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.

 

Evidence Of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections on Winter Gardens Roof

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Since you seem to have some info, it shouldn't be too hard.


Don't worry. When I get time I'll shoot Mackey down yet again.


This would be great!!

I have faith in you.

After all, you and bsbray did a great job proving that his source that claimed an equivalent output of 270 woodstoves were used to test the trusses to be a lie.




posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by newagent89
How much explosive needed is not a pointless inquiry especially because knowledge of it could be a counterpoint to other arguments established on these forums.


I agree but that wasn't the point. I was just pointing out the fallacy of his argument with a little sarcasm.


I see in a later post you have constructed a straw man argument calling his argument BS while constructing it for yourself. You make out that he believes that the cause of the 500 foot shift was due to office fires.


Well the hypothesis is that office fires weakened the structure to the point of failure, so once the collapse was initiated the only thing acting on the towers was gravity. So how does the aircraft impact or any other factors you mention have any effect on the column sections being laterally ejected?

Sry no strawman, just pointing out contradictions and illogical thinking.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz


For a worked example, Rememnikov [151] presents a typical charge of 100 kg TNT
exploding at a distance of 15 meters. A series of objects placed at this distance would
experience 272 kPa or just under 40 PSI, but would only experience the overpressure for
17.2 milliseconds, including the reflection of the blast, after which the pressure wave has passed the objects.



The overpressure within the detonation can reach 430 lbf/in² (3 MPa) and the temperature can be 4500 to 5400 °F (2500 to 3000 °C). Outside the cloud the blast wave travels at over 2 mi/s (3 km/s). Following the initial blast (compression) is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure (rarefaction) creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to lift and throw a human. It draws in the unexploded burning fuel to create almost complete penetration of all non-airtight objects within the blast radius, which are then incinerated. Asphyxiation and internal damage can also occur to personnel outside the highest blast effect zone, e.g. in deeper tunnels, as a result of the blast wave, the heat, or the following air draw.


www.huliq.com...

That would be 100 times the overpressure of regular HE.



Let’s assume we’re discussing a section of unattached, hollow square
steel column 3 m high by 20 cm wide, with walls 4 cm thick. This object presents a
maximum of 0.6 m2 to the blast front, so it experiences a maximum force of 272 kPa x
0.6 m2 = 163,200 N for 17.2 milliseconds, for a total impulse of 2807 Newton seconds.


OK. let's use the new over pressure.

.6 m2 x 3,000 kPa (3 MPa) = 1,800,000 N

Remember that thermobarics have a longer duration of the over pressure but we'll use the same 17.2 millisecs)


The effects produced by FAEs (a long-duration high pressure and heat impulse) are often likened to the effects produced by low-yield nuclear weapons, but without the problems of radiation. However, this is inexact; for all current and foreseen sub-kiloton-yield nuclear weapon designs, prompt radiation effects predominate, producing some secondary heating; very little of the nominal yield is actually delivered as blast. The significant injury dealt by either weapon on a targeted population is nonetheless great.


So, 1,800,000 N for 17.2 millisecs becomes 30,960 N-secs



In this
case, our column contains 256 cm2 x 3 m of steel or 76,800 cm3 of steel, for a mass of
approximately 600 kg. The column would, therefore, be accelerated by 2807 N s / 600
kg = 4.7 meters per second, or about 10 miles per hour – hardly a remarkable value
compared to the ricochet scenario described above.


New values become:

30,960 N s/600 kg = 51.6 meters per second, or about 115 mph - yes, a remarkable value.



In order to propel this column at the
speed required, say 30 meters per second, we would need charges of at least 700 kg TNT
equivalent – very large and clearly audible explosives indeed, even accepting our
generous assumptions above.


In order to propel this column at the speed required, say 30 m/s, we would need thermobarics of at least 58.1 kg - Not so large and not so clearly audible as these are fuel air explosives and not your regular HE that has to blast through the outer shell.



Also missing from Dr. Griffin’s analysis is that, if large pieces of steel were propelled by
explosives, then smaller pieces should have traveled further still


What Mr. Mackey is forgetting is that a thermobaric will suck in after the initial blast. Which would include these smaller objects.


Please don't handwave this away Griff. It would be encouraging to at least see some sort of intellectual vigor in falsifying your working hypothesis that TB's were used to "blow" the ext columns 500'....


I didn't just hand wave it away.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
3- the horizontal momentum achieved by the tipping motion. The top of a long column tree, before it breaks off, will achieve a lateral velocity. Once it gets going, air resistance alone won't do much to slow it down. The only way to deny this is to deny that the ext columns tipped when the connections to the floors failed. Again, should I post a utube showing exactly that? Or would you rather just save face now and admit you're lying?

I completely disagree with this point.

Show the calculations, Seymour, or admit that it is BUNK.

In other words, PROVE IT using mathematics!



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

1- I'm also saying there's an explanation that you are ignoring.


What explanation? You keep saying this but you offer nothing. Your argument is very weak. I'm not saying explosives are the only explanation, just that at this point there is no other explanation that fits the known evidence. Do you see the difference?


2- you're kidding, right? Should I post a utube showing exactly that? Or would you rather just save face now and admit you're lying?


Now don't be silly, how did those columns cause so much damage to WTC7 if they just 'tipped over'? Obviously not all the columns were ejected, you see the ones tipping but ignore the ones that hit WTC 7 and the Winter Garden. Columns just 'tipping over' onto WTC 7 would not have caused enough damage for it to be the reason it collapsed. Again, you can't have it both ways.


3- the horizontal momentum achieved by the tipping motion....

LOL sry but you sound like 5 year old trying to explain something you were told but didn't understand. I'm not even going to bother humouring you.


4- and unfortunately, any physics you think you learned from DGR is wrong and stupid.


What or who is DGR? I learned the applicable physics to this discusion when I did my BSE/engineering principles from City&Guilds. Where did you learn yours?


5- I thought the claim by truthers is that they were "blown" 500' by explosives? Make up your mind already.


lol you can't read either. Please stop skimming and pay attention. You are the one who is saying the columns were moving horizontally and 'tipping over'. You don't seem to realise that's a contradiction. Moving horizontally would take a lot of explosives as you yourself has taken great pains to point out. Did they move horizontally, causing mass damage to WTC7, or did they just tip over and fall straight down? Which is it? Both maybe?


6-
no force? Ok, tell ya what, get anvil and hold it 2' over your foot, then drop it onto your foot and tell us about how you felt nothing because there was "no force".


Oh dear, again you don't seem to understand the physics being discussed. The forces needed to damage a steel building with steel is more than gravity can supply. It's not simply a case of the columns falling on WTC7. Try this at home, take two pieces of steel and drop one onto the other at any height you wish. When you've achieved this come back and share you profound findings...



7- yes, it does.


Troll, that the only conclusion I can make about you at this point.


8- I already proved that the explosives would have been massive if they were the sole reason that the ext columns ended up where they were.


So what? How does the amount of explosives you think would have been needed prove they weren't used? You still can't see the fallacy of your argument can you?

As has been pointed out to you already you are only considering conventional explosives anyway. You're so rigid in your argument you won't even allow for any grey, so black and white it's not normal Human behaviour. You are either extremely closed minded or a troll. You're completely unreasonable.


9- so falling objects = hollywood physics now? How's that work again?


Falling objects do not move 'horizontally' with enough force to move up to 600' and cause buildings to become so unstable they completely symmetrically collapse. Get real.


10 well, you can prove me wrong then. I say that there were explosions, yes. But no explosives.


Again denying witnesses who were on scene, why do you continue to deny this?

How do you know what they heard were not explosives? You have NO idea what those explosive noises were.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


The overpressure within the detonation can reach 430 lbf/in² (3 MPa) and the temperature can be 4500 to 5400 °F (2500 to 3000 °C). Outside the cloud the blast wave travels at over 2 mi/s (3 km/s). Following the initial blast (compression) is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure (rarefaction) creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to lift and throw a human. It draws in the unexploded burning fuel to create almost complete penetration of all non-airtight objects within the blast radius, which are then incinerated. Asphyxiation and internal damage can also occur to personnel outside the highest blast effect zone, e.g. in deeper tunnels, as a result of the blast wave, the heat, or the following air draw.


www.huliq.com...

That would be 100 times the overpressure of regular HE.



This was just sad.

The overpressure Mackey gives is at a distance of 15 meters.

The overpressure you give is WITHIN THE DETONATION.

Try again.

Plus - objects would be sucked back in? Are you kidding? Did you see the PLASTIC DUMMY being sucked back in when you watched that video in the other thread?

ETA:

And so what's the dB expected from this blast? NIST estimated what, 140dB from just a few lbs of RDX in their 7 scenario. How loud do you propose that the TB's would be? 150? 160?

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I'm not saying explosives are the only explanation....


Good.

Would you care to discuss what you understand these explanations to be and how likely they are?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I think one of the most valuable lessons to be drawn from this discussion is "what would be the aproximate amount of explosives that would be needed, to achieve what we all saw in the collapse"?
This is a matter that would deffinetly show, a demolition with explosives would not be possible in the WTC towers.
Because of the amount needed, it would be imposible to do it undetected, and even if we say "for argument´s sake" that the explosives were placed somehow undetected, then there´s the sound of the explosions.
There would have to be unmistakable VERY LOUD "pops" of the explosives going off that should be clearly heard on the videos with sound in them.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
3- the horizontal momentum achieved by the tipping motion. The top of a long column tree, before it breaks off, will achieve a lateral velocity. Once it gets going, air resistance alone won't do much to slow it down. The only way to deny this is to deny that the ext columns tipped when the connections to the floors failed. Again, should I post a utube showing exactly that? Or would you rather just save face now and admit you're lying?

I completely disagree with this point.

Show the calculations, Seymour, or admit that it is BUNK.

In other words, PROVE IT using mathematics!


Actually, Seyemour is using the same argument for the column trees that we use for WTC 2 cap's angular momentum.

I wonder why he agrees with Newton when it suites his theory, but hand waves it away when it doesn't?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Actually, Seyemour is using the same argument for the column trees that we use for WTC 2 cap's angular momentum.

I wonder why he agrees with Newton when it suites his theory, but hand waves it away when it doesn't?


You are correct. I was wondering if anyone would recognize that.

Why? Because 2's cap didn't tip, it fell. Therefore, the momentum was mostly down, not to the side. It would be impossible to move the cog outside the tower's footprint before collapse.

So in this case, tipping of a slender object works because the cog would instantly fall outside the footprint.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
This was just sad.


I'll explain what is "sad" and what isn't.


The overpressure Mackey gives is at a distance of 15 meters.

The overpressure you give is WITHIN THE DETONATION.


True.


Try again.


This is the part that is "sad".

15 meters was well within the detonation of "The father of all bombs".





Plus - objects would be sucked back in? Are you kidding? Did you see the PLASTIC DUMMY being sucked back in when you watched that video in the other thread?


Yes. Had you actually clicked the link and read, you would have found out. Here's what you missed.


The overpressure within the detonation can reach 430 lbf/in² (3 MPa) and the temperature can be 4500 to 5400 °F (2500 to 3000 °C). Outside the cloud the blast wave travels at over 2 mi/s (3 km/s). Following the initial blast (compression) is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure (rarefaction) creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to lift and throw a human.


Also to note is that even Mackey describes the exact cause that "shrapnel" wasn't as common. The pressure goes around smaller objects while "pushing" larger ones. Given this and the fact that thermobarics create a vacuum and are powerful enough to suck a human off their feet, I can see why there wasn't as much "shrapnel" as would be expected from HE.


