Merged More proof of WTC demolitions/controlled explosives

[walkyrie]

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense EXPOSE 911 WTC Demolitions

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense EXPOSE 911 WTC Demolitions


http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2006/010706doesnthunt.htm

 

[KDLarsen]

No. And you're 4½ years late on that one, btw.

 

[Dash80]

I've read the paragraphs from the link. I didn't see anything in it about a wtc demolition?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense EXPOSE 911 WTC Demolitions


http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2006/010706doesnthunt.htm

Damn... too bad he didn't actually say a single thing about explosives. Or even allude to them. Or even mention the towers.

And too bad his statement about "secure borders" actually implies that he believes that hijackers were involved, also arguing against any sort of demolitions hypothesis.

Man, walkyrie... you guys don't even try anymore, do you?

 

[Dash80]

Damn... too bad he didn't actually say a single thing about explosives. Or even allude to them. Or even mention the towers.

And too bad his statement about "secure borders" actually implies that he believes that hijackers were involved, also arguing against any sort of demolitions hypothesis.

Man, walkyrie... you guys don't even try anymore, do you?

I read it 3 times just to be sure I hadn't missed anything and still no mention of wtc or explosives. good to know it's not just me who couldn't find it mentioned either, I'll cancel the eyesight test now.

Anneliese

 

[Justin39640]

Seeing the new post from our mystery friend has nothing to do with the link he provides, here's something even less relevant!

"Dog will hunt!"

 

[walkyrie]

4 Tons of steel of the WTC perimeter wall Landing on the Wintergarden Roof

How can a 4 Tons Steel chunk of the World Trade Center perimeter wall travel 600 feets from the twin tower (with an average initial horizontal exit speed of 54MPH) and be able to reach the Wintergardens roof without the use of Controlled Demolition EXPLOSIONS ?

http://www.csi911.info/exit_speed_54MPH.jpg

http://www.csi911.info/Exhibit_K.jpg

http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html



.

 

[beachnut]

How can a 4 Tons Steel chunk of the World Trade Center perimeter wall travel 600 feets from the twin tower (with an average initial horizontal exit speed of 54MPH) and be able to reach the Wintergardens roof without the use of Controlled Demolition EXPLOSIONS ?

http://www.csi911.info/exit_speed_54MPH.jpg

http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html



.

It is called physics. I assume you have no idea how to do the physics. The collapse energy associated with gravity for each tower is equal in energy to 130 tons of TNT. Is that enough energy? More than a little atom bomb, a nuke! Got physics?

Prove the distance, prove the chunk weight. You already proved you don't do physics.

You lied about the distance, it was only 428 feet. You failed to check your moronic sources, which lied. But go ahead spread lies, it is what 911 truth wants you to do, to mislead others so a few nuts can donate money to Gage.

 

[walkyrie]

It is called physics. I assume you have no idea how to do the physics. The collapse energy associated with gravity for each tower is equal in energy to 130 tons of TNT. Is that enough energy? More than a little atom bomb, a nuke! Got physics?

Prove the distance, prove the chunk weight. You already proved you don't do physics.

You are lying

 

[beachnut]

You lied

You lied about the distance, or you repeated a lie. Which is it, are you making up lies, or only spreading them due to ignorance of the facts, and the inability to do physics?

Please back up your failure, and explain how I lied. Good luck, doubt you did the math to see a gravity collapse can cause objects to make it 428 feet. You said 600, but you failed to check the distance from the WTC to the site you mentioned. Are you not able to check things, to do the research?

Oops, now I got 418 feet, what did you measure? Are you posting junk you found by Google?

You are lying

I thought you said I lied? Now I am lying?

E=mgh - have at it, go ahead tell me the potential energy stored in each tower, use tons of TNT as your answer, or joules, your pick. Got math?


How much energy is required to give 54 mph to 8,000 pound piece of steel in the horizontal? (in pounds of TNT) Remember we only have 130 tons TNT energy available. When will you figure this out?

 

[walkyrie]

PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN
TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01

By Terry Morrone.
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University

Conclusions

Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center,
and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since
the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy
needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought
down by explosives or cutter charges.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

 

[beachnut]

PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN
TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01

By Terry Morrone.
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University

Conclusions

Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center,
and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since
the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy
needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought
down by explosives or cutter charges.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

You found an idiot who failed before he made up his delusional paper. You failed to say how much energy is required to give a 8,000 piece of steel 54 mph in the horizontal? Is that answer coming soon, you posted the nonsense, back it up with some numbers. Got math?

Explosives don't melt steel, cutter charges don't melt steel. They do leave blast effects, not found on any steel. No evidence for your new found nut.

 

[Justin39640]

You found an idiot who failed before he made up his delusional paper. You failed to say how much energy is required to give a 8,000 piece of steel 54 mph in the horizontal? Is that answer coming soon, you posted the nonsense, back it up with some numbers. Got math?

Explosives don't melt steel, cutter charges don't melt steel. They do leave blast effects, not found on any steel. No evidence for your new found nut.

Ahh Adelphi University. The pride of Garden City.
My friend went there. The same one who thought the moon was the closest planet to the sun. So did Ba-Ba Booey of the Howard Stern Show.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center,
and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since
the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy
needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought
down by explosives or cutter charges.

