WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces

reply to post by Pilgrum


Pilgrum thanks for the thoughtful post and I too hope that someone will work out such an equation and post it here. It would be very enlightening.

We know that large structural members fell far from the footprints of the towers but the photo posted here is unique to my knowledge and important because it shows the nature of one major ejection quite graphically, and it is not at all acting in the way it was assumed these pieces fell.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Anyone care to do a little calculation on what it would take to accelerate a 20+ tonne mass to say 15m/sec horizontally in about

reply to post by bsbray11
We work in mks (SI) units here and it initially took a little adjustment but now it's all good

If we take the overall gravitational PE of the building considering the mass of ~500000 tonnes was distributed over a height of 425m at:

m.g.h/2 = 500E6 x 9.8 x 425/2 = ~10^12 J

Your figure of 18MJ to accelerate a 20 ton section represents about 0.002% of the total energy. This is very biassed because ~75% of the building was still intact when that section was ejected so the real figure would be more like 0.01% which is still a trifling amount of the total up to that point in time. It appears the necessary energy was available but how did it get translated into a direction opposing gravity?

Thanks for posting that video - I've been looking for something showing such an ejection for reference.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Well if you really want to get down into the nitty gritty of all of this, we don't really have a working theory for even how all of that PE becomes available for the collapse. We have trusses' connections snapping (or however they were supposed to have initially sheared, since all they should have done on their own was sag), but we don't have (a) any of the masses of the floors above the initial floor (it's not as though they were actually resting on that floor or anything like that), (b) any of the mass of the entire core structure (which was both denser structurally AND a significant amount of the floor area of each floor) as it basically supported itself, or (c) much or any of the mass of the perimeter columns.

What is the PE of a single floor falling (ie the trusses, pans, and concrete for the area between the core and perimeter)? Can anyone figure that? Something less than 10x that is all that would theoretically be available given a pancake theory to work with (given about a 10-floor "pancaking" between the collapse initiation and this ejected debris).

[edit on 7-3-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Question, I think we are all on the same page that this isn't a normal demolition or conventional, what do you think is the best explanation to date on what caused that phenomena?

reply to post by talisman


I don't think there is a "best explanation" because I've yet to see any explanation of it that seems to make very good sense. It seems to me like any kind of extended overpressure would also be heard but I could be wrong, but that's about the only sort of thing I could think of. Maybe a powerful overpressure with a very long period, that didn't have a high enough frequency to really register except maybe in a sub woofer's range. I kind of doubt that too, though. I really don't know and if anyone else does they've yet to make any good case that I've seen.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Pilgim, bsbray makes a very good point that the PE is localized and you can't for example count the mass of the opposite side of the tower, or even adjoining faces, or the core, so the figure is too high by orders of magnitude.

And bsbray, there was so much noise in those collapses--they were two prolonged roars, after all--that I believe a great deal of noise could have been subsumed in them. You have valid eyewitness testimony describing almost continuous, repeated explosive events--the "floors popping out... bang bang bang" famously described by the FDNY on video, for example. If the explosions occurred as described, so fast that they become for all intents and purposes a blur of noise, which is after all also consistent with the speed of the collapse (about 70 mph), they become subsumed in the destruction.

reply to post by Griff


" No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially."

Most of us agree that this is nice spin by the liars club. But it just occurred to me as to why.

The why is, that the air in the building, wishing to escape, due to being compressed, would take the path of least resistance, which would be, the ventilating system, stairwells, and elevators shafts, none of which are SEALED like a WINDOW is,

Another example could be, a shower head. If the valve holding back the water gave way, would the water suddenly burst out of the seals connecting it or would it come out of the nozzles on the shower head?

I've been hoping we'd get a few more alternate stabs at explaining how this phenomenon took place (ejected mass) but maybe it's simply too hard to account for. It's also insincere to attempt to claim it didn't happen because there's absolutely no doubt that it did and I'm denying denial on this aspect.

I must agree with bsbray11 in that there's no best explanation for it and perhaps there never will be.

reply to post by gottago



" WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces "

Yeah, I too noticed that in one of the "official" dvd's released by the media on that. I think it was the CNN one, but I'm not positive, it's been a while since I've seen it.

All I can tell you is, that I remember seeing an I-BEAM , going up and out in that cloud , I had to ask myself, how in the world, does a collapsing building gather up enough energy to SPIT OUT an I-BEAM from its' bowels?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Where I was trying to go with the estimate of how much energy was required to impart that horizontal (or even vertical) acceleration:

Thermite has no lifting power at all as it simply dribbles a liquid at >2500C which melts what it comes into contact with much like pouring boiling water on ice cubes - never yet saw an ice cube jump out of the way.

Shaped charges are unidirectional but not intended to provide lift as these focus the energy of the blast on a very small area relying on the inertia of the target and its mountings to hold it still while the blast penetrates it, sometimes employing cutting projectiles. The unidirectional nature allows use of a much smaller charge than an uncontained explosion.

So, from an explosive point of view, we're left with a very vigorous explosion of an essentially omnidirectional nature. The energy imparted to an ejected element reveals how much force was applied to a single side of a 3 dimensional object, the same force would be acting in a spherical shape so the ejected piece of building only represents a very small component of the overall blast energy. I'd expect to see material ejected like projectiles (especially smaller pieces) in most, if not all, directions simultaneously but the ejections are not as orderly as that and the blast - well we wouldn't be discussing whether there was a blast or not because it would have been devastating to the general area.

It seems that the ejections were caused by something other than the above possibilities and I can't completely rule out something else of an unnatural nature. Something caused it because it most definitely happened.

Just another of those 'hard questions' looking for answers.

reply to post by Pilgrum


You are only thinking of conventional explosives.

Used in large numbers, fuel-air explosives and other blast weapons can have enormous destructive effects. When multiple FAE warheads are exploded, the different blast waves reinforce each other, increasing their destructive power.(4) The effect of blast weapons is also compounded in buildings and other enclosed spaces, and is twelve to sixteen times more destructive than conventional high explosives against targets with large surface areas, such as frame buildings, bunkers, and vehicle shelters.(5)

www.hrw.org...

If FAE bombs were used, there would be less of them to plant and they wouldn't be as directed as CD conventional explosives. And there's an out by saying "the jet fuel".

Military FAE's are twelve to sixteen times more powerful than conventional munitions against targets with large surface areas such as frame buildings, bunkers and vehicle shelters. They are more effective against fortifications not only because overpressures from FAE's travel through such fortifications more pervasively than the blast from point-source explosions, but because the major detonation can be delayed until the fuel aerosol itself has saturated the target. Several can also be exploded in near-simultaneous ripples that reinforce each other's blast waves.

everything2.com...

And we also have this:

Some experts fear that terrorists are trying to develop thermobaric and fuel-air bombs which can be even more devastating than conventional devices.

www.newscientist.com...

It's my belief that there was thermite to initiate collapse with FAE detonations to clear the way for global collapse. But, that is just a working theory.





[edit on 4/23/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The energy imparted to an ejected element reveals how much force was applied to a single side of a 3 dimensional object, the same force would be acting in a spherical shape

Not if it was shaped/directed, whatever "it" was. Shaped conventional charges exist, all kinds of shaped or directed energy in other forms, and I think even shaped nukes have been officially acknowledged to exist. Whatever the form of energy, it could look "cleaner" if directed.

so the ejected piece of building only represents a very small component of the overall blast energy.

I could see this being the case. Realize that this would also mean that the total energy ultimately exerted by whatever was launching the steel was that much greater than just what was acting on the steel to displace it.

And the total PE offered earlier (of the whole upper block of mass accelerating at free-fall) still has not been reconciled with the falling of a single floor's mass, disregarding all the floors above it, the entire core structure, and virtually all perimeter columns. Also I don't think inertial effects that would slow the acceleration to less than g have been considered for the previous estimate of the available PE. Again, for a single floor's worth of trusses, all somehow failing simultaneously (but I'll just go with that for now, for the sake of argument).

I'd expect to see material ejected like projectiles (especially smaller pieces) in most, if not all, directions simultaneously but the ejections are not as orderly as that

What you are seeing here and there (steel ejections) represent significant focal points of energy: whatever energy is doing the ejecting. Steel weighs a lot, to be pushed around by air. Do you know how much energy is probably blowing out around and between the columns before so displacing the actual column sections? That's why conventional explosives can't offer that much energy, to physically move columns so far, because they dissipate very quickly everywhere else first. Coming out of the buildings you have dust, up to larger pieces of mass, up to whole sections of columns, coming out everywhere the whole time.

and the blast - well we wouldn't be discussing whether there was a blast or not because it would have been devastating to the general area.

Well I would agree that it was definitely not a lot of stacks of C4 laying around.

We saw one FAE at each tower and they weren't very efficient at all as collapse didn't start immediately. If I look for much larger explosions than those capable of failing the entire core and sufficient outer sections simultaneously at multiple locations I just can't see any upscaled, more efficient such explosions at any point in either collapse maybe because I think it would be extremely obvious from any point of view.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
We saw one FAE at each tower and they weren't very efficient at all as collapse didn't start immediately.

An unplanned (not engineered/chaotic) FAE would do considerably less damage one would think. As oppossed to one that is designed purposefully. Correct?

If I look for much larger explosions than those capable of failing the entire core and sufficient outer sections simultaneously at multiple locations I just can't see any upscaled, more efficient such explosions at any point in either collapse maybe because I think it would be extremely obvious from any point of view.

The Thermobaric grenade is the closest and safest alternative to military 'flash bang' type or stun grenades. They have a low frequency 'thud' and a high intensity flash upon ignition, enough to stun opponents momentarily during a night offensive. Ideal for use in close quarters and at night where sound is an issue.

www.elements-fx.co.uk...

I'm finding that thermobarics have a low-frequency noise. Could this be masked by a falling building?

Originally posted by Griff
An unplanned (not engineered/chaotic) FAE would do considerably less damage one would think. As oppossed to one that is designed purposefully. Correct?

I'm finding that thermobarics have a low-frequency noise. Could this be masked by a falling building?

I agree, the jetfuel fireballs were very poor examples of an FAEs and virtually ineffective for any destructive purpose other than spreading fire even though the estimated quantity of fuel involved (15% of total) represents about 5000kg for each building. If one of those fireballs had occurred within the dust & smoke surrounding the collapsing building we would still see it (the fireballs at least) I believe. Something more efficient and, say, 10 times as effective or even better would be even more noticeable in terms of the flash and blast even if the sound was masked somehow. Multiple such devices would be required increasing the chance of one revealing itself.

Another thing is that we don't see any blast driven activity in the dust and smoke surrounding the collapse and the 'vacuum' effect following each blast would also show itself there - I'd expect to see a pulsing effect following each blast caused by air heated and driven out then rushing back in to fill the void.

Also, if blasts were weakening the way guiding the collapse, we should see the blasts fairly clearly as they'd be a floor or more ahead of the collapse.

If there were devices used they're far more stealthy than these.



[edit on 24/4/2008 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by Pilgrum


You bring up good points. Like I said. Working hypothesis and this type of input is welcome.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Good analysis, the flash and blast effects of an FAE just don't jive with what you see occurring. Is it possible by the very nature of a fuel-air explosion to modify the charge so fundamentally that you remove the flash of ignition?

The initial blossoming grey bloom of destruction certainly looks like a single powerful blast effect, but the blast itself is missing. Then you have these huge exterior column sections launched horizontally or even at an upward angle at the midpoint of the collapse as well. This of course is the mystery that gets people searching for classified exotics as alternatives.

