Is 1908 kg of explosives enough to bring down a WTC Tower?

PhantomWolf said:
No, I'm saying that if the energy of the falling block exceeds the energy required to destroy the floor it falls on then it will cause a progressive collapse. The distance it is required to fall depends entire on the mass of the upper block.
Click to expand...

i would agree if the upper part was a massive block. but it was indeed the part of the building with the thinest coloumns.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
My mistake. But seeing how far from reality your estimates are, I don't think you have much room to be ver condescending anyways. The amount of explosives needed in order to carry out this supposed inside job are so great that it is absurdly impossible to even consider. And that being if one forgets the logistical impossibility.

So go back to 1 ton of magical explosives.
Click to expand...

far away from reality? what u mean? it would need more or less explosives?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
far away from reality? what u mean? it would need more or less explosives?
Click to expand...

Well, forgetting about the obvious answer to that question, can you tell us how you prevent your explosives from being destroyed by the airplane impacts? An again, are you simply trying to get them to fall at minimum, or to recreate these supposed vacumes that suck them down at these supposedly unnatural speeds?
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Well, forgetting about the obvious answer to that question, can you tell us how you prevent your explosives from being destroyed by the airplane impacts? An again, are you simply trying to get them to fall at minimum, or to recreate these supposed vacumes that suck them down at these supposedly unnatural speeds?
Click to expand...

do you think te speed of the collapses was "unnatural" ?

i actually only took Bazant's *theory* and replaced Plane and fires with explosives.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
Would 1908 kg of CHARGE CUTTING LINEAR be enough to bring down a WTC Tower?

no airplane damage. just a hypothetical assumption.
with Airplane damage and Fires, it is claimed to not need any explosives.
but when talking about CT's i often hear it would need a huge amount of explosives. so i wondered how much would that be?
Click to expand...

I'll try and give a thorough and reasoned answer to this, though I'm sure I'll regret it later.

First of all, in another thread you referred to Heiwa's paper as "nice work". If you believe anything Heiwa has to say, then your position on this must be that 1908kg would not be sufficient to bring down a tower. This is because the crux of Heiwa's argument is that the upper block, falling 3.7m under gravity, would not bring about global collapse under any circumstances. If you want to pursue this any further, therefore, I suggest you put anything Heiwa has ever said entirely out of your mind. I wish I could.

If, on the other hand, you're prepared to accept that Heiwa is utterly, insanely, embarrassingly wrong, then your position appears to have merit; the requirements for explosives to bring down a tower are not too extravagant, based on articles on controlled demolitions. Indeed, as others have often said, in the case of fire and debris damage being as predicted by NIST, the requirement is zero. It is, in general, the conspiracy theorists who postulate sub-scenarios involving extreme amounts of explosives. This is primarily a psychological approach; the hope of the conspiracy theorist is to discover a piece of evidence so colossal that nobody can ignore it, the best example being Jim Hoffman's calculations of the explansion of the dust clouds. Unfortunately, Hoffman's hypothesis required various other elements of similar magnitude to be present - either temperatures in the dust cloud sufficiently high to roast instantly anyone engulfed by it, or millions of gallons of water from an unknown source - which he has been unable to explain.

Finally, even accepting that ~2000kg of explosives are sufficient, there is the requirement to have these at the point of impact of the planes. For that, it won't be sufficient to wire one floor only. How close to the impact do you need, in floors? Divide the result into the number of floors the plane could have hit, and multiply your weight by that number.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
I'll try and give a thorough and reasoned answer to this, though I'm sure I'll regret it later.

First of all, in another thread you referred to Heiwa's paper as "nice work". If you believe anything Heiwa has to say, then your position on this must be that 1908kg would not be sufficient to bring down a tower. This is because the crux of Heiwa's argument is that the upper block, falling 3.7m under gravity, would not bring about global collapse under any circumstances. If you want to pursue this any further, therefore, I suggest you put anything Heiwa has ever said entirely out of your mind. I wish I could.

If, on the other hand, you're prepared to accept that Heiwa is utterly, insanely, embarrassingly wrong, then your position appears to have merit; the requirements for explosives to bring down a tower are not too extravagant, based on articles on controlled demolitions. Indeed, as others have often said, in the case of fire and debris damage being as predicted by NIST, the requirement is zero. It is, in general, the conspiracy theorists who postulate sub-scenarios involving extreme amounts of explosives. This is primarily a psychological approach; the hope of the conspiracy theorist is to discover a piece of evidence so colossal that nobody can ignore it, the best example being Jim Hoffman's calculations of the explansion of the dust clouds. Unfortunately, Hoffman's hypothesis required various other elements of similar magnitude to be present - either temperatures in the dust cloud sufficiently high to roast instantly anyone engulfed by it, or millions of gallons of water from an unknown source - which he has been unable to explain.

Finally, even accepting that ~2000kg of explosives are sufficient, there is the requirement to have these at the point of impact of the planes. For that, it won't be sufficient to wire one floor only. How close to the impact do you need, in floors? Divide the result into the number of floors the plane could have hit, and multiply your weight by that number.

