Loose Change - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes he is

BTW, Hows it going, it's me Scott

Hi Scott, sorry to hear that about Isaac. Looking at the other pictures on that site, it's obvious that's World Financial Center 3. See especially photo #9--the arcade building is the Winter Garden.
 
Hi, Pat/Brainster.

Are you aware of the first part of this thread (Loose Change)? It takes a while to get through, but is nonetheless interesting.

Also, there is a related thread currently active: Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Welcome to the forum.

Welcome as well Brainster.

There's also this awesome document created by Gravy wich will help you get throught the first Loose Change thread more easily:

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108756

Have fun!
 
Hi, Pat/Brainster.

Are you aware of the first part of this thread? It takes a while to get through, but is nonetheless interesting.

Also, there is a related thread currently active:

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks. I've read allmost all of the 116 pages of that first thread, plus of course I've got Gravy's spreadsheet to refer to as well. The Free Fall claim is based on incorrect time estimates. If you watch the collapse of the North Tower from 9-11 Eyewitness (which has a lunatic conspiracy theory but terrific independent footage) it seems clear that the building was nowhere near being all the way down at 8 seconds and possibly not even at 14 seconds. A huge (40+story) steel section (probably part of the core) topples over at 34 seconds.
 
Its not building 7 either. LOL! You can even see the crane in the photo!

Go to the site he posted go under
NY City Pictures - Page 4 (Ground Zero)

You can see another picture zoomed back further.

That's what happens when you have the investigating skills of a 9 year old.

Freaking mediocre.

INDEED
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I've read allmost all of the 116 pages of that first thread, plus of course I've got Gravy's spreadsheet to refer to as well. The Free Fall claim is based on incorrect time estimates. If you watch the collapse of the North Tower from 9-11 Eyewitness (which has a lunatic conspiracy theory but terrific independent footage) it seems clear that the building was nowhere near being all the way down at 8 seconds and possibly not even at 14 seconds. A huge (40+story) steel section (probably part of the core) topples over at 34 seconds.

Hey, man. Welcome.

Any link to that video ?
 
Hey guys, I brought my marbles back

From: The North Tower's Dust Cloud
Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center
by Jim Hoffman
October 16, 2003
[Version 3]
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

“Vast amounts of energy were released during the collapse of each of the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan on September 11th, 2001. The accepted source of this energy was the gravitational potential energy of the towers, which was far greater than the energy released by the fires that preceded the collapses. The magnitude of that source cannot be determined with much precision thanks to the secrecy surrounding details of the towers' construction. However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.

Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete in the towers. It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder. The largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the towers. Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. (See http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm.) That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction. That estimate implies the energy sink of concrete pulverization was on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower, which is already larger than the energy source of gravitational energy. However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concrete thought to have been used in the towers. Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”

Now, back to wnat R Macky said

Allow me to summarize your observation -- please feel free to correct me if I misinterpret you in any way:

1. The potential energy (gravity) of the standing structure is the only officially accepted source of destructive energy for the bulk of materials in WTC 1 and 2, since each aircraft itself affected a relatively small number of floors.
2. The amount of energy appears insufficient to comprehensively pulverize the materials.
3. Therefore, a new and secret source of energy must have been present.
4. It is suggested that this additional energy was in the form of high explosives.

So, to summarize, there was too much energy in the “collapse.” There was not even enough energy to accomplish one of the four tasks, (As summarized by myself previously. Once again Macky, thanks for the actually reading my posts.)

To Hunstman, I’m sorry I’m a blithering moron, (Many times more stupid than a mutton-head. I have the math, if anyone is interested.) Thanks for clarifying that cutter charges are explosives. Thanks for showing me my error, and letting me know the severity of my stupidity. What I meant to say was, that there was too much energy in the “collapse,” so the rest of the energy had to come from somewhere else. I hypothesized, guessed, that it was explosives, charges, bombs, or as other mutton-heads might say, “That which goes boom-boom.” If anyone else agrees that it appears there was too much energy, perhaps some guesses as to where else it could have come from.

Oh, and on the point of reconstructing the towers, yeah, you're right, that would have been impossible and silly. I still stand by my claim that all of the steel should have been kept, and possibly marked before removal. At least the largest pieces, like the 47 core collumns.
 
Oh, by the way Huntsman, is that what you really look like?
You're pretty hot.
 

Attachments

  • Hunstman.jpg
    Hunstman.jpg
    3.3 KB · Views: 135
To Pardalis

What made you come to this conclusion?

Read my previous post. Convert the letters into words, then convert those words into ideas. Notice in particular the statements in bold. I did that for emphasis.
 
Also for Pardalis

I’m sorry I’m a blithering moron, (Many times more stupid than a mutton-head. I have the math, if anyone is interested.)

BM = MH * (PB + Mc)

Where BM = blithering moron
MH = mutton head
PB = poop for brains
Mc is the masturbation coefficient.
 
Attacking the argument is OK, attacking the Member is not.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Mutton-Head, I was referring to your maths wich lead you to the conclusion there had been too much energy in the collapses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom