North Tower Dust Cloud Calcs Prove Explosives

[bob_kark]

We know that every floor was pulverized because

1) We have multiple videos of it taking place. We observe, right from the beginning of each "collapse", huge quantities of very dense, heavy dust being systematically ejected sideways in all four directions.

Prove this is pulverized concrete.

2) At no time to we observe floors falling into one another.

What are you observing here?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&q=WTC+collapse

3) When it is over, we do not observe intact concrete floors stacked up. Each floor was about one acre in area, by about 4 inches thick, and held in a steel pan. Instead, we observe a smoldering crater. If the floors were not pulverized, where are they? Where are 110 acre-sized floors, stacked up and broken into pieces?

Guys, look at the pictures. The floors were obliterated.

The "metorite" picture is quite interesting too. What is this stuff? Was it previously molten? Have samples been made available for testing? I'm sure Dr. Jones would love to do some testing to see what it is. In any case, the "metorite" would account for, what, 1/100,000 of the floors?

Where did you come up with the idea that the floors would simply stack up in a pile at ground zero? Do you have any concept of the energy released in the collapse?

Where do you see a crater? There were piles of debris everywhere, but no crater. In fact here are some of the floors you were searching for.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7862931666870537890&q=WTC+debris

 

[Hellbound]

These threads really make me laugh, too.

I mean, the CTers might as well stand on rooftops with megaphones screaming "I know absolutely nothing about explosives, but my opinion on them is more valid than the experts! I'm a moron, so listen to me! I have egss in my nose!"

Make about as much sense.

Sorry, but just enough explosive to cut the steel core (not the external columns) on one floor measures over a ton. If you want to pulverize the concrete in all the floors we're talking about an amount of explosives in the hundreds of ton range, and that's assuming small charges placed inside the concrete of the floor spaced every 4 inches or so across every floor.

If you space them out more, the amount needed goes up.

Of course, all of this is based on the faulty assumption that concrete can't break unless explosives are involved...and the faulty assumptiont hat all the concrete was turned to dust.

There wasn't a crater, there was a 6-story high pile of debris. There were numerous large chunks of concrete left in the rubble pile...including large slabs (on of the survivors ended up on top of one of these slabs).

It only makes sense if you
A) ignore all the evidence of concrete after the fall
B) ignore the examination of dust samples that show the majority of the dust was drywall
C) ignore the fact that explosives aren't very good at pulverizing concrete, especially thin layers of it, as once it produces a crack the pressure (the primary destrcutive force in an explosive) has a release route and will tend to push the portions broken free, rather than cracking them (speed of explosive and other factors come into play here).
D) ignore the fact that enough explosives to produce this kind of damage to multiple concrete floors would be OBVIOUS to anyone in the area, as every person within at least a half-mile would have ruptured eardrums from the blast and the pressure waves produced would have been much more impressive than a dust cloud (and would also have blown out windows for quite some distance...a 400lb. charge will crack a window 2 miles away...we're talking at least 500 times that amount).

I suppose if you live in your own reality, anything is possible there. But you can't expect for your personal reality to intersect with everyone elses...

 

[pgwenthold]

This is just another example of one of those "Controlled demolitions carried out unlike any other CD in history" type of things.

"It looked like a controlled demolition!"
"Since when do CDs fall from the top down?"
"They did it that way to make it NOT look like a CD. Besides, it had to be a CD in order to pulverize all the concrete."
"Since when do CDs pulverize all the concrete?"

 

[MRC_Hans]

So far it seems like the biggest "discredit" to Hoffman is that he wrote his paper in 2003. AFAIK, nobody on the government team has come along and actually tried to model the collapses, or do these kinds of energy balance sheets. Hoffman's approach is not complicated really. Can anyone link us to a study like this, that does an energy balance sheet for the whole collapse and shows that GPE is enough?

I suppose before that happened we'd have to resolve this little issue of where all the intact concrete, and desks, and computers, and humans, where it all went since OCT's keep trying to say I'm wrong about the pulverization.

How about it OCT? If I'm wrong about near-complete pulverization of all non-metallic contents of the twin towers, then where is it? I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than some statement by the land fill operator. I want to see pictures of stacked up floors. And crunched desks. And busted computer monitors. And carpet.

