It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alternative 9/11 Theories

page: 19
2
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
TNT equivalent = TNT equivalent.

It doesn't matter if TNT or RDX or C-4 or ANFO is the proposed explosive. They all produce explosive effect


No, they don't. They all use different chemicals that have greatly different expansion rates, and some devices that can fail steel would not have to be explosive at all.

Even nuclear bombs can be converted to "TNT equivalent" but if you think a nuke produces the same effect as TNT then you are dense.



But like the calculations that you didn't understand, you don't understand this either.


What exactly is your experience with engineering principles, Seymour? As in, in terms of formal education or profession?




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


If you can't explain how those pieces were ejected then how can you, with so much false confidence, argue that it was a natural reaction to a gravity fed collapse?




Like I said, I'm not required to give you how those pieces were ejected.

It is sufficent to prove, as I have done, that explosives did not propel those steel pieces.

It is up to YOU to propose a theory that cannot be proven false.

But I'll give you a hint here - look into how steel bounces elastically.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


No, they don't. They all use different chemicals that have greatly different expansion rates, and some devices that can fail steel would not have to be explosive at all.

Even nuclear bombs can be converted to "TNT equivalent" but if you think a nuke produces the same effect as TNT then you are dense.



Yes, different explosives are made from different chemicals, etc. But they can be standardized to TNT equivalent.

Not explosive at all? What's your point? The discussion is whether or not explosives threw the steel. How can a non-explosive have explosive effects? Smells like another strawman.

You state that a nuke can be standardized to TNT equivalent, and then turn around and argue against it. We're not discussing fallout effects or EMP or anything else here. Smells like yet another strawman. That's 2 in this post alone. Congratulations, you're following the CT guidebook to a "T".



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Yes, different explosives are made from different chemicals, etc. But they can be standardized to TNT equivalent.


Just for a general comparison of explosive power calculated in a way meant to be roughly practical rather than scientifically accurate.

There the meaning of "TNT equivalent" ends.


Not explosive at all? What's your point? The discussion is whether or not explosives threw the steel. How can a non-explosive have explosive effects?


Extreme thermal radiation is one way.


You state that a nuke can be standardized to TNT equivalent, and then turn around and argue against it.


No, you're just ignorant of what you're talking about. TNT equivalence does not mean TNT = nuke. It does not mean, putting TNT in the towers, is the same as putting a nuke in the towers, which is what you insinuated in your last post, just because the TNT equivalence adds up.



We're not discussing fallout effects or EMP or anything else here.


Which is you diverting my question and saying that you have no experience or education with any form of engineering, really. But you don't have to tell me this.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist

No one is saying TNT was used. With all due respect we will NEVER know what TYPE of explosive was used. But was an explosive material used? YES... Type: Unknown.

Peace

CR



TNT equivalent = TNT equivalent.

It doesn't matter if TNT or RDX or C-4 or ANFO is the proposed explosive. They all produce explosive effect that can be standardized to TNT and will produce the same explosive effect.

But like the calculations that you didn't understand, you don't understand this either.


so as an analogy, what you're saying is that 1 pound of grapes weighs the same as one pound of apples ?



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Just for a general comparison of explosive power calculated in a way meant to be roughly practical rather than scientifically accurate.
There the meaning of "TNT equivalent" ends.

Extreme thermal radiation is one way.

No, you're just ignorant of what you're talking about. TNT equivalence does not mean TNT = nuke. It does not mean, putting TNT in the towers, is the same as putting a nuke in the towers, which is what you insinuated in your last post, just because the TNT equivalence adds up.



a- that's right, it's a way to measure EXPLOSIVE power so that as stated, one can measure a lb to a lb. So what's your beef? Again, we're talking about explosives throwing the steel 600'. You keep missing that point. Talking about equivalent explosive between the different explosive types, and attempting to come to an accepted measure of the needed explosive power to achieve the effects is therefore relevant.

b- Granted, a release of pure thermal energy would do it, by theoretically heating the air so that it expands explosively. This still doesn't change the fact that the resulting explosive heating of the air would have to exhibit the same explosive effects as say, explosives. Which would of course result in shrapnel and audio effects that weren't observed. This is inescapable. You're forgetting this important fact. So, what do you propose then? Nothing I bet, just throwing out outlandish "what if" scenarios against the wall and seeing if anything sticks. This is also right out of the CT guidebook, you're doing great.


c- no. I'm not insinuating anything. Strawmen are your special domain.

Also, regarding my education. You are correct that I'm not an engineer. I've already stated this in another thread. Must be embarassing to get pwned so badly that you need to resort to ad hom in order to make your points seem more valid to the lurkers here. Thank you for doing this, so that they can see the typical behavior of a troofer.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

so as an analogy, what you're saying is that 1 pound of grapes weighs the same as one pound of apples ?


