9/11

Are you really going to pretend that you don't know what the energy required to pulverize concrete has to do with the potential energy built into the Tower? You're pretending that I didn't include those numbers in my post even though it's there for all to see. Look again.
_______________________________________________

According to FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report, the potential energy stored in the 1,368 feet of the North Tower was equal to about 111,000 kilowatt hours. Now, of the identifiable energy sinks during the collapse, the only one that's been analyzed is the pulverization of the concrete. Almost everything that wasn't made of steel was pulverized into fine powder. Let's use FEMA's estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete for the North Tower. That indicates that the energy sink due to concrete pulverization was about 135,000 KWH. That's already larger than the energy available from gravitational energy.

And that's just one of the energy sinks that make a virtual freefall of the upper block a theory for the gullible. Do you see your problem now? There wouldn't be sufficient energy available from the potential energy of the upper block to satisfy all of the energy demands of a virtual freefall.

Your thoughts?
_____________________________________________

Also, perhaps Peter Jennings and George Stephanopoulos can help answer your question concerning the degree to which the concrete was pulverized:

 

??? Says in the video, recoverers havent taken out many bodies because "they are buried so deep within the rubble" like 30 seconds after he asks the question Where is all the rubble. So which is it? It is literally right in front of your face

Ok, so i went back and had a look at what you did. You took info from one site on recycling concrete that says to pulverise concrete to a fine enough amount for use in recycling it takes
1.5 kwh per tonne in an impact crusher, you then multiplied that by 90,000 tons in the building. 1.5 × 90,000 is your smoking gun???

Dude thats not the potential energy?

Its potential energy is its mass x gravity x the distance between two objects. Which in this case is each block of concrete and either the ground or the floor below depending on how you want to work it out.

So you didnt even bother looking up what potential energy is

So the potential energy of 1 tonne of concrete ( its mass would be 103, mass is not weight) 1300 ft (396 metres) in the air relative to the ground would be 396×9.8× 103=400,000 J/kg rounded up

A small calibre bullet if it hits its target at 300m/s initially has a potential energy of 45000 J/kg, almost a tenth of that.

But then comes the second part of your argument which didnt make any sense, that somehow their wasnt enough potential energy in the concrete alone for a "virtual" freefall, well if that had been the case it wouldnt have all pulverised, but you are saying most of it did. Because you saw a youtube video of a news report a couple hundred metres away and they couldnt see the blocks of concrete in the exclusion zone

So you are saying there wasnt enough potential energy to pulverise all the concrete but all the concrete was pulverised

 

As I said its always the same with truthers, either they start off with a premise thats complete nonsense in the first place or they conviently leave out an important piece that makes the argument nonsense

 

There were people in the basements, who worked in the towers, who reported explosions in the sub levels. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

 

You are the only one in this thread who cannot understand what is being said to you. So I'm going to spell this out for you as concisely as possible.

Almost all of the concrete in the Tower was pulverized into dust. It takes 1.5 kilowatt hours of energy to reduce one ton of concrete to 1/16 inch pieces. Since we're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 90,000 tons of concrete in the Tower, we multiply 90,000 by 1.5 to find out how many kilowatt hours of energy are required to pulverize the concrete in the Tower. It comes out to 135,000 kilowatt hours of energy.

Now according to FEMA, construction of the North Tower resulted in the storage of more than 400,000,000,000 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure. 400,000,000,000 joules translates to 111,000 kilowatt hours of energy. Since it takes 135,000 kilowatt hours of energy to crush the concrete in the Tower, the 111,000 kilowatt hours of stored potential energy in the Tower would not be enough energy to crush the concrete.

And to add insult to injury, this does not even take into account the energy required to crush the steel core structure of the Tower. Add to this the virtual freefall of the tower during at least the first 360 feet of descent, and you have a problem. Where did the energy to crush the concrete and break up the core structure and perimeter columns, with enough left over to clear a path for the upper block to drop through the intact lower core structure below at virtual freefall speed, come from?

Good luck with that.

 

Oh okay I'll take the word from these 3x random people.

 

The first person is a custodian that opened many doors for people to escape. he had master keys. I dont even need to watch it for the 100th time, he is not a random person tho.

 

If he had master keys he'd have probably seen the bombs or seen something fishy going on.

 

Oh, the steel core was crushed now?

No dude, thats not how you work out potential energy.

You have no idea how much of the concrete was pulverized and down to what size, no one measured that. And what the fuck has that got to do with falling due to gravity

And no steel was bloody crushed or melted.

Maybe none of you simply are smart enough to understand....even what each other are proposing

 

Now you want to play the semantics game. I'm sure you're the only one reading these posts who fails to understand what I mean when I say crushed. You're just desperate to use any means to take away from the facts. Yes, the columns that made up the core structure were crushed beneath the weight of the upper block. You can pretend to not understand what is meant by that, but it hurts no one but you. You also attributed a claim about melted steel to me. I haven't made that claim anywhere in this thread. So what's up with that? But since you brought it up, Abolhassan Astaneh, professor of civil engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 did claim that he saw melting of girders in the WTC.

As far as how much of the concrete was pulverized, I have a little video for you to watch:



And you're still pretending to not understand what the potential energy stored in the Tower has to do with the energy required to pulverize the concrete. And you still have to explain where the energy to crush the core structure and perimeter columns--besides the concrete--came from. Keep in mind that the upper block of the North Tower descended for the first 360 feet at a rate just 40 feet shy of freefall. And to that end, you should probably hear something about this point from someone outside this forum so that you can stop pretending that you don't understand what I'm talking about.

ENERGETIC EXAMINATION OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE NORTH TOWER OF THE WTC

 

Yes but you would still need to tell me what percentage of the concrete was pulverized down to what size in order to work out what force it takes.

But yet again, the energy required to pulverize concrete in an impact crusher has nothing to do with the gravitational potential energy of a block of concrete 1300 feet above ground.

And you have still yet to say what all the concrete being pulverized actually proves or disproves

Because i know you have no idea of how much concrete was pulverized.

I will ask you one more time, how much of that concrete was pulverized?

 

Shockwaves down the elevator shafts. The explosions he was ralkung about, the destruction of the lobby. Theres nothing really surprising.

The energy density of 10000 gallons of aviation fuel works out to about 0.4 kilotons on complete ingnition

Little boy dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons.

So 1/40 the force of Hiroshima.

The compression wave coming down that elevator shaft would NOT have been a little sneeze.

Just because there arent any videos of that or most people dont really get the force involved....doesnt mean there were like CIA planted grenades in the basement or whatever

 

The energy required to pulverize concrete has everything to do with the potential energy available from the upper block of the Tower. And I've provided you with many on-scene, eyewitness accounts of what was left of the contents of the Tower--including the concrete. You don't want to accept that, but unless you can produce something contrary to those accounts, then you're just blowing hot air in the hopes that it will turn into something more than hot air. So, what have you got?

And you apparently have no idea what it means that, from the moment the upper block begins its descent, it falls through the intact core structure below as if it wasn't there. You seem to not understand that when a moving body collides with a body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed down, and the stationary body is moved. In your world, the stationary body is moved, but the moving body is NOT slowed down. Do you understand what you are proposing? I don't think so.

Anyway, here is an excerpt from another analysis of the dynamics of the collapse of the North Tower:

A considerable amount of energy would be required to pulverise the concrete into the fine dust which was evident from the photographic and other evidence. To quantify this energy it is necessary to use the fracture energy value, but this has a variable value dependent on, among other factors, the size of the concrete piece, and its constituents, most notably, aggregate size. There is no typical value. In order to assess the energy consumed I will refer to the work of Dr. Frank Greening [2]. It should be noted that Dr. Greening, like Dr. Bazant, does not, as yet, support the contention that the tower collapse was caused by anything other than the damage caused by aircraft impact and subsequent and consequent fires.

An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of velocity, equal to the velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favour of collapse continuation.
This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.

This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrel plates or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.

Momentum Transfer in WTC1

 

What do you mean "shockwaves down the elevator shafts?" What does that have to do with the lobby or basement levels?

And you didn't look into exactly how much jet fuel made it into the impact floors, did you? According to the NIST, there were 6,947 gallons of fuel after the initial fireball. Of that 6,947 gallons of fuel, 3,474 gallons remained on the impact floor, while an equal number of gallons flowed away. So your 10,000 gallons claim was an uninformed assumption.

Here is something that shows what NIST had to say about the amount of fuel that actually ignited.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/VisualizationAidsWTCTowers.pdf

You can also scroll down to the bottom of that page to see a visual comparison of the Tower and the volume of jet fuel that we're talking about.

 

America is really just one big conspiracy isn't it? I Recently read an American history book, it wasn't ultra informative like just a few pages of history about certain subjects and all I got out of it was, no matter what they've achieved or have had happen to them, it's a conspiracy and nobody know the truth.

 

Answer the bloody question, how much of that 90000 tons were pulverized?

 

Also, concrete explodes from heat. So, plane fuel, fire, intense heat. Concrete gonna explode.

 

Ok, a third of it in the initial explosion, so 1/120 the power of Hiroshima, still huge.

And the rest split where? Onto the top of wtc 7 amongst other places, and down the buildings structure.

So now you are supporting the towers going diown because of the jetliners

 

Speaking of conspiracies, it’s generally believed that the hierarchy in the German government and wealthy German elite are all secret members of the Thule Society

 

Nothing would surprise me man, my country has always been shrouded in mysticism. I believe Addy was really into the occult etc.

Have you ever heard of the The Nazi Bell?