Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 270
Sorry, this was a joke. Just some self deprecating humor.
Anyhow, I believe the math (for the extra energy to pulverize the concrete) is in my post
Loose Change - Part II
- Thread starter Kiwiwriter
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, this was a joke. Just some self deprecating humor.
Anyhow, I believe the math (for the extra energy to pulverize the concrete) is in my post
Sorry if I didn't get your humour.
Could you show us your own math?
ETA: and why would the alledged excess energy be attributed to explosives?
Last edited:
LC II taken down?
First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:
Check out loosechange911.com.
As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.
All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:
Check out loosechange911.com.
As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.
All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 270
Well, see, I thought that the math was shown in my last large post. Also, I’ve given similar math before. But I will try to write it in another form
As Macky said
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.
Now, my previous equation, (simplified)
E = P + A + Bb + Ba
Where:
E = Gravitational energy of tower
P = The energy required to pulverize the concrete, (Not to mention, everything else.)
A = The amount that the top floors accelerated to the ground. (True, this was not “free-fall” speed, but in my opinion, close. The actual energy used in acceleration to be determined later. As of now, I believe that the equation is way out of balance, even if A = 0)
Bb = The energy needed to break apart and/or bend all of the structural steel. (Also yet to be determined.)
Ba = The energy needed to accelerate steel beams outward in a circle around the tower. (Also, yet to be determined.)
Now, take Mr. Hoffman’s paper, plug in known numbers, we get:
111,000 KWH = 135,000 KWH + A + Bb + Ba
I think you will all agree, A and Ba and Bb cannot be negative numbers. Something else was supplying extra energy. My estimate, (This is just a gut estimate, is that it had to be at least twice the 111,000 KWH.)
Now, take the knowledge that something was supplying extra energy, and add that to the fact that firemen say it appeared to be a controlled demotion, and add that to the fact that the only time we have ever seen a building collapse symmetrically is with controlled demolition, (i.e., explosives placed inside a building) and it would seem to point to explosives. It does not prove explosives, it points to it. Explosives fit all of the observed points:
1. Too much energy in collapse
2. Appearance by many of controlled demolition
3. Description by many of appearance of explosives, (i.e. flashes, squibs, sequential…)
But, of course, I am not an explosives expert. Neither is Steven Jones. When he talks about explosives and cutter charges and thermite, he does say,
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”
Notice please Huntsman, that he does not claim to be an expert, only that all of the observed conditions point to some kind of charge. He merely points to charges he is aware of. Is it possible there are other high-tech types of charges that you’re not aware of?
Does anybody else have any better idea as to where the extra energy came from?
And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,618
Nice debut Landru.
Please mods can I do one tiny little hotlink...?
http://67.15.129.139/6014/152/emo/Crylol.gif
Last edited by a moderator:
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,618
Well, you're somewhat overshadowed by landru's revelation. But two things are missing I think. The estimate of the towers' PE is said to be imprecise. Dare to put a figure on the imprecision? 20% is enough to make the problem mostly go away.
Also does this depend on all the concrete turning to 60 micron dust? Is that and average, a guess or what? Presumably particles get larger closer to ground zero.
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,618
That's a no then. Boooo!
Thanks, everyone. As they say in Vegas, it's great to be here.
Since I work for a major Canadian news outlet, I've alerted them to this story. I did a quick Google News search and turned up nothing. Considering how widespread LC has become, its imminent departure from the online world is definitely newsworthy.
CTs, of course, are currently weaving this into the lastest thread of the conspiracy.
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
Hi Landru. Welcome to this forum.
Now you'll have to excuse me for a moment...
A HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
ETA: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Oops, still not done:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
What is that supposed to mean?
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Back up a minute. Claim from post 470 said FEMA estimated 4 x 10^11 joules of energy in the building.
-----------------------
4x10^11 joules = 400000000000 J
1.0 British thermal unit (Btu) = 1055 joules (1.055 kJ)
=> 400000000000 J / 1055 J = 379146919.43127962085308056872038 Btu
1.0 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3413 Btu
=> 379146919.43127962085308056872038 Btu / 3413 Btu = 111089.04759193660148053928178154 kWh
Okay, fun equations aside now (what can I say, I like double-checking math)
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
What this would imply is
10^12 joules = 1000000000000 J
1.0 British thermal unit (Btu) = 1055 joules (1.055 kJ)
=> 1000000000000 J / 1055 J = 947867298.57819905213270142180095 Btu
1.0 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3413 Btu
=> 947867298.57819905213270142180095 Btu / 3413 Btu =
277722.61897984150370134820445384 kWh which is greater than Jim Hoffman's estimated 135,000 kWh needed to pulverize the concrete.