There was no molten steel in the wreckage of the WTC.

All of his conclusions are based on this and are therefore false.

 

[triforcharity]

You are lying

600 feet you say?

You're off by about 75 feet, give or take.

Now, how does a steel member get enough velocity to do that?

I'll refer you to Dave Thomas' video.




There you go champ!

ETA: My mistake! I was using an incorrect point in the map.

Here is the correct one.

 

[beachnut]

PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN
TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01

By Terry Morrone.
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University

Conclusions

Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center,
and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought down by explosives or cutter charges.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

Does Adelphi University know they have a Professor Emeritus of Physics who is nuts on 911 issues? Poor Terry Morrone making up lies to apologize for terrorists. http://www.adelphi.edu/contact/ Does Adelphi University know the professor has used his title "Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University", in his delusional paper.

Do you have the energy required to propel a 8000 pound piece of WTC at 54 mph horizontally? Any clue? Got the math? Joules or pounds of TNT please. If you can't do this, you can't figure out 911.

 

[Oystein]

How can a 4 Tons Steel chunk of the World Trade Center perimeter wall travel 600 feets from the twin tower (with an average initial horizontal exit speed of 54MPH) and be able to reach the Wintergardens roof without the use of Controlled Demolition EXPLOSIONS ?

http://www.csi911.info/exit_speed_54MPH.jpg

http://www.csi911.info/Exhibit_K.jpg

http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html
.

Good question. You seem to think "a high explosive charge did it".

Can you calculate in order

1. How much energy from explosives would be needed to cut that particulat 4 tons steel chunk from the building structure? How many individual charges?
2. How many pounds of explosives would that be?
3. How loud would the shockwave be 1km away?
4. How much kinetic energy does the 4 ton chunk of steel need to pick up in order to fly all the way to the Winter Garden?
5. How much energy from additional explosives would you need to accelerate the chunk? (Here you would have to take into account that at most half of the chemical energy could be converted into kinetic, but less is probably more realistic)
6. How loud would such a charge be 1km away?

My quick calculation result for the last part is 490 grams of TNT (minimum) just to hurl the steel; of course, no one would attach explosives such that a lose piece of steel gets most effectively flung - the main purpose is of course to just sever it from the structure. If we assume then that at most 10% of the charge's energy went into propelling the steel, it follows that this piece of steel had been attacked by at least one 10-pound charge of TNT.
We can expect a sharp BANG of 130dB to be heard half a mile away.
Was there any such bang, walky? Or rather, were there many many many many such bangs of 130dB and more?

You see, throu gravitational collapse alone, the energy of at least 200,000 pounds of TNT (100 tons) was releases and available to break and fling steel.
Or 20,000 charges of 10 pounds each.

You truther types never seem to grasp that explosives in a CD don't do all the desctructive work, and are not even responsible for most of the lateral ejection: Even in real CDs, GRAVITY does most of the destruction!

 

[Oystein]

You are lying

He is not.

Potential energy is calculated in physics with
E = m*h*g
where
m=total mass
h=height of the center of mass
g=gravity's acceleration =9.805 m/s² in NYC

So let's find values to plug into the formula:

1. MASS
If you do real research, you will quickly find quotes for the mass of one of the twin towers given in the range from 250,000 to 500,000 tons (metric). Let's quickly check if this order of magnitude is plausible:
A building is made of steel and concrete, but contains mostly air. Much like a ship. The building would swim. if you could keep it water thight. We know that much of the volume of a ship is above water, and only a fraction below: maybe 1/5th of it. That means average density of ship/building can be estimated as 0.2 tons/m³.

We know the dimensions of the towers:
416m*63m*63m = 1,651,104m³
Now lets apply the sensity here, and we get the mass of the tower:
1,651,104m³ * 0.2 tons/m³ = 330,220.8 tons = 330,220,800 kg[/B]

2. HIGHT
The towers were 416 meters high. The center of mass would be at half that height, if mass was evenly distributet. But it isn't, because in the lower floors, core columns are stronger. A reasonable estimate is 40% of the hight. So
h = 416m * 40% = 166,4m


ENERGY:
We now have all the numbers and can compute potential energy:

E = m*h*g = 166,4m * 330,220,800 kg * 9.805 m/s² = 538,772,406,681.6 Joules, or 538,772MJ



TNT:
How much TNT is that? Well, you can look it up everywhere: 1kg of TNT contains 4.7MJ

So our TNT-equivalent m(TNT) for what gravity does to a twin tower is:

m(TNT) = 538,772MJ / 4.7kg/MJ = 114,632kg (rounded) or 114.6 tons

This is a little less than beachnut's 130 tons, but close, and of course we estimated mass quite roughly; some people give higher numbers, some give lower numbers (I usually only go with 100 tons, preferring the most conservative values), but the bottom line is true: You have many dozend tons of TNT equivalent to work with from gravity alone.

There is not the tinies shred of evidence that explosives reaching that energy even remotely were used.

 

[Oystein]

PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN
TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01

By Terry Morrone.
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University

Conclusions

Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center,
and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since
the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy
needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought
down by explosives or cutter charges.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

There was no molten steel.
FAIL

 

[dafydd]

You are lying

No.