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 Seymour Butz
TNT equivalent = TNT equivalent.
It doesn't matter if TNT or RDX or C-4 or ANFO is the proposed explosive. They all produce explosive effect
But like the calculations that you didn't understand, you don't understand this either.
Originally posted by ANOK
If you can't explain how those pieces were ejected then how can you, with so much false confidence, argue that it was a natural reaction to a gravity fed collapse?
Originally posted by bsbray11
No, they don't. They all use different chemicals that have greatly different expansion rates, and some devices that can fail steel would not have to be explosive at all.
Even nuclear bombs can be converted to "TNT equivalent" but if you think a nuke produces the same effect as TNT then you are dense.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Yes, different explosives are made from different chemicals, etc. But they can be standardized to TNT equivalent.
Not explosive at all? What's your point? The discussion is whether or not explosives threw the steel. How can a non-explosive have explosive effects?
You state that a nuke can be standardized to TNT equivalent, and then turn around and argue against it.
We're not discussing fallout effects or EMP or anything else here.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
No one is saying TNT was used. With all due respect we will NEVER know what TYPE of explosive was used. But was an explosive material used? YES... Type: Unknown.
Peace
CR
TNT equivalent = TNT equivalent.
It doesn't matter if TNT or RDX or C-4 or ANFO is the proposed explosive. They all produce explosive effect that can be standardized to TNT and will produce the same explosive effect.
But like the calculations that you didn't understand, you don't understand this either.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Just for a general comparison of explosive power calculated in a way meant to be roughly practical rather than scientifically accurate.
There the meaning of "TNT equivalent" ends.
Extreme thermal radiation is one way.
No, you're just ignorant of what you're talking about. TNT equivalence does not mean TNT = nuke. It does not mean, putting TNT in the towers, is the same as putting a nuke in the towers, which is what you insinuated in your last post, just because the TNT equivalence adds up.
Originally posted by jfj123
so as an analogy, what you're saying is that 1 pound of grapes weighs the same as one pound of apples ?
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Like I said, I'm not required to give you how those pieces were ejected
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
a- that's right, it's a way to measure EXPLOSIVE power so that as stated, one can measure a lb to a lb. So what's your beef? Again, we're talking about explosives throwing the steel 600'.
Talking about equivalent explosive between the different explosive types, and attempting to come to an accepted measure of the needed explosive power to achieve the effects is therefore relevant.
This still doesn't change the fact that the resulting explosive heating of the air would have to exhibit the same explosive effects as say, explosives.
You're forgetting this important fact.
Also, regarding my education. You are correct that I'm not an engineer. I've already stated this in another thread. Must be embarassing to get pwned so badly that you need to resort to ad hom in order to make your points seem more valid to the lurkers here.
Thank you for doing this, so that they can see the typical behavior of a troofer.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
Still yet to see some scientific calculations to explain how steel weighing tons produced enough force to laterally embed itself into buildings 500ft away without the need of any explosives?
How is this possible?
Peace
CR
Originally posted by bsbray11
High explosives don't "throw" steel, or at least not like what happened to the towers' steel. I never said otherwise.
especially as the floors became progressively stronger towards the base.
I've never seen anyone show that it's a fact that heated air must travel at least the same speed as chemical high explosives. Can you?
Depending on how much air is heated and how fast, as far as I know it could theoretically be a much more even and significantly longer application of pressure across the inside surfaces of columns. Who knows. Maybe something NIST could have considered.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz=
To be honest however, I'd expect to see the dust to be pushed WELL ahead of the steel under this scenario.
In another post above, I made a suggestion that elastic "bouncing" of those steel parts might explain it. If you have experience swinging a sledge hammer into heavy steel, you'd know that you better hang on tight to the hammer, because it's gonna bounce.
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by WraothAscendant
Which visual evidence shows a collapse? All I ever see is a huge cloud of dust and debris going everywhere.
Which one is a collapse and which is an explosion?
911research.wtc7.net..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
Some good physics on the collapse:
www.truememes.com...
Also, if you haven't done it yet, please read LaBtop's thesis on the seismographs from 9/11. Don't think anyone has tried to debunk it yet and it makes for an interesting read.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't see why it couldn't be "pushed" together, it's just that large pieces of steel have more mass and take more time/energy to accelerate to the same speed as smaller debris.
If everywhere across a floor was erupting like that (or even large sections at a time), then it would be no surprise to me that so much steel was thrown out so far in all directions. There would literally be a lot of "push" going around.
You literally have more energy going "out" than "down" in terms of where the steel is being constantly displaced during the collapses. Maybe something to consider.
But it will never spring back quite as far as it initially had to go, in order to build up the momentum to strike with whatever energy it did in the first place. For example, something falling 50 feet and bouncing will not bounce all the way back up to 50 feet unless the energy transfers were perfect somehow and you're in a vacuum, etc. You have debris that was laterally ejected 600 and 650 feet, and the width of the towers horizontally is something like 209 feet.
All of the samples were very alkaline. Aqueous suspensions of Lioy and Chen's dust samples ranged from pH 9 to 11.5. Nobody was surprised by the high pH values, which are mainly due to cement dust. CaOH, CaCO3, and CaSO4 from cement, wallboard, and other construction materials permeated the samples.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- I have no proof of my thoughts, but it just doesn't figure that heavier pieces could be accelerated with the dust.
But really, why couldn't what you're proposing also be accounted for in some degree by the air being displaced as the tower "pancakes".
2- there's the rub. How do we quantify how much fell outside the footprint and/or the collapse front?
And more importantly, when? It's just as probable that the steel fell inwards and contributed to the collapse energy, then "slid" off the descending pile.
3- Agree totally that the bounce will never be perfect. But your example lacks clarity.