Yes. However, a portion of the museum sits underneath that, and they have exposed the bedrock and the profile of the steel columns that once stood there.
It still has a floor made of concrete Tri. Look UNDER the floor. Quite a way under the floor even. By the way....isn't it a very interesting design ? A Museum with a pool of water 200 feet square built above it. They're called 'reflecting' pools I heard.
The 600,000 pound figure for the metal smashed into the building may be correct; it comes from a picture in the FEMA library with this caption under it:
New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo
Its possible they are referring to the whole section of wall that hit the building not just the broken off section left behind as it fell to the ground. As I, and others, have worked out they are out by at least an order of magnitude.
More likely its simply a typo.
personal story - When I saw that damage a couple of weeks after 911, I don't recall seeing the beam but I was on the river so simply may have missed it or it may have already been removed (I have pictures somewhere, I must look them out) and my guess at the time was that it had been one of the engines that had punched that corner out.
As I explained to you before if there was a pressure wave capable of hurling heavy steel around, you would quite literally be able to SEE the wave. Go watch some real heavy duty explosives going off, they look NOTHING like the WTC collapse.
Since that point is 545 feet from the nearest tower then it would have had to have been at least that high up the building for it to have peeled out that far.
Putting aside who was right, I am an excellent speaker and I was very well prepared, better than Richard. Of course I was right, but in addition I was just the stronger debater. What does "government OTC" mean? Maybe I could understand your point but frankly I don't.
By the way....isn't it a very interesting design ? A Museum with a pool of water 200 feet square built above it. They're called 'reflecting' pools I heard.
It may have helped if Clayton had written it correctly, that way if you weren't au fait with that particular piece of jargon you could've looked it up.
He may have been referring to some new over the counter government
It may have helped if Clayton had written it correctly, that way if you weren't au fait with that particular piece of jargon you could've looked it up.
He may have been referring to some new over the counter government
Can you inform us quickly, please:
- What mass did those flying heavy steel sections have?
- How fast did they move laterally?
- In your opinion, why did they fly? What force accelerated them laterally?
Well, let's see. Even if it was spelled right, OCT can refer to:
October
Ontario College of Teachers
Office of Cable Television
Optical Coherence Tomography
Octave
Octal
Optimal Control Theory
Object Class Table
Overseas Countries and Territories
Octamer-Binding Transcription Factor
Official Conspiracy Theory
Oregon Cultural Trust
Ocular Coherence Tomography
Optimal Cutting Temperature
Office of Clinical Trials
Oxford Classical Texts
Oxytocin Challenge Test
Oral Contraceptive Therapy
Order Cycle Time
Organismo de Control Técnico
Oak Cliff, Texas
Ocala Civic Theatre
Ocean Color and Temperature
Optical Current Transducer
Ontario Certified Teacher
Officina Città Torino
Office, Chief of Transportation
Optical Committee of Turkey
OSHA Compliance Team
Optical Channel Trail
Operational Climatic Testing
Operations Concept Team
Ottawa City Transportation
Oil Chemistry and Technology
Obligation-Certification Tree
One Cool Tuna
Office of Counter Terrorism
So now it appears that only people who can guess which of those 37 options you were referring to have a valid opinion on 9/11? Well, in that case, Clayton, please tell me what SMF stands for, so that when you guess wrong I'll be able to demonstrate how worthless your opinions are.
Can you inform us quickly, please:
- What mass did those flying heavy steel sections have?
- How fast did they move laterally?
- In your opinion, why did they fly? What force accelerated them laterally?
The real question for these truthers is "How do you get explosives to throw large bits of steel?"
To be a bit more precise, given that truthers tend to claim that thrown large lumps of steel are proof of explosive CD. Which in turn means the thrown steel is an artefact of cutting the steel for demolition. It's not easy to get explosives to throw large lumps of steel even if that was the primary objective. Near enough impossible as a "side effect" of steel cutting. Yes you will throw little bits. At high velocities etc. BUT not big bits.
So I won't spell out how asinine stupid that alleged logic is - to any one who knows what they are talking about with the use of explosives.
The real question for these truthers is "How do you get explosives to throw large bits of steel?"
To be a bit more precise, given that truthers tend to claim that thrown large lumps of steel are proof of explosive CD. Which in turn means the thrown steel is an artefact of cutting the steel for demolition. It's not easy to get explosives to throw large lumps of steel even if that was the primary objective. Near enough impossible as a "side effect" of steel cutting. Yes you will throw little bits. At high velocities etc. BUT not big bits.
So I won't spell out how asinine stupid that alleged logic is - to any one who knows what they are talking about with the use of explosives.
The real question for these truthers is "How do you get explosives to throw large bits of steel?"
To be a bit more precise, given that truthers tend to claim that thrown large lumps of steel are proof of explosive CD. Which in turn means the thrown steel is an artefact of cutting the steel for demolition. It's not easy to get explosives to throw large lumps of steel even if that was the primary objective. Near enough impossible as a "side effect" of steel cutting. Yes you will throw little bits. At high velocities etc. BUT not big bits.
So I won't spell out how asinine stupid that alleged logic is - to any one who knows what they are talking about with the use of explosives.
Suppose that the concrete floors had been impregnated with nanothermite in the years or months before 9/11 ? It could be done you know. THe nanoparticles are only one 500th the width of a human air and can be impregnated into the micropore structure of concrete. If that was ignited it would boil the water residue in the concrete (and there always is some) instantly.And reduce the concrete to a fine dust.
It would also vapourise the rebar in the floors, the floorpans and the floor decking, all of which are extremely hard to find in the rubble pile even though there were hundreds and hundreds of acres of them. This would explain the presence and distribution of the billions of iron microspheres in the WTC dust surrounding the building.
If this was done in most of the floors there might well be high pressure generated without neccessarily a huge bang. After all, even Harrit remarks that the nanothermitre that they found is not highly explosive but it does tend to shoot off when you ignite it. So it releases a moderate amount of gas. If every particle in the floors did this perhaps it might be enough to throw large sections of steel to ome distance.
No, it would not vaporize the rebar. Thermite leaves iron behind, there was zero iron fused to rebar, or steel in the WTC complex. Big failure bill, you have adopted insane claims.
Yep, no rebar found at the WTC complex... oops, you failed again. You are 100 percent failed for 911 issues for 10 years; a perfect record. good job bill, your kitchen table judgment is rooted firmly in fantasy.
Can you help Marokkaan with physics, he thinks the thermite ejected the steel laterally. Do you do physics? You could explain E=mgh if you did math and physics and help Marokkaan join reality.
No, it would not vaporize the rebar. Thermite leaves iron behind, there was zero iron fused to rebar, or steel in the WTC complex. Big failure bill, you have adopted insane claims.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/steelstuffWTC.jpg[/qimg]
Yep, no rebar found at the WTC complex... oops, you failed again. You are 100 percent failed for 911 issues for 10 years; a perfect record. good job bill, your kitchen table judgment is rooted firmly in fantasy.
Can you help Marokkaan with physics, he thinks the thermite ejected the steel laterally. Do you do physics? You could explain E=mgh if you did math and physics and help Marokkaan join reality.
It's only a hypothesis Beachnut. You don't want me to tell you how many millions of square feet of rebar there should be I'm sure, let alone floorpans and metal floor decking. Suffice to say that your picture really doesn't cover a whole hell of a lot.
It's only a hypothesis Beachnut. You don't want me to tell you how many millions of square feet of rebar there should be I'm sure, let alone floorpans and metal floor decking. Suffice to say that your picture really doesn't cover a whole hell of a lot.
Keep your delusions bill, reality is too hard for 911 truth SPAMmers to grasp. Does this mean you will not be helping Marokkaan with physics?
You spread lies about 911, and you do it without evidence. It was not a hypothesis, it was insanity bill.
How thick is the floor pan steel?
There is no rebar missing, the thermite is missing. There were zero products of thermite found at the WTC complex. Jones made up thermite because he hates Bush - Jones thinks the US caused the earthquake in Haiti. You picked nuts, and you take what they say and SPAM a skeptic forum.
Concrete, however old always has some residual water. When the nanothermite was ignited at thousands of degrees it boiled this water instantly which in turn blasted the concrete to a fine dust. Simultaneously the heat evaporated the 5,000 x 900 sq.foot steel floor pans and the 220 ACRES of wire mesh floor reinforcing.