Okay, so why the big difference from the FEMA estimated 4 x 10^11 joules and Kausel's 10^12 J?
My guess, the FEMA estimate deals with the potential energy stored during construction of the towers and does not necessarily include all the stuff inside the towers. Whereas, Kausel is using Fowler's estimate of 500,000 tons of gravity load produced by the towers.
ETA: Site I used for the conversion formulas http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
ETA^2: Formatting
-----------------------
4x10^11 joules = 400000000000 J
1.0 British thermal unit (Btu) = 1055 joules (1.055 kJ)
=> 400000000000 J / 1055 J = 379146919.43127962085308056872038 Btu
1.0 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3413 Btu
=> 379146919.43127962085308056872038 Btu / 3413 Btu = 111089.04759193660148053928178154 kWh
Okay, fun equations aside now (what can I say, I like double-checking math)
from
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
What this would imply is
10^12 joules = 1000000000000 J
1.0 British thermal unit (Btu) = 1055 joules (1.055 kJ)
=> 1000000000000 J / 1055 J = 947867298.57819905213270142180095 Btu
1.0 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3413 Btu
=> 947867298.57819905213270142180095 Btu / 3413 Btu =
277722.61897984150370134820445384 kWh which is greater than Jim Hoffman's estimated 135,000 kWh needed to pulverize the concrete.
Okay, so why the big difference from the FEMA estimated 4 x 10^11 joules and Kausel's 10^12 J?
My guess, the FEMA estimate deals with the potential energy stored during construction of the towers and does not necessarily include all the stuff inside the towers. Whereas, Kausel is using Fowler's estimate of 500,000 tons of gravity load produced by the towers.
ETA: Site I used for the conversion formulas http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
ETA^2: Formatting
Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:
www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091
Some nuggets...
"Well apparently Paramount are the ones behind this. Also I believe paramount is releasing the upcoming Oliver Stone film."
"This has nothing to do with copyright - its all about cover-up. The Naudets was probably involved in the whole scheme from the very beginning...they were really lucky with those shots on 9/11 - don´t you think?"
"It's really sad and unfortunate that they are doing this.
I guess they became bitter after seeing the success of LC."
"Totally mindblowing point Warmonger..."Look a jet in the sky---film it, quick"---ya right....i wonder if they have the power to pull it off the web totally...
If you ask me, its got nothing to do with copyright...the man wants it off the air but doesnt want to toss the red flag of guilt too high, so this is a good alternative..."
And their appreciation of copyright law is just about as solid as their handle on structural engineering, political organization and international history.
Who needs SNL when you've got this?
www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091
Some nuggets...
"Well apparently Paramount are the ones behind this. Also I believe paramount is releasing the upcoming Oliver Stone film."
"This has nothing to do with copyright - its all about cover-up. The Naudets was probably involved in the whole scheme from the very beginning...they were really lucky with those shots on 9/11 - don´t you think?"
"It's really sad and unfortunate that they are doing this.
I guess they became bitter after seeing the success of LC."
"Totally mindblowing point Warmonger..."Look a jet in the sky---film it, quick"---ya right....i wonder if they have the power to pull it off the web totally...
If you ask me, its got nothing to do with copyright...the man wants it off the air but doesnt want to toss the red flag of guilt too high, so this is a good alternative..."
And their appreciation of copyright law is just about as solid as their handle on structural engineering, political organization and international history.
Who needs SNL when you've got this?
Last edited by a moderator:
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 22,358
Nice! Now wait for the first complaint about Dylan's first amendment rights violated, or how he's being censored--5,4,3....
Remember, everything that happens is either evidence of the conspiracy or evidence of the coverup.
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 270
A Big AHA! I think
But,
How much of that 500,000 tons was in the bases, below ground, below the final point of impact?
In order for the building to with-stand wind, didn’t a big part of that 500,000 tons have to be below ground? If I want a pole to withstand the wind, I bury it in the ground. If I wanted a building to withstand wind, or a plane impact, I would put allot of its mass at the bottom, or below ground. So, a good amount of that energy was never released.
Also remember, the building more massive at the bottom. The steel core pieces were more massive in the foundation, and at the base. You can’t say that 500,000 tons was accelerated from 1,350 meters. That’s the problem with that statement
Thanks Wolfshade, you just made me realize the problem with that 500,000.
