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.

 

How much dynamite would it take to bring down WTC1 & 2

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
This is a thread for those who believe WTC 1 & 2 were CD......

How much dynamite would it take to cause the towers to collapse how they did?




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Hi Adam.


Originally posted by adam_zapple
...WTC 1 & 2 were CD......

CD ???


How much dynamite would it take to cause the towers to collapse how they did?


A few thousand pounds.

A little more than what was used to get WTC 7 down.

Blue skies.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Dynamite?

It would take way too much of it, more than any other explosive I can possibly think of. It would be completely stupid to use dynamite, a technology that is well over 100 years old.


I should also throw out there that it's prone to going off accidentally when damaged, heated by fire, etc., unlike eutectic reactions or even common C4 (which would also be stupid to use), as examples, or many other possibilities.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi Adam.


Originally posted by adam_zapple
...WTC 1 & 2 were CD......

CD ???


"Controlled Demolitions"


Originally posted by C-JEAN

How much dynamite would it take to cause the towers to collapse how they did?


A few thousand pounds.


How about 5,000 sticks of dynamite...think that would be enough?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Why use dynamite when you could genetically engineer termites to eat steel instead of wood?

Really? Dynamite? Why dynamite?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Just because the towers were built in the 60's, it doesn't mean they had to use 60's (1860's lol) technology to demolish them.

Is this the best you can do?


If the collapses are so easy to explain, then why do you need to revert to nonsensical arguments?

Let me ask you a question...

How much thermal energy would it take to cause the global collapse of a 110 story steel framed building?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The velocity of dynamite is to low for it to be used to cut steel'
it is only about 4500 to 7500 fps.
Dynamite is classed as a lifting explosive

To cut steel you need something like RDX TNT PETN or C4 that goes of at 12,000 to 25,000 fps.
these are shattering explosives.

www.globalsecurity.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Hope this will help answer your question. www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
1500 pounds of even stronger stuff couldnt do it

www.espionageinfo.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stryker211
Hope this will help answer your question. www.youtube.com...


Not really...I'm not aware of any explosive material which will melt steel.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
A better question.

How many nuclear weapons?




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 


Anywhere from 0, 1 could certainly do the job and then some depending how old the technology is (an atomic or hydrogen bomb is completely out of the question), and if fusion reactions have been achieved without requiring a fission reaction first then maybe 2, 3, 4, or any number of small fusion bombs. If you think that sounds crazy then you are just naive. They've been trying to achieve this technology since the 1960's using a number of different techniques, and this much is declassified information and in public domain. Technology advances, especially when you pour trillions of dollars of public funding and even more in black budgets over decades and employing the most brilliant engineers in the world. The advantages of such a weapon would be enormous, which is why they would develop it.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
The fact that the OP asked for "dynamite" and then half of this thread turned into "why use dynamite" is pure comedy.

Given that dynamite is a simple compound with a predictable energy yield, it is commonly used as a measure of comparison to other explosives.

Take the term "megaton" as in the phrase "a 15 megaton bomb". The "megaton" is the equivalent weight in dynamite required to produce the same yield as the explosive in question.

1 megaton = 1 tetragram of dynamite = 4,184,000,000,000,000 J of energy

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by cogburn
 


Oh yeah right, that's it...



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

posted by cogburn
The fact that the OP asked for "dynamite" and then half of this thread turned into "why use dynamite" is pure comedy.

Given that dynamite is a simple compound with a predictable energy yield, it is commonly used as a measure of comparison to other explosives.

Take the term "megaton" as in the phrase "a 15 megaton bomb". The "megaton" is the equivalent weight in dynamite required to produce the same yield as the explosive in question.

1 megaton = 1 tetragram of dynamite = 4,184,000,000,000,000 J of energy

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.


Of course.

Every fool knows that a 15 megaton bomb has 72,000,000,000,000 fuses hanging off it which each need to be lighted before the WMD will go off.

1000 thermochemical calories = 1 gram TNT = 4184 J

a standard 8 inch stick of dynamite is about 208 grams of tnt or 870272 J




[edit on 1/27/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I thought he was saying it was dynamite that was used in the CD. Sorry I was just pointing out that the use of thermite would be way more effective then just dynamite.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stryker211
I thought he was saying it was dynamite that was used in the CD. Sorry I was just pointing out that the use of thermite would be way more effective then just dynamite.


I disagree.

But back to the OP how much Dynamite do you think it would take?

Cogburn is correct....this is why I chose Dynamite:
"Given that dynamite is a simple compound with a predictable energy yield, it is commonly used as a measure of comparison to other explosives. "



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Seeing that a few fires could destroy the entire building, not much apparently...

I find it strange that people believe that fires could bring them down without any effort, yet when someone suggests explosives are envolved, suddenly we need thousands of pounds and explosives on every floor. Gotta love that 21st century logic.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Seeing that a few fires could destroy the entire building, not much apparently...


As in the OP: This is a thread for those who believe WTC 1 & 2 were CD......

This thread is for those who do not believe that impact damge + fire brought the towers down, but that explosives were used.


Originally posted by Shroomery
I find it strange that people believe that fires could bring them down without any effort, yet when someone suggests explosives are envolved, suddenly we need thousands of pounds and explosives on every floor. Gotta love that 21st century logic.


That's why I'm asking "how much?"

So your answer is "not much"? 10 sticks? 20 sticks? 100?

[edit on 28-1-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Not really...I'm not aware of any explosive material which will melt steel.


It's called thermite.

Also dynamite would not be used by an experienced individual, for demolition purposes these days when precision compositions have been developed.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join