A mind numbing amount of explosives

FactCheck

Muse
FactCheck
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
619
I would like to know if anyone could calculate how much explosives would be needed to

1) Create a molten pool for 3 months

2) Cut the columns on all floors to remove resistance

3) Throw the columns 300 feet in large 20-30 story sections

Sounds like a mind numbing amount which makes hiding it laughable. Heh!
 
Ballpark figures:

1) Not really credible at any amount, though you didn't describe the size of the pool. Recall that TNT is about ten times less energetic, pound for pound, than jet fuel. The DELTA group estimated the amount of heat energy in combustibles between the two WTC Towers was on the order of 20 kilotons TNT equivalent. Also, if all that heat was applied at once rather than gradually, the heat loss through radiation would be far higher, since it would start at a vastly higher temperature rather than being sustained at a smouldering or burning temperature. That amount of explosives would surely disperse any such "pool."

Even atomic bombs detonated on the desert sands don't create long-lasting pools of liquid. Nor do those detonated deep in the ground create lasting bubbles of molten rock.

2) Approximately 150 kg TNT per floor cut, after the energy estimate in Greening. Perhaps a factor of two or three less on average, taking into account the tapering column geometry and the possibility of drilling or otherwise weakening columns before detonation. If not ideally placed, e.g. can't cut wallboard so you have to use cratering charges stood off a couple of inches, multiply by several.

3) Roughly 2000 kg, if thrown from the 50th floor. For the third time in as many days, see the post here and elsewhere in the thread.

ETA: Fascinating paper on atomic test melting here. (Yes, it's a strange "https" address, not sure why; I had no problems opening it. It's from the Lawrence Livermore servers, not a questionable site.)
 
Last edited:
Don't forget you need to add:

4) Pulverise all of the concrete in both towers.

-Gumboot
 
FactCheck said:
I would like to know if anyone could calculate how much explosives would be needed to...
Click to expand...

...substantially more than would have been able to be installed without someone noticing, or during Scott Forbes' mysterious "power down"
 
FactCheck said:
I would like to know if anyone could calculate how much explosives would be needed to

1) Create a molten pool for 3 months

2) Cut the columns on all floors to remove resistance

3) Throw the columns 300 feet in large 20-30 story sections

Sounds like a mind numbing amount which makes hiding it laughable. Heh!
Click to expand...

Your question doesn't say whether potential energy is included. It is ridiculous to think that on the one hand an extreme amount is needed while on the other hand you believe that they are not needed at all. Only think about it as a catalyst.
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
Your question doesn't say whether potential energy is included. It is ridiculous to think that on the one hand an extreme amount is needed while on the other hand you believe that they are not needed at all. Only think about it as a catalyst.
Click to expand...
so how much explosives would be needed to produce each observed phenomenon at ground zero?
 
einsteen said:
Your question doesn't say whether potential energy is included. It is ridiculous to think that on the one hand an extreme amount is needed while on the other hand you believe that they are not needed at all. Only think about it as a catalyst.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But remember some people have minds that tend to get numb.
 
FactCheck said:
I would like to know if anyone could calculate how much explosives would be needed to

1) Create a molten pool for 3 months

2) Cut the columns on all floors to remove resistance

3) Throw the columns 300 feet in large 20-30 story sections

Sounds like a mind numbing amount which makes hiding it laughable. Heh!
Click to expand...

Is this a trick question?

The correct answer is that no explosives would be needed.
 
This is not really a good argument, since, obviously no explosives were in fact used, but all of these effects* were due to the shear energy of the collapse.

(*Well actually none of these effect actually occurred)

What is more important is to ask the truthers to calculate just how much explosives would have been needed for their scenario, just an order of magnitude in TNT. (i.e. was it 100 lbs of TNT, 1000 lbs of TNT, 10,000 lbs of TNT, etc)
 
einsteen said:
Your question doesn't say whether potential energy is included. It is ridiculous to think that on the one hand an extreme amount is needed while on the other hand you believe that they are not needed at all. Only think about it as a catalyst.
Click to expand...

It's not like we're claiming the two choices are either explosives brought down the building or it spontaneously collapsed for no reason. A lot of the effects of the collapse subsequent to this 'catalyst' are attributed to the 'explosives' themselves by many truthers.
 
Last edited:
Just to play devils advocate a little:

I don't think it would take a mind numbing amount of explosives. Sure, it would take a lot, but if you could place a bomb, say the size of a 2 drawer file cabinet next to almost every core column and detonated them, I would think you would damage enough core columns to cause collapse. I mean a file cabinet could hold probably 150-200 pounds of explosive each. Multiply that bythe number of core columns, and its not so much, especially if its brought in in small file cabinets a few at a time... or even all at once as a moving company bringing a couple hundred file cabinets into a gigantic office building wouldn't raise many eyebrows.

Now, understand, I AM NOT FOR A SECOND SAYING THAT I THINK THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED!!!!!

But lets face it, the towers, or any building for that matter could be brought down with explosives, and not so many that it would be impossible to do.

Of course, it would probably be easier and more effective to just hijack an airliner and crash it in to the building.
 
einsteen said:
Your question doesn't say whether potential energy is included. It is ridiculous to think that on the one hand an extreme amount is needed while on the other hand you believe that they are not needed at all. Only think about it as a catalyst.
Click to expand...
And for that all the "truthers" would have to do is show that there was a deficiency in the amount of energy to produce a global collapse. Or that there was something lacking in the theories for the collapse initiation. Maybe a credible structural engineer could work on that for you. Should we expect this anytime soon?
 
einsteen said:
Your question doesn't say whether potential energy is included. It is ridiculous to think that on the one hand an extreme amount is needed while on the other hand you believe that they are not needed at all. Only think about it as a catalyst.
Click to expand...
Nope. This is about conspiracists' claims that the three effects listed in the OP were caused by explosives and incendiaries because they could not have occurred through "natural" means.

jujigatami said:
Just to play devils advocate a little:

I don't think it would take a mind numbing amount of explosives. Sure, it would take a lot, but if you could place a bomb, say the size of a 2 drawer file cabinet next to almost every core column and detonated them, I would think you would damage enough core columns to cause collapse.
Click to expand...
See my answer above. It's not just about collapse, it's about everything the conspiracists say was done (throw in pulverizing all the concrete in mid-air, and creating pyroclastic flows of expanding gas and dust, while you're at it.

The conspiracists are living in a world of science fiction and fantasy.
 
Gravy said:
Nope. This is about conspiracists' claims that the three effects listed in the OP were caused by explosives and incendiaries because they could not have occurred through "natural" means.

See my answer above. It's not just about collapse, it's about everything the conspiracists say was done (throw in pulverizing all the concrete in mid-air, and creating pyroclastic flows of expanding gas and dust, while you're at it.

The conspiracists are living in a world of science fiction and fantasy.
Click to expand...


They want to argue that the building could not have fallen the way it did unless the resistance was removed. When you point out how much explosives you would need they always forget to match the amount needed for the conspiracy story. Heh!
 
Gravy,

I don't know if I buy that.

I mean, no amount of explosives will create pools of molten metal for months, because that's not what explosives do.

All I was saying is that it wouldn't take a "mind numbing" amount of explosives to take down the WTC or really almost any high rise.

If there were explosives on every core column in the towers on some floor up pretty high, it would cause a collapse, and aside from the many explosions that would be seen and heard for miles around, the collapse would look about the same- Upper mass falling and crushing the lower mass, the dust cloud (call it whatever you want), the columns being thrown, etc.

I'm not talking about the truther stupidity.

I'm just saying I believe that it could be possible to bomb a building, with a not very mind numbing amount of explosives (like several tons, but not hundreds of tons), and have it collapse looking a lot like the WTC did.

I also believe that the WTC collapse could have been achieved with explosives. NOT THAT IT WAS! Simply that if enough explosives could have been smuggled in and placed near enough to the core columns and detonated it would weaken the core columns in the same way that the plane impact and the subsequent fire did.

Its not mind numbing to think that terrorists might try to do that. They wouldn't need to weaken columns, remove drywall, or run miles of wire either. It could happen. It didn't, but it could have. And if the terrorists did manage to blow up the towers with bombs, we'd have truthers screaming something along the lines of "why would a bunch of arabs living in caves engage in a plan that would have been so easy to catch? Why wouldn't they just hijack planes and ram them in to the towers?"

Sure, a plan like that probably wouldn't succeed (and would have to involve a couple of office managers and security guards). Heck, they'd probably be caught pretty easily, but I've worked in big buildings with big companies and it isn't impossible to think that it could happen.

Of course, here is my disclaimer: I do not for even a second believe that any explosives were used in the 9/11 attacks.

I hope I'm being clear and that no one reading this thinks that I buy in to any truther nonsense.
 
On February 26th 1993 an incorrectly placed bomb almost succeeded in toppling the North Tower!

That bomb was 1200 pounds of urea nitrate pumped up with some nitroglycerine and boosted with lead azide, magnesium, ferric oxide and three canisters of hydrogen gas. The TNT equivalent of high explosive would be about 1 tonne!

So I would say that about 2 tonnes of well-placed HE might just do it.....
 
Apollo20 said:
On February 26th 1993 an incorrectly placed bomb almost succeeded in toppling the North Tower!

That bomb was 1200 pounds of urea nitrate pumped up with some nitroglycerine and boosted with lead azide, magnesium, ferric oxide and three canisters of hydrogen gas. The TNT equivalent of high explosive would be about 1 tonne!

So I would say that about 2 tonnes of well-placed HE might just do it.....
Click to expand...

It almost succeeded huh? And by almost succeeded you mean not even close right?
 
Quad4_72 said:
It almost succeeded huh? And by almost succeeded you mean not even close right?
Click to expand...

No, it did almost succeed. The bomb itself didn't take out any columns, but it did severely damage a concre wall. This was a wall that retainined soil that confined large piers that made up the foundation for other parts of the structure.

Had that retaining wall collapsed, the soil around the surrounding foundations would have become loose, the foundations themselves would have been unsupported, buckled and collapse. This would lead to part of the building being supported and another not. The tower would have literally toppled like a tree.

One of the guys I work with went to a thingy (that's a technical term) hosted by Leslie Robertson on the towers not long after the bomb. Robertson said that is was a "when, not if" situation that the towers would collapse if the wall wasn't repaired.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
No, it did almost succeed. The bomb itself didn't take out any columns, but it did severely damage a concre wall. This was a wall that retainined soil that confined large piers that made up the foundation for other parts of the structure.

Had that retaining wall collapsed, the soil around the surrounding foundations would have become loose, the foundations themselves would have been unsupported, buckled and collapse. This would lead to part of the building being supported and another not. The tower would have literally toppled like a tree.

One of the guys I work with went to a thingy (that's a technical term) hosted by Leslie Robertson on the towers not long after the bomb. Robertson said that is was a "when, not if" situation that the towers would collapse if the wall wasn't repaired.
Click to expand...

If it had collapsed in 1993, just think of the fascinating problems you engineering types would be dealing with. And (in that alternate world) what the equivalents of our truthers would be claiming...

"It's obvious that it wasn't a bomb. It had to be an airplane, but a big stealth one. It just went plonk into the tower, and the whole thing fell over. Anyone who says there was no plane, and that it was a bomb, is a government shill!"
 
Gravy 1, 9/11 truth -1,000,043

einsteen said:
Your question doesn't say whether potential energy is included. It is ridiculous to think that on the one hand an extreme amount is needed while on the other hand you believe that they are not needed at all. Only think about it as a catalyst.
Click to expand...
Exactly why 9/11 truth thinks 9/11 looks like a CD, is why 9/11 makes CD look like 9/11. The energy to destroy buildings is primarily gravity. So 9/11 does not look like CD, CD looks like 9/11 (not the other way). This is the problem with people who lack knowledge. They make faulty analogies. You also need to spell out how you think the CD of the WTC took place; if you do not place the explosives on the steel in the proper way, you can not use a little explosives you have to tons. Therefore, if you have no evidence of CD, you have nothing to complain about. 9/11 truth makes mistakes, you really want to support outright lies and misinformation?

There were no explosives on 9/11. You never will have facts or evidence so why are you missing the point. The point is, and everyone knows this for a fact, some truthers have said (hoffman, jones) the concrete was all turned to dust (if not said they implied, go look it up)! Gravy says correctly this would take tons of explosives (making hoffmans total dust event), on the order of 116.1568 tons of TNT (Hoffman said so)! On the steel being ejected hundreds of feet, would take tons of explosives on the order of 2 to 10 tons per event. So please defend your ideas, if you have any on 9/11 with some facts. You missed the point on this one.

Hoffman also want more energy to make the dust cloud bigger and hotter, and one of the small part of heat energy he wants is equal to 985 TONS of TNT!!! Hoffman may be kind of nuts, but then why believe me, you must agree with his stuff, or you would point out how far gone this guy is. (Hoffman has another idea that needs 10 times that amount of energy!!) Hoffman, like most truthers bends the truth to say the "official story is not true", and he does this my making up BIG lies! You have you wagon hitched to the correct group.

Gravy is being conservative, and explaining this 9/11 truth topic perfectly. Good job Gravy, bad job 9/11 truth.

If you can not grasp simple ideas, it is no wonder why you grasp hearsay and lies of 9/11 truth. When you support these ideas please explain what happen to the sounds of explosives, or how thermite (a momentary reaction) can leave molten metal for weeks. Just explain what 9/11 truth really means. When they say the ejected column are proof of CD; what do they really mean? Since that is a false statement what do they really mean?
 
Last edited:
Beachnut:

The lack of explosive sounds is easy!

The explosions created a vacuum (that sucked the building down at faster than free fall don't you know), and sound doesn't travel in a vacuum!
 
Well my vacuum must be unique then, as it is the noisiest SOB on the planet.

TAM;)
 
jujigatami said:
Gravy,

I don't know if I buy that.

I mean, no amount of explosives will create pools of molten metal for months, because that's not what explosives do.

All I was saying is that it wouldn't take a "mind numbing" amount of explosives to take down the WTC or really almost any high rise.

If there were explosives on every core column in the towers on some floor up pretty high, it would cause a collapse, and aside from the many explosions that would be seen and heard for miles around, the collapse would look about the same- Upper mass falling and crushing the lower mass, the dust cloud (call it whatever you want), the columns being thrown, etc.

I'm not talking about the truther stupidity.

I'm just saying I believe that it could be possible to bomb a building, with a not very mind numbing amount of explosives (like several tons, but not hundreds of tons), and have it collapse looking a lot like the WTC did.

I also believe that the WTC collapse could have been achieved with explosives. NOT THAT IT WAS! Simply that if enough explosives could have been smuggled in and placed near enough to the core columns and detonated it would weaken the core columns in the same way that the plane impact and the subsequent fire did.

Its not mind numbing to think that terrorists might try to do that. They wouldn't need to weaken columns, remove drywall, or run miles of wire either. It could happen. It didn't, but it could have. And if the terrorists did manage to blow up the towers with bombs, we'd have truthers screaming something along the lines of "why would a bunch of arabs living in caves engage in a plan that would have been so easy to catch? Why wouldn't they just hijack planes and ram them in to the towers?"

Sure, a plan like that probably wouldn't succeed (and would have to involve a couple of office managers and security guards). Heck, they'd probably be caught pretty easily, but I've worked in big buildings with big companies and it isn't impossible to think that it could happen.

Of course, here is my disclaimer: I do not for even a second believe that any explosives were used in the 9/11 attacks.

I hope I'm being clear and that no one reading this thinks that I buy in to any truther nonsense.
Click to expand...

In other words you make the bomb do what the fires did. I think most would agree with that. The problem for conspiracy theorists is the loss of a key argument. "The building must have explosives because it fell too fast." If they think a few bombs could have done it then why was there no resistance? See the stupidity in their argument?
 
Lets see what we have so far...

1) I'm going to say it is the pool size of the molten metal pool in Jones paper. (Yes, the concrete pancaked floors which he says is molten metal. That's all we have from the conspiracy story.

2) Approximately 150 kg TNT per floor cut. Lets say it was the top 70 stories for argument sake. That's 10,500 kg (23,140 lbs) of tnt. How much C4? Thermite?

3) 2000 kg to through 20 to 30 stories of column trees 300 ft. (I know it was on another thread but the purpose for this thread is to add it all up.

4) To turn concrete into dust - no number yet

5) To super heat air and create a pyroclastic flow - no number yet.


Looks mind numbing to me...
 
Last edited:
FactCheck said:
4) To turn concrete into dust - no number yet
Click to expand...
IIRC, in the Bazant, Le paper they calculated that it would take 311 tons of TNT per tower to reduce the concrete to the average particle size found in the dust, if the explosives were placed in closely-spaced holes drilled in the concrete. Explosives just aren't very efficient when it comes to turning concrete to dust.
 
FactCheck said:
In other words you make the bomb do what the fires did. I think most would agree with that. The problem for conspiracy theorists is the loss of a key argument. "The building must have explosives because it fell too fast." If they think a few bombs could have done it then why was there no resistance? See the stupidity in their argument?
Click to expand...

Like I said above... if you take the truthers stupidity into account, then there is NO amount of explosives that can do what they are saying. It is mind numbing.
 
Let's say that the new TM position is that a small amount of explosives would be needed to take down the towers.

Obviously the towers collapsed from the points of jet impact, so that's where the bombs would have to be. So what kind of bombs would survive the impacts and the fires?

And wouldn't a "small" amount of explosives completely contradict "squibs," pulverized concrete, etc?
 
Apollo20 said:
Beachnut:

The lack of explosive sounds is easy!

The explosions created a vacuum (that sucked the building down at faster than free fall don't you know), and sound doesn't travel in a vacuum!
Click to expand...
Dr.G., you probably have never seen this video

http://youthfulindiscretions.com/vi...in New York City (NYC) America after Plan.avi

Beachnut,

There are a lot of anomalies in the collapse. Let's try to solve it within the gravity driven point of view, I'll copy paste some of the posts I've made elsewhere. I would like to have a normal reaction, no rants and raves, insults intimidations etc. Only David B. Benson replied a little bit and someone called assbag, the latter mentioned the funneling of mass within the frames but IMHO that doesn't change the story at all. No LC reaction yet, they are too busy with the pentagon I guess
==========

The south tower's top section topples as we all know. It seems that some
rows of squibs (I know it is not the best word) or puffs appear when
the top block starts toppling. I've currently only synchronized two videos,
one with the camera perpendicular to the wall, in this direction the block
topples (it topples mainly in that direction and a little bit to the left).
The other video is from front/right, about 45 degrees very far away.

Let's go back to these videos (it's not needed to download them but they are here for reference)

http://rapidshare.com/files/80160735/911.wtc.2.demolition.headon.avi.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/82166625/south_tower_collapse.mpeg.html

We've seen before that when we take into account the distance that the rumbling sound already starts before a part of the top section hits the next floor.

But audio could be faked very easily, something that we've seen in the past. On the other hand it could also be that the sound of the first video is genuine but shifted in order to correct for the time delay. Personally I don't believe this because I've seen more videos that show this. But let's skip the audio and concentrate on the visual evidence.

The first video (and also the 2nd) show that there appears some rows of what is often called squibs. See the following animated gif:

8ekther.gif

http://i17.tinypic.com/8ekther.gif

If we synchronize both videos and extract some frames we get

http://i10.tinypic.com/6sum8a9.jpg
http://i3.tinypic.com/6y1bwcp.jpg
http://i9.tinypic.com/71dr2vn.jpg
http://i6.tinypic.com/6yjwc2q.jpg
The red line in the picture is the low part of the impact zone and the yellow lines are the locations where the squibs seem to originate. If we take the average of these four images we get the following

86ocrqa.jpg

http://i18.tinypic.com/86ocrqa.jpg

This easily shows that the average distance between the rows of squibs doesn't fit the height of a story. Although there is an error margin in the measurements it is absolutely clear that we see distinct rows, especially when you look at the videos in detail. The 2nd row clearly originates from the mechanical floors. The smoke colour is also different than the colour of the smoke at top, I don't know what that means but that's just an observation.

Since for the first video a width of 108 pixels is 64 meter the distance between the yellow lines is resp 14 and 20 pixels, i.e. 8.3 meter and 11.9 meter.

The distance of a story is known and that is roughly 3.78 meter. This means that it cannot be made plausible that the squibs are caused by the air pressed out, because

1) it doesn't fit with the distance between the floors
2) the top section topples, which means that the lowest floor of that section and the next one of the intact building cannot enclose the air. The effect could play a role later in the collapse when enough floors are pancaked and the situation becomes more symmetrical.
3) the velocity is relatively low in the beginning
4) if the top section breaks the concrete of the intact floors and the effect is due to the ejection of dust caused by these collisions then the distance should also be the same as in 1)

In the first video we also observe something else that is important, the following animated gif has been made for that

853hms5.gif

http://i6.tinypic.com/853hms5.gif

The left wall of the south tower (seen from video) is the right part of the animation. That object is more than 5 meter because it is about 10 pixels and therefore no human being.

The average image trick cannot be used here and I placed roughly white spots on the estimated centre of mass of the object, and did an image calculation with paint shop pro that takes the lightest of two pictures and then for a couple of extracted frames, this will give the following single picture with the trajectory of the object:

8eh9w2h.png


Here a parabole should be added into (I did that manually by the eye and not with least squares). In the video it almost looks like it is ejected from mid-air which is an optical illusion because of the dark smoke and debris around it. Therefore we have to assume it comes from the building. The object is ejected with about 13.6 m/s and comes from the building 10 pixels below the red line, that means

64 meter * 10/108 and that is about 5.9 meter under the red line.

If the top section falls with g (not 3g/4) then the speed it has reached could theoretically be 10.8 m/s, but if we shift the video back in time it seems that it is ejected at the moment that we have this situation

8faea0j.jpg

http://i16.tinypic.com/8faea0j.jpg

I'm sure if you work this out explicitly you will find that the maximum speed is lower than the speed of the ejected object. Oh yes I found a debunk already for that (a theoretical possibility) but I think the rows are more important
 
einsteen said:
The first video (and also the 2nd) show that there appears some rows of what is often called squibs. See the following animated gif:

[qimg]http://i17.tinypic.com/8ekther.gif[/qimg]
http://i17.tinypic.com/8ekther.gif
Click to expand...

Notice how the ejections of dust appear in a south to north direction.

This is exactly what we would expect considering the corner leading collapse was the southeast.
 
Tell him if he says squibs, he has lost it.

You already did.

You squibs are floor failing and expelling air. Sorry, but you mean explosives, not squibs! Stop using squibs, they have been debunked. Explosives make a rapid ejection to slower effect, the escaping air accelerates from slower speed. Your stuff is going the wrong direction to be from an explosion. But your rows of continuous squibs are floors failing at faster and faster speeds. A floor can only hold so much debris and it fails, falling a the speed of the other mass that hit it and its new mass, the broken floor, and all of this is accelerated by gravity. The outer shell is damaged and being kick all over the place.

Funny stuff is your spacing, about 5 to 10 percent of being a multiple of a single floor!

10 percent is well within the range of your errors in your pixel plight of phantasy. See, just how big is a pixel again? Your pixels give you a resolution with in ONE meter. So your not a floor apart becomes, yes, multiples of floors. I think you can keep working on this, it is debunking the explosive guys even better as you learn more. Neat stuff. How long did it take you to do the pixel stuff? You got the multiple floors within 10 percent! That is good stuff considering you resolution is about 1 meter or worse. (I understand each pixel is 0.592 meter, but you can not measure any better than 1 meter or so with that)
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
Dr.G., you probably have never seen this video
http://youthfulindiscretions.com/vi...in New York City (NYC) America after Plan.avi
Click to expand...
Can you turn up the sound any louder? Someone pushed the gain up too far. Sorry, not a single sound of explosive. Not even close. But I am sure if you push the gain up further, there will still be no sounds.

Many saw that video, before your friends rode the gain up, 6 years ago. Still no one heard explosives on 9/11, no one will now. Actual ears never heard explosives on 9/11. You may want to stick with thermite, it is newer than this video, Jones made it up 4 years after 9/11. That way your fantasy ideas with match a fantasy idea, better. The sound is busted. All the gain riding, and all the fake sounds can not fool those who heard the originals and those who we have shared 9/11 real memories with from that day. Pay attention, people there that day post here, they would tell you if they thought your ideas had merit.
 
BeachN as I said before, I use that word "squib" because I have no other idea how to call it in English (ps explosive reaction doesn't require explosives, you remember). If this is explained properly then I again say: yeahhhh stupid now I see. I'm open for everything
 
Einsteen:

Those videos are VERY interesting for sure, but I would be very careful about how to interpret them and not jump to conclusions.

P.S. Nice avatar!
 
einsteen said:
BeachN as I said before, I use that word "squib" because I have no other idea how to call it in English (ps explosive reaction doesn't require explosives, you remember). If this is explained properly then I again say: yeahhhh stupid now I see. I'm open for everything
Click to expand...
Squib just sounds silly. Use explosives, if you want explosives use them. Are the RDX, or what? Squib sounds funny and smacks of 9/11 truth.

Okay, tell me which explosive reaction we are talking about? I have yet to hear a coherent story on who, what, and how the WTC was blown up with some explosive reaction; except for terrorist, kill pilots, take planes, impact, fire, collapse.

Do not give up, but your calculation on the smoke coming out of the building happens on multiples of floors, well within a the tolerance of your measuring.

As for the deceleration of the object, that video is too short and clipped. Need a longer clip and you have to know what the object is; plus you have to measure just the vertical component, or the entire vector to see what the real speed is. If the piece is massive, it has to accelerate with gravity, or it has some magic dust on it to slow it down!

However, in the compression of the WTC the object could be ejected faster, much faster than the speed of collapse due to being ejected, like snapping out! The piece could slow down aerodynamically.
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
Dr.G., you probably have never seen this video

http://youthfulindiscretions.com/vi...in New York City (NYC) America after Plan.avi

Beachnut,

There are a lot of anomalies in the collapse. Let's try to solve it within the gravity driven point of view, I'll copy paste some of the posts I've made elsewhere. I would like to have a normal reaction, no rants and raves, insults intimidations etc. Only David B. Benson replied a little bit and someone called assbag, the latter mentioned the funneling of mass within the frames but IMHO that doesn't change the story at all. No LC reaction yet, they are too busy with the pentagon I guess
==========

The south tower's top section topples as we all know. It seems that some
rows of squibs (I know it is not the best word) or puffs appear when
the top block starts toppling. I've currently only synchronized two videos,
one with the camera perpendicular to the wall, in this direction the block
topples (it topples mainly in that direction and a little bit to the left).
The other video is from front/right, about 45 degrees very far away.

Let's go back to these videos (it's not needed to download them but they are here for reference)

http://rapidshare.com/files/80160735/911.wtc.2.demolition.headon.avi.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/82166625/south_tower_collapse.mpeg.html

We've seen before that when we take into account the distance that the rumbling sound already starts before a part of the top section hits the next floor.

