• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

North Tower Dust Cloud Calcs Prove Explosives

Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
1,756
If all the mass in the North Tower had fallen at free fall speed, there would have been zero energy left to do any other work. Estimate the amount of GPE actually available to do work, then subtract the amount needed to shred steel, then subtract the amount needed to pulverize all the concrete and desks and carpet and people, then consider Hoffman:

[SIZE=+2] 9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h [/SIZE] papers This paper has been updated. Please see Version 4. The version on this page is archived for historical interest. See the Revision History. The North Tower's Dust Cloud

Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center

by Jim Hoffman
October 16, 2003
[Version 3.1]


On September 11th, Both of the Twin Towers disintegrated into vast clouds of concrete and other materials, which blanketed Lower Manhattan. This paper shows that the energy required to produce the expansion of the dust cloud observed immediately following the collapse of 1 World Trade Center (the North Tower) was much greater than the gravitational energy available from its elevated mass. It uses only basic physics.
Introduction

Vast amounts of energy were released during the collapse of each of the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan on September 11th, 2001. The accepted source of this energy was the gravitational potential energy of the towers, which was far greater than the energy released by the fires that preceded the collapses. The magnitude of that source cannot be determined with much precision thanks to the secrecy surrounding details of the towers' construction. However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.
Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete in the towers. It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder. The largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the towers. Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. (See http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm.) That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction. That estimate implies the energy sink of concrete pulverization was on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower, which is already larger than the energy source of gravitational energy. However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concrete thought to have been used in the towers. Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
why are you quoting and old version of the paper?

If all the mass in the North Tower had fallen at free fall speed, there would have been zero energy left to do any other work.
not true, unless you are implying that a mass that has just fallen 1400 feet has no kinetic energy
 
If all the mass in the North Tower had fallen at free fall speed, there would have been zero energy left to do any other work. Estimate the amount of GPE actually available to do work, then subtract the amount needed to shred steel, then subtract the amount needed to pulverize all the concrete and desks and carpet and people, then consider Hoffman:
I assume you fully read what you quoted, correct. Then why the heck would you quote version 3.1 when in the FIRST LINE, he says you should see Version 4.

You are an idiot.

ETA - default beat me to it, this guy is a spamming loon
 
This Jim Hoffman ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman

Jim Hoffman is a software engineer in Alameda, California who has become notable for what some call 9/11 research and what others call a conspiracy theory.[1][2] He has also worked in mathematical visualization and produced the first visualization of Costa's minimal surface.

Bolding mine
 
he can do research until he is literally blue in the face. If it hasn't been truely peer reviewed by an established scientific journal, and subsequently published, I have NO TIME FOR IT...IT IS CRAP. When someone shows me ONE, just ONE, piece of scientific "research" that any of these guys have done, that has met the above, then, and only then, will I give it anything more than a snub.

TAM
 
TS1234

This is spam. It's the second place you've posted this, likely without their permission, too.

Is your search engine operating in another dimension. This is from 2003. This is all you've got? You're getting desperate.
 
That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction.

This is way over my head, but this stuck out to me anyway, maybe someone can help me with it. Wouldn't the weight be the single most important variable? Because it seems odd to me that you'd cite someone else's guess at that number as true and the basis of this gigantic equation, especially given the huge discrepency between the two guesses.
 
New question on the SAT's.

"Pulverized into fine powder" is to TruthSeeker1234 as "3" rebar on 4'" centers is to _________________
 
It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder.
Er, is it really?

Actually one of the references cited above admits that "[Note added 7/11/03: this analysis assumes that the concrete was mostly smashed when it hit the ground, which is most likely incorrect. Also, the mass of concrete in the towers is seriously overestimated.] The conclusion of the paper above holds that there is a 10-fold disparity between available energy and the energy required for the observed destruction. Given the cavalier approximations and outright errors (i.e. Charles' Law assumes constant pressure) I am suprised that they only got an order of magnitude out.
 
Last edited:
T1234, when you started posting here, I thought, "Better that he posts here, where he can learn something, than posting on a CT site." But I don't see any improvement. You're presenting the same bogus claims in different ways. Why?
 
We still working backwards TS?

Do me a favor and show proof of who planted said explosives, how many explosives would be needed to account for the North Tower's dust cloud, how said murderers set said explosives (and where - that's important too).

Give me a logical explanation for that, and I'll be more than happy to not only entertain your idea of controlled demoltion, but I'll jump feet-first into the truth movement.

And that's a guarantee.
 
TS posts version 3.1 because, despite the note at the top, version 4 isn't actually done -- it's just the introduction paragraphs. 3.1 is the latest version that actually has calculations in it. Somebody with more knowledge about the subject than me can take a look but it looks like crap.

The WTC dust clouds inexorably advanced down streets at around 25 MPH. This is far faster than can be explained by mixing and diffusion.

Well duh, you've got a 110 stories of air being shoved out behind it.

Further I don't see why, if true, this would prove controlled demolition. Dust clouds in controlled demolition don't have explosive power behind them either. The explosives there are generally finished before the building starts falling, and their energy is directed towards shearing columns, not pushing dust.
 

Back
Top Bottom