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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
"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.


Steven Jones, the truther?

I should have been more clear...sourcing someone like jones isn't acceptable...if thermite explodes, he and a few truthers wouldn't be the only people who know about it.




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


I answered your question already.

Will you now please tell me what your point is?

I still don't know what your original point was, let alone this new angle.

Read this very carefully and put it in context...


The Role of Mass And Energy
When a light car and a massive truck collide, momentum conservation requires that the change in Mtruckvtruck = the change in Mcarvcar...

Note that an object with large mass will experience a smaller change in speed than the object with the small mass. As the occupant of the vehicle it is in your interest that the vehicle does not undergo big changes in speed in a short time.
If the vehicle comes to a stop, or if the speed is substantially decreased, the lost kinetic energy of the vehicle transforms into some other form. This process will involve work, the integral of force with respect to displacement. The bigger the displacement the weaker the force (and damage and injury). Hard stationary objects don't allow much displacement and cause more damage and injury than soft, movable, or breakaway objects. The next time you are driving or riding in a car, look around and see how modern vehicle and highway designs surround you with soft, breakaway barriers whenever possible—wide medians, breakaway lampposts, energy-absorbing barriers at underpasses, padded dashboards.

wps.prenhall.com...

The steel in those towers, having more mass, will have less displacement than the plane, thus the plane would experience more damage than the steel, thus the plane CANNOT cause the steel to fail, just as in the example the small car would not destroy the truck. QED.

Now, how many times is that that I have tried to explain this to you?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The steel in those towers, having more mass, will have less displacement than the plane, thus the plane would experience more damage than the steel, thus the plane CANNOT cause the steel to fail, just as in the example the small car would not destroy the truck.


I was just wondering because in explosives, linear shaped charges use small pieces of copper to cut through steel beams. The copper has only a fraction of the mass of the steel it's cutting, but it slices through like a knife because of the energy of the explosive charge.

How does this fit with your theory that the smaller object cannot cause the larger object to fail?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

1-The steel in those towers, having more mass,

2-thus the plane CANNOT cause the steel to fail,

3-just as in the example the small car would not destroy the truck.



1-The steel in the entire tower means nothing, since it only contacted a small area. NOW do your calc, using the correct factors.

2-Lexan goes 4" into an aluminum block commons.wikimedia.org...:SDIO_KEW_Lexan_projectile.jpg

3-The impact wouldn't, true. What happens if the car hits the fuel tank, and the truck catches fire? Is the truck destroyed by the fire? or the impact? Or by a combo?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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

halofanon.wikia.com...



Holy smokes!!

I was right all along. ANOK doesn't know anything about physics. Nor does he get his info from reality.

Please follow the link.

IT'S FROM A TECH ARTICLE ABOUT A VIDEO GAME!!!




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
if dynamite had been used...how much would it take?


If we use a comparison to Seattle Kingdome demolition, the SEATTLE PI says it took

More than 4,450 pounds of dynamite...25,000-ton concrete roof crashed down, shooting a cloud of fine white dust into a blue sky
.

If this is used as a rough estimate, for the concrete, one only needs to use this model for the WTC.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Who the hell cares where the quote came from, it is an explanation of how a thermal bomb works. It was just the first one I found.

But it was just an opinion anyway, it has nothing to do with the rest of my points. I have no idea what was used and really at this point don't care, only you guys do. It's just typical of you to pick points that really have no relevance.

Your attempt to discredit me is typical and telling. Want to try and actually refute the physics?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Steven Jones, the truther?

I should have been more clear...sourcing someone like jones isn't acceptable...if thermite explodes, he and a few truthers wouldn't be the only people who know about it.


No kidding.

What's even funnier - ADVISOR'S link to the wiki article says that the entire pile must be heated slowly.

And thermite ignites at a high temp.

So, what would be the need for thermite then, since it needs to be white hot for it to ignite reliably?

The building would have already failed by the time it reached that temp.




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Want to try and actually refute the physics?



Your video game understanding of physics is trumped by reality.

Plastic penetrates 4" into a block of aluminum in a previous post.

Does World of Warcraft have an explanation that disputes that?




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1-The steel in the entire tower means nothing, since it only contacted a small area. NOW do your calc, using the correct factors.


Of course it means something, the rest of the steel was HOLDING UP THE BUILDING.


2-Lexan goes 4" into an aluminum block commons.wikimedia.org...:SDIO_KEW_Lexan_projectile.jpg


What's that got to do with anything? Do you know what Lexan is? Do you know how it compares in density to aluminum?

And do you realise 23,000 feet per second is over 15,000 mph? (hope my maths right lol). How fast were the planes going? What were the planes mostly made of? What were the towers main supports made of?


3-The impact wouldn't, true. What happens if the car hits the fuel tank, and the truck catches fire? Is the truck destroyed by the fire? or the impact? Or by a combo?


Circles upon circles...How much thermal energy would it take to demolish the WTC towers?

The truck will be destroyed by the fire, it wouldn't globally collapse symmetrically, and no if the truck wasn't destroyed by the initial impact it received it would have no further effect. How can no damage from the (impact) become extreme damage just because it was on fire? And when were trucks composed of huge, massive construction steel.

You completely miss the point of the physics example anyway, which was to show the planes could not have cause the steel to fail, it has nothing to do with the fires.

C'mon man you're just digging yourself another huge hole seymour....

[edit on 1/29/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Lets not go back to this again, I used a linked source previously posted by another member. Remember I posted a reply on that already, it's not my link, just used it as it was already in the thread. With out argument might I add, until I quoted from it.

You guys are a riot, why not focus on the dynamite and concrete links I did post above?

I'm trying to work with you all here, perhaps we'll see each other in another thread. I refuse to go in circles with you guys any more, it is detrimental to the topic.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Plastic penetrates 4" into a block of aluminum in a previous post.


You don't realise how ridicules you sound. I didn't even notice what kind of site that was, it was just the first one I found that explained thermal bombs.
Nothing to do with physics. Just an opinion on my part, which I usually keep to myself for this very reason, YOU like to pick up on things that have NO relevance to the towers collapses and ignore what has. You are completely transparent seymour.

Lexan is NOT just plastic. It's highly dense and strong and was moving at 15,000 mph. Fired from a special gun. It's an energy weapon, not the same physics involved in a simple collision as we had at the WTC towers.

And your attempt at being funny, is well not...

www.liveleak.com...

Educate yourself seymour...Thermal bombs exist. No one is laughing but you, is there a village missing someone somewhere?


[edit on 1/29/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Lexan is NOT just plastic. It's highly dense and strong and was moving at 15,000 mph.


More dense and stronger than aluminum?
Do you agree that the speed at which the object is traveling can affect the results?


Originally posted by ADVISOR

Originally posted by adam_zapple
if dynamite had been used...how much would it take?


If we use a comparison to Seattle Kingdome demolition, the SEATTLE PI says it took

More than 4,450 pounds of dynamite...25,000-ton concrete roof crashed down, shooting a cloud of fine white dust into a blue sky
.

If this is used as a rough estimate, for the concrete, one only needs to use this model for the WTC.



The Kingdone was a vastly different structure than a high-rise office building. I don't think that a comparison between the two would be very accurate. Interesting, though, that the source says they used dynamite....I guess it's not as outdated of a technology as some people would like to think.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Controlled Demolition, Inc was the company that destroyed the Kingdome.

You can find the full technical details of the Kingdome demolition and the J.L. Hudson Department Store demolition on their home page.

The J.L. Hudson Department Store is a much more analogous to the WTC than the Kingdome so I'm not sure why that was even presented.

CDI also provided forensic analysis of the Arthur P. Murrah federal building in OKC.

Interesting that CDI was also contracted for debris removal at Ground Zero, yet no information for that cleanup appears on the site.

Conspiracy? Or perhaps they would rather do business than field 10,000 phone calls a day from 9/11 truthers accusing them of being "in on it"...



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
Interesting that CDI was also contracted for debris removal at Ground Zero, yet no information for that cleanup appears on the site.


Funny you should mention this because I was actually trying to find a source for that the other day on Google and couldn't, even though I know there are sources out there.

And you remember that Associated Press article featuring the professor of structural engineering, who had worked with FEMA, saying that the ASCE had published intentionally misleading studies about the WTC? Try finding that on Google now. Google originally carried the AP article themselves, and it's now gone, along with every other major news source for the article.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join