Nuclear Demolition

[Goker]

I can certainly see you as a bachelor.

i am 28, working as the financial manager of a medium sized firm, just starting a masters program in september in financial economics. and i am married.

Not sure if that was related. Thought Burgess was talking about the Bachelor's Degree? 

 

[dalai pasha]

there should be 1.2 million tons of debris. where is it? where has 110 story building gone? how was the wreckage cleaned to quickly? where has all the ruble gone FFS?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjyQk941tXQ&feature=relmfu

just watch this, joo. this is one day later.

Mass doesn't disappear, even in the case of nuclear explosions. From your own video, it states that the towers were 'pulverized' and 'evaporated' (entered the atmosphere).

that s what i am saying anyway. mage et al dont accept this fact. they even claim that there were survirors on the lowest floors. lol. since you fools cannot attain an attention span of 10 minutes and watch some of the videos, or read, you ll see that no one is saying that the cause of the collapse is the explosion itself, but the shockwave caused by the expansion of the initial cavity due to pressure caused by evaporated stone. this is the only power which turn material into microscopic dust. claiming that the collapse pulverized this building, including wtc 7 which was one of the strongest buildings ever built... words are not enough to explain how stupid this is.

No, no, AWdeV. His argument makes sense. Think about it logically. There's no way two passenger aircraft could have caused the level of devastation to the World Trade Centers that they did. The only way that much energy could have been released is by nuclear devices. Since no other nation had access to the WTC, it had to be the American government.

not the american government. at least not all of it. listen to dimitri khalezov instead of reading this stupid thread. most of you claiming that you don t have the time to listen to the guy for an hour have already spent more time here.

@dalai pasha: Wow, that's pretty hardcore. I gotta say, I agree with you. Your arguments make complete sense to me, and you have higher education in a field that would probably give you a level of expertise in these matters. It was the World Trade Center, and you specialize in trade, so...

I wish I'd read these articles sooner. You've opened up my eyes.

level of expertise in differentiating bull**** from truth.

i am an economist, but also have the capacity to read and judge about scientific presentations, papers, assertions that are of another area.

i am quiet asocial and i work as an executive, so i have lots of spare time. and i use most of my spare time to read non fiction, mostly articles.

i watched dimitri khalezov s presentation. also researched the background. seems it is legit. i wont be too aggressive about the conclusions he makes. but these are irrefutable truth:

1. there is something fishy about the broadcast of the incident. you search what.
2. an empty aluminium tube slower than one mach cannot penetrate steel with its nose intact. the wings, the engines, actually most of the plane would crash and fall. the nose would be non existant. the incident seems like it is from a roadrunner episode.
3. this definitely cannot pulverize a steel building into dust. that is microscopic dust.
4. underground nuclear explosion creates almost the exact effect that is seen in the footage. and explains why molten steel was found weeks later. and also explains lung cancer in most of the workers.

"in ancient greece , at a trial , the prosecutor would ask "who profits?" . to this day the military is STILL using no - bid contracts in iraq and afghaninam . we were distracted from wall street , from 2001 to 2008 they seemed to have had the largest transfer of wealth in history , roughly 20 trillion moved from the working class to the elite rich class while bush was telling us to beware of muslims . "

 

[Bava]

DP, you are an idiot. Nothing more to be said.

 

[Instag0]

this is the only power which turn material into microscopic dust.

Sure, as soon as you provide evidence that the existence of ANY 30 micron particles indicates the expenditure of 1.4 million KWH of energy.

Anyone can now see that the 'light concrete' of the floors, and 'gypsum' of the office dividers/wall-cladding, were FIRST compression/friction heated/fractured by initial plane impact and jet fuel explosion, and THEN further heated by OFFICE furniture/equipment etc 'fuel' fire/explosions, and THEN WHILE STILL VERY HOT (full of energy) they were FURTHER suddenly compressed/ground by chaotic impact/vibration and 'ball mill'-like violent tumbling during the collapse of the HEAVY, gravitational-energy-laden TOP, HAT TRUSS AND REST OF THE BUILDING.

There's a 100some odd page post on physorg that details physicists working in nuclear fields as well as others debunking the myth of a nuclear explosion. Link. But there's a lot of bull**** to trudge through.

2. an empty aluminium tube slower than one mach cannot penetrate steel with its nose intact. the wings, the engines, actually most of the plane would crash and fall. the nose would be non existant. the incident seems like it is from a roadrunner episode.
3. this definitely cannot pulverize a steel building into dust. that is microscopic dust.

Math? Also, the whole building wasn't steel.

 

[Almalexia]

So umm, what about the Pentagon? And the plane that went down in Pennsylvania?

 

[Jhnking]

So umm, what about the Pentagon? And the plane that went down in Pennsylvania?

Obviously decoys made by the government. Duh.

 

[Mage246]

Please tell us what company you work for so we can be sure never to do business with it.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

And the math goes ignored. Not surprising.


And why the insistence that a nuclear explosion is the only force capable of pulverizing any material into microscopic dust? And why the insistence on claiming that all of dust produced was so fine? It wasn't. It was "supercourse" as the term goes, and large chucks of concrete were still found in the rubble. It's no surprise that lighter stuff was mixed in. The debris is consistent with the massive amount of energy the collapse would have produced.

And you, of course, have demonstrated that you don't even know what the word "collapse" means. Because even if the building were taken down by a nuke in the manner you propose, it still collapsed.

And you still don't get that it wasn't the plane that pulverized anything, but the collapse.



Quick note about the math, looking at it from the other way. The steel pillars, at their thickest, were 14 inches thick (as best as I can find, and that's at the base. They were thinner up top). That means that even if the wall were a solid sheet of 14 inch thick steel, it would only be capable of stopping an aluminum projectile that was 42 inches long, or less. Now, how long is a 767 again? It's got a little length to spare...