Exactly.


The troofers here are argueing that it is vastly different getting hit by a bag of rocks and a bag of bricks.

No wonder that with this lack of reasoning they have a hard time accepting proof of what happened that day.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Still yet to see some scientific calculations to explain how steel weighing tons produced enough force to laterally embed itself into buildings 500ft away without the need of any explosives?

How is this possible?

Peace

CR



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Like I said, I'm not required to give you how those pieces were ejected


For one I never mentioned explosives. All I said was some other energy had to have been acting on those buildings for that steel to have been ejected the way it was, just as you also admit I have no idea what it was and have no need to know.

So we both agree there is no explanation given by the government, as you and I both know if they had one it would be in your list of de-bunker answers you refer to and would have been presented front and center.

So once again back to the whole point of my pointed questioning. Why are you so sure the NIST report successfully explains what happened? When quit clearly we both agree it doesn't...


Why are you not questioning the government, that should be what ATS is asking you cpt?

BTW you are deluding yourself if you think you've proven anything. Your cut and paste answers might satisfy your appetite to debunk, but it's empty calories and you are dieing a slow embarrasing death mate...
Obvioulsy...

[edit on 14/5/2008 by ANOK]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
a- that's right, it's a way to measure EXPLOSIVE power so that as stated, one can measure a lb to a lb. So what's your beef? Again, we're talking about explosives throwing the steel 600'.


High explosives don't "throw" steel, or at least not like what happened to the towers' steel. I never said otherwise.

I only jump in to try to get you to think outside the box on how you can destroy two skyscrapers like that, especially based on what you see in videos and photos of the debris. It doesn't have to be an enormous amount of high explosives providing the most unusual things you see during the collapses.

Having said that, I don't think there's any way it would be physically possible to eject so much more mass outside of the footprints of the building (~80%), than to have falling down and continuing the collapse, while constantly exerting so much extra energy to still send itself flying off horizontally, especially as the floors became progressively stronger towards the base. Building's don't just crush themselves to the ground to begin with, though. "Pancake theory" neglects the columns.



Talking about equivalent explosive between the different explosive types, and attempting to come to an accepted measure of the needed explosive power to achieve the effects is therefore relevant.


I'd like to see how you're going to crunch these numbers, because it isn't a known phenomenon in the first place.



This still doesn't change the fact that the resulting explosive heating of the air would have to exhibit the same explosive effects as say, explosives.


I've never seen anyone show that it's a fact that heated air must travel at least the same speed as chemical high explosives. Can you?

Depending on how much air is heated and how fast, as far as I know it could theoretically be a much more even and significantly longer application of pressure across the inside surfaces of columns. Who knows. Maybe something NIST could have considered.


You're forgetting this important fact.


Except it isn't a fact, it's just something you're saying.


Also, regarding my education. You are correct that I'm not an engineer. I've already stated this in another thread. Must be embarassing to get pwned so badly that you need to resort to ad hom in order to make your points seem more valid to the lurkers here.


No, I don't care about "lurkers," or really even about you. What "bothers" me (if that's the right word) is that you use ATS as a playground for your ego. Scoffing and sarcasm in every post, internet pollution imo. It can be found on any internet forum with adolescents actively posting, and I take it as negative energy. Not because you "pwn" me. I'm not in a game. I have nothing to prove. It's because your tone to others is vitriolic. That and you keep making things up as you go along and calling them facts, without so much as a source and after already admitting you don't have a formal education for any of this.

The example in this post being: stating that it is a fact that, to push the steel as seen in collapse videos, air must be traveling with the same velocity as high explosives. I'll be waiting for the source on that one for a while.



Thank you for doing this, so that they can see the typical behavior of a troofer.


Oh, no problem, no problem. It's an ad hominem for me to ask you if you any real experience with this stuff, but you calling me a "troofer" is... no different than any of your other posts. Black is white, white is black?



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist

Still yet to see some scientific calculations to explain how steel weighing tons produced enough force to laterally embed itself into buildings 500ft away without the need of any explosives?

How is this possible?

Peace

CR


Let me repeat. It is not necessary for me to have a theory about this.

It is sufficent to show that it would be impossible that for the theory you propose, the amount of explosives going off to produce the result would not go unnoticed.

I suggest you look into other areas.

Sherlock Holmes said something to the effect that once you have eliminated all possibilities, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the reason.

Explosives have been eliminated. Move on.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

High explosives don't "throw" steel, or at least not like what happened to the towers' steel. I never said otherwise.

especially as the floors became progressively stronger towards the base.

I've never seen anyone show that it's a fact that heated air must travel at least the same speed as chemical high explosives. Can you?
Depending on how much air is heated and how fast, as far as I know it could theoretically be a much more even and significantly longer application of pressure across the inside surfaces of columns. Who knows. Maybe something NIST could have considered.


1- Exactly. We agree then that explosives didn't throw those columns. Perhaps you can chime in and correct those that still think this from now on? If we're looking for truth, allowing others to be distracted by this is counterproductive.

2- I think you meant that the columns got stronger, not the floors.

3- A new one!! A slow sustained push makes sense, I figured this is where you were going. I could see that doing what is seen. To be honest however, I'd expect to see the dust to be pushed WELL ahead of the steel under this scenario. And I don't recall seeing this in any videos, do you?

So like in my above post, once you eliminate one thing.... move on.

In another post above, I made a suggestion that elastic "bouncing" of those steel parts might explain it. If you have experience swinging a sledge hammer into heavy steel, you'd know that you better hang on tight to the hammer, because it's gonna bounce.

It's discussed some in the link I gave, where it talks about ejected steel.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz=
To be honest however, I'd expect to see the dust to be pushed WELL ahead of the steel under this scenario.


I don't see why it couldn't be "pushed" together, it's just that large pieces of steel have more mass and take more time/energy to accelerate to the same speed as smaller debris.



Whatever is causing this, only a few floors into WTC1's collapse you already have a massive ejection of dust and smaller pieces of debris (still relatively large to us, but small compared to columns) something like 100 ft. out into the air within a relatively confined area.

If everywhere across a floor was erupting like that (or even large sections at a time), then it would be no surprise to me that so much steel was thrown out so far in all directions. There would literally be a lot of "push" going around.

With the majority of the mass is going out sideways per floor, and not down (accounting for most mass eventually ending up outside of the footprints at ground level, and not within them), I wonder where all the theoretical "driving mass" is coming from, and what it consists of (broken-up dust-floors can't impart shock loading very well, like dropping 50 lbs of pebbles and dust on a car vs. dropping a 50 lb single solid rock, the single rock will focus its energy on impact and lose less to "internal" movement, etc., and cause much more damage).

You literally have more energy going "out" than "down" in terms of where the steel is being constantly displaced during the collapses. Maybe something to consider.


In another post above, I made a suggestion that elastic "bouncing" of those steel parts might explain it. If you have experience swinging a sledge hammer into heavy steel, you'd know that you better hang on tight to the hammer, because it's gonna bounce.


But it will never spring back quite as far as it initially had to go, in order to build up the momentum to strike with whatever energy it did in the first place. For example, something falling 50 feet and bouncing will not bounce all the way back up to 50 feet unless the energy transfers were perfect somehow and you're in a vacuum, etc. You have debris that was laterally ejected 600 and 650 feet, and the width of the towers horizontally is something like 209 feet.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Which visual evidence shows a collapse? All I ever see is a huge cloud of dust and debris going everywhere.
Which one is a collapse and which is an explosion?



911research.wtc7.net..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Some good physics on the collapse:
www.truememes.com...

Also, if you haven't done it yet, please read LaBtop's thesis on the seismographs from 9/11. Don't think anyone has tried to debunk it yet and it makes for an interesting read.


Still waiting for evidence of why this(ejecting debris and pulverized concrete dust cloud) is to be expected of a building collapse. Please show at least one example of a building collapse that looked like the towers' alleged collapses.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I don't see why it couldn't be "pushed" together, it's just that large pieces of steel have more mass and take more time/energy to accelerate to the same speed as smaller debris.
If everywhere across a floor was erupting like that (or even large sections at a time), then it would be no surprise to me that so much steel was thrown out so far in all directions. There would literally be a lot of "push" going around.

You literally have more energy going "out" than "down" in terms of where the steel is being constantly displaced during the collapses. Maybe something to consider.

But it will never spring back quite as far as it initially had to go, in order to build up the momentum to strike with whatever energy it did in the first place. For example, something falling 50 feet and bouncing will not bounce all the way back up to 50 feet unless the energy transfers were perfect somehow and you're in a vacuum, etc. You have debris that was laterally ejected 600 and 650 feet, and the width of the towers horizontally is something like 209 feet.


1- I have no proof of my thoughts, but it just doesn't figure that heavier pieces could be accelerated with the dust. Dust weighs next to nothing and would get "pushed" ahead of the steel, for the duration of the "push" event. But really, why couldn't what you're proposing also be accounted for in some degree by the air being displaced as the tower "pancakes". It would provide virtually the same effect, just without the device?