The real question for these truthers is "How do you get explosives to throw large bits of steel?"
...
So I won't spell out how asinine stupid that alleged logic is - to any one who knows what they are talking about with the use of explosives.
Hoping that, for one day, the world becomes a perfect place where people suddenly are happy to think logically by themselves and listen when they are taught, I hoped to lead Marokkaan to discover what you wrote for himself.
When competent people demolish steel structures by explosives, they tend be parsimonious: Per structural element they want to sever, one charge that's just strong enough to cut the element in one place is all they need.
In order fo large pieces of structural steel to get flung by explosives alone, you need to account for the following:
you need a first charges that does the usual cut
you need a second charge that cuts the piece entirely free. Because for a piece of, say, a column to be flung laterally, you need to sever both ends, not just one spot
you need additional explosive energy to accelerate that piece laterally.
Items 2 and 3 are totally unnecessary to demolish a building. Yet Marokkaan necessarily must claim that the perps installed this nonsense overkill.
If they did, the charges would either have to be more numerous than what you get in proper CDs, or louder, or both.
In particular, I'd like Marokaan to focus on item 3, and estimate the amount of explosives needed to fling the steel that he sees in the video he posted. As I said, I am not going to watch that stupid video, but let's say he's talkning about a complete exterior wall panel, consisting of 3 columns, connected by spandrels, spanning 3 floors. Elsewhere I have computed that these panels might weigh, on average, in the vicinity of 27,000lbs, or 12,000kg.
Let's say it was flying laterally at a speed of 20m/s (72km/h, 45mph).
Then it's "lateral kinetic energy" (1/2 mv2) was 2,400,000J.
Suppose the explosive charge managed to direct 10% of its energy to go into accelrating that piece (that's a very optimistic estimate - if the charge is in direct contact, almost all of the shockwave energy will be converted into fracturing and other inelastic material transformations instead of KE; if there is no direct contact, almost all of the shockwave will miss the steel altogether), it needs a total energy of 24MJ.
TNT contains 4.7MJ per kg, or 2.1MJ per lb. So Marokkaan would have to assume a charge of 11 pounds of TNT just to fling that steel.
here is what 1 metric pound of TNT sounds like:
Here is only 1/4lb:
Here is 2.5kg:
And here is a 5kg (11lbs) equivalent:
Of course, if you put an explosive charge on one side of a piece of steel, and no mass on the other side, you'll have a problem with conservation of momentum: 12,000kg at 20m/s, that's a momentum of 240,000kg m/s. The mass of 5kg of explosives after the detonation reaction is still 5kg, so to preserve momentum (which is zero before the explosion, and before the steel moves), these 5kg would have to move at (240,000kg m/s) / 5kg = 48,000m/s (172,800km/h, 108000mph).
Is that a realistic value? Well, it can be computed using the Open-faced sandwich version of the Gurney equations. That's a complicated formula, but we can plug in the following values:
M (mass of flying steel): 12,000kg
C (mass of explosive): 5kg
SQRT(2E) (Gurney constant of the explosive): let's take a high value of 2,93km/s (PETN)
Plugging these into the equation and solving for VM, we get
Vpanel(5kg PETN) = 1.06m/s
Let's try one ton (1,000kg) of steel - how much PETN would we need to accelerate that piece to 20m/s? I played around with the formula, and the result is:
About 8kg of PETN would be needed to accelerate 1 ton of steel to 20m/s.
Alternatively, 9,6kg of TNT wil do the same.
In the same fashion: a 12,000kg panel would require 115kg of TNT, or 96kg of PETN.
Here is just 25kg of PETN:
Remember, this is only to fling a section of steel. You'd need a lot more than that to cut it loose first. To cut loose a wall panel, you need 6 lrger charges for the column ends and another 6 probably smaller charges to sever spandrel connections. Add several pounds of high explosives for that, all detonated at the precise same instant, followed by a blast of 115kg of TNT, or some equivalent.
So now we know why I want Marokaan to estimate mass and lateral velocity of the steel he thinks has been flung by explosives: So that we can calculate how much of high explosives was used just to fling it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
What does "government OTC" mean? Maybe I could understand your point but frankly I don't.
