Horizontal Ejections and Squibs

Mancman said:
.....700kg of TNT for a single column.
Click to expand...
This is why I kept asking papasmurf for the calculations, but he apparently felt he didn't need them because he's got common sense and intuition.

And remember, papasmurf's bombs aren't even contacting the columns - they're located in the center of each floor up to >100 feet away from the perimeter columns. Because of this, he would need an order of magnitude greater amount of explosive.

The idea is absolutely ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Mancman said:
The perimeter walls simply leant outward when they lost lateral bracing.

If a piece of wall, say 500ft high leans outward and falls, some of it will land at least that distance away.

You can see an example here. The east wall of WTC2 is laid out across the remains of WTC4, in a straight line from the footprint of the tower:
[qimg]http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_East_Hell.jpg[/qimg]


Explosives are simply out of the question. From Pg97 of R.Mackey's whitepaper:



.....700kg of TNT for a single column.
Click to expand...

fire + gravitational force was able to do the work of "700 kg of TNT for a single column"?:eek:
 
bio said:
fire + gravitational force was able to do the work of "700 kg of TNT for a single column"?:eek:
Click to expand...

Yes, the towers caught on fire and gravity took over. NOTHING ELSE happened to them that day which could possibly have weakened the structure. :rolleyes:
 
bio said:
fire + gravitational force was able to do the work of "700 kg of TNT for a single column"?:eek:
Click to expand...
Yes, and that brings up another point!

I have asked papasmurf to calculate the energy stored in the towers due to gravity, and he has so far refused and in a very anti-engineering fashion instead decided to rely on his common sense and intuition. We see how far that was off as far as explosives necessary, could it be his common sense and intuition have failed him once more?

Maybe you could calculate the potential energy of the towers bio? :rolleyes:
 
bio said:
fire + gravitational force was able to do the work of "700 kg of TNT for a single column"?:eek:
Click to expand...

How predictable of you.

papasmurf's implied explanation, one of explosives sending steel flying hundreds of feet, requires such an incredible amount of explosives that even entertaining the idea is ludicrous.

When you look at the actual mechanism of how the steel was delivered to these distances, very little energy is required. In fact, take away the floors, and no additional energy is required from the collapsing portion, the walls will simply fall away of their own accord.

The distinction lies in the mechanism. It isn't hard to understand this.
 
I don't know if anybody has visited this website before, but I thought it might interesting given the topic

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Here's an excerpt from the article that made me think it may be appropriate. I'm not a science guy...so I apologize if this means nothing.

Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bio said:
fire + gravitational force was able to do the work of "700 kg of TNT for a single column"?:eek:
Click to expand...
Fire just from the jet fuel, NOT counting the large office fires, was the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT. That is 630,000 pounds of TNT in the form of heat energy! Darn, beats 700 kg of TNT.

Now gravity! Towers fell and just the energy due to gravity was OVER 100 TONS of TNT.

100 TONS of TNT is greater than 700 kg of TNT.

Next time try some phsics, or math, or something more than hearsay and false ideas.
 
Mancman said:
The perimeter walls simply leant outward when they lost lateral bracing.

If a piece of wall, say 500ft high leans outward and falls, some of it will land at least that distance away.

You can see an example here. The east wall of WTC2 is laid out across the remains of WTC4, in a straight line from the footprint of the tower:
[qimg]http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_East_Hell.jpg[/qimg]


Explosives are simply out of the question. From Pg97 of R.Mackey's whitepaper:



.....700kg of TNT for a single column.
Click to expand...


More like the floors were blown off their connections. Look at how what you call the core just crumbles to the ground. You can see them topple over because they were cut from underneath, as we can see in pictures of the aftermath.

If they weren't crushed in the collapse wave, there should have been a sizeable chunk of the core left intact. Instead we have a few pieces of the core that topple over after the collapse of the rest of the structure. This does nothing to discredit the demolition theory. Like i said, it would have been unlikely that they placed explosives onevery collumn, they put the explosives on major columns and made the explosions large enough to damage other collumns.

Your argument that it would take 700 kg of tnt to launch a projectile horizontally...

How does this support your argument and not mine? ...

You admit that it happened, and say nothing caused it.... Geeze well if it takes that much energy to throw the beam then how the hell did the beam get thrown????????????????????????????????????????

LAME.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gud2ay4I9Mw

This is not a video of a "progressive collapse".

This is a building getting blown to bits. Trust your eyes people. Not lame explanations from experts that you don't even understand. They just "sound" good to you.

Ask your self whaet caused all those steel collumns to just disappear so quickly. Watch and keep watching. Look at the dust cloud and teh debris getting shot outward. Watch as the piledriving force gets obliterated, yt the building still continues to progressively collapse at lightning speed. As you watch the floors of the building get turned to dust and blasted outward, ask yourself what is driving the force of the collapse. As mass from the top section is lost, you would expect the collapse to slow down. There is no reason for the collapse to progress to completion.

I would love you to show me a progressive collapse even remotely close to this. Remotely. It never happens.

The building that could take multiple 707 impacts turns to dust, yet we are supposed to believe this is completely understandable.

What is wrong with you people?
 
papasmurf said:
Your argument that it would take 700 kg of tnt to launch a projectile horizontally...

How does this support your argument and not mine? ...
Click to expand...
Because it is absolutely insane to think there was this much explosive per column. And in your model it would be an order of magnitude more needed, since you require a single large bomb in the center of each floor to blow out perimeter columns, some more than 100 feet away!

You don't see how absolutely ludicrous that is?

Meanwhile, we have an incredible amount of energy being released in the collapse... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
How about addressing the amount of explosives needed papasmurf? The math has already been done for you.
Click to expand...

How about not repeating the same straw man attack that every debunker whines about from a broken record...

A lot of explosives were needed. "Workers" carried them up the elevators in those giant crates on wheels, then did what they needed to do.

LAME.
 
papasmurf said:
How about not repeating the same straw man attack that every debunker whines about from a broken record...
Click to expand...
Another truther who doesn't know what a strawman is! Bombs are your idea, support it.

A lot of explosives were needed.
Click to expand...
How much?

"Workers" carried them up the elevators in those giant crates on wheels, then did what they needed to do.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous, calculate your explosives needs and you'll see why.

LAME.
Click to expand...
Why were no explosions from your unbelievable massive bombs heard again?
 
beachnut said:
Fire just from the jet fuel, NOT counting the large office fires, was the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT. That is 630,000 pounds of TNT in the form of heat energy! Darn, beats 700 kg of TNT.

Now gravity! Towers fell and just the energy due to gravity was OVER 100 TONS of TNT.

100 TONS of TNT is greater than 700 kg of TNT.

Next time try some phsics, or math, or something more than hearsay and false ideas.
Click to expand...


I bet you think your pretty smart don't you beach nut? Yeah a fire has a lot of energy, but quantity of energy is not everything. You have to deal with quality and transformations of energy.

Would you like to explain how heat from fire can transform it's energy into flying steal beams? Explain any relation at all between this energy from the fire and the flying steel collumns. See what you can come up with.
 
papasmurf said:
More like the floors were blown off their connections. Look at how what you call the core just crumbles to the ground. You can see them topple over because they were cut from underneath, as we can see in pictures of the aftermath.

If they weren't crushed in the collapse wave, there should have been a sizeable chunk of the core left intact. Instead we have a few pieces of the core that topple over after the collapse of the rest of the structure. This does nothing to discredit the demolition theory. Like i said, it would have been unlikely that they placed explosives onevery collumn, they put the explosives on major columns and made the explosions large enough to damage other collumns.

Your argument that it would take 700 kg of tnt to launch a projectile horizontally...

How does this support your argument and not mine? ...

You admit that it happened, and say nothing caused it.... Geeze well if it takes that much energy to throw the beam then how the hell did the beam get thrown????????????????????????????????????????

LAME.
Click to expand...

No they were not 'cut from underneath'. If the top of a wall section is leaning outward, a lean of only a few degrees will simply snap the bolts further down. Explosives are totally unnecessary.

Yes, it would take 700kg to acclerate one column to 30m/s. Explosives are therefore a laughable theory.

Where did I say nothing caused it? The cause is obvious and I explained it to you. Once the floors are ripped away, the walls have no lateral bracing, and are then expected to fall to one side. Since the inner side of these walls contains thousands of tons of moving debris, we expect them to fall outward and away from the building. This is exactly what we see happen in the videos, and in the debris. It's excrutiatingly simple. You are making an issue out of precisely nothing.
 
papasmurf said:
The building that could take multiple 707 impacts turns to dust, yet we are supposed to believe this is completely understandable.
Click to expand...

And yet they chose to go ahead with it, and execute this one-of-a-kind, never-attempted-before unconventional super-duper controlled demolition in plain sight of millions of people.

And somehow only a select few found out the trooth.

What is wrong with you people?
Click to expand...

Rationality, logic, evidence and the scientific method, these sorts of things.
 
Mancman said:
.

Yes, it would take 700kg to acclerate one column to 30m/s. Explosives are therefore a laughable theory.
Click to expand...

Now just hold it right there!

30 m/s eh?

What was able to impart this energy to the beams then? Hmmmm...

Where did this energy come from?

How did the gravitational energy impart this kinetic energy to the beams as you probably are trying to suggest. to make it shoot out at 30 m/s, as you suggest...
 
papasmurf said:
How did the gravitational energy impart this kinetic energy to the beams as you probably are trying to suggest. to make it shoot out at 30 m/s, as you suggest...
Click to expand...

Using the actual mechanism of the walls leaning outward, little or no gravitational energy is required, since the walls were obviously not designed to stand for hundreds of feet without lateral bracing. They will topple over by themselves. If a 500ft high piece falls out, debris will land 500ft away. Just like that.

However, for explosives to launch these columns directly outward as you imply, requires ridiculous amounts of explosives.

It's so bloody simple. How can you fail to grasp this? Do you need a diagram?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom