Little Pipe

Little Pipe

Member for
17 years 35 weeks
View recent blog entries


About Me

From 11th of September 2001, for nearly four and a half years, I was more or less a believer in the official conspiracy theory. You know, the one that says: it was a gang of 19 arab Muslims (plus their puppet masters hiding in Bagdad and an Afghan cave) who managed to make the 2 WTC towers collapse with the help of 2 airplanes crushing into the buildings and burning lots of jet fuel. (Uhmm, the only thing where I had my doubts from the beginning may be summarized as follows: "Probably not even in their wildest dreams would the hijacker-perpetrators have imagined they could completely bring down the towers themselves. The most they may have hoped for was an irreparable damage, and a globally visible wound they inflict on these symbols of Western capitalism... No-one, not even structural engineers could have predicted these total collapses").

Anyway, it was only half a year ago that I encountered for the first time a story about WTC7 (the third WTC building to collapse on that very day, also a high-rise steel structure, albeit only 47 storeys high) -- and that one additional fact made me re-consider the whole story. By now, I've seen most of the videos available on the 'net, read most of the articles, am familiar with most of the unofficial conspiracy theories...

What I am missing are a few more hard facts. Proofs based on the laws of physics that will shake the official theory to pulverized dust. Facts that can be verified by any student of physics or chemistry.

What I found and saw so far was merely "common sense physics" applied. Arguments like "Why did the collapses happen in near-freefall speed?", "What did transform all the buildings concrete into very fine dust?", "Why were there these 'squibs'?", "Why did that pulverized dust originate from the top?" etc.

I'm very familiar with the fact that a solid piece of concrete will *not* pulverize into dust if you throw it out of the 7th floor window onto a yard with a concrete surface -- it will only shatter into a few dozen (still solid concrete) pieces and very little "dust". Because I tried it....

However, I feel this is not convincing enough for still many, many people. Can't we do better?

Aren't there knowledgeable people, scientists, engineers around, who could just start to calculate the required amounts of energy to cause all the evidence that can be seen in the videos, in the satellite pics taken of Ground Zero, etc.? So that the argument "At least for 9/11 in 2001, Almighty Allah changed the universal laws of physics for one spot of the earth in New York, to let happen once what elsewhere and at other times is impossible to happen" can be admired in its full beauty?

To make it more specific:

* Take a 1 kg cube of concrete: how much energy is required to transform it into pulverized dust of [use appropriate figure]-sized mini particles? Hence, how much total energy would be required to pulverize 50% of the concrete that was built into WTC2? What about 100%?

* How much energy would one have to put into that created concrete dust in order to make it behave like a "pyroclastic flow" and spread over all of Manhattan as a 1 inch layer of "snow"? (That one will probably have to make use the "ideal gas law", PV = nRT ...)

* How much energy is required to heat all of the steel columns (built into one WTC twin tower) to 100° Celsius? To 200° C? To 300° C? To 500°, 800° C? How much of its load capacity does steel loose at 300° C? What temperature is required to make it loose 50% of its load capacity?

* How much "potential energy" was in one 110 storey WTC building that would be transformed into kinetic energy and released if it came down in freefall speed? How much energy could the jet fuel release if it burnt under "ideal conditions"? How much was the kinetic energy of the planes flying at 500 mph? How much energy can the standard office equipment/furniture/paper/files release in a fire conflagration?

* What other major providers (and consumers) of energy would need to be covered to explain the evidence experienced during 9/11?

Such an overall balance sheet of energy released and consumed on 9/11 will probably lead to many new surprises if conducted in a sober way... Just apply this one fundamental law of physics about the conservation of energy to the situation.

Of course, these calculations would not need to be totally exact. They could be made with different ("optimistic" and "pessimistic") assumptions, covering upper and lower ends of a possible range of outcomes.

Is there anybody up to this task? Engineers, physicists, chemists, vulcanologists?