But we don't see this. We see a pyroclastic flow, a mushroom cloud, and a crater full of smoldering dust and molten metal. If you ask me, you could drop a twin tower from twice its own height and it wouldn't get these kinds of observations.

Follow the link in the post just above yours. If the pictures are not enough, the link tells you where you can see the objects in real life (assuming you have a real life, of course).

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Where do you see a crater? There were piles of debris everywhere, but no crater. In fact here are some of the floors you were searching for.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7862931666870537890&q=WTC+debris

Not only that, but the towers continued for several stories below the ground. Much of the debris was pushed below ground level. They did not turn into a crater.


...

Why do we keep presenting facts to this person? He/she is obviously totally uninterested in facts.

Hans

 

[Bell]

Not only that, but the towers continued for several stories below the ground. Much of the debris was pushed below ground level. They did not turn into a crater.


...

Why do we keep presenting facts to this person? He/she is obviously totally uninterested in facts.

Hans

But... but... his name is Truthseeker1234...

 

[Infinite]

But we don't see this. We see a pyroclastic flow, a mushroom cloud, and a crater full of smoldering dust and molten metal. If you ask me, you could drop a twin tower from twice its own height and it wouldn't get these kinds of observations.

I'm leaning towards this thinking as well....

 

[einsteen]

This is just another example of one of those "Controlled demolitions carried out unlike any other CD in history" type of things.

"It looked like a controlled demolition!"
"Since when do CDs fall from the top down?"
"They did it that way to make it NOT look like a CD. Besides, it had to be a CD in order to pulverize all the concrete."
"Since when do CDs pulverize all the concrete?"

The question is if this behavior can be explained purely mechanically, it's a far from trivial issue, far from trivial. This phenomenom is also very new, we've not seen it before. That makes the situation difficult.
CT'ers can mention bombs and debunkers say: we've never seen it why do you think bombs, we cannot really reproduce this experiment.
IMO they both have a point.

One should calculate all energy required to

- break all floors, in fact without any delay time
- pulverize/atomize ??% off the stuff
- give it the typical fast speed behavior
- let debris fly away a few football fields
- etc

Further the following is interesting
- As far as I know that there is only one pre-print that can approach the collapse time under some special asssumptions.
- The collapse times can only be approached if all potential energy is assumed to cause the progressive collapse,
this means it can only be spent in order to break the floors/trusses/stuff within/etc and give it the typical
fall of the block through the building to explain the collapse time. It will be longer if there is indeed pulverization,
the pre-print also does that and explains that the collapse times will be longer.
- The assumptions are non consistent with what we see from video coverage. It more looks like a situation where
only the potential energy of the block and its initial momentum/erergy are the ones that matter, this can also
be seen by a thought experiment in which we only take the upper 20 floors of the towers and place that on the bottom.
We don't have to phone call Osama to test.
- The pre-print does not explain how far debris could fly away (i.e. more energy needed) and also not the typical behaviour.
- The free-fall argument is easily debunked by the fact that they didn't fall in that way, but it took longer, but with a CD
or a UD it also not at freefall.
- No terminal speed is reached with the pancake model, if the building was infinitely high (nonsense of course because g is constant and the strongest material can only reach the height of the mount everest) the speed will go to infinity also, that can't be because there should be a dynamic equillibrium during fall.
- Even with the most optimal assumptions the pre-print cannot explain the actual collapse time, the problem is that nobody cares about a second.

 

[Belz...]

1) We have multiple videos of it taking place. We observe, right from the beginning of each "collapse", huge quantities of very dense, heavy dust being systematically ejected sideways in all four directions.

And dust = total pulverization of concrete. Got it.

2) At no time to we observe floors falling into one another.

Well, you can't see the floors at all, so...

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

But we don't see this. We see a pyroclastic flow, a mushroom cloud, and a crater full of smoldering dust and molten metal. If you ask me, you could drop a twin tower from twice its own height and it wouldn't get these kinds of observations.

I'm leaning towards this thinking as well....

Actually, the last sentence is true. If you could drop a WTC tower from twice its' height, you would not see the same kind of destruction as we saw on 9/11. You would see the tower crushed first on the bottom.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
/Gomer Pyle

 

[pgwenthold]

The question is if this behavior can be explained purely mechanically, it's a far from trivial issue, far from trivial. This phenomenom is also very new, we've not seen it before. That makes the situation difficult.

