| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| They give a figure of 'ten times the amount of WTC powdered concrete for the official collapse story to be true' in the Google chart topper video 'Improbable Collapse'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: |
...........The above is pure speculation but it would take into account the kinetic energy i.e. the pulverization of the concrete due to the mass of the building. You will also note from my quote that I don't even suggest every 'external' floor is blown as the weight of forty stories would certainly start a cascade.................
So too recap the kinetic energy was used to crush concrete, and everything else it seems, as well as bending steel and ejecting matter from the buildings. |
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the pulverisation of the concrete you attribute to the collapse of the building alone. It would therefore have occurred whatever caused the building to collapse.
You also appear to be saying that progressive collapse would have occurred simply from the collapse of one floor, although you earlier say not every floor was blown, so you think more floors were blown than were actually required? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | They give a figure of 'ten times the amount of WTC powdered concrete for the official collapse story to be true' in the Google chart topper video 'Improbable Collapse'. |
What does that mean? Ten times what powdered concrete, where? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | They give a figure of 'ten times the amount of WTC powdered concrete for the official collapse story to be true' in the Google chart topper video 'Improbable Collapse'. |
What does that mean? Ten times what powdered concrete, where? |
Watch the video wacker! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | They give a figure of 'ten times the amount of WTC powdered concrete for the official collapse story to be true' in the Google chart topper video 'Improbable Collapse'. |
What does that mean? Ten times what powdered concrete, where? |
Watch the video wacker! |
It wouldn't help. Not all of us have your unique skills that allow you to spot 60 micron particles of dust, or calculate the exact amount of powdered concrete, just by watching a grainy video. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: |
...........The above is pure speculation but it would take into account the kinetic energy i.e. the pulverization of the concrete due to the mass of the building. You will also note from my quote that I don't even suggest every 'external' floor is blown as the weight of forty stories would certainly start a cascade.................
So too recap the kinetic energy was used to crush concrete, and everything else it seems, as well as bending steel and ejecting matter from the buildings. |
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the pulverisation of the concrete you attribute to the collapse of the building alone. It would therefore have occurred whatever caused the building to collapse.
You also appear to be saying that progressive collapse would have occurred simply from the collapse of one floor, although you earlier say not every floor was blown, so you think more floors were blown than were actually required? |
All I'm suggesting is that perhaps the kinetic energy that some of the other posters to this thread have been 'speculating' about may be accountable for by the pulverization of the concrete etc.
The possibility that thermate and thermite in conjunction with 'shape charges' as well as incendiary charges were used in a complex way is the issue! The 'intense' cascade effect may well have been possible because of the increasing mass as each floor hit the next thereby building the collapsing mass and accelerating the fall.
The calculation of kinetic energy may well be explained away by the pulverization of the concrete and steel etc. But it STILL doesn't explain the molten metal and the eight week burn. See where I'm coming from?
So what I'm saying is the theory of explosive devices is still very plausible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: |
...........The above is pure speculation but it would take into account the kinetic energy i.e. the pulverization of the concrete due to the mass of the building. You will also note from my quote that I don't even suggest every 'external' floor is blown as the weight of forty stories would certainly start a cascade.................
So too recap the kinetic energy was used to crush concrete, and everything else it seems, as well as bending steel and ejecting matter from the buildings. |
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the pulverisation of the concrete you attribute to the collapse of the building alone. It would therefore have occurred whatever caused the building to collapse.
You also appear to be saying that progressive collapse would have occurred simply from the collapse of one floor, although you earlier say not every floor was blown, so you think more floors were blown than were actually required? |
All I'm suggesting is that perhaps the kinetic energy that some of the other posters to this thread have been 'speculating' about may be accountable for by the pulverization of the concrete etc.
The possibility that thermate and thermite in conjunction with 'shape charges' as well as incendiary charges were used in a complex way is the issue! The 'intense' cascade effect may well have been possible because of the increasing mass as each floor hit the next thereby building the collapsing mass and accelerating the fall.
The calculation of kinetic energy may well be explained away by the pulverization of the concrete and steel etc. But it STILL doesn't explain the molten metal and the eight week burn. See where I'm coming from?
So what I'm saying is the theory of explosive devices is still very plausible. |
I've seen discussions about this subject on other fora and the pulveristaion due to explosives (and crushing btw) heories are very flimsy. Shelled buildings for instance only powderise within a few feet of impact - the remainder turns to rubble. Use of explosives to perform this action would therefore require a huge amount every few yards.
It's also worth adding that the 60 micron figure is only an average.
Particles were also aerosolised down to ranges of 0.3 to 2.5 microns.
Some process did a particularly thorough job.
I did have a link to some large size maps of NYC showing distribution, but as can't lay a cursor on them for the moment this link will have to do.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: |
...........The above is pure speculation but it would take into account the kinetic energy i.e. the pulverization of the concrete due to the mass of the building. You will also note from my quote that I don't even suggest every 'external' floor is blown as the weight of forty stories would certainly start a cascade.................
So too recap the kinetic energy was used to crush concrete, and everything else it seems, as well as bending steel and ejecting matter from the buildings. |
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the pulverisation of the concrete you attribute to the collapse of the building alone. It would therefore have occurred whatever caused the building to collapse.
You also appear to be saying that progressive collapse would have occurred simply from the collapse of one floor, although you earlier say not every floor was blown, so you think more floors were blown than were actually required? |
All I'm suggesting is that perhaps the kinetic energy that some of the other posters to this thread have been 'speculating' about may be accountable for by the pulverization of the concrete etc.
The possibility that thermate and thermite in conjunction with 'shape charges' as well as incendiary charges were used in a complex way is the issue! The 'intense' cascade effect may well have been possible because of the increasing mass as each floor hit the next thereby building the collapsing mass and accelerating the fall.
The calculation of kinetic energy may well be explained away by the pulverization of the concrete and steel etc. But it STILL doesn't explain the molten metal and the eight week burn. See where I'm coming from?
So what I'm saying is the theory of explosive devices is still very plausible. |
So you think a limited CD is possible, in which one floor only was blown up? Why would you say that molten metal indicated that explosives were used, even if thermite was used, why would that explain metal remaining molten? It appears to me that whatever brought down the towers, the lengthy burn was simply the flammable contents continuing to burn slowly but very hot under the debris, like a charcoal furnace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: |
...........The above is pure speculation but it would take into account the kinetic energy i.e. the pulverization of the concrete due to the mass of the building. You will also note from my quote that I don't even suggest every 'external' floor is blown as the weight of forty stories would certainly start a cascade.................
So too recap the kinetic energy was used to crush concrete, and everything else it seems, as well as bending steel and ejecting matter from the buildings. |
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the pulverisation of the concrete you attribute to the collapse of the building alone. It would therefore have occurred whatever caused the building to collapse.
You also appear to be saying that progressive collapse would have occurred simply from the collapse of one floor, although you earlier say not every floor was blown, so you think more floors were blown than were actually required? |
All I'm suggesting is that perhaps the kinetic energy that some of the other posters to this thread have been 'speculating' about may be accountable for by the pulverization of the concrete etc.
The possibility that thermate and thermite in conjunction with 'shape charges' as well as incendiary charges were used in a complex way is the issue! The 'intense' cascade effect may well have been possible because of the increasing mass as each floor hit the next thereby building the collapsing mass and accelerating the fall.
The calculation of kinetic energy may well be explained away by the pulverization of the concrete and steel etc. But it STILL doesn't explain the molten metal and the eight week burn. See where I'm coming from?
So what I'm saying is the theory of explosive devices is still very plausible. |
I've seen discussions about this subject on other fora and the pulveristaion due to explosives (and crushing btw) heories are very flimsy. Shelled buildings for instance only powderise within a few feet of impact - the remainder turns to rubble. Use of explosives to perform this action would therefore require a huge amount every few yards.
It's also worth adding that the 60 micron figure is only an average.
Particles were also aerosolised down to ranges of 0.3 to 2.5 microns.
Some process did a particularly thorough job.
