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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

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


It's called thermite.


Thermite is not an explosive.


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



As stated above...I chose dynamite because it's power is known and other explosives can be measured with relation to dynamite. It's not saying that they would have used dynamite...it's simply....if dynamite had been used...how much would it take?

[edit on 28-1-2009 by adam_zapple]




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
If I was to make a GUESS as to what was used this would be a good one...


The underlying principal of the thermal bomb is simplistic: upon contacting the target vessel, the thermal bomb releases a large quantity of localized thermal energy onto the vessel, superheating the superstructure of the target vessel. However, while the superheating inflicts minor damage upon the vessel, the major damage is dealt by the temperature of extrastellar space. The near-absolute zero temperature of extrastellar space is considerably different than the superheated temperature of the vessel's superstructure, and the resultant temperature differential causes great mechanical stresses upon the vessel, literally shattering it.

halofanon.wikia.com...

Note the bolding, the towers did appear to shatter and throw it's debris all around. Might even explain the vehicle that were burned?


The thermal bomb is the final word in portable explosives. The detonation of this devastating device can wreak havoc in any environment from the interior of a facility to the bowels of a capital vessel.

www.swcombine.com...

www.ausairpower.net...

How many thermal bombs would it take?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
One word: Thermite

It's lovely!
Just disgustingly Lovely!



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If I was to make a GUESS as to what was used this would be a good one...


Your post does not answer the question posed.


Originally posted by Tentickles
One word: Thermite

It's lovely!
Just disgustingly Lovely!


The question was "how much dynamite would it take?" your response doesn't address the question.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


Why are you obsessed with how much dynamite it would take when everyone agrees that dynamite would never be used because of how old and outdated the technology is?

Do you know what a straw-man is?


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.


www.nizkor.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


Why are you obsessed with how much dynamite it would take when everyone agrees that dynamite would never be used because of how old and outdated the technology is?

Do you know what a straw-man is?


I'm quite aware of what a straw man is...and I've not used one.

I'm not assuming that dynamite would be used...and I didn't ask "Would dynamite be used"...I asked "how much would it take"?

I used dynamite because there are many many different explosives out there, and this gives us a common reference point, since 1 lb of dynamite is not the same as 1lb of C4, than 1lb of RDX, etc.

If everything is expressed in the same terms it's an easier comparison.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Your post does not answer the question posed.


So what? It's a stupid question that has no point.

Will you answer my questions?

How much thermal energy would it take to demolish the WTC towers?

How did the undamaged columns fail instantly, and symmetrically, with no resistance?

How could the top of WTC 2 crush the rest of the building when it was experiencing angular momentum?

How much thermal energy do YOU believe it would take to completely destroy the WTC towers? The amount produce by isolated, sporadic office fires on a few floors?

How long is a piece of string?

Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc................................................The questions are never ending..................but you have all the answers.......


They would be what's known as relevant questions, that have not been addressed by NIST, or you.

(BTW pls don't actually answer these questions they are rhetorical, I already know the de-bunker handbook and your predictable answers, probably better than you do...)



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


Just comparing the total amount of energy used isn't going to tell you how much more of one thing you would need than another. You're ignoring what forms of energy you are dealing with, how they are applied, detonation velocities, etc., which all come into play when you are trying to cut a column, for example.

As an exaggerated example, I can press a key on my keyboard until the energy I've used in Joules is equal to ten pounds of C4 going off. In fact I've probably already done that several times over. But because of other physical facts I could never damage a piece of steel that way. Similarly thermite and C4 would probably not compare energetically but they can both damage steel to a similar degree, one with enormous heat and one with enormous pressure. Energy is only a one-dimensional unit. You must think it's novel to have a formula you can plug numbers into this way but you aren't actually figuring out what you think you are.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
If everything is expressed in the same terms it's an easier comparison.


How is there any comparison between something like a thermal bomb with the amount of dynamite it would take?

One thermal bomb might be equal to a few thousand sticks of dynamite.
How does knowing that make any difference?

Are you trying to say you can prove the plane cut columns because you have some skewed maths that say the planes impact was equal to a x amount of dynamite?

You can't compare a collision with the effects of dynamite, even if the plane did have the collision force of x amount of dynamite, the STEEL would still be the bigger mass that experienced the exact SAME amount of force that the plane did. Soooo if the plane was x amount of dynamite the towers themselves would be a greater x amount of dynamite (or force) due to it's mass and the deceleration of the plane at impact. For every action there is an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction.

Again simple Newton physics. The 3 laws of motion explain this...

csep10.phys.utk.edu...



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Your post does not answer the question posed.


So what? It's a stupid question that has no point.


Then what are you doing in this thread?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple
If everything is expressed in the same terms it's an easier comparison.


How is there any comparison between something like a thermal bomb with the amount of dynamite it would take?

One thermal bomb might be equal to a few thousand sticks of dynamite.
How does knowing that make any difference?



Much like a nuclear weapon is measured in its equivalence to "tons of TNT" I'm trying to use a common measurement.