2- there's the rub. How do we quantify how much fell outside the footprint and/or the collapse front? And more importantly, when? It's just as probable that the steel fell inwards and contributed to the collapse energy, then "slid" off the descending pile.

3- Agree totally that the bounce will never be perfect. But your example lacks clarity. We're not bouncing columns and then measuring the height that it then reaches. I'm talking about a column dropping vertically, and then being deflected horizontally. If a piece of steel was to bounce from a height of 500' would be airborne for 6.5 seconds ( freefall
). From that height, it would need to be moving laterally at 65 mph ( a very rough estimate that I've seen of the collapse front speed )to reach 600'. This is a mid height example, so something higher up would be airborne for a longer time and need less horizontal momentum.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


*chuckles* Alleged collapse.
Eh been over this twice now about how it was a collapse regardless if it was caused by explosives or the damage it sustained by way of a 757.......
I could ad hom it here but I won't.

Ok.
Your going to tell me a 110 story building will not have any other possible sources for such a dust cloud to be generated except concrete?

How can you honestly not realize how short sighted that statement is?
Or a better question is, how much do you know about construction?
Or the conditions with in any building much less a tall one?

[edit on 15-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
How come you completely dodged the question and provided no evidence to support your theory that the dust clouds as seen in the world trade centers' destruction should be expected from a collapse.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Didn't pay much attention if reading it at all huh?
Or are you just avoid responding to my response? As it addresses your claim despite the fact you want to pretend it doesn't. Rather showing that.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
You dodged again. You did not offer evidence to why the dust cloud should be expected from a collapse, you just offered alternative sources besides concrete.

All of the samples were very alkaline. Aqueous suspensions of Lioy and Chen's dust samples ranged from pH 9 to 11.5. Nobody was surprised by the high pH values, which are mainly due to cement dust. CaOH, CaCO3, and CaSO4 from cement, wallboard, and other construction materials permeated the samples.

pubs.acs.org...
Now I realize that there are other materials besides concrete that were turned to dust, but you have not explained why they turned to dust in a massive cloud as observed twice on 9/11.
I read you just fine, and you haven't answered the question with any of your replies.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- I have no proof of my thoughts, but it just doesn't figure that heavier pieces could be accelerated with the dust.


I didn't say they would be. Re-read what I said. Also by significantly longer than an HE pressure wave I'm still thinking only a second or two max.


But really, why couldn't what you're proposing also be accounted for in some degree by the air being displaced as the tower "pancakes".


Mainly, for me, personally, because I don't believe there was any "pancaking," for a lot of other reasons. Difference of opinions I guess.


2- there's the rub. How do we quantify how much fell outside the footprint and/or the collapse front?


By looking at the Ground Zero photos. I have tons of them. I've posted them way too many times, but I can still do it again. Basically you just look at the photographs, which show where all the debris landed, and in particular the photographs of the footprints. Neither tower had debris piles beyond the tree columns at their bases where the lobbies phased into the office floors. What debris was there, was not all densely packed, and contrary to what a lot of people think, the basements were not full up with densely-packed steel debris, either. WTC1's core structure was still partially intact at ground-level and even more was intact below. There are photos of the basement excavations, too. Most of the core columns still had to be cut out, and most of the rest of the debris down there seemed to be dust and aggregate from concrete. If you want me to post these photos, just give me the word.


And more importantly, when? It's just as probable that the steel fell inwards and contributed to the collapse energy, then "slid" off the descending pile.


So you're suggesting more mass "stuck around" until towards the end of the collapses, right? Before making its way out of the footprints to its final resting place.

A couple problems that I have with this are that the debris would not be able to go as far horizontally if it were launched from a floor closer to the ground (unless it were going faster, proportionately, to make up for it, which is more energy taken from the total potential energy of the falling mass), and this theory doesn't really match up with videos I watch that show debris start coming out steadily once the floor-by-floor sequence begins.


3- Agree totally that the bounce will never be perfect. But your example lacks clarity.


It doesn't for me, but I understand that the "x-component" (think x-axis in a coordinate system) of the movement from this theoretical bounce, is the only energy that's going to be moving it horizontally. And to get that energy applied in that direction from a "bounce," which is technically a spring mechanism (pressure applied to the steel dynamically, then an equilibrium is reached, then the steel "pushes" back), it has to fall or etc. onto the other object from that angle. Do you know what I'm saying? It's not a natural situation to imagine. It seems pretty contrived.

It's not going to be much energy, either. Steel is elastic, but under dynamic loading it behaves as though it is more brittle than under static loading. Did you know that? Look it up on websites for materials engineering classes. It will permanently deform in relatively small areas on the steel during collisions involving such large forces and objects, and those deformations are where the energy goes.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join