How much dynamite would it take to bring down WTC1 & 2

Originally posted by ANOK

Please explain why you think that? What's contradictory about it?

Again you're showing your lack of physics knowledge.

If they failed symmetrically and instantly, there wouldn't be any angular momentum.

No matter how you propose they failed, whether by fires and impact damage, explosives, or thermite.... the only way for it to gain angular momentum is by a "non-instant" assymetrical collapse.

The only way for it to get a.m. is for it to convert pe into a.m. through assymetrical and "non-instant" initiation.

This is clearly seen in videos.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
It's not about expecting the same results, it's about the relative amount of energy.

To what purpose? Just to crunch numbers? I don't get the point. What are you ultimately trying to show us here when you finally settle on an answer?

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.

TNT Equivalent is an SI unit used to measure the power of explosives, you don't get much more standardized than that.

You still don't get the point, so I'll let you try to answer the questions I just asked.


Btw I posted all of that, not Anok.

Also "TNT Equivalent" is not an SI unit of measurement. Energy (not power) is measured in SI as Joules, or Dynes, etc., which is what you mean. Power is energy over time, which is where the watt comes in.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
If they failed symmetrically and instantly, there wouldn't be any angular momentum.

Don't be silly you know what I'm talking about.

The tilt...

The symmetrical collapse

The only way for it to get a.m. is for it to convert pe into a.m. through assymetrical and "non-instant" initiation. This is clearly seen in videos.

Huh? Do you even know what you're talking about lol? What you just said make is nonsense.
Anything that is tilting at an angle, and moving, has angular momentum.

Angular, at an angle, not perpendicular.
Momentum, a measure of the motion of an object.

Pay VERY close attention to what this says seymour...

The total angular momentum of a system of objects is conserved if no external torque acts on the system. The total angular momentum of the universe about any axis is therefore conserved. The angular momentum of a single object, however, changes when a net torque acts on the object for a finite time interval. Conversely, if no net torque acts on an object, its angular momentum is constant.

Nothing was acting on that tilting top, NOTHING, according to NIST.
Fires and the damage from the planes had already done their part, they would have had no affect on the top once it started its angular momentum. No external torque to get it to change it's angular momentum.
But of course for it to lose it's angular momentum an external force (or torque) MUST have been acting on it, thus we're not being told the complete story.
The initial aircraft damage and the resulting fires had NOTHING to do with the top not continuing it's 'path of least resistance' once it started its angular momentum so what happened?

So again genius what am I contradicting? You can claim what you want about me personally, the physics talks for itself. You're sounding extremely desperate, am I getting a little too close seymour? And get a spell check you're making yourself look like an amateur...

[edit on 1/29/2009 by ANOK]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adam_zapple
It's not about expecting the same results, it's about the relative amount of energy.

To what purpose? Just to crunch numbers? I don't get the point. What are you ultimately trying to show us here when you finally settle on an answer?

I believe that the CD theories don't make sense, purely from an energy standpoint.

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.

TNT Equivalent is an SI unit used to measure the power of explosives, you don't get much more standardized than that.

You still don't get the point, so I'll let you try to answer the questions I just asked.


Btw I posted all of that, not Anok.

Also "TNT Equivalent" is not an SI unit of measurement. Energy (not power) is measured in SI as Joules, or Dynes, etc., which is what you mean. Power is energy over time, which is where the watt comes in.


My mistake on the SI. The equivalent energy of one ton of TNT is 4.184 E+09 Joules....which is SI as you stated.

Anok, if you're going to participate in this thread, stay on topic.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

Originally posted by ANOK

So again genius what am I contradicting?

The collapse initiation wasn't instant nor symmetrical.

Engineers at STJ911 have agreed to this:

www.cool-places.0catch.com...

"1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

The validity of this claim rests on the definition of “extremely rapid”. NIST provides
evidence of growing instability 10 min prior to collapse including smoke expulsions
from partial floor collapses and bowing of the exterior wall on the south side of WTC1."

It started on one side and progressed rapidly across the structure.

This can be seen in the videos.

The debris field wasn't symmetrical either. Engineers at STJ911 have admitted to this:

www.cool-places.0catch.com...

"7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed —
the columns gave no resistance

This is simply incorrect. Neither collapse was symmetrical. In WTC2, most debris falling
outside the footprint went east and south. In WTC1, most debris falling outside the
footprint went north and west. "

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I believe that the CD theories don't make sense, purely from an energy standpoint.

Let's see. You believe that one story failing and causing the cap to crash down was the energy needed to collapse the entire building.

So, from an energy stand point. You only need as much to cause one floor to fail. The KE of the failing cap does the rest. Correct?

So tell me. How much dynamite would be needed to collapse one floor's worth of columns?

The circular logic around here is quite dizzying.

[edit on 1/29/2009 by Griff]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
This is simply incorrect. Neither collapse was symmetrical. In WTC2, most debris falling
outside the footprint went east and south.

With WTC 1 blocking the way to the north and west, I can see why this would happen.

In WTC1, most debris falling outside the
footprint went north and west. "

Care to quantify this? As in show us where you get this information from?

reply to post by Griff


And since the planes severed perhaps 15% of the columns for them, they only needed enough explosives to sever enough of the remaining columns to initiate collapse(then global collapse will inevitably ensue according to NIST). Where are those animations showing the collapse initiation? Those should give us a good estimate of how many columns needed to fail to initiate collapse. Then you just need to determine the TNT equivalency required to weakene and/or sever a single column and multiply that by the columns needed to fail per NIST in order to initiate collapse.

Originally posted by Griff

1-With WTC 1 blocking the way to the north and west, I can see why this would happen.

Care to quantify this? As in show us where you get this information from?

1- Huh? 1 was what 300-400 feet away? How can that block anything from FALLING to that side? It could only block it from going FARTHER than where 1 stood, nothing more.

2- I didn't say that, I quoted it. But I DID join the STJ911 forum and read where they discussed it, and agree with their conclusions. Join yourself and verify it if you choose, don't take MY word for it...

reply to post by ANOK

Your post is incorrect on its face as it assumes the building had no oscillation, or angular momentum, which is incorrect.

I'm going to guess you never had the opportunity to go to the observation deck of one of the WTC towers prior to their collapse. The buildings swayed in the breeze.

The additional energy provided by the impact of the plane would have increased the natural oscillation.

The building had angular momentum.

Determining the KE remaining in an object after each period of oscillation is not simple math.

Was there enough energy left in the oscillation to collapse the structure given the weakening of the steel support columns due to fire?

Hmmm....

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I believe that the CD theories don't make sense, purely from an energy standpoint.

Let's see. You believe that one story failing and causing the cap to crash down was the energy needed to collapse the entire building.

I believe that the columns buckling resulted in the top 10-20 floors crushing the floor below...and that was enough energy to initiate a global collapse. Do you agree or disagree?

Originally posted by Griff
So, from an energy stand point. You only need as much to cause one floor to fail. The KE of the failing cap does the rest. Correct?

I believe that you would only need enough energy to cause what I outlined above to cause the collapse.

CD proponents, however, do not believe that this was enough energy to cause the collapses as observed, so their theories would require MORE explosives. (Hence the creation of this thread)

Originally posted by Griff
So tell me. How much dynamite would be needed to collapse one floor's worth of columns?

In terms of Dynamite I would estimate between 5 and 15 thousand sticks if there was no pre-weakening of the support structure.

Originally posted by Griff
The circular logic around here is quite dizzying.

It's not circular logic. I explained above. (Note bolded statement)

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I believe that the columns buckling resulted in the top 10-20 floors crushing the floor below...and that was enough energy to initiate a global collapse. Do you agree or disagree?

Can you quantify this energy? It was not and could not be a free-falling mass unless the columns were actually completely severed and not just buckled.

So, why does everyone want to calculate the KE from a free-falling mass?

CD proponents, however, do not believe that this was enough energy to cause the collapses as observed, so their theories would require MORE explosives. (Hence the creation of this thread)

I believe there was enough PE to crash the building. But, that PE had to come from severed columns and not buckled columns. Buckled columns still give resistance. How much resistance would depend on the columns. But, it definitely would not be a 100% conversion from PE to KE.

In terms of Dynamite I would estimate between 5 and 15 thousand sticks if there was no pre-weakening of the support structure.

Ah, but there WAS pre-weakening. Or are you now saying that the planes didn't pre-weaken the structure? Or that WTC 7 was pre-weakened by WTC 1 crashing into it? (hence my comment about circular logic)

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Debris falling outside of the footprint of the building DOES NOT mean the collapse wasn't symmetrical.

All four corners of ALL three buildings fell at aprox., the same time and the same speed, straight down into the path of most resistance. The pics I provided show this clearly.

That is why the collapses are considered symmetrical. Not perfectly symmetrical, but too symmetrical to be a collapse caused by sporadic office fires and Asymmetrical (unequal) damage. The fact that you guys keep pretending this isn't true shows how willing you are to lie and support the official story NO MATER WHAT.

Even known controlled demolitions are not always that symmetrical.

Sorry but your attempts to spin the terminology is a joke.

Symmetrical 1: having, involving, or exhibiting symmetry....
Symmetry 1. the correspondence in size, form, and arrangement of parts on opposite sides of a plane, line, or point; regularity of form or arrangement in terms of like, reciprocal, or corresponding parts...
Asymmetrical 1. not identical on both sides of a central line; unsymmetrical; lacking symmetry: Most faces are asymmetric.

dictionary.reference.com...

You need to start doing better here seymour, you're gonna get fired...

reply to post by adam_zapple


Yes, thermite can explode and it will. You asked what will melt steel, that's it.
C4 cuts, thermites melts and dynamite goes boom!

From wiki sourced on previous page;

It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature.

Does it say explode?

Originally posted by cogburn
Your post is incorrect on its face as it assumes the building had no oscillation, or angular momentum, which is incorrect....
Was there enough energy left in the oscillation to collapse the structure given the weakening of the steel support columns due to fire?

Hmmm what?

What are you talking about? The only angular momentum the building would experience is when is swayed, and then the external force provided by thousands of tons of bolted and welded steel going deep into the ground would cause it to sway back to it's original position, a perfect example of the law in action.
It has nothing to do with what the tilting top of WTC 2 did.

The buildings were oscillating, an hour after the impacts? Again so what?
That has nothing to do with the tilting top of WTC 2.

You said yourself the buildings were designed to move in the wind, so why would them moving from an impact be ANY different.

You think a building DESIGNED to sway would fail from SWAYING? You guys are getting so desperate, and amusing, it's like arguing with 5 year olds.
Your attempts to spin the meaning of angular momentum, resistance, etc., etc., is very humorous and you're fooling no one but yourselves.

So to answer your second question NO.

Hmmmmmmmmmm................

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I believe that the columns buckling resulted in the top 10-20 floors crushing the floor below...and that was enough energy to initiate a global collapse. Do you agree or disagree?

Can you quantify this energy? It was not and could not be a free-falling mass unless the columns were actually completely severed and not just buckled.

I don't know the exact quantity due to the number of variables involved.

It didn't have to be free-falling to have enough energy to overload the floors below.

Originally posted by Griff
So, why does everyone want to calculate the KE from a free-falling mass?

? Perhaps for ease of calculation?

Originally posted by Griff

CD proponents, however, do not believe that this was enough energy to cause the collapses as observed, so their theories would require MORE explosives. (Hence the creation of this thread)

I believe there was enough PE to crash the building. But, that PE had to come from severed columns and not buckled columns. Buckled columns still give resistance. How much resistance would depend on the columns. But, it definitely would not be a 100% conversion from PE to KE.

I don't believe that anyone is asserting that the conversion of PE to KE was 100% efficient. This would be impossible, even with explosives.

What percentage of columns do you think would have to be severed in order to initiate a collapse?

What percentage of columns do you think would have to buckle in order to initiate a collapse?

Originally posted by Griff

In terms of Dynamite I would estimate between 5 and 15 thousand sticks if there was no pre-weakening of the support structure.

Ah, but there WAS pre-weakening. Or are you now saying that the planes didn't pre-weaken the structure? Or that WTC 7 was pre-weakened by WTC 1 crashing into it? (hence my comment about circular logic)

Your question was: "How much dynamite would be needed to collapse one floor's worth of columns?"

The floors which were weakened by the plane impacts didn't have a full "floor's worth of columns" intact.

Did you mean to ask "how much dynamite would be needed to collapse the columns that remained on the most severely damaged floor after the planes impacted?" My answer to that would be 0. What would yours be?

Originally posted by ANOK
You think a building DESIGNED to sway would fail from SWAYING? You guys are getting so desperate, and amusing, it's like arguing with 5 year olds.
Your attempts to spin the meaning of angular momentum, resistance, etc., etc., is very humorous and you're fooling no one but yourselves.

So to answer your second question NO.

Hmmmmmmmmmm................

What you or I think is irrelevant.

Did the additional energy provided by the impact add enough KE to the building so that it collapsed?

Posing unfounded logical arguments is definitely far simpler than the calculus required to actually determine the answer beyond a shadow of a doubt.

... as such is the problem with most 9/11 CTs.

It's a shame calculus isn't mandatory...

Originally posted by ADVISOR
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

Yes, thermite can explode and it will. You asked what will melt steel, that's it.
C4 cuts, thermites melts and dynamite goes boom!

From wiki sourced on previous page;

It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature.

Does it say explode?

Read carefully....

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. It is not explosive

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by adam_zapple

In terms of Dynamite I would estimate between 5 and 15 thousand sticks if there was no pre-weakening of the support structure.

FWIW,

I went here: wtcmodel.wikidot.com... and the core columns on the 80th floor were all about 2.5-3 inches thick.

And then here: www.rapidentry.com... where they give some specs on LSC's - which is how it could have been done. They don't have anything that would sever steel that thick, but, following their chart going from cutting 16mm to 30mm (1.875x as thick)needs 3x the charge. And going from 20mm to 35mm (1.75x as thick) needs 2.95x the charge. So it looks like to double the thickness needs 3x or better the charge. It doesn't state what is useing, but I'd assume PETN?

They give specs for 35mm steel, which is just about exactly 1.5", and that takes 1120gm/m, so figure 3x that = 3.3kg/m?

The dimensions of the columns at that level varies, but are generall 20"x16" = 1.8m circumfrence.

So 3.3kg/m x 1.8m = ~6kg/column

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Yes, thermite can explode and it will. You asked what will melt steel, that's it.
C4 cuts, thermites melts and dynamite goes boom!

Why would you use "exploding thermite" when the purpose of using thermite in the first place is it would be silent, and thus not arouse suspicion? Plus, how would you direct this explosion? By using a housing similar to what LSC's use?

Why not just use LSC's and be done with it?

Griff mentioned circular arguments, and here's a perfect example of it.