I did have a link to some large size maps of NYC showing distribution, but as can't lay a cursor on them for the moment this link will have to do.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html |
Can you say that again as I didn't catch it the first time! Maybe you didn't really say anything?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: |
...........The above is pure speculation but it would take into account the kinetic energy i.e. the pulverization of the concrete due to the mass of the building. You will also note from my quote that I don't even suggest every 'external' floor is blown as the weight of forty stories would certainly start a cascade.................
So too recap the kinetic energy was used to crush concrete, and everything else it seems, as well as bending steel and ejecting matter from the buildings. |
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the pulverisation of the concrete you attribute to the collapse of the building alone. It would therefore have occurred whatever caused the building to collapse.
You also appear to be saying that progressive collapse would have occurred simply from the collapse of one floor, although you earlier say not every floor was blown, so you think more floors were blown than were actually required? |
All I'm suggesting is that perhaps the kinetic energy that some of the other posters to this thread have been 'speculating' about may be accountable for by the pulverization of the concrete etc.
The possibility that thermate and thermite in conjunction with 'shape charges' as well as incendiary charges were used in a complex way is the issue! The 'intense' cascade effect may well have been possible because of the increasing mass as each floor hit the next thereby building the collapsing mass and accelerating the fall.
The calculation of kinetic energy may well be explained away by the pulverization of the concrete and steel etc. But it STILL doesn't explain the molten metal and the eight week burn. See where I'm coming from?
So what I'm saying is the theory of explosive devices is still very plausible. |
So you think a limited CD is possible, in which one floor only was blown up? Why would you say that molten metal indicated that explosives were used, even if thermite was used, why would that explain metal remaining molten? It appears to me that whatever brought down the towers, the lengthy burn was simply the flammable contents continuing to burn slowly but very hot under the debris, like a charcoal furnace. |
We need several reliably resources to clarify the 'continued' reaction of thermite / thermate! Well we have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
So we have iron and aluminum but what started the reaction? A reaction that 'they' didn't take into account perhaps, or did they (the gold)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: |
...........The above is pure speculation but it would take into account the kinetic energy i.e. the pulverization of the concrete due to the mass of the building. You will also note from my quote that I don't even suggest every 'external' floor is blown as the weight of forty stories would certainly start a cascade.................
So too recap the kinetic energy was used to crush concrete, and everything else it seems, as well as bending steel and ejecting matter from the buildings. |
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the pulverisation of the concrete you attribute to the collapse of the building alone. It would therefore have occurred whatever caused the building to collapse.
You also appear to be saying that progressive collapse would have occurred simply from the collapse of one floor, although you earlier say not every floor was blown, so you think more floors were blown than were actually required? |
All I'm suggesting is that perhaps the kinetic energy that some of the other posters to this thread have been 'speculating' about may be accountable for by the pulverization of the concrete etc.
The possibility that thermate and thermite in conjunction with 'shape charges' as well as incendiary charges were used in a complex way is the issue! The 'intense' cascade effect may well have been possible because of the increasing mass as each floor hit the next thereby building the collapsing mass and accelerating the fall.
The calculation of kinetic energy may well be explained away by the pulverization of the concrete and steel etc. But it STILL doesn't explain the molten metal and the eight week burn. See where I'm coming from?
So what I'm saying is the theory of explosive devices is still very plausible. |
I've seen discussions about this subject on other fora and the pulveristaion due to explosives (and crushing btw) theories are very flimsy. Shelled buildings for instance only powderise within a few feet of impact - the remainder turns to rubble. Use of explosives to perform this action would therefore require a huge amount every few yards.
It's also worth adding that the 60 micron figure is only an average.
Particles were also aerosolised down to ranges of 0.3 to 2.5 microns.
Some process did a particularly thorough job.
I did have a link to some large size maps of NYC showing distribution, but as can't lay a cursor on them for the moment this link will have to do.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html |
Can you say that again as I didn't catch it the first time! Maybe you didn't really say anything? |
Modern explosives such as RDX and related types produce shockwaves that propagate in the region of 27,000 ft/sec. It was suggested (by means of calculations that were beyond me) that the degree of pulverisation would require a shockwave of about 10 times that figure.
Note that I am not proposing this as 'fact', rather just introducing it as an observation from elsewhere. As stated earlier, extraordinary forces were required. How they were achieved is the mystery part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | I've seen discussions about this subject on other fora and the pulveristaion due to explosives (and crushing btw) heories are very flimsy. Shelled buildings for instance only powderise within a few feet of impact - the remainder turns to rubble. Use of explosives to perform this action would therefore require a huge amount every few yards.
It's also worth adding that the 60 micron figure is only an average.
Particles were also aerosolised down to ranges of 0.3 to 2.5 microns.
Some process did a particularly thorough job.
I did have a link to some large size maps of NYC showing distribution, but as can't lay a cursor on them for the moment this link will have to do.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html |
Isn't the likely answer then, that only a proportion of the concrete was pulverised? There was much other material present forming part of the residue, notably gypsum, which would pulverise much more easily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree, yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | I've seen discussions about this subject on other fora and the pulveristaion due to explosives (and crushing btw) heories are very flimsy. Shelled buildings for instance only powderise within a few feet of impact - the remainder turns to rubble. Use of explosives to perform this action would therefore require a huge amount every few yards.
It's also worth adding that the 60 micron figure is only an average.
Particles were also aerosolised down to ranges of 0.3 to 2.5 microns.
Some process did a particularly thorough job.
I did have a link to some large size maps of NYC showing distribution, but as can't lay a cursor on them for the moment this link will have to do.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html |
Isn't the likely answer then, that only a proportion of the concrete was pulverised? There was much other material present forming part of the residue, notably gypsum, which would pulverise much more easily. |
The dust also included that, together with window glass, CPU metals, glass fibre, other metal particles, plastics, asbestos - almost everything apart from ferrous metals. If I recall correctly, the highly corrosive caustic nature of the dust is what indicated a high proprtion of concrete. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | I've seen discussions about this subject on other fora and the pulveristaion due to explosives (and crushing btw) heories are very flimsy. Shelled buildings for instance only powderise within a few feet of impact - the remainder turns to rubble. Use of explosives to perform this action would therefore require a huge amount every few yards.
It's also worth adding that the 60 micron figure is only an average.
Particles were also aerosolised down to ranges of 0.3 to 2.5 microns.
Some process did a particularly thorough job.
I did have a link to some large size maps of NYC showing distribution, but as can't lay a cursor on them for the moment this link will have to do.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html |
Isn't the likely answer then, that only a proportion of the concrete was pulverised? There was much other material present forming part of the residue, notably gypsum, which would pulverise much more easily. |
The dust also included that, together with window glass, CPU metals, glass fibre, other metal particles, plastics, asbestos - almost everything apart from ferrous metals. If I recall correctly, the highly corrosive caustic nature of the dust is what indicated a high proprtion of concrete. |
Your link has: "Thus, on the first and second days after the attack on the WTC, > 70% of the mass was associated with construction materials, including pulverized cement, wallboard, and office furnishings, which included a large percentage by weight of glass fiber" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | According to standard CD theory, that's true. And yet nearly all non-ferrous material was powdered, except for paper.... |
Really?!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | I've seen discussions about this subject on other fora and the pulveristaion due to explosives (and crushing btw) heories are very flimsy. Shelled buildings for instance only powderise within a few feet of impact - the remainder turns to rubble. Use of explosives to perform this action would therefore require a huge amount every few yards.
It's also worth adding that the 60 micron figure is only an average.
Particles were also aerosolised down to ranges of 0.3 to 2.5 microns.
Some process did a particularly thorough job.
I did have a link to some large size maps of NYC showing distribution, but as can't lay a cursor on them for the moment this link will have to do.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html |
Isn't the likely answer then, that only a proportion of the concrete was pulverised? There was much other material present forming part of the residue, notably gypsum, which would pulverise much more easily. |
The dust also included that, together with window glass, CPU metals, glass fibre, other metal particles, plastics, asbestos - almost everything apart from ferrous metals. If I recall correctly, the highly corrosive caustic nature of the dust is what indicated a high proprtion of concrete. |
Your link has: "Thus, on the first and second days after the attack on the WTC, > 70% of the mass was associated with construction materials, including pulverized cement, wallboard, and office furnishings, which included a large percentage by weight of glass fiber" |
You're probably reading the respirable particle section for that. There's a lot more than those 3 dozen words, including links. Note that proportions are distinctly lacking, but the reference to the alkalinity of the dust in the following (due to concrete pH) is telling.
However: "The UC Davis DELTA Group took air samples about a mile from the World Trade Center in early October 2001, several weeks after the towers collapsed. They identified high levels of coarse particles, above, which included powdered concrete and glass with a coating of combustion products, in size range of 5 to 12 micrometers diameter. Very fine particles were found at levels not previously seen in ambient air samples. By Michael Dunlop and Aaron Broumas."
http://calag.ucop.edu/0203MJ/briefs.html
“US Geological Survey (USGS) scientists begin performing tests on the dust samples collected by USGS geophysicists, Gregg Swayze and Todd Hoefen, during the previous three days (see September 17, 2001-September 19, 2001-). Roger Clark (the astrophysicist who heads the AVIRIS program at USGS), Gregg Swayze, Todd Hoefen and Eric Livo (another USGS scientist) analyze samples in the Imaging Spectroscopy Lab and Gregory Meeker (head of the USGS’s microbeam laboratory) views samples with the scanning electron microscope and conducts energy dispersive spectroscopy. Other USGS scientists study the samples using X-ray diffraction, X-ray fluorescence, as well as chemical analysis and chemical leach testing. Within hours, the results from the various tests indicate the presence of asbestos and an “alphabet soup of heavy metals.” Each of the different techniques used to determine the chemical components of the dust “back each other up,” Swayze later explains to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “Some techniques can see more than others, and we were throwing in every technique we had in house,” he says. Tests revealed the dust to be extremely alkaline with a pH of 12.1 (out of 14). [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/10/2002] and that some of it was as caustic as liquid drain cleaner. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/10/2002] “We were startled at the pH level we were finding,” Swayze adds. “We knew that the cement dust was caustic, but we were getting pH readings of 12 and higher. It was obvious that precautions had to be taken to protect the workers and people returning to their homes from the dust.” Sam Vance, an environmental scientist with the EPA, sends the results to officials at the EPA, the New York health department and US Public Health Service. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/10/2002]
Entity Tags: Robert Green, Roger Clark, Gregg Swayze, Eric Livo, Todd Hoefen, Steve Sutley, Geoffrey Plumlee, Phil Hageman, Gregory Meeker, US Geological Service (USGS), Joe Taggart
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-3669 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Modern explosives such as RDX and related types produce shockwaves that propagate in the region of 27,000 ft/sec. It was suggested (by means of calculations that were beyond me) that the degree of pulverisation would require a shockwave of about 10 times that figure.
Note that I am not proposing this as 'fact', rather just introducing it as an observation from elsewhere. As stated earlier, extraordinary forces were required. How they were achieved is the mystery part. |
A bigger mystery is why ?
Conspirators would have an interest (possibly) in bringing the buildings down, which would mean cutting the core columns. I can see no earthly benefit to them in planting explosives across the floors to effect this so-called pulverisation of concrete. In fact it would greatly increase the chances of detection.
The high-explosive concrete pulverisation theory makes no sense whatsoever even from within the CT frame of reference.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | Modern explosives such as RDX and related types produce shockwaves that propagate in the region of 27,000 ft/sec. It was suggested (by means of calculations that were beyond me) that the degree of pulverisation would require a shockwave of about 10 times that figure.
Note that I am not proposing this as 'fact', rather just introducing it as an observation from elsewhere. As stated earlier, extraordinary forces were required. How they were achieved is the mystery part. |
A bigger mystery is why ?
Conspirators would have an interest (possibly) in bringing the buildings down, which would mean cutting the core columns. I can see no earthly benefit to them in planting explosives across the floors to effect this so-called pulverisation of concrete. In fact it would greatly increase the chances of detection.