Dave
Click to expand...

so when heiwa is totaly wrong, you do belive that the upper part of the towers, exactly hit the corresponding coloumns on the floor under it?

Dr. Bazant's theory, is so far away from what happened on 9/11 i would prefer Heiwas works above that Bazantsche theory. even with the strange comparison to Heiwas grill party.

when you ppl really do belive that asymetrical damage, asymetrical fires, asymetrical heating up of stell can cause 2 almost very symetrical and methodical collapses like we saw on 9/11, then that is your problem.

thats the most laughable thing i heard about 9/11.

the theoretical kinetic energy of the upper floors maybe was enough in theory to cause a total collapse.

but when you start to think how that energy would be applied to the lower floors, one quickly has to realise that Bazant's theory is nonsence.

i know i know, ow i gonna hear that i am not an experts and that i have no clue and so on, the ususal rants.

open the fire.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
so when heiwa is totaly wrong, you do belive that the upper part of the towers, exactly hit the corresponding coloumns on the floor under it?
Click to expand...

No, I believe Heiwa is wrong in his belief that uniform density of the upper block and axial impacts are requirements for collapse. They are in fact computational simplifications of an intractable problem, and the latter in particular is biased in favour of survival. Heiwa believes that the upper block could somehow fall through the lower block without damaging its structure. This belief is insane.

Dictator Cheney said:
when you ppl really do belive that asymetrical damage, asymetrical fires, asymetrical heating up of stell can cause 2 almost very symetrical and methodical collapses like we saw on 9/11, then that is your problem.

thats the most laughable thing i heard about 9/11.

the theoretical kinetic energy of the upper floors maybe was enough in theory to cause a total collapse.

but when you start to think how that energy would be applied to the lower floors, one quickly has to realise that Bazant's theory is nonsence.

i know i know, ow i gonna hear that i am not an experts and that i have no clue and so on, the ususal rants.
Click to expand...

No, what you're going to hear is that you're such a determined peddler of conspiracy theories that you're unable to stay on topic even in your own thread. The rest has been pointed out to you so many times that once more won't help.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, I believe Heiwa is wrong in his belief that uniform density of the upper block and axial impacts are requirements for collapse. They are in fact computational simplifications of an intractable problem, and the latter in particular is biased in favour of survival. Heiwa believes that the upper block could somehow fall through the lower block without damaging its structure. This belief is insane.



No, what you're going to hear is that you're such a determined peddler of conspiracy theories that you're unable to stay on topic even in your own thread. The rest has been pointed out to you so many times that once more won't help.

Dave
Click to expand...

you brought up Haiwa,not me, so its you that cannot stay on tpoic.

when Heiwa is claiming that the uppwer part of the tower would not damage the to structure hit by that upper part, well then he is wrong.
all further questions about heiwa, pls post them in heiwas topic. not here.

thx
 
and
Videos of the collapses do debunk Dr. Bazant's crushing down / crushing up phase.

when will you come up with a plausible theory about the collapses without explosives?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
you brought up Haiwa,not me, so its you that cannot stay on tpoic.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the bit of your reply that was off-topic.

Dictator Cheney said:
when Heiwa is claiming that the uppwer part of the tower would not damage the to structure hit by that upper part, well then he is wrong.
Click to expand...

Then may I suggest that you follow your own advice and post in his thread to tell him so?

Dave
 
Dictator Cheney said:
where in his paper is he claiming that ?
Click to expand...

Here is twoofer people. Always asking questions, never taking a stance and defending it with facts. Snide remarks and more questions will follow any reply to them. Please do not waste your time trying to reason with them or inform them of anything. They are impervious to logic and tend to feel smug, yet strangely insecure at the same time. If ignored long enough they will fade away. They don't produce anything, contribute anything, help anyone and rarely, if ever admit mistakes. You might be tempted to engage them in debate but be assured that they do not know how to debate. They have no answers.

Just watch, the twooofers will reply, like pavlov's dogs they have been conditioned that way. Ding, ding, ding twooofers!
 
Just a short note; I have been asked by Dictator Cheney to help confirm his identification. I can confirm that he is posting from a Swiss ISP.
 
applecorped said:
Here is twoofer people. Always asking questions, never taking a stance and defending it with facts. Snide remarks and more questions will follow any reply to them. Please do not waste your time trying to reason with them or inform them of anything. They are impervious to logic and tend to feel smug, yet strangely insecure at the same time. If ignored long enough they will fade away. They don't produce anything, contribute anything, help anyone and rarely, if ever admit mistakes. You might be tempted to engage them in debate but be assured that they do not know how to debate. They have no answers.

Just watch, the twooofers will reply, like pavlov's dogs they have been conditioned that way. Ding, ding, ding twooofers!
Click to expand...

sorry, did you read Heiwa's paper?

he is talking about damage of the lower floors. so i think there is a good reason to ask, where he claims that the lower part will not be damaged.

btw, do you also think that way about your kid? you know, your twoofer kid.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
online , not so much, but on Telepolis i debated in German.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see some examples, that way German-readers/speakers could determine whether you are just naturally annoying or it's because you're writing in a different language.

:D

PS I never doubted you were Swiss-German ever since you used it in one post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom