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 -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666
The energy density of explosives does not differ that much. So if there is any validity to the OP, there should be about 8.5 million kg of explosives in each building (if we ignore the ke). That is 9 times the weight of the buildings themselves. With so much weight, you don't even need to ignite the explosives, the building would collapse because it can't hold all that weight.
Or to give a short summary, your OP is total complete utter nonsense. One example of how truther sites spread lies and falsehoods, like we were discussing in the other thread.
The energy density of explosives does not differ that much. So if there is any validity to the OP, there should be about 8.5 million kg of explosives in each building
Nope.... that's 8.5 *THOUSAND* tons of explosives.... not million.
Kilo = Thousand
Mega = Million
8.5 kilotons of TNT equivalent would weigh approximately 8.5 thousand tons, give or take 20%, depending upon the type of explosive (Assuming non nuclear, of course)
Originally posted by Cassius666
The buildings weighed 450.000 tons each (roughly). So 9 times the weight is greatly exaggerated. Its a fraction of the weigt of the building, not a mutliple. This is the kind of debunking I come across frequently. However I will admit that there is no evidence that ALL of the concrete turned to dust. So the 8.5 Kiloton figure is very generous. However a figure well above 0.1 is more realistic.
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by humphreysjim
Why would they? Holloywood also tells you you can blow up a fuel tank by riddling it with bullets. Dont believe everything hollywood says. Depending on the explosives used its very well possible that fire destroys them rather than to set them off.
Originally posted by Cassius666
Of course if political factors weigh heavily on what you consider to be the most likely scenario (Our goverment would never do this) then its harder to be objective.
Originally posted by humphreysjim
If the buildings were rigged with explosives, how did the explosives not go off upon impact of the plane?
Originally posted by Partisanity
I never knew people were this caliber of ignorant.
Kay, I'm sure nobody here is exactly a lumberjack, but let's say you cut down a tree. When you hack away at the bottom with force, what happens? Does it fall straight down and crush the stump it is sitting on? No, it falls over, and there is usually at least 20 times the weight at the top of the tree compared to the bottom. To suggest that the towers' collapse was legitimate is like saying if you chopped the top 1/5th of a tree and placed it back on top of the other 4/5ths of the tree, the weight of the top 1/5th would be enough to take down the other 4/5ths of the tree.
This really isn't rocket science, people. Give me a break.
Originally posted by humphreysjim
If the buildings were rigged with explosives, how did the explosives not go off upon impact of the plane?
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by humphreysjim
If the buildings were rigged with explosives, how did the explosives not go off upon impact of the plane?
If the buildings were not rigged with explosives, then how do you explain the physics anomalies we keep pointing out?
You can't, no one since 2001 has been able to.
None of the collapses could have happened without an outside energy acting on them, that was not investigated for.edit on 9/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo
Originally posted by ANOKNone of the collapses could have happened without an outside energy acting on them, that was not investigated for.edit on 9/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo
Originally posted by humphreysjim
I haven't seen a single argument that refutes the general description of the collapse as documented in the NIST report.
Originally posted by humphreysjim
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by humphreysjim
If the buildings were rigged with explosives, how did the explosives not go off upon impact of the plane?
If the buildings were not rigged with explosives, then how do you explain the physics anomalies we keep pointing out?
You can't, no one since 2001 has been able to.
None of the collapses could have happened without an outside energy acting on them, that was not investigated for.edit on 9/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo
I haven't seen a single argument that refutes the general description of the collapse as documented in the NIST report.
Originally posted by humphreysjim
What do you think the plane was, and the fire?
What in the lwas of physics is being defied in such a scenario?