And so what's the dB expected from this blast? NIST estimated what, 140dB from just a few lbs of RDX in their 7 scenario. How loud do you propose that the TB's would be? 150? 160?


I don't know. But, I'm sure a 110 story building isn't quiet when collapsing.


Just for some reading pleasure.


The main destructive force of FAE is high pressure. More importantly, the duration of the overpressure gives it an edge over conventional explosives and makes fuel-air explosives useful against hard targets such as minefields, armored vehicles, aircraft parked in the open, and bunkers.



The shock wave from a TNT explosion is of relatively short duration, while the blast wave produced by an explosion of hydrocarbon material displays a relatively long duration. The duration of the positive phase of a shock wave is an important parameter in the response of structures to a blast.




[edit on 12/9/2008 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-This is the part that is "sad".

2-15 meters was well within the detonation of "The father of all bombs".


3-Yes. Had you actually clicked the link and read, you would have found out. Here's what you missed.

4-Also to note is that even Mackey describes the exact cause that "shrapnel" wasn't as common. The pressure goes around smaller objects while "pushing" larger ones.

5-I don't know.



1- oh c'mon now... you KNOW that wasn't a very good effort.

2-looks like this tme, YOU didn't read your own link. It said that anything inside the detonation would be crushed, not propelled. Doesn't your premise require that the columns were OUTSIDE the detonation zone in order to be pushed?

3- So you saw the PLASTIC DUMMY being sucked back into the detonation zone? Really?

4- wrong. read it again.

5- kinda important to know this, dontcha think? That is, if you're serious about falsifying your working hypothesis.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Seymour, you proclaim so much, while at the same time providing no mathematics to support your statements.

Please supply the calculations that show how a section of the tower can tip with enough horizontal velocity to land around 500 to 600 feet away.

Handwaving is not proof.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
from one preston to another,
thank you for what you are doing.
keep up the good work people are waking up



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Why? Because 2's cap didn't tip, it fell.


Here we go with your wild claims again.

I guess everything on that day just 'tipped over' huh?





C'mon man, do you think by just saying saying stuff it makes it true somehow? You live in lala land mate, serioulsy.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Yes, you're right.

A better way to make my point would be to say that the cap didn't JUST tip. It also fell.

Any interest in discussing any of these other explanations for the ext columns ending up 500' away?






[edit on 9-12-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

logic= if...then.
If freefall in WTC7 then freefall in WTC1&2.
refute seymoure



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
A better way to make my point would be to say that the cap didn't JUST tip. It also fell.


You love to move goal posts when your 'logic' fails don't ya?

Lol of course it fell when the building underneath it gave way, causing the top to fall faster than it was tipping, in other words the resistance was instantly removed.


Any interest in discussing any of these other explanations for the ext columns ending up 500' away?


There are none as far as I know? Unless you mean the hollywood physics you mentioned earlier? In which case no, there's no point.

The outer columns sections obviously didn't just 'tip over' and end up 500' feet away...
It's silly to even consider it.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

1-Lol of course it fell when the building underneath it gave way, causing the top to fall faster than it was tipping, in other words the resistance was instantly removed.

2-There are none as far as I know?


1- good, that's what I see too. FWIW, I see the cap continuing its rotation as the building fell, it's just slow, so it in no way violates the whole angular momentum argument. What I take issue with is the ridiculous statement that it should have fallen over the side.

2-So what did you mean by this , when you posted it on the 9th? "I'm not saying explosives are the only explanation, "



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
www.abovetopsecret.com...

logic= if...then.
If freefall in WTC7 then freefall in WTC1&2.
refute seymoure


Tell ya what, do a video motion analysis that backs the far fetched idea that the towers fell at free fall first.

And please, try and avoid any mention of mini nukes vaporizing the core steel if you want to maintain any credibility whatsoever, since I debunked that particular lunacy many months ago......



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join