Momentum Transfer in WTC

Some believe there was some sort of mini nuke. Others believe all of the concrete was wired methodically with explosives. Some believe that the building was built with explosives inside.:boggled:

How do they explain how the WTC got built with explosives inside? Aren't skyscrapers fairly transparent as they are built up?
 
The issue of particle size has already been dealt with quite thoroughly.

http://www.911myths.com/html/particle_size.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1668411#post1668411
And (at risk of seeming arrogant at quoting myself)
me said:
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)


Quote:
...Robert Fowler, senior engineer at the structural engineering firm of McNamara and Salvia...
"Though the WTC towers stood over 1,360 feet above the street level, the structures' bases were actually set 70 feet into the ground, and one had a 100-foot-tall antenna atop it, so with 205-foot widths, they had a lot of [exterior] area facing the wind," the engineer stated. He calculated that the approximate maximum wind shear force that a single face needed to withstand to be somewhere around 11,000,000 pounds. The gravity loads (weight) produced by the towers at their bases were on the order of 500,000 tons, Fowler said.
...
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.

The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below."


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
source
 
Last edited:
How do they explain how the WTC got built with explosives inside? Aren't skyscrapers fairly transparent as they are built up?

The 3" rebar on 4' centres that provided the steel reinforcement to the solid invisicrete (tm) core of the towers was coated in C4.

Apparantly. :rolleyes:

-Andrew
 
How do they explain how the WTC got built with explosives inside? Aren't skyscrapers fairly transparent as they are built up?

Doesn't New York have building codes and inspectors who check out construction to make sure everything is kosher and that corners aren't being cut at the expense of safety?

Wouldn't they have questioned the decision to embed explosives in the concrete? Wouldn't some of the laborers at the site thought that was strange?

And if it were a mini-nuke, wouldn't the sound be heard from miles away? Like 200 decibels, right?

What am I missing here?

I'm not debating whether or not they're right. I'm just trying to figure out what they're even saying.
 
loss leader bets that I won't answer
Are you contending that a controlled demolition of the bottom supports of the towers would pulverize the buildings but that tower failure from the 83rd floor down would not?

No. I'm saying that I (and anyone with eyesight) observe pulverization taking place. Except for the metallic components, the pulverization appears to be very thorough. I don't know exactly what percentage, but it is very thorough. I have looked and found no evidence of the hundreds of thousands of tons of non-metallic content of these huge buildings. Where did it go?

Therefore, these observations must be explained.

No, the controlled demolition did not only occur at the bottom, that does not fit the observations. Evidentally large explosions did take place in the basements before the collapses. The final collapses were complex. First, the part above the impact began collapsing down towards the impact zone, like a standard controlled demoltion of a 12 story building (in the case of WTC1). Observe in WTC1 how the 97th floor and everything below do not move as the floors above collapse to half their original height. Then, the next phase begins, and the tower begins collapsing from the impact zone downwards.

I hope that answers your question.
 
Alrighty, then! Thank you.
Christophera is one of the biggest supporters of that theory. It doesn't matter how many pictures or videos I show of the core falling apart.
Christophera is quite delusional. For real.
 
Doesn't New York have building codes and inspectors who check out construction to make sure everything is kosher and that corners aren't being cut at the expense of safety?

Wouldn't they have questioned the decision to embed explosives in the concrete? Wouldn't some of the laborers at the site thought that was strange?

And if it were a mini-nuke, wouldn't the sound be heard from miles away? Like 200 decibels, right?

What am I missing here?

I'm not debating whether or not they're right. I'm just trying to figure out what they're even saying.

The mini-nuke falls apart on many levels. There was no radiation at ground zero. This is especially important because, as the nuke gets smaller, the heat/shockwave output gets smaller and the radiation output goes up.
 
I'm saying that I (and anyone with eyesight) observe pulverization taking place.

I must be blind. I've not seen a single photo or video that shows complete pulverization of anything. Please post a sample or link to an example.
 
David Wong is wondering about explosives in concrete and mini nukes. Dr. Jones (yes, he really has a Ph.D.) has done testing and found no evidence of nuclear bombs. I don't think anyone is suggesting that explosives were imbedded in the concrete.
 
The mini-nuke falls apart on many levels. There was no radiation at ground zero.


[tinfoil hat] Well what do you think all those GZ rescue workers are dying of, huh? Besides, Dylan Avery (may He be praised) has supplied clear digitical camera video footage of a Burger King sign flickering as the towers collapse. Clearly this is evidence of EMP released from a nuclear weapon[/tinfoil hat]

-Andrew
 
Theories should be evaluated on merits, but I would point out that Kausel is one of the guys who tried to convince us that fires melted the steel.
 
Okay. So... do we have examples of controlled demolitions where all non-metallic materials were powderized?

Is that why this phenomenon points to a controlled demolition?

I haven't seen anyone make that direct connection but I also admit I have not studied controlled demolitions. Is pulverization of all concrete typical in those demolitions?
 
David Wong is wondering about explosives in concrete and mini nukes. Dr. Jones (yes, he really has a Ph.D.) has done testing and found no evidence of nuclear bombs. I don't think anyone is suggesting that explosives were imbedded in the concrete.

Once again, then... What are you saying? Are we required to play Twenty Questions? Just what is your theory, or are you just trolling for effect and attention?
 
Last edited:
Powderize? No wonder Mackey left for parts unknown.
Oh, I'm still around. :D If this conversation ever progresses to some actual evidence, or that "science and math" that TruthSeeker feigned interest in, I'll toddle on back. Until then, no need for me to add anything.

En garde!
 
Oh, I'm still around. :D If this conversation ever progresses to some actual evidence, or that "science and math" that TruthSeeker feigned interest in, I'll toddle on back. Until then, no need for me to add anything.

En garde!

But... But.... we can't handle the debate without you. Why he has common sense enough to just know that it was powderized in mid air!:D

Yeah... you're right. Leave this to the B Team, for now.

And I still ask...... WHAT IS YOUR THEORY, TRUTHSEEKER? You have posed a question or three, all neatly gobbled up, digested, and spit out again, but you have me on tenterhooks.... What are you bringing to the table in the way or a theory or proposition?
 
No. I'm saying that I (and anyone with eyesight) observe pulverization taking place. Except for the metallic components, the pulverization appears to be very thorough. I don't know exactly what percentage, but it is very thorough. I have looked and found no evidence of the hundreds of thousands of tons of non-metallic content of these huge buildings. Where did it go?
(bolding mine)

Had you looked at the links we provided, rather than responding reflexively, you would know that it went to Fresh Kills for sorting.

879045038f8d4464a.jpg


879045038f8d08d59.jpg

​
 

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