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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


How ever it can explode, any thing can be an explosive. Thermite may not be a traditional pyrotechnic, but it still does explode.

If it can explode, it is explosive.

For the sake of argument though, it isn't a standard explosive in the traditional sence. I was just pointing out it can be an explosive.

Heck a few years back, a flour factory had an explosion. The particles from the flour which were all though out the air, some how became ignited and caused a chain reaction, exploding from the rapid combustion.

Is flour an explosive, it was that time.




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I mentioned it because the thread author said;

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


I was just pointing out thermite is an explosive material.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Anok--

I've heard you state that you don't believe aluminum could damage steel......or something to that effect.

What about copper?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I believe there was enough PE to crash the building. But, that PE had to come from severed columns and not buckled columns. Buckled columns still give resistance. How much resistance would depend on the columns. But, it definitely would not be a 100% conversion from PE to KE.



I see where you're going with this.

How about we do the opposite calc? We don't need any data from the towers to do it either.

Take a building, and have the top part be 10,000 tons.

Now hold that part up with 20 columns, equal strength, that have a FOS of 3.

Now assume the columns buckle.

How slow must the upper block be moving in order for the lower columns to absorb the KE?

How much KE must be absorbed by those buckling columns? 40%? 60%?80%? Bazant says-the energy dissipated in the columns during the fall
is at most equal to 2™‚ the yield moment of columns, ‚ the number of columns, which is
found to be only about 12% of the gravitational potential energy release if the columns were
cold,

Does this KE absorbption fall in line with accepted engineering standards?

Bazant came up with an overload(?) factor of 31x, BTW. He says - In spite of the approximate nature of this analysis,
it is obvious that the elastically calculated forces in columns caused by the vertical impact of
the upper part must have exceeded the load capacity of the lower part by at least an order
of magnitude.

www-math.mit.edu...


Anyways, it's a moot exercise at best, cuz that's not reality.

The above calc assumes that the columns above would fall DIRECTLY, EVENLY, AND SQUARELY onto the columns below. This can't happen, and in fact it is seen in videos that they fell at an angle (so it wasn't square), plus it is also seen that there is some misalignment, so the columns would "miss" each other.

Therefore, the falling columns would come into contact with the FLOORS, not the columns. The floors could in no way be expected to hold the weight of the upper block, so they would break off their mounts, break into pieces, or the columns would punch through. Even if there was NO KE in this, and you could eeeeeaaaaase the upper block down (squarely), the result would be the same. Even if the columns were to buckle exactly in the middle, and the columns from above came into contact with the lower floors at the same time as the lower columns came into contact with the descending floors, the result would be the same. They would yield.

So the descent continues. After a few floors, I think it can be safely assumed that many of the columns have lost their bracing over a distance of 30-40', leaving them more prone to buckling. Especially since the collapse wasn't square, but at an angle, and would be experiencing side impacts to some degree, it can also be safely assumed that the now minimally braced (if at all) columns would either buckle - or more likely, break at the welds.

So columns now break off, floors give, more columns break off, more floors fail..... until the end.

This is where the TM goes off the rails, IMHO.

Halting the collapses doesn't depend on the strength of the columns, but on the floors ability to stop the weight from above.

They simply can't.













[edit on 29-1-2009 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I mentioned it because the thread author said;

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


I was just pointing out thermite is an explosive material.


Read below from the very article you sourced.


Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. It is not explosive



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I mentioned it because the thread author said;

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


I was just pointing out thermite is an explosive material.


Ahh, gotcha.

You have no idea how this explosive energy would be directed against the columns.

You have no idea why they just wouldn't use LSC's, since "exploding thermite" wouldn't be silent either.

You have no idea if the "exploding thermite" would use the copper jacket, like LSC's use, to do the actual cutting.

You have no idea if the "exploding thermite" would indeed be louder or not than LSC's, cuz you don't know if they use the copper jacket.


You're just argueing....

Gotcha....



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

exploding from the rapid combustion.



Did it?

Or did it deflagrate, and the more common term of "explosion" was attached to it?

Can a low speed deflagration be expected to cut columns?

Can "exploding thermite" be expected to give the burn rate of a high explosive, or of a deflagration?

Somewhere in the middle?

You have no idea?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Read below from the very article you sourced.


Hold up a second now, I was just going by a previously posted source. Which was from ANNED on page one (An explosive material is a material that either is chemically or otherwise energetically unstable or produces a sudden expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion. An explosive charge is a measured quantity of explosive material.), where you say "I'm not aware of any explosive material which will melt steel.".

My responce, which is "It's called thermite.". The thermite source was posted by Tentickles, my reply on page 3 says:


From wiki sourced on previous page;

It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature.



That source is mentioned because it was previously cited.
I know what thermite can and can not do. It is not used to explode generally, but it can explode.

All I was pointing out is that thermite melts steel, and does explode.

Sorry if you don't to hear it, but is is true.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You're just argueing....


How so?


I was pointing some thing out, making a clarification to another member, who didn't seem to have all the supporting information.

Thermite, melts metal and explodes. That is all I was adding, no argument.

There is no reason to nit pick with me on this, it is science, chemistry if you want to be technical.

I posted in this thread because it is one of the most recent ones I've seen in past years that has some potential. All the members who posted contributed some thing, and the topic even though debatable by some members, brings a different perspective to the subject over all.

Now it is being detracted by off topic banter which ought not ruin this thread.

Not saying you guys calling me out is a bad thing, but the sources both used support each others "argument" if you will.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
My responce, which is "It's called thermite.". The thermite source was posted by Tentickles, my reply on page 3 says:


From wiki sourced on previous page;

It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature.



That source is mentioned because it was previously cited.
I know what thermite can and can not do. It is not used to explode generally, but it can explode.


Are you basing this on personal experiences or sources you can site? Or basing it on what someone wrote on wikipedia?


Originally posted by ADVISOR
All I was pointing out is that thermite melts steel, and does explode.

Sorry if you don't to hear it, but is is true.


The only source I've seen that "thermite explodes" a non-sourced claim that someone made on wikipedia. Do you have any other sources or are we just supposed to take this anonymous person's word for it?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Thermite, melts metal and explodes. That is all I was adding, no argument.



And again, does it truly "explode"?

Or does it deflagrate?

There's a difference. And since the term "explosion" is commonly thrown around pretty loosely, it's better to KNOW whether or not that statement is true. Wiki is no exception, from I've seen.

Cuz that's how lies begin. A positive statement like "thermite explodes" is made, without backup.... and then the whole "deny ignorance" theme is thrown out the window.

And then umpteen threads will be started about how the thermite could have been heated in the fires, and this must have been planned out by the NWO since they are so competent... into infinity.

I just think it's better to ACTUALLY know all the facts BEFORE slinging that out there.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Did it?

Or did it deflagrate, and the more common term of "explosion" was attached to it?


I didn't write the article, or participate in the investigation, so I can not confirm. Was just going by the report.



Can a low speed deflagration be expected to cut columns?


Sure, if it burns hot enough. Since wiki was the source used, I'll keep useing that and show that "A full blown magnesium fire can burn over 5,400 °F (2,980 °C)", would that not cut columns?



Can "exploding thermite" be expected to give the burn rate of a high explosive, or of a deflagration?

Somewhere in the middle?

You have no idea?


This would be a variable factor, depending on the composition of said materials. Nanocomposite and other sized micron components will have different rates.

Why would you say I have no idea, before knowing my understanding?
You never asked, or allowed me to show such.

If I didn't know better I would say you are troll baiting me.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I don't know the exact quantity due to the number of variables involved.

It didn't have to be free-falling to have enough energy to overload the floors below.


If you can't quantify it, then how can you assume the second sentence is true?


? Perhaps for ease of calculation?


Let me tell you how scientific this is. It is not.


I don't believe that anyone is asserting that the conversion of PE to KE was 100% efficient. This would be impossible, even with explosives.


It had to be pretty darn close for the collapses to maintain near free-fall speed.



What percentage of columns do you think would have to be severed in order to initiate a collapse?

What percentage of columns do you think would have to buckle in order to initiate a collapse?


Ask your god NIST. I have no access to the structural documentation, money, or man-power that NIST has. Why should you have to ask these questions when our tax dollars paid for an investigation?


In terms of Dynamite I would estimate between 5 and 15 thousand sticks if there was no pre-weakening of the support structure.

Did you mean to ask "how much dynamite would be needed to collapse the columns that remained on the most severely damaged floor after the planes impacted?" My answer to that would be 0. What would yours be?


So, you would estimate between 5-15 thousand sticks of dynamite? Can you show us how you came to this number? Because if you yourself don't know the answer to your rhetorical question, then it becomes moot as you can not tell what we say is correct or not.

What if I said 1 thermobaric in the core was enough? How would you be able to prove me wrong, when you yourself don't know the answer?

[edit on 1/29/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 1/29/2009 by Griff]



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

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I believe that the CD theories don't make sense, purely from an energy standpoint.


And what's your reasoning on that?

You remember all I was saying about how simply converting the energy equivalents tells you next to nothing about how the given device(s) could bring down a building, right? Just like converting TNT to watts doesn't tell you anything at all about how TNT will power your appliances, because it won't, it's simply a unit of measurement.

You keep ignoring this if you think you can debunk anything just by comparing theoretical amounts of energy release from TNT to anything else. It doesn't work like that. That's what I'm trying to get through to you, but now that you've created this thread and all this you probably would never correct yourself now anyway. You have too much pride in your posting to think straight.



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

Originally posted by ADVISOR



Can a low speed deflagration be expected to cut columns?


Sure, if it burns hot enough. Since wiki was the source used, I'll keep useing that and show that "A full blown magnesium fire can burn over 5,400 °F (2,980 °C)", would that not cut columns?




