North Tower Dust Cloud Calcs Prove Explosives

Let's assume for the moment that the "guvmint" was willing to kill 3000 of its own citizens and military personnel to further [insert agenda here].

We can safely conclude from the above assumption that the government would then be willing to kill one more citizen to keep the whole thing a secret.

Let's assume TruthSeeker is still alive. Clinically, anyway.

That the secret cabal hasn't killed TruthSeeker is proof that he is wrong. QED.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
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:
Click to expand...


Exactly. Add to the GPE of the building itself the KE of the plane impact (causing structural damage), the conversion of the jet fuel from PCE to KE and heat at time of impact, and all of the other sources of energy in building. Example, flames and debris puncture an aerosol can with flammable contents; that can is going to be converted to KE and CE which converts yet more PE to work.

They seem massive, static, and inert; but in reality they are huge sources of PE.
 
Assume TruthSeeker is right.

Why put so much explosives in the building to pulverize EVERYTHING inside? Why not use a smaller amount? Say... just enough explosives to completely destroy the 2nd and 3rd floors.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Assume TruthSeeker is right.

Why put so much explosives in the building to pulverize EVERYTHING inside? Why not use a smaller amount? Say... just enough explosives to completely destroy the 2nd and 3rd floors.
Click to expand...

Well you see, if you have X lbs of explosives, you can expect to get Y lbs of residue. So, you need to add Z more lbs of explosives to obliterate the Y lbs of residue. Of course, your Z more lbs of explosives adds AA more lbs of residue, ad infinitum. Which is why you end up using micro-hush-a-boom-nukes.
 
I said
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.
gumboot than demonstrated his scientific ignorance by stating
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.
Click to expand...


Please review conservation of energy. Any work done by falling mass must come at the expense of time. The more work done on the way down, the longer it must take for mass to reach the ground. Put the other way around, the less time it takes for mass to reach the ground, the less work was done on the way down.

If a free falling 30 ton rock hit your head, it would likely crush you. It would slow down in exact proportion to the energy expended crushing you.


This is why the collapse times are so important
 
Truthseeker, what does this all lead up to? To the controlled demolition theory right?

Then tell us when and how the WTC towers have been rigged up with explosives?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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?
Click to expand...
TS, if you were let's say on the 10th floor of the South Tower at the time of collapse, how much of you do you think we would find after 100 stories fell on you?

ETA: Nevermind. Gumboot already posed a similar question.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, if the mass had fallen at free-fall speed, all of the energy would have been available to do work at the bottom. Instead, some work was done on the way down and the rest done at the bottom.

Where did you learn physics?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I said
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.
gumboot than demonstrated his scientific ignorance by stating


Please review conservation of energy. Any work done by falling mass must come at the expense of time. The more work done on the way down, the longer it must take for mass to reach the ground. Put the other way around, the less time it takes for mass to reach the ground, the less work was done on the way down.

If a free falling 30 ton rock hit your head, it would likely crush you. It would slow down in exact proportion to the energy expended crushing you.


This is why the collapse times are so important
Click to expand...

Wow...I don't recall time entering into the conservation of energy equation, nor the definition for work. Work is force exerted over a distance. Perhaps you are thinking of impulse, which is force exerted over a period of time? Nah, couldn't be. That would imply a basic knowledge of physics, something you have to have shown.

Just to remind you...

Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change form.

Note: no mention of time whatsoever.
 
Add to that the mass of falling debrie increases as more of the rubble is added to it from floor to floor.
And that much mass with all that momentum behind it is going impart ALOT of energy at ground level.
 
Alright. I went and did what someone investigating something should do, check out the sources. I contacted Eric Hufschmid and asked the following
I was reading your web page http://guardian.150m.com/hufschmid/WTC_PhysicsProblem.html and I had a question regarding your analysis. On your page you state that "400,000 cubic meters of concrete, most of which became a powder with a grain size below 5mm diameter, and much of it was below 1mm diameter" and I was curious as to your sources for both the amount of concrete, and the particle sizes. Would you be able to provide those?

Additionally, may I quote your reply to this email in discussions regarding your research?
Click to expand...

He was nice enough to reply in a very timely manner. Below is his reply verbatim
I wrote that physics challenge sometime between January and April of 2002. (I don't remember exactly.)

The figure "400,000 cubic meters of concrete" comes from news reports and websites. Example:
http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/dir_2003/1337/t_cover.html

The problem with those websites is that they don't specify how much of that concrete was used in the foundation of the building, which obviously did not pulverize, and how much was used in the floors of the towers.

However, it doesn't make any difference whether it was 400,000 cubic meters of concrete that was pulverized, or 5,000 cubic meters .

The important point of my physics challenge is that every floor in the building was a concrete slab, and every floor was pulverized. Also, the entire steel structure was broken down to pieces. There is no way to explain this pulverization without explosives.

The government has never bothered to provide details on the collapse of the towers for what should be obvious reasons. Namely, the towers did not collapse. Instead, they were demolished with explosives. So naturally they do not want to bring any attention to the amount of concrete that turned to powder.

Feel free to post my e-mail if you want. And if you like science challenges, here is a much simpler one that you should enjoy:
http://www.EricHufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.html

Eric Hufschmid
http://www.hugequestions.com
Click to expand...

So far, I just replied thanking him for the quick answer and have posed no further questions.
 
I'd be curious to know how he knows that every floor was pulverized. Between the two towers there were, what, 220 floors? Has he accounted for all of them?

The next question I'd ask him would be along those lines.
 
Slipknotmcfadden - Welcome to the Forum.

You are correct of course. Even more so, why are Alex Jones, James Fetzer, and Dylan Avery all still alive. The argument that they are "Too well known" is bullcrap. There are people in this world who for a small fee will go to great lengths to make murders look like accidents, and I am sure If they wanted to, the big bad gumint got da money.

But they just brush this off. I like to call it the "Maddox" principle (see his sites blurb on 9/11 conspiracy).

TAM
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Alright. I went and did what someone investigating something should do, check out the sources. I contacted Eric Hufschmid and asked the following

He was nice enough to reply in a very timely manner. Below is his reply verbatim

So far, I just replied thanking him for the quick answer and have posed no further questions.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So his sources for the pulverized concrete maxim, which through the PCT rumormill has morphed into "total pulverization into a fine powder of everything but broken pieces of steel", are accounts that include:
Among the debris were munitions, firearms and bags of street drugs that had been in the custody of an FBI office; piles of aircraft and elevator parts; the sundered pieces of a 360-foot TV antenna; broken segments of enormous steel girders, leviathan fragments that weighed more than 4,000 pounds per linear foot.

"...We saw people being removed in body bags..."

P&J planners devised a process whereby larger debris—steel girders, crushed automobiles, and the like—was separated from the rest via huge cranes (31 in all, some of them 300 feet tall) and grapple excavators. The remaining tons of rubble were sifted through multi-level metal "shakers"—consisting layers of sieve-like plates, each plate with sifting holes smaller than those of the one above it. Materials that measured less than six inches in any dimension were ultimately divided according to size into three sub-groups, then run through screeners on a conveyor belt.

At every stage, the separated materials were subject to new screenings and walk-through inspections. Human remains were taken to a temporary morgue, tagged and refrigerated for later DNA analysis. Even the smallest items of personal property were removed, photographed and catalogued by the New York Police Department in hopes of returning them to families of victims.
By the time the recovery and disposal effort ended in August of 2002, Fresh Kills had seen 1.65 million tons of debris shipped and rolled onto its grounds, including 1,400 wrecked vehicles; more than 400,000 cubic yards of concrete; 12,000 miles of electrical cable; 125,000 tons of steel; and 4,250 human remains.
Click to expand...
 
'd be curious to know how he knows that every floor was pulverized. Between the two towers there were, what, 220 floors? Has he accounted for all of them?
Click to expand...

We know that every floor was pulverized because

1) We have multiple videos of it taking place. We observe, right from the beginning of each "collapse", huge quantities of very dense, heavy dust being systematically ejected sideways in all four directions.

2) At no time to we observe floors falling into one another.

3) When it is over, we do not observe intact concrete floors stacked up. Each floor was about one acre in area, by about 4 inches thick, and held in a steel pan. Instead, we observe a smoldering crater. If the floors were not pulverized, where are they? Where are 110 acre-sized floors, stacked up and broken into pieces?

Guys, look at the pictures. The floors were obliterated.

The "metorite" picture is quite interesting too. What is this stuff? Was it previously molten? Have samples been made available for testing? I'm sure Dr. Jones would love to do some testing to see what it is. In any case, the "metorite" would account for, what, 1/100,000 of the floors?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
We know that every floor was pulverized because

1) We have multiple videos of it taking place. We observe, right from the beginning of each "collapse", huge quantities of very dense, heavy dust being systematically ejected sideways in all four directions.

2) At no time to we observe floors falling into one another.

3) When it is over, we do not observe intact concrete floors stacked up. Each floor was about one acre in area, by about 4 inches thick, and held in a steel pan. Instead, we observe a smoldering crater. If the floors were not pulverized, where are they? Where are 110 acre-sized floors, stacked up and broken into pieces?

Guys, look at the pictures. The floors were obliterated.
Click to expand...

1) We have videos of dust being ejected. There are many things within an office block that will turn to dust far, far more easily than concrete will.

2) Do you have amazing super sight that allows you to see through dust clouds and provide proof for that statement?

3) When that mass of floorplates hit the ground, it would likely have been moving 120mph+. Compressed into an unrecognisable mess, down into the basement levels. Did you seriously expect to see a nice neat stack of floorplates?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Guys, look at the pictures. The floors were obliterated.
Click to expand...
I agree. There are no "pancakes" to observe. The floors were obliterated. They were not "completely pulverized into a fine powder", though. They were obliterated into pieces of highly variable sizes or compressed into larger masses.

BTW, you're not proposing to know what went on inside those clouds of debris as the buildings collapsed simply by looking at the clouds of debris, are you?
 
Nobby offered
Just to remind you...

Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change form.

Note: no mention of time whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Of course conservation of energy will affect fall times.

In order for an object to fall from its height all the way to the ground at free fall speed, 100% of its stored GPE is converted to KE and put to work accelerating the mass downward. Any other work done along the way must be subtracted from the energy available to accelerate the mass downward. Less acceleration means it is going to take longer to get to the ground. This is why air resistance increases the fall times of objects. Some of the available energy is spent pushing the air out of the way.

Can some of you OCT's who actually understand conservation of energy please correct your more science-challenged debate partners, please? Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom