Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
www.opednews.com...


High school teacher-level Physics calculations show Gravity ACTION on 9/11 Towers was 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent ENERGY, and then debris and dust erupted over 8.5 KiloTons of 'TNT' ENERGY in REACTION. No spin, FACT: 0.1 KT ACTION not equal 8.5 KT REACTION Who dunnit? :::::::: When the top chunk of Mt. St. Helens turned into a cloud of dust, thrown on the landscape, then TV and newspapers said the mountain expended the energy equivalent of 30,000 K Tons of TNT, (a Kilo Ton, or 'KT,' is 1000 tons, and TNT is energetic 'dynamite' force). I talked with the editor of the local newspaper recently, and he remembered publishing such a number back then. How did they know that number? Were there conflicting opinions? Did TV and newspapers give 'equal time' for disagreement -- back then, May 18, 1980, the Fairness Doctrine still regulated broadcasting to air all sides, or arguable points of view, of any debateable issue -- was it 40,000 KT of TNT equivalent energy? Or 10,000 KT? No, that's just silly talk. Certainly it was 30,000 KT, no argument, no debate. The number is not an 'opinion,' it's a calculation of a fact. Like an Example problem, perhaps in Physics homework. Multiply the massive weight of the rock times how far it flew against gravity's energy forcing it down to the ground; and so, weight times distance times gravity, is the energy number ... presto, the math is done, easy as pie.


Can anybody spot flaws in the mathematics presented?
edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 9/16/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
www.opednews.com...


Each 9/11 dust cloud measured 8.5 KT of (energy) force spreading out of the building. But only 0.1 KT of gravity pushed each building, straight down. Such 'Action-NOT equal-Reaction' was as if you dropped a 1 Ton book off the table and the scale measured 85 Tons hit it. The mystery of where the extra energy force came from, measured on 9/11, is an unsolved mystery.


Can anybody spot flaws in the mathematics presented?
edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


I'm no physicist, but I don't see how this could be measured! Were did this info come from? He doesn't account for inertia and how it would affect the fall of the buildings material. I feel this amount of force developed from the buildings is almost incalculable without measuring devices.
So what he states as "fact" is not, he doesn't know the construction materials used, drywall creates massive dust, as well as soft concrete which also could of caused massive weak spot(s) in the buildings. Too many factors that cannot be measured as well as the fact that this is the only instance that buildings like this have fallen in this manner and cause.
TOO MANY un-measuarable factors, that is no mystery!!!



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
How the WTC was built is no mistery. So in other words, you are neither in a position to corroborate nor to debunk the mathematics presented, just like me. Also he did account for inertia through gravity. I am looking for quality here not quantity. Soo Id prefer you do not post unless your are an engineer or architect or can employ the help of one.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
my pocket calculator is not going to cut it...

Though i feel that the towers collapsed in such a way that,... im going with controlled demolition on this one.
What else could make those towers drop at free fall speed?


+10 more 
posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by topcat7
 



I'm no physicist, but I don't see how this could be measured!


Meh, calculating the energy released is quite easy, actually...

All you have to do is calculate the mass of the upper floors (The ones that started tilting over) and their height, and then you can get their total potential energy.

The equation for Potential energy is:

U = m*g*h

en.wikipedia.org...

Where U is the potential energy in joules.
m is the mass of the object in kilograms
g is the gravitational acceleration due to gravity in meters per second
h is the height above the ground in meters.

One tower of the twin towers has a mass of 453,592,370 kilograms (500,000 tons)

en.wikipedia.org...

And the upper 20 floors collapsed, since the total height was 110 floors, that gives us a percentage of %18

So, the total mass that fell was 18% of the total mass of the tower, or 81,646,626 kilograms

The total height of the tower was 440 meters at the rooftop, so, 18% of that height is 79.2 meters

440 minus 79.2 meters is 360.8 meters. So the mass we are working with was 360.8 meters above the ground.

And the acceleration of Gravity is 9.8 meters per second.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, our total equation is as follows:

U = 81,646,626 * 360.8 * 9.8

Which gives us a U of 288,689,406,000 joules.

One Ton of TNT equivalent energy is 4.184 gigajoules (4,184,000,000 joules)

en.wikipedia.org...

So, our final figure is:

288,689,406,000 joules divided by 4,184,000,000 joules equals 68.998424 tons of TNT equivalent.


68.9 Tons of TNT

equivalent.


Or, 0.0689 kilotons equivalent.

So, when the Op states that:


High school teacher-level Physics calculations show Gravity ACTION on 9/11 Towers was 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent ENERGY....


He was actually being generous with his estimates.
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: +wiki links



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I would change the title to "Extra energy..." as is also the title at the link. "Outside" energy might attract the space-beam, energy-weapon HOAX crowd.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


The outside energy was introduced in the form of a boeing 767 hitting the building at about 500 mph


There have been many estimates of the kinetic energy, Ec, involved in each of
the plane crashes, however, for simplicity, we will use a single value based on an
assumed aircraft mass of 124,000 kg and a velocity at the moment of impact of 220 m/s.
With this mass and velocity, the aircraft impact kinetic energy is equal to,

Ec = ½ 124,000  (220)2 J = 3.0  109 J


In addition there was almost 10,000 gal of Jet fuel dumped into each building


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



3.0 * 10^9 J


3,000,000,000 joules is practically nothing....

That's less than one ton of TNT equivalent.



And as for the Energy of the Jet Fuel? That one is Easy too:


Jet fuel has an energy density of 42.8 MegaJoules/kilogram

One Gallon weights about 8.3 pounds, or 3.76 kilograms.

So, one gallon of Jet Fuel holds around 161 megajoules of energy.

Since there were 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, that brings out total energy of the jet fuel to 1,610,000 megajoules...

OR 1,610 gigajoules

OR 384.8 tons of TNT

OR 0.3848 Kilotons of TNT


Which was mostly expended in the giant atomized particle explosion of the Giant fireball when the plane impacted.







Now, as you can see, most all of the fuel erupts into a fireball that expends its energy into the air, and does not apply that energy to anything that it happens to hit.

The fuel in any aviation crash is expended within seconds, and mostly disperses its energy into the air.
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
So according to your source there was more than 7.5 Kilo Tons of explosives hidden in the buildings?

That is what you're trying to tell me ... Right ?
No wait It's more than 8.4 kilo tons of explosives.

Wow, where did they hide it all ?
edit on 16-9-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 



So according to your source there was more than 7.5 Kilo Tons of explosives hidden in the buildings?

That is what you're trying to tell me ... Right ?
No wait It's more than 8.4 kilo tons of explosives.

Wow, where did they hide it all ?


Well, let's do some more math, shall we?


First off, Demolition charges would be placed on all structural support columns....


The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates.



The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, that's a total of 283 Structural support columns.

If we were to place one kilogram of explosives on each column, every other floor, that would give us:

283 kilograms per floor * 55 floors = 15,565 kilograms of explosives total.

So, yeah... totally doable.

And hiding one measly kilogram against a support column, that are not actually exposed to tenant areas is quite easy.

Especially since most of those tenant areas were not occupied.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


283 kilograms per floor * 55 floors = 15,565 kilograms of explosives total.



Your source does not say kilograms, it says "kilo tons" to much energy. You have bitten off more than you can chew.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Meh, calculating the energy released is quite easy, actually...



So you calculated the energy of floors 90-110 then.

What about 80-90?

70-80?

Seems like you forgot a little there....



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


283 kilograms per floor * 55 floors = 15,565 kilograms of explosives total.



Your source does not say kilograms, it says "kilo tons" to much energy. You have bitten off more than you can chew.


By a factor of about 1,000.

typical



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Meh, calculating the energy released is quite easy, actually...



So you calculated the energy of floors 90-110 then.

What about 80-90?

70-80?

Seems like you forgot a little there....


Why hasn't most of the physics profession been demanding accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers for years? It is obviously necessary just to compute the potential energy.

9/11 is a scientific travesty. We need to kick some physicist butt. How about all of the way down the stairs of the Empire State Building. Too dumb to understand skyscrapers.

psik



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 



Your source does not say kilograms, it says "kilo tons" to much energy.


I am giving you an idea of how it could be possible to store that much explosives in the building...


You have bitten off more than you can chew.


Hardly.


The Source from OP's post cited 911research.com... for it's calculations.

The main energy figure cited in that source was 11,300,000 KWH heating of suspended concrete (Particulate matter)

The source was speaking about the thermodynamic expansion of the concrete dust cloud, and thus calculated the energy from the event as due to temperature increase.

You never bothered to actually check the source of OP's post to see what the dude was talking about.

reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



So you calculated the energy of floors 90-110 then.

What about 80-90?

70-80?

Seems like you forgot a little there....


No, I didn't forget them.

They are going to be less because they are closer to the ground...

But if you want to do this FLOOR BY FLOOR....

Then I am totally with you...

lol


Give me a minute to calculate that....

(Continued Shortly)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

The main energy figure cited in that source was 11,300,000 KWH heating of suspended concrete (Particulate matter)



Do you believe that the dust cloud expanded solely due to heating of the air?

I hope not....



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Okay, total potential energy in one of the Twin Towers.

First up, Our definitions.

The equation for Potential energy is:

U = m*g*h

en.wikipedia.org...

Where U is the potential energy in joules.
m is the mass of the object in kilograms
g is the gravitational acceleration due to gravity in meters per second
h is the height above the ground in meters.

One tower of the twin towers has a mass of 453,592,370 kilograms (500,000 tons)

en.wikipedia.org...

The Tower had a height of 440 meters, and 110 floors.... that gives us a height of 4 meters per floor.

Since each floor is 110th the total mass of the building, Each floor is 4,123,567kg

So, floor 110 is 440 meters above the ground
17,780,820,904 joules

Floor 109 is 436 meters above the ground
17,619,177,077 joules

Floor 108 is 432 meters above the ground
17,457,533,251 joules

Floor 107 is 428 meters above the ground
17,295,889,424 joules


Actually, it just occurs to me that we can Estimate this rather easy, by just taking the middle floor, and averaging it's energy out over all the floors.

So, the 55th floor, at 220 meters above the ground gives us an energy of:
8,890,410,452 joules.

and 8,890,410,452 joules multiplied by 110 floors is 977,945,149,720 joules

One ton of TNT is equivalent to 4.184 gigajoules OR 4,184,000,000

SO, that gives us a rough energy equivalent of 233.7345 tons of TNT.


And, just to shut you up... if we Averaged the potential energy of EVERY FLOOR as if it were 440 meters high, that would only give us 1,955,890,299,440 joules of energy, or around 500 Tons of TNT equivalent.

So
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Can I ask who you believe placed all of these explosives?

Did the government "do away" with all of the contractors it would take to rig every beam of every floor with explosives?

That is alot of tnt to bring in and set up............

Did they have a different trigger for every floor?Who's hitting the switches?
The buldings seemed to collapse about where the planes hit......

If the highjackers were such lousy pilots how did they hit the right floor to cause the collapse? There is alot of room for alot of error.

So many questions with the explosives it is not even an option in my book.

I am interested in the math though.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Cassius666
 


The outside energy was introduced in the form of a boeing 767 hitting the building at about 500 mph


There have been many estimates of the kinetic energy, Ec, involved in each of
the plane crashes, however, for simplicity, we will use a single value based on an
assumed aircraft mass of 124,000 kg and a velocity at the moment of impact of 220 m/s.
With this mass and velocity, the aircraft impact kinetic energy is equal to,

Ec = ½ 124,000  (220)2 J = 3.0  109 J


In addition there was almost 10,000 gal of Jet fuel dumped into each building


Thats not the energy we are looking for.


Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Can I ask who you believe placed all of these explosives?

Did the government "do away" with all of the contractors it would take to rig every beam of every floor with explosives?

That is alot of tnt to bring in and set up............

Did they have a different trigger for every floor?Who's hitting the switches?
The buldings seemed to collapse about where the planes hit......

If the highjackers were such lousy pilots how did they hit the right floor to cause the collapse? There is alot of room for alot of error.


The "I think thats highly unlikely" is still more probable than the "thats physically impossible". Please lets stick to the topic at hand.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Alright people.... Hold on for a minute... I'm only one guy, and I can only do math *SO* fast...

I'm not even OP for crying out loud...

reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Do you believe that the dust cloud expanded solely due to heating of the air?

I hope not....


You see, this is where having a grasp of physics may come in handy.

Thermodynamics is not *JUST* about heat.... it is about Entropy.

And entropy has more to do with motion that you apparently are aware of.


All of that Downward force that you are talking about that sprays that dust up into the air?

Yeah, that's entropy.... that is "Energy"

Now, I have already shown that the energy that the tower AND the plane, AND the jet fuel added to the entire system was less than a Kiloton of TNT in energy Equivalent.

The OP's source is talking about Thermodynamic Gas laws....

Because Pressure, Volume, and Temperature of a gas are related quite closely.

If you have a gas at a certain temperature, and a certain volume...

If you increase the temperature, you will get a corresponding increase in volume.

This is what OP's link was talking about... the volumetric expansion of the Particulate matter (nano concrete dust), and he was modelling the entire system as an increase in energy (Temperature) that he displayed in Kilowatt Hours.

He modelled the Expansion of the dust cloud, and calculated how much energy that would be required to disperse that amount of matter by energy increase alone.

(From its original volume, to the ending volume)

His ending figure comes out to roughly 8.5 kilotons of TNT equivalent in energy.

Now, his modelling was not precise, but it WAS within a margin of error for estimation.

(Seriously, take a look at the website, it's fascinating stuff)

911research.com...


This is the kind of mathematics they do to estimate the energy released in volcanic explosions, by studying the gas clouds and how far they expand, and how quickly.

And yes, I'm still reading it, just like most of you are....

So kindly keep your personal attacks to yourself, would you?
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join