You didn't understand the purpose of the question. You were talking about "exploding thermite". The only reason to use "exploding thermite" is to use its explosive energy to "cut" through a column, not burn through.

The purpose of asking is to see if you know whether or not a low speed explosion would produce the Munroe Effect.

But you answered with a statement about burning through, rather than following the road that making a statement about "burning thermite" gives you.

If want to say it burned, then fine, that's in another thread. But this thread is about dynamite and/or other explosives needed..... so let's stick to that premise, eh?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-If you can't quantify it, then how can you assume the second sentence is true?

2-It had to be pretty darn close for the collapses to maintain near free-fall speed.


3-Why should you have to ask these questions when our tax dollars paid for an investigation?

4-What if I said 1 thermobaric in the core was enough?





1-Bazant did it.

2-Let me tell you how scientific this is. It is not.

3- good thing it's in there, otherwise someone might get upset.

4- LOL....



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
"Do you have any other sources"
Sure.
You don't have to take an anon word for it, see what Mr Jones has to say about it.

Look you don't have to use, stand by or agree with what I noted, if you have some thing against thermite, that's cool. But it is a possible factor to be considered.


Originally posted by Seymour Butz
But this thread is about dynamite and/or other explosives needed..... so let's stick to that premise, eh?


That would be grand.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I've heard you state that you don't believe aluminum could damage steel......or something to that effect. What about copper?


Which material has more mass, copper or steel?

Go figure it out.

BTW it wasn't me who said that it was NEWTON, I'm just the messenger. You should take it up with Newton.

BUT, I didn't say aluminium couldn't 'damage' steel. You need to read more closely, because in science it's very important to fully understand the terminology, or you make yourself look silly...
I said, aluminium will NOT cause steel to FAIL.


fail /feɪl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyl] Show IPA Pronunciation–verb (used without object)
7. (of a building member, structure, machine part, etc.) to break, bend, crush, or be otherwise destroyed or made useless because of an excessive load....

dam⋅age /ˈdæmɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dam-ij] Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -aged, -ag⋅ing. –noun
1. injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness: The storm did considerable damage to the crops.

dictionary.reference.com...

Bit of a difference, don't you think?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I don't know the exact quantity due to the number of variables involved.

It didn't have to be free-falling to have enough energy to overload the floors below.


If you can't quantify it, then how can you assume the second sentence is true?


The weight alone, absent any additional energy from falling, was enough to crush the next floor below.


Originally posted by Griff

? Perhaps for ease of calculation?


Let me tell you how scientific this is. It is not.


Scientists do this all the time in estimations. Somewhat irrelevant here since I've not done so.


Originally posted by Griff

I don't believe that anyone is asserting that the conversion of PE to KE was 100% efficient. This would be impossible, even with explosives.


It had to be pretty darn close for the collapses to maintain near free-fall speed.


Then we agree there was not a 100% conversion from PE to KE.


Originally posted by Griff

What percentage of columns do you think would have to be severed in order to initiate a collapse?

What percentage of columns do you think would have to buckle in order to initiate a collapse?


Ask your god NIST. I have no access to the structural documentation, money, or man-power that NIST has. Why should you have to ask these questions when our tax dollars paid for an investigation?


I already know what NIST says.
I'm asking you what you think because of the following statement you made: "I believe there was enough PE to crash the building. But, that PE had to come from severed columns and not buckled columns."

If you can make a statement like that, you should know the answers (at least estimates) to the questions I asked.



Originally posted by Griff

In terms of Dynamite I would estimate between 5 and 15 thousand sticks if there was no pre-weakening of the support structure.


Did you mean to ask "how much dynamite would be needed to collapse the columns that remained on the most severely damaged floor after the planes impacted?" My answer to that would be 0. What would yours be?


So, you would estimate between 5-15 thousand sticks of dynamite? Can you show us how you came to this number? Because if you yourself don't know the answer to your rhetorical question, then it becomes moot as you can not tell what we say is correct or not.


The energy of the planes hitting plus the energy of the burning jet fuel & fires was roughly in the neighborhood of 15-25k sticks of dynamite based on a few back-of-the-napkin calculations. Since I believe that the plane impacts & fires were enough to cause the collapse, the equivalent energy in dynamite would be enough...I've reduced this value, though...since the planes & fires couldn't as efficiently target their energies at specific parts of the structure.


Originally posted by Griff
What if I said 1 thermobaric in the core was enough? How would you be able to prove me wrong, when you yourself don't know the answer?


That doesn't tell us much unless you can give us an energy approximation in Joules or equivalent tons of TNT for the device you're proposing.

Is this your theory?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I've heard you state that you don't believe aluminum could damage steel......or something to that effect. What about copper?


Which material has more mass, copper or steel?

BUT, I didn't say aluminium couldn't 'damage' steel. You need to read more closely, because in science it's very important to fully understand the terminology, or you make yourself look silly...
I said, aluminium will NOT cause steel to FAIL.


Copper has less mass (I assume you mean per mole) than steel. Does this mean, using your logic, that copper cannot cause steel to fail?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join