If you'd prefer to use "Tons of TNT" vs sticks of dynamite....that's fine by me.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Then what are you doing in this thread?


I'm here to inform you, and prove to everyone else, that it's a stupid question.
I'm here to make sure the lies spread by you, and others, are not left to populate weak uncaring minds. The truth can't ever be left to die.

Also as a member of ATS I'm allowed to post in any thread I choose, and say what I wish, as long as I abide by the T&C.

What are you doing here?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

How did the undamaged columns fail.... symmetrically....when it was experiencing angular momentum?



You're making contrdictory statements.

Your lack of knowledge of physics is showing.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Much like a nuclear weapon is measured in its equivalence to "tons of TNT" I'm trying to use a common measurement.


This is just another example of how the conversion is meaningless here.

You can convert a nuke into a TNT equivalent, but if you sat a nuke in the towers, and the equivalent amount of TNT, the destruction caused would not at all be comparable between the two. They would appear totally different, use different forms of energy to cause damage, etc. The only thing that WOULD be comparable would be theoretical measure of energy.


You can also theoretically convert megatons of TNT into megawatts of power. Do you think that means TNT will run your household appliances?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Much like a nuclear weapon is measured in its equivalence to "tons of TNT" I'm trying to use a common measurement.


I understand that, but what is your point?

Where is this leading to?

What if I say, for example it would take a 1000 sticks? I'm interested to see how you're going to spin this and what your point is...(if it's not about what I suggested)

Again though can you tell me how much thermal energy it would take? That is a more valid question, seeing as you think that's what did it (from office fires). You think office fires on a few floors would be enough to cause steel to completely fail, but you also say it would take thousands of tons of explosives. Do you think those fires could produce the energy thousands of tons of explosives could? If not then why do you expect the same results?

Your whole argument contradicts itself. So yes it's a silly irrelevant question.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You're making contrdictory statements.

Your lack of knowledge of physics is showing.


Please explain why you think that? What's contradictory about it?

WTC2 started collapsing symmetrically as the top was tilting (angular momentum). Nothing contradictory there, except the physics if you believe NIST..

Your off topic personal comment is against T&C, unless you can prove where I'm contradicting myself.

Oh and learn to spell contradictory...



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Much like a nuclear weapon is measured in its equivalence to "tons of TNT" I'm trying to use a common measurement.


This is just another example of how the conversion is meaningless here.

You can convert a nuke into a TNT equivalent, but if you sat a nuke in the towers, and the equivalent amount of TNT, the destruction caused would not at all be comparable between the two. They would appear totally different, use different forms of energy to cause damage, etc. The only thing that WOULD be comparable would be theoretical measure of energy.

Bolded the important part

"TNT equivalent is a method of quantifying the energy released in explosions. The tonne of TNT is used as a unit of energy, approximately equivalent to the energy released in the detonation of this amount of TNT."

The request for "how much dynamite" is an attempt to QUANTIFY the amount of energy needed to destroy the towers.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


So is this just an academic exercise for you then, and nothing to do with the rest of us?

Energy is a very general physics concept. I've already explained why you can't just compare the energy alone and expect the same results from two different sources. Just like I can't run my appliances with TNT, but I can convert it into a standard unit of megawatts of power.

When you can run your computer on TNT, I'll listen to what you have to say about the TNT equivalents of other types of devices. Because the comparison is equally meaningless in both cases.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Much like a nuclear weapon is measured in its equivalence to "tons of TNT" I'm trying to use a common measurement.


I understand that, but what is your point?

Where is this leading to?

What if I say, for example it would take a 1000 sticks? I'm interested to see how you're going to spin this and what your point is...(if it's not about what I suggested)


No spin. We have an idea of how much energy the planes applied, truthers seem to think that planes + fires were not enough, so I want to know how much explosives they think were necessary.


Originally posted by ANOK
That is a more valid question, seeing as you think that's what did it (from office fires). You think office fires on a few floors would be enough to cause steel to completely fail, but you also say it would take thousands of tons of explosives.


Perhaps it would, if there were no plane impacts or fire.


Originally posted by ANOK
Your whole argument contradicts itself. So yes it's a silly irrelevant question.


There's no contradiction. You say explosives were used, I'm asking how much.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


So is this just an academic exercise for you then, and nothing to do with the rest of us?

Energy is a very general physics concept. I've already explained why you can't just compare the energy alone and expect the same results from two different sources.


It's not about expecting the same results, it's about the relative amount of energy.


Originally posted by ANOK
Just like I can't run my appliances with TNT, but I can convert it into a standard unit of megawatts of power.


But converting the power of the TNT to megawatts of power would give you a different perspective on the amount of energy.


Originally posted by ANOK
When you can run your computer on TNT, I'll listen to what you have to say about the TNT equivalents of other types of devices. Because the comparison is equally meaningless in both cases.


TNT Equivalent is an SI unit used to measure the power of explosives, you don't get much more standardized than that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join