It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ADVISOR
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Not really...I'm not aware of any explosive material which will melt steel.
It's called thermite.
Originally posted by ADVISOR
Also dynamite would not be used by an experienced individual, for demolition purposes these days when precision compositions have been developed.
The underlying principal of the thermal bomb is simplistic: upon contacting the target vessel, the thermal bomb releases a large quantity of localized thermal energy onto the vessel, superheating the superstructure of the target vessel. However, while the superheating inflicts minor damage upon the vessel, the major damage is dealt by the temperature of extrastellar space. The near-absolute zero temperature of extrastellar space is considerably different than the superheated temperature of the vessel's superstructure, and the resultant temperature differential causes great mechanical stresses upon the vessel, literally shattering it.
The thermal bomb is the final word in portable explosives. The detonation of this devastating device can wreak havoc in any environment from the interior of a facility to the bowels of a capital vessel.
Originally posted by ANOK
If I was to make a GUESS as to what was used this would be a good one...
Originally posted by Tentickles
One word: Thermite
It's lovely!
Just disgustingly Lovely!
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by adam_zapple
Why are you obsessed with how much dynamite it would take when everyone agrees that dynamite would never be used because of how old and outdated the technology is?
Do you know what a straw-man is?
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Your post does not answer the question posed.
Originally posted by adam_zapple
If everything is expressed in the same terms it's an easier comparison.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Your post does not answer the question posed.
So what? It's a stupid question that has no point.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by adam_zapple
If everything is expressed in the same terms it's an easier comparison.
How is there any comparison between something like a thermal bomb with the amount of dynamite it would take?
One thermal bomb might be equal to a few thousand sticks of dynamite.
How does knowing that make any difference?
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Then what are you doing in this thread?
Originally posted by ANOK
How did the undamaged columns fail.... symmetrically....when it was experiencing angular momentum?
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Much like a nuclear weapon is measured in its equivalence to "tons of TNT" I'm trying to use a common measurement.
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Much like a nuclear weapon is measured in its equivalence to "tons of TNT" I'm trying to use a common measurement.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You're making contrdictory statements.
Your lack of knowledge of physics is showing.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Much like a nuclear weapon is measured in its equivalence to "tons of TNT" I'm trying to use a common measurement.
This is just another example of how the conversion is meaningless here.
You can convert a nuke into a TNT equivalent, but if you sat a nuke in the towers, and the equivalent amount of TNT, the destruction caused would not at all be comparable between the two. They would appear totally different, use different forms of energy to cause damage, etc. The only thing that WOULD be comparable would be theoretical measure of energy.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Much like a nuclear weapon is measured in its equivalence to "tons of TNT" I'm trying to use a common measurement.
I understand that, but what is your point?
Where is this leading to?
What if I say, for example it would take a 1000 sticks? I'm interested to see how you're going to spin this and what your point is...(if it's not about what I suggested)
Originally posted by ANOK
That is a more valid question, seeing as you think that's what did it (from office fires). You think office fires on a few floors would be enough to cause steel to completely fail, but you also say it would take thousands of tons of explosives.
Originally posted by ANOK
Your whole argument contradicts itself. So yes it's a silly irrelevant question.
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by adam_zapple
So is this just an academic exercise for you then, and nothing to do with the rest of us?
Energy is a very general physics concept. I've already explained why you can't just compare the energy alone and expect the same results from two different sources.
Originally posted by ANOK
Just like I can't run my appliances with TNT, but I can convert it into a standard unit of megawatts of power.
Originally posted by ANOK
When you can run your computer on TNT, I'll listen to what you have to say about the TNT equivalents of other types of devices. Because the comparison is equally meaningless in both cases.