PROVE that WTC 1 or 2 collapsed w/o explosives, WIN $1,000,000

Jimmy Walters is offering $ 1 Million to the first person who can prove that the WTC towers collapsed without explosives. Details at


http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm



His contest may be somewhat unfair, because the successful entrant must explain collapse wherein the duration of the collapse is given to be 8.5 seconds. However, my understanding is that the time for collapse was nearer 12 seconds. (Which is still close to a phenomenal collapse rate of .12 second per floor.)

Be that as it may, you will not be able to show collapse in even 85.0 seconds, much less 12 seconds, since it's energetically impossible. There is not NEARLY enough total energy sources (gravitational potential energy of the mass of the buildings, chemical energy of the jet fuel, kinetic energy of the jets, heat energy released by secondary fires) to overcome the heat sink represented by the expanding dust cloud. Neither was there nearly sufficient energy sources to weaken the steel sufficiently to allow a global collapse.


My back of the envelope calculation that I posted (link above) humors FEMA and pretends that all of the heat energy released by the burning jet fuel (7K gallons worth that FEMA assumes burned within each tower) magically goes into the steel. In other words, I am assuming a magically closed system. It is magical in 2 senses: first, that the energy remains within the boundaries of the WTC towers, and secondly, that the energy further goes only into heating the steel, not concrete, furnishings, etc.

It's easy to show that the FEMA Fairy Tale version of collapse is deficient in energy by at least an order of magnitude. More realistically, it is probably deficient by at least 2 orders of magnitude.

Since its easy, please, by all means, show it.

Just click the link to be taken to my other post.

lol... my grand mother could refute your proof. Seriously, you guys should think about getting a degree before making such claims. The only thing your proof succeded in doing is to convince me that 7000 gallon is MORE than enough to collapse the building (had it magically gone (your words) directly into the TWENTY of so steel beam that needed to weaken).

Instead of considering the steel of THE WHOLE WTC, maybe only consider the ones of 4 floor or so which were affected by the fire and redo your math with that. The steel will EVAPORATE!

Also, one of Hoffman's papers on the energy requirements for driving the WTC dust clouds/pyroclastic flows is found specifically at

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html


It concludes:

How hard or easy Hoffman's calculations were for him, I don't know, but it sure doesn't look too complicated, either.

Note well that Hoffman's paper is ignoring the energy you need to soften steel. To prove his point, he doesn't even have to consider this.

Actually, I have a bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics. (Plus 18 graduate credits of Applied Mathematics)

The buildings stood for something like 55 minutes in one case, and 112 minutes in another, after their impacts. The jet fuel was almost completely expended after 17 minutes. So, you had at a minimum 38 minutes for the heat to diffuse throughout the steel, after maximal heating in the impact zone.


When I was studying physics, steel was considered an excellent conductor of heat, and thus even humoring FEMA the way I did, I'm quite justified in limiting the "magic" to the point that we still insist that steel conducted heat on 911 exactly the same way it does in 2005.

When your grandmother studied physics, was the thermal conductivity of steel any different than it was on 911? If not, just exactly how would she refute my argument? Certainly not by pretending that the heat must magically stay in the impact zone. It doesn't matter how much your grandmother waives her hands, she still cannot prevent heat from being conducted away from the impact zone.

If you insist, we can take the more realist assumption that most of the heat energy released from the burning jet fuel went into heating AIR, most of which vented out of the building. However, that would make the FEMA Fairy Tale even more implausible.

Or would your grandmother disagree with that, too?

Actually, I have a bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics. (Plus 18 graduate credits of Applied Mathematics)

The buildings stood for something like 55 minutes in one case, and 112 minutes in another, after their impacts. The jet fuel was almost completely expended after 17 minutes. So, you had at a minimum 38 minutes for the heat to diffuse throughout the steel, after maximal heating in the impact zone.


When I was studying physics, steel was considered an excellent conductor of heat, and thus even humoring FEMA the way I did, I'm quite justified in limiting the "magic" to the point that we still insist that steel conducted heat on 911 exactly the same way it does in 2005.

When your grandmother studied physics, was the thermal conductivity of steel any different than it was on 911? If not, just exactly how would she refute my argument? Certainly not by pretending that the heat must magically stay in the impact zone. It doesn't matter how much your grandmother waives her hands, she still cannot prevent heat from being conducted away from the impact zone.

If you insist, we can take the more realist assumption that most of the heat energy released from the burning jet fuel went into heating AIR, most of which vented out of the building. However, that would make the FEMA Fairy Tale even more implausible.

Or would your grandmother disagree with that, too?

No, my grand mother knows nothing about physics (im the one who does). My grand mother only knows common sense. Your proof fails at both. So me, and my grand mother could both easily see the flaw in your reasonning. Steel is a good thermal conductor therefore all the steel in the building from floor 1 to floor 200 ALL raised uniformely in temperature... LOL what a bold asumption that FAVORS IMMENSIVELY YOUR BELIEFS.

Well, maybe you should get your money back?

Hello everyone.

If I were the mercenary type, I would go and enter that contest and take his money. But I'm not, so I'll tell you where the necessary additional energy came from (if any additional energy was needed) which would lead to the collapse of the towers.

How many here have witnessed a 'metal' fire, specifically an 'ALUMINIUM' fire. You know, ALUMINIUM, that stuff the SPACE SHUTTLE USES AS HIGH-EXOTHERMIC-ENERGY FUEL FOR ITS SOLID-ROCKET BOOSTERS. And guess what, FULLY LADEN PLANES ARE PRACTICALLY ALL 'FUEL'----FROM THE ALUMINIUM BODY/WINGS ETC, TO FIXTURES AND FITTINGS, THE AVIATION FUEL AND THE PASSENGERS THEMSELVES! The MOLTEN AND BURNING aluminium and the JET FUEL and everything else must have created 'spot' temperatures of thousands of degrees at certain stages of the conflagration.

And after the 'first flush' of raging localised' firestorms, there would be islands of relative fire-free areas/times when smoke/exhausted-air was 'drawn back' and self-extinguished many burning areas BEFORE ONCE AGAIN FLARING UP INTO INFERNOS ONCE FRESH OXYGEN-LADEN AIR CURRENTS RETURNED TO ANY SMOULDERING 'POCKETS'.

The towers didn't stand a chance, what with aluminium (high-energy fuel) planes; aviation (high-energy fuel) gas; body (high-energy fuel) fat/tissues; building (high-energy fuel) fixtures and fittings AND ALSO THE STEEL (HIGH-ENERGY FUEL) FRAME ITSELF. Have NONE of you 'conspiracy' theorists EVER done those experiments where 'steel wool' and 'aluminium' and other metals are set alight and BURN to give mostly IRON OXIDE and ALUMINIUM OXIDE etc. and LOTS OF HEAT!?

On second thought, give me the money, I could find a better use for it...like run a special-ed class for 'conspiracy' theorists who waste their paranoia on 'false' conspiracies started by bastards who would do anything to sell crap to make a fast buck from suckers who are probably so distracted by the sheisters that they are ignoring some REAL conspiracy probably looking them right in the face. Where do they come from? It's TRUE!....there's ONE BORN EVERY MINUTE!...oh where are those mythical 'Intelligent Designers' one hears about so much lately...they're never around when you need them!? Judging by some of the crap set afloat on some of these forums, it appears the perpetrators must have been 'unintelligently designed' by some novice apprentice-designer during their first day on the job!

Lord have mercy! (irony, SoLoved).

RealityCheck.
.PS: Metamars: Have you never seen a blacksmith hold a steel rod at one end while the other end is WHITE HOT? Whatever your degrees are in, I hope to 'god' (irony, SoLoved) you're never let near any architectural/construction firm; cos I can just see the 'shoddy' work that would ensue. Boy, you are a perfect example of that saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the hands of fools (and self-serving miscreant 'intellects')". Regards, RC.

It's not bold, and if you don't focus pathologically on the adjective "uniform", it's also correct enough for our purposes.

If you a took a 100 floor steel rod with the mass of the WTC, insulated it perfectly, and then introduced heat energy equal to 7K burned gallons of kerosene at the 78th floor over a 17 minute period, waited 55 minutes, and then took the temperature at the far end, you're damn straight it would be about what it was at the 78th floor.

Even if it differs by 20%, so what? My argument is essentially a conservation of energy argument, not a (perfectly) uniform temperature argument. You do understand that, don't you?

What you would like us to think is something like:

A. "the temperature at the point of heat introduction is so great (because the heat has not sufficiently diffused) that collapse can be initiated. "
B. "Afterwards, the gravitational potential of the building above the impact zone drives the collapse"



Regarding A.
----------------
(As a practical matter, if you look at the photos in my post in the other thread you can see what a lie that is in the real world case...)
However, in our hypothetical, magical model, it's probably not true, either. Although I couldn't find the reference for it when I looked recently, I'm pretty sure that it was Hoffman who has shown that if you total up all the energy sources and assume that all the energy is absorbed into a single floor (including concrete), and compare to the energy sinks, then you will still not get collapse of even that one floor. If I recall correctly, he assumed failure would occur when the steel was hot enough to lose 50% of it's strength.

Regarding B.
-----------------
Even if a collapse of a floor or two or 10 was physically possible in my generous-to-a-fault magical model, global collapse is impossible because of conservation of energy. I never said that that not even a single floor would collapse (although I believe that to be the case), what I said is that "the FEMA Fairy Tale version of collapse is deficient in energy by at least an order of magnitude". The FEMA Fairy Tale is a tale of global collapse.

Again, I ask you, you do understand that my argument is a conservation-of-energy argument, don't you? (For that matter, just be sure we're on a level playing field, you do believe in conservation of energy, don't you?)

I presume that they also taught this very basic concept in whatever university you studied physics in. If not, I suggest that you ask for your money back.

And besides, those engaged in such non sense always set up the rules so you can never win the money.

Change that phrase to the following and I might believe you;

It's not bold, and if you don't focus pathologically on the adjective "uniform", it's also correct enough for my purposes.

QTE

You don't feel this statement completely negates your argument?? Because well, it kinda does

Yes, and obese and/or alcoholic passengers would generate even more heat energy than their non-obese, non-alcoholic traveling partners. Somehow, I don't think this "factor" needs to be seriously considered.


Since non-WTC airplane crashes never (to my knowledge) involve the combustion of their aluminum components, I think we can safely discount that particular 'energy source' for the special case of the WTC collisions, as well. Even if there's a very high temperature at which exothermic reactions of whatever particular form the metal constituents of the planes are in do occur, if those temperatures were routinely reached during plane crashes, they would have done so before 911.....


If I'm wrong, please be quantitative. Oh, and drop a note to FEMA, they could use the help.

This thread should focus more on thermic reservoirs.

Hello metamars.

Can you tell the difference between fuel burned in an enclosed FURNACE-like situation and that same fuel burnt in the open? OTHER large-planes in crashes don't usually end up with ALL the plane and passengers and contents and fuel INSIDE a building. And even open air crashes can produce 'metal fire' in the right circumstances. Do you recall that plane that overshot the runway (in Canada somewhere? Toronto?) that ended up in a creek near a highway...even in the open air its fuselage burned almost completely away DESPITE firefighters' efforts---and it sure wasn't a WOODEN airplane!

Wake up to your bias!...or is it just plain old mercenary self-interests involved here?

RealityCheck.
.