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.
Originally posted by turbofan
In case you haven't seen, check out the new video prooving explosives:
check out the new video prooving explosives
Originally posted by pteridine
You call that an explosion? What kind of explosive is this claimed to be?
Using the correct g gives 8.99 seconds for a brick dropped from 1300' in a vacuum. WTC 1 was 1368' from the top of the roof to street level; WTC 2 was 1362'. Dropping a brick in a vacuum, with g=32.174/sec^2, gives 9.22 seconds for WTC 1 and 9.20 seconds for WTC 2. All this proves nothing.
Originally posted by turbofan
have either of you figured out how to get iron spheres from paint yet?
How about getting iron spheres from a 430'C ignition temp.?
I mean if dry wall can break apart and accelerate off axis...then you must
have an answer for the spheres after all this time?
Originally posted by turbofan
BsBray is correct in a certain respect, but you can take away some
fascinating points from the demo wave:
- it maintains a relatively constant speed as it descends down the tower
regardless of how much mass is ejected outward
- it's moving near free-fall speed despite the massive steel beams which
increase in size within sections closer to the base of the tower
- dust is created from a source other than gravity as it arcs up and away
from the central structure
Those points alone prove CD. you don't need to time the entire collapse;
but in any case you messed up the numbers for both as noted by NIST and
several videos.
Originally posted by pteridineThere is no evidence for "iron spheres."
Originally posted by pteridine The core of one tower was standing for seconds after the outer shell collapsed.
Originally posted by turbofan
Originally posted by pteridineThere is no evidence for "iron spheres."
No? Just pictures of iron spheres attached to partially reacted chips?
Care to waste more time in denial? Maybe some glasses to help you
see the colour photos?
Originally posted by turbofan
Oh man, we already went through this many times. I believe the last time
this was answered, a few of us replied. I even gave you the analogy
of fuel emissions, as well as the failure rate of human produced goods.
Remember? Maybe you didn't read it? Sort of explains why this thread is
67 pages and you still don't have answers to questions.
Try searching this thread for answers, or give us all an example of
a human made product that is 100% reliable and 100% efficient.
THEN try to explain how the MOSTLY iron spheres are formed at 430'C
Originally posted by pteridine
Yes, we did and you still haven't figured it out, have you? You are saying that all the highly engineered chips tested were part of the fraction that failed.
None of the chips showed any partial reaction at all, so they hadn't failed in action but all of the samples failed to react completely when tested.
Once again, the chips ignited at 440*C. The temperature of the flame is not known, is it?
Originally posted by pteridineLook at the pictures again. Do they show all spheres or is some unreacted red chip material visible? Yes or No, Turbo?
None of the chips, as received showed any partial reaction at all.
What this means is that they have a complex molecular structure whose real melting point depends on that same structure.
Let's compare the melting points of iron compounds to iron. Iron melts at about 1535*C. FeCl3 melts at 306*C. FeSiO3 melts at 1146*C, FeS2 melts at 1171*C, all the nitrate hydrates melt below 70*C, and the nitrosyl carbonyl melts at 18.5*C. This is a wide melting point range of iron containiing material, isn't it?
Tell us about what is burning at 440*C and how hot the flame is.
Originally posted by pteridine
All of the sample chips partially reacted in the DSC.
There is no evidence for thermitic reaction.
Is this kid for real? Shall I play circles with him again?