumbness in this one person. Without realizing it I think he made more ppl doubt the official story then any of our questions could. To see a guy with that level of intelligence defending that side makes everyone rethink their own views. Ursa..
The guy with the gray hair giving the presentation keeps laughing like a hyena. And he makes fun of a woman standing in the area of the North tower where the airplane went into the building. This is probably right before she either jumped or burned to death. He even knows her name (Rachelle) and says she "testified" that it was not hot like an oven. And he thinks it is funny. What a jackass. I guess that comes from being a Mormon?...:eek: And he talks about a "model" they made that didn't fall like the towers. I guess they built a really tall building pretty fast and ran an airplane into it for their "model" experiment. Right... I am glad this nutjob thinks 9/11 was so damn funny. One half an hour of this BS is enough to make me puke. Q: Can anyone prove the steel used in these buildings was actually as strong as believed? And can anyone prove without a doubt that the temperatures did not get hot enough to melt it? And can anyone prove the towers were built as they say they were? I didn't think so.
sorry, this is a lame answer, mixing up different topics. first, right, this comment on the woman is really, really disgusting. i witnessed that now the second time on such a video. while i still do not understand it completely i somehow grasp why they do it. i think they are so full of anger and frustration towards the government that they completely sympathise with the victims. even so much that they seem to be sarcastic about their deaths. which i doubt they truly are. give it a thought. i think there is some truth behind this way of seeing it. because these people are very obviously not evil, nonCaring morons, rather the opposite. nevertheless, it is disgusting to watch, no matter what explanation. but your argument is lame because you dismiss the persons credibility as a whole due to that comment. he is a physicist. and i guess he thought at least a little about it before he risked his career and reputation. so this does not mean he is right, but he is not an idiot. and your quote on Mormons disqualifies YOU. further i would think that he knows more about the kind of modelling he talked about than you. and your idea of bad steel is not really bright either. my conclusion is that i still do not know what happened on 911, but i know for sure that you are an unable debater.
I mixed up different topics? You need to go back to school to learn some more English before talking to me because you don't make any sense hardly at all with that statement. Tell me which topics I have "mixed" up? You defend the "presenter" because he is a physicist. So that makes it right that he makes a joke about a woman who is about to die. I think that makes him a jerk. Why spend more time listening to a jerk? You can if you want to. Go for it. Like him. Believe every word he says. Treat him like a god because he is a physicist. The guy is from BYU which is in Utah. Over 90% of people from Utah are Mormons. I know a lot of them. They think they are god's gift to mankind. I bet you don't even know one Mormon. Also, BYU is a Mormon college. Mormons believe they are going to be gods of a planet some day. Do you believe this also? Does this make him more qualified to comment on 9/11? Or maybe does it make you think this guy might be full of delusions in the first place? I still don't see the "modeling" that compares to the towers. Do you? Where in the hell is it? Where did they get the airplanes to crash into the big tall buildings they built? I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11 either. But I do know one thing. Many people died that day. To laugh about it is evil.
a physicist can be right ... and be a jerk. since i am interested here in his quality as a physicist i do not see why his judgement on that side is affected by his jerkiness. but your line of argument: physicist>woman>jerk>stopListening is utterly stupid, i am afraid. now, that happens once in a while, everybody says something stupid now and then. but you seem to top yourself within one post. i mean this is really among the strangest things i ever read here: BYU>UTAH>Mormons>believeTheyWillBeGod>stopListening in essence you are saying within your post that you have two lines of arguments why you don't listen to the guy. first he said something annoying about that woman, second he is from Utah, because that is what it boils down to. people from utah are mormons are stupid. sorry 'bout my english. i am not an english native speaker. but if i were you i'd care more about my own content. because you do not seem to be a native thinker. now we will have some bashing back and forth. but unfortunately for you this post of yours speaks for itself, i am afraid. so we can cut it short. we both see the other one as stupid. and if others want to make up their mind on this they just have to go to your last post and this one.
Just a few points on the physics aspects of Jones' presentation. As strong as believed by who? The general properties of structural steel are pretty well known by now, as one might imagine. There's no reason that I know of to believe that the steel in the towers was any weaker than other structural steel of similar quality. I haven't heard anything like that suggested by anyone. Of course, there is no need to assume that that was true, in order for the buildings to have collapsed as they did. It's very unlikely that the temperatures ever got hot enough to melt steel in those fires. Of course, one can't prove that this didn't happen. But it would take temperatures near 1400 C to melt the steel. Jet fuel burns far cooler than that and the flammable materials inside the towers would be expected to burn still cooler than the jet fuel. As far as I know melting of steel structural support beams is never, never observed in ordinary fires that happen in steel frame buildings. If molten steel actually had been found in the rubble very shortly after the collapse, it would be pretty strange. The pictures of supposed molten `steel' that I've seen published by the conspiracy theorists, including those published by this fellow Jones whose presentation is on the tape, are problematic as far as I'm concerned because they don't allow for an easy determination of what the substance is that we are looking at. Contrary to what the conspiracy theorists would like to suggest, it does not follow that some apparently molten material observed in photographs of the rubble to be glowing cherry red, orange, or yellow, is molten structural steel. There can be other explanations. Many people who should have known better, but who nevertheless commented on the fires in the trade centers in the early days after 9/11 were confused: both about the temperatures achievable in such fires and about the properties of steel. Conspiracy theorists have seized on some of the ill-informed comments that were made, and used them to suggest that the official story was that the steel was melted by the fire and that the melting is what caused the collapse. In fact, in that context, the question whether the steel became hot enough to melt is just a red herring. It's completely beside the point whether or not the fire was hot enough to melt steel. A rule of thumb is that the strength of structural steel is reduced by 50% at a temperature of 550C. Steel samples loaded symmetrically to about half of their load bearing limit, and heated uniformly to 550C will fail pretty close to the time when they reach 550 C. This temperature is clearly well below the melting point. The time to failure for a load bearing beam in real conditions of a fire can't be predicted so simply. It depends in a complicated way on the temperature distribution throughout the steel and on the distribution of the load which is borne by the beam. If hot spots are produced in some parts of a beam, say on the corners or outside edges, it's quite possible that it would fail well before the time when the whole thing reaches 550 C. Steel in hot spots can become overloaded first, and begin to deform plastically. In turn, the plastic deformation in the hotter areas increases the stress on the cooler steel in the rest of the beam, and when the cooler steel is strained past its elastic deformation limit it begins to deform plastically too, and this process then leads eventually to fracture. Most of this can be tested experimentally on actual structural steel, and it has been. Some good data on fire testing of structural steel is available here. http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default.htm Well there's every reason to believe the towers were built as the builders say they were, I should think, at least. I don't know of a reason to disbelieve it. Jones' presentation on this video is not very impressive as far as I'm concerned. There simply isn't very much in the way of detailed discussion of any the physics of the collapses there. He describes how he made a calculation of the floors `pancaking' based on `conservation of momentum' and found that they couldn't possibly come down in 10 seconds. But he doesn't ever show us this supposed calculation, and he makes a very obvious blunder at this point. 10 seconds is approximately the time from the initiation of the collapses on the videos, to the point on the seismic evidence at which the first signal is seen. That first signal would correspond to the time when the very first pieces of material from the towers first begin to hit at ground level. These first pieces are presumably some of the exterior panels of the building, based on a viewing of the collapse videos, though since we don't see them hitting the ground, we can't be sure of that. The panels most likely were detached from near the level where the tops of the buildings appear to hit the bottoms of the buildings, at the initiation of the collapses. If that were true, it would mean that the panels started falling not from roof level, but from lower down on the towers, so that they would have a correspondingly shorter free fall time. The collapses are not anywhere near complete at 10 seconds, and it's very hard to actually see when they were complete. You really can't tell how long they took from watching the videos, and it's hard to say when the seismic evidence ends exactly, as it tails off gradually. On some of the video and photographic evidence, it seems that pretty large parts of the cores of the towers were still standing as late as 25 seconds after the initiation of the collapse. Speaking purely as a physicist, IMO Jones points out some interesting apparent anomalies, but is not on the whole very convincing. I find the sloppiness on basic facts of the collapse, that I've pointed out exists in his discussion, to be very odd in a physicist who has supposedly studied the collapses in some detail. This in turn makes me doubt a lot of the rest of what he has to say.
but doesn't that somehow mean that you would expect more buildings having come down due to fire in history? your argument would indicate that within the chaotic situation of major fire such spot point deformation would happen all the time, no? i mean in each and every burning steel frame building you would expect some hot burning parts in direct contact with the frame, thus resulting in the effect you described. and as i understand it the fuel burned too quickly to do all this. so either it falls apart almost immediately or, if later, the "hot spots" can hardly be the result of the already burned fuel. and if it was not the fuel then it must be other "normal" stuff, which you should find in more or less each burning building, no? as i understand it the basic argument is that the structure of the towers was significantly weaker than expected. actually of all three buildings. and while this can well be, i find it amazing. as i understand NIST tries to point out that several things added up to make the weaker-than-expected structure fail. but it seems relatively unlikely that these several things add up a second time the same day and some other things add up in some other way for a third building.