The only thing that makes it difficult is idiots who do things like take a paper that says "the dust we analyzed had a size distribution of X, Y, and Z" and turn it into "all the concrete was pulverized to an average of 60 microns."

Of course, they even got the average size wrong (it was more like 120 microns, given the listed particle distribution in the original paper - that error leads to a factor of 8 error in the final energy calculation)

 

[uruk]

Here's a site show in the content of the dust from the WTC:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

It shows that majorty of the dust was gypsum followed by glass fiber then concrete, asbestos, metal oxides, and trace minerals.

And if you look at the debris pictures it becomes obvious that 420,000 cubic yards of concrete was not completely converted to dust. 200,000 tones of the building's 500,000 tones was steel. Steel is far denser than concrete, glass, wood, drywall, insulation..etc.
the majority of the falling mass would be in the steel rather than the other materials.

P.S.
is that mass or would that be momentum?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Here is an interesting link showing damage and failure analysis of the WTC from the plane impact. :
http://www.ara.com/arasvo/NIST_WTC.htm

The videos show something interesting. The blue particles represent the fuel. The simulation shows that a large majority of the fuel ending up inside the building not outside as the CT'ers claim.
Also the site shows the damage to the support structures. An object strinking the support structure with enough energy to do that damage. has to * I repeat* has to have caused a detectable siesmic event.
So the claim that the plane impact would not cause an event is positively hog wash.

1) Are you a seismologist? You must be, to state with such confidence, that this event would create a detectable seismic event.

2) Are you an explosions expert? You must be, to imply with such confidence that a CD would not create a detectable seismic event.

 

[mortimer]

So is the postulate that there were not only demo charges and thermi(a)te placed on the support columns, but also demo charges placed throughout every single floor to pulverize all the concrete? Why? Why go through all the extra work to pulverize the floors? I can't think of a single far-fetched reason why the gov't would REQUIRE that the floors be pulverized. Were super-sekrit documents about Bigfoot, aliens and Area 51, and the JFK assassination encased in the concrete floors, and needed to be pulverized as well?

 

[uruk]

1) Are you a seismologist? You must be, to state with such confidence, that this event would create a detectable seismic event.

2) Are you an explosions expert? You must be, to imply with such confidence that a CD would not create a detectable seismic event.

1. No I am not a seismologist. But I know when you strike a wire in contact with a mass the vibrations spread throughout the mass. It's called a musical instrument. It's simple physics. The steel support structures were imbeded in solid granite. Striking the steel supports with a large commercial aircraft with sufficent force as to severly damage said supports will cause an oscillation to travel the length of the support and into the granite bed rock below. Seismagraphs, or rather the transducers, are capable of picking up footsteps if they are close enough and if the sensitivity is set high enough. In fact seismographs have to be set to account for ambient vibrational noise. Something like an airliner striking a building is bound to put a wiggle or two into a seismometer.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismograph

Here's one that makes a mention of the problems associated with ambient vibrational noise and measurement:
http://psn.quake.net/info/homefaq.txt

2. I never, EVER said that an explosion would not cause a dectable seismic event. In fact it would. What I am saying is that the evidence does not support an explosion in the sub-basement of the WTC. I said that what is more likely the source of the sounds heard in the basement was the sound of the airliner colliding with the steel supports traveling to the basement via the steel supports.

PS.
Oops! I just realized you meant what I implied about the "silent explosions".
I was making a comment about the "alleged" use of thermite to weaken the supports in the basement. Thermite does not explode so much a uses a high temperature heat reaction to melt the metal. Thermite does not exactly go "BOOM" rather it goes "FFFIIZZZZZ!" ( it's more like a sparkler than a fire cracker) The use of thermite would also rule out there being explosion sounds in the sub-basement.
For more info about thermite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Here's a video of a thermite granade going off:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2289367460324643450&q=grenade

 

[rwguinn]

1) Are you a seismologist? You must be, to state with such confidence, that this event would create a detectable seismic event.

2) Are you an explosions expert? You must be, to imply with such confidence that a CD would not create a detectable seismic event.

1. Not necessarily-As I pointed out earlier, they find oil by dropping a ton of weight on the ground and recording the earth's reaction via a seismograph. Plenty of evidence, no need to be expert.
2. Correct. They used to do 1) with a stick of dynamite