But audio could be faked very easily, something that we've seen in the past. On the other hand it could also be that the sound of the first video is genuine but shifted in order to correct for the time delay. Personally I don't believe this because I've seen more videos that show this. But let's skip the audio and concentrate on the visual evidence.

The first video (and also the 2nd) show that there appears some rows of what is often called squibs. See the following animated gif:

[qimg]http://i17.tinypic.com/8ekther.gif[/qimg]
http://i17.tinypic.com/8ekther.gif

If we synchronize both videos and extract some frames we get

http://i10.tinypic.com/6sum8a9.jpg
http://i3.tinypic.com/6y1bwcp.jpg
http://i9.tinypic.com/71dr2vn.jpg
http://i6.tinypic.com/6yjwc2q.jpg
The red line in the picture is the low part of the impact zone and the yellow lines are the locations where the squibs seem to originate. If we take the average of these four images we get the following

[qimg]http://i18.tinypic.com/86ocrqa.jpg[/qimg]
http://i18.tinypic.com/86ocrqa.jpg

This easily shows that the average distance between the rows of squibs doesn't fit the height of a story. Although there is an error margin in the measurements it is absolutely clear that we see distinct rows, especially when you look at the videos in detail. The 2nd row clearly originates from the mechanical floors. The smoke colour is also different than the colour of the smoke at top, I don't know what that means but that's just an observation.

Since for the first video a width of 108 pixels is 64 meter the distance between the yellow lines is resp 14 and 20 pixels, i.e. 8.3 meter and 11.9 meter.

The distance of a story is known and that is roughly 3.78 meter. This means that it cannot be made plausible that the squibs are caused by the air pressed out, because

1) it doesn't fit with the distance between the floors
2) the top section topples, which means that the lowest floor of that section and the next one of the intact building cannot enclose the air. The effect could play a role later in the collapse when enough floors are pancaked and the situation becomes more symmetrical.
3) the velocity is relatively low in the beginning
4) if the top section breaks the concrete of the intact floors and the effect is due to the ejection of dust caused by these collisions then the distance should also be the same as in 1)

In the first video we also observe something else that is important, the following animated gif has been made for that

[qimg]http://i6.tinypic.com/853hms5.gif[/qimg]
http://i6.tinypic.com/853hms5.gif

The left wall of the south tower (seen from video) is the right part of the animation. That object is more than 5 meter because it is about 10 pixels and therefore no human being.

The average image trick cannot be used here and I placed roughly white spots on the estimated centre of mass of the object, and did an image calculation with paint shop pro that takes the lightest of two pictures and then for a couple of extracted frames, this will give the following single picture with the trajectory of the object:

[qimg]http://i3.tinypic.com/8eh9w2h.png[/qimg]

Here a parabole should be added into (I did that manually by the eye and not with least squares). In the video it almost looks like it is ejected from mid-air which is an optical illusion because of the dark smoke and debris around it. Therefore we have to assume it comes from the building. The object is ejected with about 13.6 m/s and comes from the building 10 pixels below the red line, that means

64 meter * 10/108 and that is about 5.9 meter under the red line.

If the top section falls with g (not 3g/4) then the speed it has reached could theoretically be 10.8 m/s, but if we shift the video back in time it seems that it is ejected at the moment that we have this situation

[qimg]http://i16.tinypic.com/8faea0j.jpg[/qimg]
http://i16.tinypic.com/8faea0j.jpg

I'm sure if you work this out explicitly you will find that the maximum speed is lower than the speed of the ejected object. Oh yes I found a debunk already for that (a theoretical possibility) but I think the rows are more important
Click to expand...

HEHEHE, you can tell what he is looking at is aluminum siding. How do I know? Because column trees come in 3's and that's all by its lonesome. It also actually SLOWS DOWN on video...



And the next one is even more laughable. The columns can clearly be seen getting pulled in before the so called "Squibs"/explosions, what ever... Heh!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&hl=en

Not a single explosion heard. I'm waitring for Jones to find magic fairy dust on the columns.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom