North Tower Dust Cloud Calcs Prove Explosives

[Brainache]

Hey TS1234 have you seen these pictures?

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35

*AHEM*

 

[hellaeon]

I'm sorry but the statement

is just retarded.

Let's play pretend and assume there were explosives in the tower. What is your scenario for the use of those explosives?

In a typical demo by explosives the columns and building supports are severed by explosives. Then the building falls BY GRAVITY. Do you really think they use explosives to push the building down? That's just ignorant.

You've completely failed to prove the building fell faster than gravity could account for, but if it it then something had to push the building down. Did they mount rockets on the top floor to shove down?

hahaha did you crack up trying to write this as it is? thats hilarious. I cant stop laughing.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

arkan said

The bulk of the cloud seen from the collapse of the towers is drywall dust not concrete dust. Hoffman is starting from a flawed premise.

We're getting somewhere. Arkan is running away from pulverized concrete, again, denying the obvious. Also, I think Arkan is not accounting for the collapse times, because some very large percentage of GPE went into just accelertaing the mass downward. What percentage of GPE is left after accounting for that? Then what about shredding the steel? Now how much? What about ejecting all that steel and all that dust sideways? Now how much GPE have you got left? Then, after subtracting all that, you think you have enough to blow that cloud up like a balloon? Come on. There is 3 times as much hot air inside that dust cloud as there was inside the building? Where did that pressure come from?

 

[MetalPig]

So, the top ~10.9% of WTC 1 contained ~2% of the entire PE of WTC 1.

I don't quite get this. The top floors were higher up in the air than the lower ones, so I'd expect their PE to be higher than that of lower floors. Unless they were significantly lighter than the lower floors. Were they?

 

[Gravy]

arkan said

We're getting somewhere. Arkan is running away from pulverized concrete, again, denying the obvious. Also, I think Arkan is not accounting for the collapse times, because some very large percentage of GPE went into just accelertaing the mass downward. What percentage of GPE is left after accounting for that? Then what about shredding the steel? Now how much? What about ejecting all that steel and all that dust sideways? Now how much GPE have you got left? Then, after subtracting all that, you think you have enough to blow that cloud up like a balloon? Come on. There is 3 times as much hot air inside that dust cloud as there was inside the building? Where did that pressure come from?

Some very large percentage
Accelertaing
shredded steel
Ejecting all steel
Ejecting all dust
blow up like balloon
mystery hot air 3x volume of towers

"We're getting somewhere?" No, T1234, you haven't taken a single step forward since you started posting here.

Why are you doing this? Why do you refuse to learn, and do you think "Truthseeker" is a good name for someone who acts that way?

 

[qarnos]

I want to see pictures of stacked up floors.

Did you even look at the link Brainache posted?

Did you?

Well?

Did you look at them and then choose to ignore them because they don't agree with "the truth".

Well?

Brainache has posted the link - twice now.

Are you going to acknowledge?

ETA: Here is the link again, just in case you're too lazy to scroll back a couple of posts.

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35

 

[gumboot]

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.

Oh excellent. So next time a 30-tonne rock falls on my head at free-fall speed I won't panic, because it can't hurt me, as there will be zero energy left to do any other work.

Awesome.

Joo sux0r @ t3h physix

-Andrew

 

[qarnos]

Very succinct, gumboot!

Here's another experiment for TS. You ignored my first one a week or so ago regarding the shipping container, but this one is much more practicable.

Go outside and find a feather. Pick it up and raise is as high as you can, then drop it.

According to your logic, the feather should fall straight down into it's own "footprint" without deviating any way, since there is no energy to do this.

My $0.02

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

More denying the obvious. If all of that dust was mostly drywall, then where did all the concrete, carpet, desks, computers, and human beings go? We sure don't see them at ground zero. Remember the fireman in all the videos, the one who says that




[/I][/I]

http://www.groundzeromuseumworkshop.com/poster.htm

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't quite get this. The top floors were higher up in the air than the lower ones, so I'd expect their PE to be higher than that of lower floors. Unless they were significantly lighter than the lower floors. Were they?

Those percentages were based off of the WTC Report that stated

Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x10^9 joules of potential energy were stored in the upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact.

For my extrapolation to WTC 2, I'm sure that it is not a pure linear relationship; but it's the best I can come up with. And, at least, it is out there for review and revision.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

arkan said

We're getting somewhere. Arkan is running away from pulverized concrete, again, denying the obvious. Also, I think Arkan is not accounting for the collapse times, because some very large percentage of GPE went into just accelertaing the mass downward. What percentage of GPE is left after accounting for that? Then what about shredding the steel? Now how much? What about ejecting all that steel and all that dust sideways? Now how much GPE have you got left? Then, after subtracting all that, you think you have enough to blow that cloud up like a balloon? Come on. There is 3 times as much hot air inside that dust cloud as there was inside the building? Where did that pressure come from?

1) Hoffman's assertion that all of the concrete was pulverized to 60 microns is unsubstantiated.
2) The claim of 1.5 kWh/t to crush concrete to 60 microns is based off of the energy usage of an impact crusher.
3) This thread is not discussing collapse times; it is discussion the cloud, the claim of pulverized concrete, and the PE of the structure.
4)"A ton of TNT releases about 4.2×10^9 joules upon explosion"source => 1 ton of TNT is 1.05% of the PE of the tower as a whole, 52.5% of the PE of the top of WTC 1 as collapse began, and 24.2% of the PE of WTC 2 as collapse began. Are you starting to see just how much explosives would need to be added to make a different to the "pulverization" of the debris?

I'll deal with the rest later, the dog needs to go for a walk.

 

[MetalPig]

Those percentages were based off of the WTC Report that stated

Yes, I understand where and how you got them.

The 2% just seems too low to me.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, I understand where and how you got them.

The 2% just seems too low to me.

That one you'll have to take up with NIST.

((8*10^9)/(4*10^11))*100 = 2% *shrug*

 

[Bell]

For TruthSeeker1234 !!!

Pulverized

http://www.amny.com/news/local/grou...,0,3265693.photogallery?coll=am-wtc-headlines

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

How about it OCT? If I'm wrong about near-complete pulverization of all non-metallic contents of the twin towers, then where is it? I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than some statement by the land fill operator. I want to see pictures of stacked up floors. And crunched desks. And busted computer monitors. And carpet.

This tactic is similar to ID/Creationists. Instead of the God-Of-The-Gaps we have the Conspiracy-Theory-Of-The-Gaps. No amount of evidence is good enough. They point to evidence you don't have and say it's evidence of a conspiracy. Yet the evidence they don't have (proof of explosives, etc.) means nothing.

But we don't see this. We see a pyroclastic flow, a mushroom cloud, and a crater full of smoldering dust and molten metal. If you ask me, you could drop a twin tower from twice its own height and it wouldn't get these kinds of observations.

We did not see pyroclastic flow or a mushroom cloud. I'm a Professional Civil Engineer and what I saw was exactly what I expected to occur from a structural failure of this magnitude. After reading your posts, I wouldn't ask your opinion of anything regarding physics or engineering.

 

[jskowron]

Did they mount rockets on the top floor to shove down?

Not quite. Obviously, directional nano-rockets (down only) were secretly attached to each individual non-metallic molecule in the WTC during a fire drill.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

So far it seems like the biggest "discredit" to Hoffman is that he wrote his paper in 2003. AFAIK, nobody on the government team has come along and actually tried to model the collapses, or do these kinds of energy balance sheets. Hoffman's approach is not complicated really. Can anyone link us to a study like this, that does an energy balance sheet for the whole collapse and shows that GPE is enough?

I suppose before that happened we'd have to resolve this little issue of where all the intact concrete, and desks, and computers, and humans, where it all went since OCT's keep trying to say I'm wrong about the pulverization.

How about it OCT? If I'm wrong about near-complete pulverization of all non-metallic contents of the twin towers, then where is it? I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than some statement by the land fill operator. I want to see pictures of stacked up floors. And crunched desks. And busted computer monitors. And carpet.

But we don't see this. We see a pyroclastic flow, a mushroom cloud, and a crater full of smoldering dust and molten metal. If you ask me, you could drop a twin tower from twice its own height and it wouldn't get these kinds of observations.

Your arrogance became tiresome a long time ago.

It's a shame that you cannot or will not learn what you do not know, or acknowledge what has been shown to you. So this raises a question: What's in all this for you? Hmm?

 

[Pardalis]

There is 3 times as much hot air inside that dust cloud as there was inside the building? Where did that pressure come from?

Your. Ass.

 

[uruk]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
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.

Hey! what ever happened to momentum and "bodies in motion tend to stay in motion untill acted upon by another force" I believe This is one of those Newtonian laws?

Bodies in motion have energy due to thier mass and movement (monetum). Where does all that energy go when they are inacted upon by another force (or in this case) a stationary object? I believe this involves another one of those Newton laws. You know the one: "Every action has an opposite but equal reaction."

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Arkan:

Your post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1936951&postcount=33 reminded me of something.

For some reason an average person looks upon a man-made structure such as a building and sees a static object. It just sits there, inert and unmoving. And when the Twin Towers come crashing down, the visual seems out of balance with what was there just prior.

However, what is forgotten, or not understood in the first place, is the energy the object required to be erected. Energy that did not float away somewhere once the task was complete.

Something I wrote a while back:

I tend to get the suspicion now and again that there are those who fail to understand how extraordinarily large each of the Twin Towers were. Plus, there's that ol' debbil gravity, a relentless force if ever there was one.

In relation to this -- and I'm guessing here -- I wonder if there's a prevailing sentiment that considers a building to be some benign object, calmly sitting at rest. If so, that would be wrong. Because of gravity there is a constant, relentless force that a building is, at any moment, dynamically working against in order to stay erect. (Indeed, our physical bodies are engaged in the same process.) Such an event as what initially transpired on 9/11 (extra-violent impact of each airplane) was enough to begin the process whereupon each building could not, due to its design, remain standing.