 

[Radalan]

level of expertise in differentiating bull**** from truth.

if the guy who faded out the image was just a little slower, we would see it longer. and then he shows OTHER VIDEOS showing that it is the debris that was coming out. what a fool. or rather poor attempt, because he cannot be serious! other videos showing explosion or debris proves nothing! lol. each of them are special effects anyway. those explosions are impossible to attain with a plane crash! and all footage are doctored.

Too bad there's not an emoticon for a stroke, because I think I'm having one. 

 

[Mage246]

Anything that contradicts his theory is obviously faked by the government. Convenient.

 

[dalai pasha]

Steel is roughly three times as dense as aluminum. According to the impact depth equation you keep citing, an aluminum object would only need to be three times as long as a steel block is thick in order to break all the way through. 767's range from 159 ft in length all the way up to 201 ft.

If your own simplified idea of the events is to be taken seriously, the wall of the tower would have to be more than 53 ft thick in order to stop the plane from penetrating.

Now, the plane is not a solid chunk of aluminum, but neither was the wall a solid chunk of steel. Further, this is an incredibly high mass, if low density object. Planes are ******** huge. There is no reason to think it would be unable to punch through the wall, especially because the difference in length/thickness is so great. This is behaving more like a wrecking ball than a bullet. It is a high mass object, and it uses kinetic energy (which is not analyzed by the impact depth equation) to cause the damage.

you are trying hard arent you? what is the density of the plane? it is a tube that can easily be crashed. you need structural resistense to penetrate something. an aluminum tube can easily bend. it is not dense. it is empty. it is just a shell. even bird crashes cause heavy damage to the planes.

the building is close to being a chunk of steel. it is a steel net. it has 4 layers consisting 2 columns each adding upto 8 columns each thicker than tank armour. and the collapse? are you aware of how huge this building is and also how resistent steel is? IT CANT TURN INTO DUST UPON COLLAPSING!

carosene melting tons of steel.  "collapse due structural damage" and the building (marble, steel, concrete, wood etc) turn into uniform dust? both towers uniformly? is this how a collapse occurs?

i rest my case. and it is so weird that not a single forumite agrees.

good bye.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

So let me get this right. Somebody is actually advocating using a nuclear device to demolish buildings?

IT MAKE NO SENSES.

 

[Mage246]

Planes are so easily crushed that they are routinely crushed by the force of takeoff. Sadly, only 50% of takeoffs are successful, with an average fatality rate of 35%. Still beats driving, though.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Steel is roughly three times as dense as aluminum. According to the impact depth equation you keep citing, an aluminum object would only need to be three times as long as a steel block is thick in order to break all the way through. 767's range from 159 ft in length all the way up to 201 ft.

If your own simplified idea of the events is to be taken seriously, the wall of the tower would have to be more than 53 ft thick in order to stop the plane from penetrating.

Now, the plane is not a solid chunk of aluminum, but neither was the wall a solid chunk of steel. Further, this is an incredibly high mass, if low density object. Planes are ******** huge. There is no reason to think it would be unable to punch through the wall, especially because the difference in length/thickness is so great. This is behaving more like a wrecking ball than a bullet. It is a high mass object, and it uses kinetic energy (which is not analyzed by the impact depth equation) to cause the damage.

you are trying hard arent you? what is the density of the plane? it is a tube that can easily be crashed. you need structural resistense to penetrate something. an aluminum tube can easily bend. it is not dense. it is empty. it is just a shell. even bird crashes cause heavy damage to the planes.

the building is close to being a chunk of steel. it is a steel net. it has 4 layers consisting 2 columns each adding upto 8 columns each thicker than tank armour. and the collapse? are you aware of how huge this building is and also how resistent steel is? IT CANT TURN INTO DUST UPON COLLAPSING!

carosene melting tons of steel.  "collapse due structural damage" and the building (marble, steel, concrete, wood etc) turn into uniform dust? both towers uniformly? is this how a collapse occurs?

i rest my case. and it is so weird that not a single forumite agrees.

good bye.

And the goal posts move again! But as I explained, the kinetic energy of the crash is far more important than analyzing the impact depth. I only took a look at impact depth because you linked to it so ****ing many times. This is called deconstructing your opponents position from the inside out. Works like a charm.

The fires didn't need to melt the steel (and they didn't) just soften it. They did that just fine.

The collapse of the building created as much energy as 272 tons of TNT. I think it would do just fine in pulverizing mostly concrete, with some steel mixed in. This isn't just "falling down" Every floor is crushed by the quickly accelerating mass of all of the floors above. That'll do the trick.

And the fact that not one person agrees with you should tell you something about what it is you're trying to argue. But expecting you to get that would be giving you too much credit.

 

[Haresus]

Why do we not just ban guys like DP, and save those poor guys trying to argue with him a lot of time?

 

[Instag0]

Since you have so much free time dalai pasha, may I suggest you read this.

These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to
gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.

Now, as far as your pulverized particles go, the total amount of energy to produce all of them, on the upper bound, is 12.63x10^10 J. The available kinetic energy of the impact is one magnitude higher (10^11 J). So...

...we see that the available energy is far higher than required
for all of the comminution [pulverization].

 

[Bava]

[...]. it is just a shell. even bird crashes cause heavy damage to the planes.[...]

You have the guts to say this but deny that a fecking huge plane can damage a building? Seriously?

 

[Lord Burgess1]

Birds are hollow.

 

[Bava]

Touché.

 

[Kobrag]

...Wouldn't a ****ing nuclear blast cause a tremour greater than that of a half km building falling?
And as much as I dislike the amount of importance granted to two ruined buildings, I have to say the OP is full of ****.