Most of that mass was not 1,350 meters high! Some was 1,000 meters high. Some was 500 meters high. Some was already at ground level.
278 MWH assumes that you took a 500,000 tom weight, and dropped it from 1,350 meters!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is a major erroneous assumption!
But,
How much of that 500,000 tons was in the bases, below ground, below the final point of impact?
In order for the building to with-stand wind, didn’t a big part of that 500,000 tons have to be below ground? If I want a pole to withstand the wind, I bury it in the ground. If I wanted a building to withstand wind, or a plane impact, I would put allot of its mass at the bottom, or below ground. So, a good amount of that energy was never released.
Also remember, the building more massive at the bottom. The steel core pieces were more massive in the foundation, and at the base. You can’t say that 500,000 tons was accelerated from 1,350 meters. That’s the problem with that statement
Thanks Wolfshade, you just made me realize the problem with that 500,000.
Most of that mass was not 1,350 meters high! Some was 1,000 meters high. Some was 500 meters high. Some was already at ground level.
278 MWH assumes that you took a 500,000 tom weight, and dropped it from 1,350 meters!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is a major erroneous assumption!
These guys are funny! They even posted a picture of the laywer, calling her names. I find her quite cute actually.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
As I opined somewhere earlier in these threads, someone ought to find the school systems that handed diplomas to such "scholars" and bring them up on charges for being accessories to dumb.
XXX
Thinker
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 151
Speaking of that, have any of you ever read this paranoid ranting about the Naudets film?
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm
This guy has way too much time on his hands. Funny thing is, in another part of this site he talks about how the footage of the 1st plane they shot is what will bring down Bush since he didn't intend for it to be captured, but it was. But then later comes this piece of work.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
If he had done 500,000 tons from 1350 ft he would have gotten the following:
1.8304270462633455 x 10^12 J, not 10^12 J, per http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
Which would result in:
1830427046263.3455 J / 1055 J = 1735001939.5861094786729857819905 Btu
1735001939.5861094786729857819905 Btu / 3413 Btu = 508350.99313979181912481271080883 kWh which is 83% greater than the figure he provided. So, I think your assumption as to his work is in error.
One would hope an MIT professor on a panel investigating this would have his ducks in a row and quacking in key. It is far more likely he simplified what he was doing in his explanation to the article's author.
XXX
Thinker
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 151
Some of my favorite nuggets from that thread...
"Makes me mad. This is about the Truth not a huge payout."
"Hopefully someone with money will bail them out and buy the rights then release it into theatres to recover the cash."
Or...
"Find out who this firm represents...find out its largest clients and you will probably be led to the same people who are trying to cover up 9/11. Lisa is a front so you might say..."that mean bitch" or worse."
Notice in that one he has both made the accusation AND come to the conclusion by the end of the 2 sentances...before doing the "finding out" that he says he's going to do.
They seem to have no concept of copyright laws. The Naudets own that footage, they shot it they own it. They can let some people use it, and others not, just like any other copyrighted work. And don't ever SELL anything that has copyrighted footage on it, that's a big no-no, and that's why they are getting sued.
On that subject, I wounder how it is that another film "Everybody' gotta learn sometime" is able to get away with having a large piece of "Star Wars Episode 3" in it without lawsuit happy Lucas demanding that they remove it or sueing them, especially since they DID charge to attend the premeire of the film. I sent the Lucasfilm publicity department an email bringing this to their attention a few days back, but have not recieved a response.
"Makes me mad. This is about the Truth not a huge payout."
"Hopefully someone with money will bail them out and buy the rights then release it into theatres to recover the cash."
Or...
"Find out who this firm represents...find out its largest clients and you will probably be led to the same people who are trying to cover up 9/11. Lisa is a front so you might say..."that mean bitch" or worse."
Notice in that one he has both made the accusation AND come to the conclusion by the end of the 2 sentances...before doing the "finding out" that he says he's going to do.
They seem to have no concept of copyright laws. The Naudets own that footage, they shot it they own it. They can let some people use it, and others not, just like any other copyrighted work. And don't ever SELL anything that has copyrighted footage on it, that's a big no-no, and that's why they are getting sued.
On that subject, I wounder how it is that another film "Everybody' gotta learn sometime" is able to get away with having a large piece of "Star Wars Episode 3" in it without lawsuit happy Lucas demanding that they remove it or sueing them, especially since they DID charge to attend the premeire of the film. I sent the Lucasfilm publicity department an email bringing this to their attention a few days back, but have not recieved a response.
- Status