I've looked for images of FAEs on the net but what little there is is indistinguishable from a conventional blast, like what you saw at the Pentagon. How do you hide the blast itself?

The problems with FAEs are scale, precision and stealth. You have to hide them--can't see (most) blast effects, and they have to be precise to provide the illusion of near-freefall collapse.

A scenario of thermite cutter charges to disconnect the structure, followed by shaped charges to knock it down seems to fit what we're seeing more closely than a series of FAEs. And since the fuel has to be released and ignited for each charge extremely rapidly to create the collapse, wouldn't you have real problems of prematurely igniting the lower charge as the one above expands?

[edit on 24-4-2008 by gottago]

The more we discuss this stuff, the more inclined I am to say it was directed energy bombs or E-bombs as they are being called.

edit: E-bombs I'm finding out are not what I'm thinking of. They are electromagnetic bombs that produce a pulse that would have surely been known on 9/11. But, the directed energy part is still valid.

After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge light-wave energy, the same spectrum of energy found in your microwave or in your TV remote control. They're called "directed-energy weapons" – lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams – and they signal a revolution in weaponry, perhaps, more profound than the atomic bomb.

The first directed-energy (DE) weapons are already being tested, and their deployment is planned in the very near future. In The E-Bomb, author J. Douglas Beason, Ph.D., a leading U.S. expert in directed-energy research, explains these exotic new weapons in clear and non-technical prose and answers questions that all Americans will have about their important development and strategic significance

www.heritage.org...

Similarly, testing of the U.S. Army's Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) in White Sands, New Mexico has shown the ability of heating high-flying rocket warheads, blasting them with enough energy that causes them to self-detonate. THEL uses a high-energy, deuterium fluoride chemical laser. A mobile THEL also demonstrated the ability to kill multiple mortar rounds.

www.space.com...

What was that about hightened levels of deuterium at WTC again?

And for those who still scoff at Dr. Judy Woods for mentioning "space beam weapons".

Beam weapons almost ready for battle

www.msnbc.msn.com...

As I'm perusing these stories, I have noticed something. It is the same story in all articles. Same wording quote-for-quote from every source. Do we have an ounce of originality left in our MSM? I fear not.

When Dr. Woods first came out with the directed energy theory, I too thought she was crazy. The more I learn about them, the more I am inclined to reverse that thinking.





[edit on 4/24/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 4/24/2008 by Griff]

I too was a skeptic on DEW as having advanced enough to bring it into the realm of possibility until I stumbled upon this, Sandia Labs Accomplishments 2003:

Sandia's directed-energy group has successfully developed a highly compact high-voltage pulser capable of powering various directed-energy loads. The design uses Sandia's pulsed power experience and combines a battery-driven power supply and Marx generator in producing its output pulse. This development effort has resulted in a battery-driven pulser capable of delivering a 30 GW drive to a load. This extremely compact, lightweight, and rugged approach will enable many future directed-energy systems that require portable high-power drivers. Using technical assistance and advice provided by Sandia's Explosives Applications Dept. 15322 -- including on-the-ground support from Dale Preece -- the British Royal Engineers destroyed a cave complex on the border between the Paktika and Paktia provinces in Afghanistan on May 10, 2002. This Operation Enduring Freedom event was reportedly the largest explosion set off by the Royal Engineers since World War II.

I posted this on a moribund DEW thread but am reposting it here as it is quite relevant, real-world proof of the level of destructive energy "extremely compact" DEW weapons are already capable of achieving.

DEW research, what little of it seeps out, appears driven by a new paradigm in EM and physics. They're deep in Tesla's world and the overunity/antigrav/scalar "nutcases" like Hutchinson and Beardon.

And they are obviously making great headway, if the Brits can use a DEW to achieve "the largest explosion set off (by the UK) since WW II."