The high-explosive concrete pulverisation theory makes no sense whatsoever even from within the CT frame of reference. |
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record Ignatz, that is precisely the reason a thorough and forensic reinvestigation is needed.
What were those white smoke explosions that raced with the demolition wave down the building, and what where the dark smoke clouds that followed them?
And what caused that black smoke belching column that rose straight up from the central core area?
All these events were ignored because NIST arbitrarily decided that initiation of collapse was as far as they needed to go.
Or maybe that was as far as they dared to go?
Who knows, but the net result was that all the phenomena of the collapses were not examined, which seems strange given the scale of the disaster, and the painstaking reconstructions such investigations normally require.
Once the 'how' is established, the 'who' and the 'why' will follow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | Modern explosives such as RDX and related types produce shockwaves that propagate in the region of 27,000 ft/sec. It was suggested (by means of calculations that were beyond me) that the degree of pulverisation would require a shockwave of about 10 times that figure.
Note that I am not proposing this as 'fact', rather just introducing it as an observation from elsewhere. As stated earlier, extraordinary forces were required. How they were achieved is the mystery part. |
A bigger mystery is why ?
Conspirators would have an interest (possibly) in bringing the buildings down, which would mean cutting the core columns. I can see no earthly benefit to them in planting explosives across the floors to effect this so-called pulverisation of concrete. In fact it would greatly increase the chances of detection.
The high-explosive concrete pulverisation theory makes no sense whatsoever even from within the CT frame of reference. |
I agree with Ignatz on this on. The pulverization of sheet rock but especially concrete can be explained by the kinetic energy of the buildings mass upon falling. Having said that the possibility that the outer columns were blown 'cascade style' with 'shape charges' is still on the table. Perhaps a combination of inner column and outer column explosions (post thermite / thermate) would have caused each floor to rip contributing to the pulverization of the concrete.
The construction of the concrete floors may well yield insight. Was the concrete poured on-site or was it concrete lintels resting on the trusses and then finished with a shallow screed? I think the way the floors were constructed is very important in understanding the collapse as well as how it may have been archived through explosive devices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | Modern explosives such as RDX and related types produce shockwaves that propagate in the region of 27,000 ft/sec. It was suggested (by means of calculations that were beyond me) that the degree of pulverisation would require a shockwave of about 10 times that figure.
Note that I am not proposing this as 'fact', rather just introducing it as an observation from elsewhere. As stated earlier, extraordinary forces were required. How they were achieved is the mystery part. |
A bigger mystery is why ?
Conspirators would have an interest (possibly) in bringing the buildings down, which would mean cutting the core columns. I can see no earthly benefit to them in planting explosives across the floors to effect this so-called pulverisation of concrete. In fact it would greatly increase the chances of detection.
The high-explosive concrete pulverisation theory makes no sense whatsoever even from within the CT frame of reference. |
I agree with Ignatz on this on. The pulverization of sheet rock but especially concrete can be explained by the kinetic energy of the buildings mass upon falling. Having said that the possibility that the outer columns were blown 'cascade style' with 'shape charges' is still on the table. Perhaps a combination of inner column and outer column explosions (post thermite / thermate) would have caused each floor to rip contributing to the pulverization of the concrete.
The construction of the concrete floors may well yield insight. Was the concrete poured on-site or was it concrete lintels resting on the trusses and then finished with a shallow screed? I think the way the floors were constructed is very important in understanding the collapse as well as how it may have been archived through explosive devices. |
The concrete was poured on in situ. There's a documentary 'Building the World Trade Centre' available on Youtube (or Google video) which illustrates many construction features of the buildings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: | | According to standard CD theory, that's true. And yet nearly all non-ferrous material was powdered, except for paper.... |
Really?!? |
Actually, now you mention it, no.
There was also a proportion of steel dust in the mix too.
"The dust is an immediate concern for Dr. Jacqueline Moline, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
"People have been far more affected by dust in the air in the short term than asbestos in the long term," she said. Otherwise healthy people who are sensitive to the clay, concrete, paper, silica, and steel dust are at risk of "developing reactive airways," and runny eyes and noses should alert one to particulate irritation. The key isn't the type of dust, she explained, but the particle size."
www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/VillageVoice-10-26-01-Dust-may-never-settle.pd f |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
And in the end the entire argument becomes circular.
Pyroclastic flow requires very fine particles and a lot of heat.
Very fine particles and a lot of heat require huge amounts of high explosives.
Huge amounts of high explosives drive pyroclastic flow.
Bottom line: Prophet Jones regrettably slipped in the words "pyroclastic flow" and the CT has to be embroidered to an utterly absurd degree to fit in with his utterance.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | And in the end the entire argument becomes circular.
Pyroclastic flow requires very fine particles and a lot of heat.
Very fine particles and a lot of heat require huge amounts of high explosives.
Huge amounts of high explosives drive pyroclastic flow.
Bottom line: Prophet Jones regrettably slipped in the words "pyroclastic flow" and the CT has to be embroidered to an utterly absurd degree to fit in with his utterance. |
This isn't about arguing over word definitions - it's about understanding events, surely? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | And in the end the entire argument becomes circular.
Pyroclastic flow requires very fine particles and a lot of heat.
Very fine particles and a lot of heat require huge amounts of high explosives.
Huge amounts of high explosives drive pyroclastic flow.
Bottom line: Prophet Jones regrettably slipped in the words "pyroclastic flow" and the CT has to be embroidered to an utterly absurd degree to fit in with his utterance. |
This isn't about arguing over word definitions - it's about understanding events, surely? |
Now I have to be the stuck record ---
The concrete demolition would be pointless. The most audacious act of treason in history balances on plausibility and non-detection ... so let's add some fireworks just for jolly? Nah.
Qui bono?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | And in the end the entire argument becomes circular.
Pyroclastic flow requires very fine particles and a lot of heat.
Very fine particles and a lot of heat require huge amounts of high explosives.
Huge amounts of high explosives drive pyroclastic flow.
Bottom line: Prophet Jones regrettably slipped in the words "pyroclastic flow" and the CT has to be embroidered to an utterly absurd degree to fit in with his utterance. |
This isn't about arguing over word definitions - it's about understanding events, surely? |
Now I have to be the stuck record ---
The concrete demolition would be pointless. The most audacious act of treason in history balances on plausibility and non-detection ... so let's add some fireworks just for jolly? Nah.
Qui bono? |
To that I would answer that just because we everyday people with our humdrum lives, families and jobs would not - or even could not - conceive of such a thing, does not rule out there are others who could or would.
Particularly if you were seeking to to remake the world beginning with an event so shocking on many levels (while remaining cost effective and without being too drastic, like flattening a town or city mind you) as to be beyond doubt. Remember, we have already been introduced to the idea that we may be looking at a hundred years war to come.
Qui bono indeed.
Too bad (for 'them') it's not going to work out that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
“pyroclastic flow” 
I never bought that stuff as the French camera man filming the firefighting documentary didn't mention any intense hit nether did anybody else who experienced the dust cloud. So there's a similarity to pyroclastic flows but that's all a similarity. Ironically we can say there's similarity between CT and the towers and building 7 collapse. Unfortunately as no other steel structure sky-scrappers have collapsed (not demolished) we have no similarity as to the appearance of a natural collapse! To be fair sky-scrappers of differing construction may well react differently.
For now I'm going to stick with the kinetic energy as force that pulverized the concrete etc. 
Here's a thought:
[snip]
A thermite reaction is a type of aluminothermic reaction in which aluminium metal is oxidized by the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide. The name thermite is also used to refer to a mixture of two such chemicals. The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron, and a large amount of heat. The reactants are commonly powdered and mixed with a binder to keep the material solid and prevent separation. The reaction is used for thermite welding, often used to join rails.
[/snip]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
Perhaps a large amount of thermite didn't ignite and was blown into the atmosphere when the shape charge cascade started? I remember Jones mentioning that as well as adding sulfur to increase the reaction and heat making the particles of iron and aluminum oxide smaller also increased the reaction and heat!
Cutting thousand of floor trusses to undermine the structural integrity would have taken a lot of thermite / thermate and the speed of collapse whichever way you look at it was fast even accounting for an increase in fall rate due to the acceleration of mass. 
So were the fine steel / iron particles un-ignited thermite?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | “pyroclastic flow”
I never bought that stuff as the French camera man filming the firefighting documentary didn't mention any intense hit nether did anybody else who experienced the dust cloud. So there's a similarity to pyroclastic flows but that's all a similarity. Ironically we can say there's similarity between CT and the towers and building 7 collapse. Unfortunately as no other steel structure sky-scrappers have collapsed (not demolished) we have no similarity as to the appearance of a natural collapse! To be fair sky-scrappers of differing construction may well react differently.
|
Absolutely. Now on to the thermite:
| Quote: |
Here's a thought:
[snip]
A thermite reaction is a type of aluminothermic reaction in which aluminium metal is oxidized by the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide. The name thermite is also used to refer to a mixture of two such chemicals. The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron, and a large amount of heat. The reactants are commonly powdered and mixed with a binder to keep the material solid and prevent separation. The reaction is used for thermite welding, often used to join rails.
[/snip]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
Perhaps a large amount of thermite didn't ignite and was blown into the atmosphere when the shape charge cascade started? I remember Jones mentioning that as well as adding sulfur to increase the reaction and heat making the particles of iron and aluminum oxide smaller also increased the reaction and heat!
|
Therein lies the problem. Without the added ingredients to make the thermite more reactive, we can explain the devices' ability to survive the impact of the crash and the fire that followed. However, it is now not reactive enough to bring the towers down.
Make it more reactive, and it can melt through horizontal (probably not vertical!) columns, but then you have to explain how it survived the crash and fire. Now you have to resort to some speculative sort of thermite, something that combines the best of both worlds, that has never actually been observed before.
The more unkown entities have to be added to explain a theory, the less likely the theory is sound -- especially when there is an alternative theory that relies on KNOWN entities.
| Quote: |
Cutting thousand of floor trusses to undermine the structural integrity would have taken a lot of thermite / thermate and the speed of collapse whichever way you look at it was fast even accounting for an increase in fall rate due to the acceleration of mass.
So were the fine steel / iron particles un-ignited thermite? |
It doesn't look good for this theory, no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the contrary it is still as plausible as the official theory if not more likely! 
As for the thermite not reacting enough that is erroneous thinking because as I keep explaining the structural integrity was compromised over a long period of time, say half an hour. Slow burning thermite would be doing it's thing in a gradual way. Once the towers were weaken (structural integrity was compromised) the basement was blown and the core cascade started, using shape charges, and the skin cascade was started possibly by blowing the outer columns of just one floor around the impact zone.
Not sure if a series of charges were used all the way down on the outer columns because it was calculated that the welds on these columns would snap because of the force of the falling mass. Although the '911 Eyewitness' documentary along with others does chart a series of explosions before and during collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | On the contrary it is still as plausible as the official theory if not more likely!
As for the thermite not reacting enough that is erroneous thinking because as I keep explaining the structural integrity was compromised over a long period of time, say half an hour. Slow burning thermite would be doing it's thing in a gradual way. Once the towers were weaken (structural integrity was compromised) the basement was blown and the core cascade started, using shape charges, and the skin cascade was started possibly by blowing the outer columns of just one floor around the impact zone.
Not sure if a series of charges were used all the way down on the outer columns because it was calculated that the welds on these columns would snap because of the force of the falling mass. Although the '911 Eyewitness' documentary along with others does chart a series of explosions before and during collapse. |
But wouldn't it be simpler to just fly a plane into the building?
We KNOW there was a plane, we DON'T know there was thermite or any other explosive device. See what I mean by unknown entities?
1 plane crashing into building = 0 unknown entities
1 plane crashing into building + thermite + explosives = 2 unknown entities.
Therefore, the first theory is more likely.
(Actually, two unknown entities is a conservative estimate. It would also require the people to install the devices without being noticed, the as-yet unseen technologies to do this in a way that it blends seemlessly with an office environment, etc., etc.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
