1) What weapon was used according to the Official Theory to make 22 ton steel beams fly sideways 175 m into the American Express building?
2) What weapon was used for the same purpose according to the Loose Change Website community?

1) Unanswered.... The investigation stops at the moment of collapse.
They were not tasked investigate further than the initiation of the collapse.

2) Explosives is the popular answer, but not the only one.

OK, thanks.

Makes one think what the unpopular answers would be :-)

When you say sideways, do you mean they moved parallel to the ground? Why is it hard to believe they may have moved downwards at an angle into the adjacent buildings?

Ranb

I believe gravity only works downwards, and never sideways (horizontal). Anyhow, that's the way things work over here in Europe...

A collapsing tower can push things out to the side. So it is reasonable that heavy objects can be propelled to the side and into other buildings.

Ranb

Because they weigh 22 tons and gravity would pull them downwards, not sideways over 500 feet. Since this happened in a 360' circle around the Towers,
explosives would be the likely sideways propulsion method; not gravity. Many heavy structural steel beams were blown out of the Towers in all directions.

Mass has no bearing on gravity, only the amount of energy required to accelerate it. The falling of the upper section released easily enough kinetic energy for all the fragments combined and I did the math on a few of them at one point to check it out. The outer walls pivoted outwards and as such the debris was consistent in a 360 degree circle, the heaviest amounts of debris were confined to sections radiating from the four sides of the tower.

Explosives do not provide nearly enough energy to move that amount of steel, they detonate extremely quickly in order to destroy steel and the only effect felt further away is a shockwave with only limited power. I can do the maths for you if you choose a section of steel and give me it's mass, originating location on the towers and how far it traveled laterally.

Try a little experiment - hold a knife at 45° above the edge of a table, and drop it. It bounces sideways somewhat.

The angle of impact has imparted a sideways component into its trajectory. After that it's just maths.

There are examples in which a bomb eject a car 100 meters away, but back to the wtc discussion.

I once did a calculation, had to check the physorg archives to find it back about it, here is the copy& pasted post:

ps. the red line is the required speed (all in unit in m/s) and the green is roughly the collapse speed as function of the floor k the collapse front has reached.

-------------------------------------
The famous beam ejected in wfc3, I estimated roughly 160 meter from the corner of wtc1 and on a hight of 75 meter from the ground. If we plot the horizontal speed required for that as function of the floor we get



This means if it originates from the impact zone, about floor 96 then it would have a speed about 20 m/s which is more than the demolition wave and it needs more
speed when it origines from a lower floor, of course when we go lower and lower it goes asymptotically to infinity. The picture shows that the beam originates from
the zone 13-52 stories under the collapse zone but also that the speed is almost the collapse speed.

i'm wondering if there is a relation between the speed of ejected material as the result of released strain energy and the speed of the collapse zone. For a spring it doesn't matter of course how fast you press it. if the E1's become higher to the bottom then there might be more energy released. I think it is still something that is only a fact without an explanation that is satisfactory.

FALSE Gravitational force is directly related to mass.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm
Each particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

You played with some formulas and numbers. Show us your peer reviewed paper and then we'll decide whether you have any idea what's involved in "doing the math".

So you are suggesting this slow partial pivot which was more noticeable in WTC 2 (South Tower) than in WTC 1 (North Tower), actually generated spin? Spin with sufficient force to toss multi-ton steel hundreds of feet laterally?

Explosives provide energy based on the type of explosive used, the concentration of explosive, where the explosive was planted and what building characteristics might have been available to help focus the released energy. With no knowledge of these details, but typically well armed with your OCT assumptions e^n, you assume insufficient energy. You have no education or experience to make such a claim and base your conclusions on assumptions you've made from browsing through Wikipedia and other generic academic sources.

Ah yes you can always do the maths. Case closed, e^n can do the maths. We can't argue with math now can we? Well there's doing maths and then there's doing the correct maths. Why would anyone place value in the speculative or borrowed calculations of an armchair, under qualified OCT propagandist such as yourself?

MM

Oh MM, of course gravity is directly related to mass, my point was of course that mass has no bearing on acceleration due to gravity as the ratio between the masses is so huge. Take for example a 22 ton block of steel, this is 2.2*10^4 kg (possibly using the wrong form of ton here). By contrast the mass of the earth is approximately 6*10^24 kg, the ratio between masses is on the order of 1:1000000000000000000000000.

Yes of course the steel section will fall marginally faster thanks to its increased mass, but it will be an absolute tiny tiny tiny amount and anyone with even the most marginal knowledge of Newton understands this. Why don't you ask einsteen?

I have neither the qualifications nor the expertise to publish in a respected journal which is why I publish my calculations whenever I perform them. If my methadology is flawed I am more than happy to correct it but you miss the point of peer review, actual review. Nobody has yet corrected my calculations and indeed the only response is attempted ridicule. If you feel I am incorrect please show me how!

I don't understand your question, I am suggesting that the pivot action of external walls as the collapse progresses provides ample opportunity for transferring energy in a direction other than 'straight down'. I am not suggesting it's certainly the culprit but it is observed in the collapses.

I won't do the calculations here (it's easy enough, mass of 22 tons and speed of 20m/s) but you can tell exactly how much energy would have to be input. The resulting masses of explosives required are unfeasible, especially considering this is supposed to be a secret controlled demolition!

How funny, scientists all use maths too but they manage to disagree with each other? Could it be that calculations can be shown to be incorrect?! I understand that you believe reality is a matter of opinion MM but this doesn't change the fact that if we know the mass and velocity of an object we can determine its Kinetic Energy to as accurate as the measurements of m and v. Again if you don't believe me ask einsteen about this. He seems to have had enough education to know more than me about engineering/physics.

Nothing secret or much "control" about it.

I don't know what the mass of the beam is but if it is really 22 tons
then the ejection energy was at least 4.4MJ

Mm, (I see e^n posted already had a coffee break and my mail is still there)

although I normally agree with you in most cases I think there is some confusion with the Gravitational force.

Gravitational force is linearly dependent on the mass which means that if something got two times more mass
the force doubles, also if the mass of the earth doubles the force doubles, that formula is very simple

F=GmM/r^2

with m the mass of the object and M the mass of the earth, G the famous constant and r the distance between
the point masses or centre of mass (it can be derived that that is the same)

Now there is also inertial mass that means that if something got two times more mass it is harder to accelerate it, i.e.
acceleration=F/m, if we use that in the above formula we see that the m cancels out, i.e.

a=GM/r^2

If you fill in the known values of G, the mass of the earth M and r as the radius of the earth you will find that

a=g is independent of the mass.

Since everything on earth is near r that means that if you vary r with a small h the ratio h/r is near zero, i.e.
the field g is homogenous on the surface of the earth.

Your point was to make a statement without bothering to explain it in a way that made it true.
It was a false statement and I called you on it.

In other words you publish your 'numbers tinkering' wherever you can, knowing they won't satisfy peer review because you are totally unqualified to make 'said calculations.'

My question was plain and straight forward. You are grasping for explanations to save your OCT belief. You can't explain those massive steel lateral ejections so you exaggerate the the extent of the non-downward forces. The towers collapse based on the NIST OCT hypothesis was based on gravity acting on a structure compromised by aircraft impact and fire. There was nothing in the NIST hypothesis or observed reality to even remotely suggest lateral acceleration forces that would toss multi-ton steel columns hundreds of feet laterally.

Controlled demolition theories definitely support those observed lateral ejections of multi-ton steel columns projected hundreds of feet.

You are totally avoiding the statement e^n. You won't do the calculations because you can't do the calculations! What qualifies you to state what concentration of explosives was unfeasible? What qualifies you to know what type of explosives were used? You grab 2 numbers, 22 tons and 20m/s and assume they apply to what occurred, regardless of where the explosives were placed and ignoring the fact steel of lesser and much greater weights was tossed laterally over a variety of distances. Try hundreds of tons.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1807467434260776490

The operative word is scientist! You manage a computer network.

At least they have the credentials to offer calculations worthy of examination.

No I believe reality can be subject to different interpretation. I believe you have to be very careful and very knowledgeable about the subject field when using calculations to prove an argument. You've never had much concern about your lack of knowledge, education or experience, when bolstering your arguments with homegrown calculations. I don't dispute the validity of the formulas you play with any more than I would deny the existence of other tools like hammers and saws. What I challenge is your arrogant belief that you have mastered the use of the tools which you base all your calculations on! You even have the gall to ridicule papers by people like Dr. Steven Jones who has all the credibility you lack in the extreme.

At least I respect Einsteen.

MM

No need for the lecture Einsteen.

My point was that contrary to e^n's simplistic statement, mass and gravity do have a relationship and I sourced that explanation.

MM

Gentlemen, my question is what kind of weapon / explosives threw these beams 175 m horizontally. Any suggestions what type of thing could do this?

I'm going with compressed air mixed with thick dust acting as a fluid, so far.

if we said we knew which explosive compound was used, we'd be lying. we haven't had access to the physical evidence, so we just don't know.

but we know that an explosive device must have caused it. there is insufficient energy in the towers to explain the total collapse, the pulverization of concrete, AND the lateral ejection of matter.

The pulverization of concrete alone provides energy problems, absent some external force (placed internally).

There are of course more radical theories like beams from orbital weapons. But we don't really entertain those ideas very seriously. Sure, exotic weapons probably exist, but there is no reason to believe they were used on 9/11.

look-up is quite correct.

We don't know.

If we had these and all the other missing answers, the world would be a much different place today.

Sure we can speculate, but going beyond reviewing the observables and examining the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, all of which highly supports the use of sort of explosives, we have nothing to gain from making up answers.

I will say this though. We know the military industrial establishment invests huge amounts of money into the research and development of weapons of mass destruction. Is it too unlikely that there have been advances in the technology of advanced explosives that are top secret, and therefore not public knowledge?

A proper investigation will hopefully answer these questions.

MM

MM, yeah sorry about that I understand that I sound like a school teacher and can understand that is very annoying...

The physorg'ers (leagues above the JREF clowns and much more polite and qualified) always mention that the floors simply funnel or wedge into the two tube structure and that the perimeter columns are simply pressed away, I have some big problems with that idea also because of the fact that it is generally accepted that the top block falls as a kind of solid thing, there are perimeter and core columns that become tangled. The energy to detach/compress/whatever a story required is believed to be about 400 MJ.

Now think a little bit, which floors do funnel ? One theory is that the block drops one story and initiates a funneling of the floor below and so on and the top block simply follows that, I don't believe a word of it. And since the NIST only investigated collapse initiation, i.e. they seem to prove that the initial movement is caused by structural failure and not by devices in the core columns it is always a yes-no discussion. At the JREF they always mention that the collapse is a process that took 20 minutes, i.e. initiation is caused when the perimeter columns at one side couldn't handle the static load. I've seen some pictures that show a strange effect, it is a little bit the chicken and egg story. The theory says that it is not something that happens at the other side (an opposite effect related with toppling). I guess the NIST report labyrinth will provide more info, but if something like that cannot be explained in a simple consistent animation I have my doubts and I have to think about an old teacher who once said: if you have nothing to tell, intimidate them with quantity as much as possible, nobody will check it...

Also I've seen one movie, but that shows the effect only a few seconds before the collapse. I really would like to see that process taking place 20 minutes. The NIST seems to have it, why don't we see it ?

ps. as far as I know there are no papers that explain the ejection of material precisely

And you don't even understand why you're "wrong" even after Einsteen and e^n point it out?

Elsewhere on this forum I've stated that the sun's rays are parallel when they strike the earth. This is technically untrue - there's an extremely minute fraction of a degree away from absolutely parallel, but it's so insignificant we don't need to consider it. Indeed, a photographer treats a distant mountain as at "infinite" distance, because the difference in angles make no difference to the lens. So much more so with the Sun at 93m miles distance.

Similarly with gravity. Bodies in a vacuum will fall at the "same" rate, as far as human science needs to measure.

This has been explained to you very clearly.

I sometimes wonder if you are wilfully ignorant, miragememories.

Please explain - with sources if possible - the pulverisation of concrete theory.

No it was just above your head, as gwb points out it's normal to ignore things which have only minute sometimes immeasurable bearing on calculations, in the case of gravity accelerating a small body we can ignore the mass of the body.

Tell me, you claim to have studied as an engineer but are you expecting me to believe that not once in these classes did you calculate acceleration due to gravity? If so did you use 9.81m/s/s or did you derive the acceleration of the two bodies from their relative masses?

Qualification has no bearing on peer review, I have never seen a review of a paper stating simply 'the paper writer is not qualified enough'. Rather the fact that I cannot phrase my opinions scientifically enough or have any confidence in having addressed everything relevant. I publish my 'numbers tinkering' here because that way if I have made a mistake someone can correct me. So far you have yet to do so.

So with no calculation nor understanding of how gravity or explosives work you feel you can claim this, yet when einsteen shows that the required velocity for ejection is reached relatively early on in the collapse it couldn't possibly support anything could it? Your bias is showing again MM.

Actually I can, I simply wanted to make things brief, accelerating a fixed mass object is not that hard an equation, indeed it's F=ma.

Firstly, I don't know what type of explosives were used but we can assume that they were high explosives, high explosives by definition detonate at faster than the speed of sound and the energy they release while doing so is not inconsequential but it is relatively low compared to the KE available in the 'upper block'.

I tell you what MM, you find the most powerful explosive you can and tell me exactly how much energy it releases, we'll assume that 100% of that energy is passed directly into a block of steel and we can calculate the theoretical maximum acceleration. How about that?

Don't give me this MM. For a start, you are not a scientist. According to you you are an editor, giving you absolutely no experience in even basic logical systems, while I may by a sysadmin by trade I have also taken physics courses and read heavily. Not only R.Mackey, a NASA scientist or Newtons Bit a structural engineer are qualified enough for you to consider their opinions worthwhile so in claiming I havent' the qualifications to comment you exclude yourself with prejudice.

The fact you cannot see the fallacy in demanding qualifications and then refusing to believe those with qualifications is telling.

Tell me, if Dr Jones has such credibility

• What elements are added to thermite to create 'thermate'?
  
• Why was Ryan fired from EHL?

Jones knows the answers to both of these questions but has deliberately lied about them. Not the mark of a credible scientist, neither is creating your own journal in order to bypass peer review.

Perhaps you should listen to him as he agrees with me regarding gravity.

I'm not sure how true this is. I did mention to Dr Greening specifically that there had been some criticisms of crush down/crush up and whether he really believed that during collapse a 'protected upper section' would exist. He stated that there was almost certainly elements of 'crush up' throughout the collapse and his model was for simplicity. Still I don't fully understand what your problem is? Is it that you don't see how an intact upper block could work as a piston forcing debris out 360 degrees? I have much more time for any argument you may care to put forward than I do for MM :)

???

There is an equation that maps out the gravitational field the earth. At the time I read about it they measured over 30000 parameters in that equation. If you need precision I doubt it would be helpful to assume the earth is a point-particle (ie. only using their position and mass)

e^n, what is the official explanation what happened to the core? Where did it go? There is one video by Gordon Ross that shows half the core about 60 stories high standing for a brief moment after the floors had all collapsed, but it then disintegrated. No energy source was left to pull this core straight down. Even if the core was weakened near the base, it would have tipped over, not simply disappeared straight down. Can you explain what happened? If you need the video segment, I can look it up for you.

I don't understand your point, I don't know of any equation to determine the gravitational variation but that is besides the point. I was simply stating that the mass of the steel section is irrelevant as it is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of the earth. We're not after precision to that extent otherwise I would expect funding! :)

edit:

Hey, there is no 'official explanation' as such, but your statement is certainly not correct that 'it would have tipped over'. In order for it to tip over sideways the lower sections have to be able to resist the lateral load applied in order to function as a fulcrum. The core didn't have this functionality but I wouldn't be able to give you the relevant equations. I would recommend you post this at JREF and ask one of the engineers there to give you rough figures.

e^n: Let me rephrase and say that I would expect the core to tip over versus falling straight down (i.e. path of least resistance) if in fact the base was damaged.

I don't do JREF. The last time I posted a question there, they responded with stupid comments and I've never gone back.

Just curious, are you open to the possibility the buildings were rigged in any way? It's possible Al Queda had the financial resources to buy off security, or infiltrate that ACE elevator company to rig it. Money can make anything happen. I'm trying to understand the resistance to believe that explosives may have been used to help bring the buildings down. Why is that such a voodoo topic? Are you genuinely in search of the truth or are you just trying to make the OCT pieces fit together?

If it was Al Queda dont you think the Goverment would have figured that out after 6 1/2 years and told the public? So far they ignore the CD theroy and ridicule it.

It's not a question of the 'path of least resistance', it is a question of how much lateral force the columns at the base of the core could resist elastically. Once this is exceeded the entire core structure is going to start progressing downwards. You can see this in the video (I believe) because you see the core sway a little before giving way, although of course this can be taken either way.

Well that's your choice, there are several engineers there who could explain this much better than I possibly could, I believe I understand the principles quite well but actual calculation is too complex for me to be sure I am correct.

It's entirely possible Al Qaeda did have the resources to have bombs planted in the buildings, my problem with this is that there's very little evidence for it. If there were explosives involved in the collapse I prefer to consider this separately from who planted them.

I don't think it's a voodoo subject, it's just that a lot of the time people will demand evidence which is impossible or just assume they are correct based on manipulated or misquoted evidence. I am genuinely in search of the truth and have no support whatsoever for the Bush administration. I couldn't care less about whether their story is straight and frankly LIHOP/LIHOI is relatively plausible.

Once you learn to read and understand the context of a response gwb_223, you might not be so quick to pass judgment on what you see.

e^n has a bad habit of making thoughtless absolute statements and I made it quite clear that I was simply correcting him on that one statement in particular. He should have qualified his statement but he didn't.

The force of gravity is dependent on and directly proportional to mass. If you wish to challenge me on that point, give it your best shot!

Just because I chose to not address the rest of his post does not mean that I failed to understand it.

Willful ignorance is a specialty of OCT believers like yourself gwb_223, and I know better than to compete with your expertise in that mode of behavior.

No better example comes to mind of OCT willful ignorance, than the constant denial that controlled demolition best explains the collapse of WTC 7.

MM

Of course that material was well covered in my 1st year engineering Dynamics course. As a footnote, I couldn't care less whether you believe I studied engineering in college. Unlike you, I don't claim sufficient knowledge of the essential physical details, required to argue the collapse nature of WTC 1, 2 & 7 using homespun calculations. Just because you use proven formulas, does not mean you are using them validly or with sufficiently accurate data. You use your conjured up calculations like a crutch to support your OCT arguments for dynamic events at an academic level that you really don't understand since you never studied or majored in the related engineering disciplines.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see you in a medical forum arguing surgical technique and dosage calculations. You should see the movie THE GREAT IMPOSTOR sometime as you certainly appear to draw inspiration from it.

I doubt that in the 22 years you've lived on this planet, you've read that many peer-reviewed papers, and I highly question the validity of your opinion regarding the acceptability criteria that is applied. I suggest you submit one of your papers to the proper academic authorities and see how eager they are to spend time evaluating your many calculations. Let me know how that works out. I look forward to reading your stuff in Scientific American, or maybe you were thinking Popular Mechanics?

"Cannot" I think is the operative word.

If valid formulas are used in proper context and with accurate data, then the results should be usable in your argument.

If valid formulas are used in improper context, or inaccurate data is used, then the results would be worthless to your argument. You base your data on a lot of assumptions and NIST does the same. It's of interest that NIST, with all it's resources and experts at hand, avoid the temptation you cannot resist in calculating items like steel ejections, even though you imply there is ample basis for easily and accurately calculating such things.

And your explanations are non-existent e^n. You lamely argue this, quote e^n "I am suggesting that the pivot action of external walls as the collapse progresses provides ample opportunity for transferring energy in a direction other than 'straight down'.

In other words, you are arguing that the towers 'twisted' rapidly enough to fling steel columns, in some cases estimated to weigh as much as a few hundred tons, hundreds of feet laterally?

You make that collapse sound like some kind of 'merry-go-round'.

Stating a formula out of a text book or extracted from Google is easy. Applying the correct formulas with the correct data is the issue. My original statement was; "Explosives provide energy based on the type of explosive used, the concentration of explosive, where the explosive was planted and what building characteristics might have been available to help focus the released energy. With no knowledge of these details, but typically well armed with your OCT assumptions e^n, you assume insufficient energy."

Since when was brevity a concern of yours accept when you were short on a suitable response?
As in most threads where I've responded to you, you reach a point where you stop replying and move onto a fresh sandbox. I raise aspects of the problem that you refuse to consider. Your whole defense lies in attempting to explain everything with your unproven calculations or quoting OCT sources like NIST.

Let's talk about that upper block since you place so much importance on it's potential energy converted to kinetic energy. OCTers like tossing KE (Kinetic Energy) calculations around as proof that the collapse can be explained by impact and fire damage.

What they fail to do in any effective manner, is prove that the potential kinetic energy in the block (the group of intact floors above the impact zones) is ever developed and focused in a manner that would cause the lower intact floors to be overcome in an irresistible cascading collapse. I've talked about this subject a lot in older threads here. In the North Tower, WTC1, we see the multi-ton rooftop antenna drop before full collapse initiation. Gordon Ross has nicely illustrated with video stills how the WTC1 upper block was actually collapsing prior to the collapse initiation at the original impact zone. In other words, that block had lost significant mass and rigidity prior to the collapse initiation at the impact zone. At the impact zone, we are expected to believe the Bazant hypothesis which is what NIST supports and so do you e^n, that the 'intact' block dropped at virtual freefall speed across the height of a complete floor. Bazant expects us to believe that all the major structural columns simultaneously lost total supporting integrity to allow this to be possible and thus give his calculations sufficient data strength to prove sufficient kinetic energy to initiate a progressive collapse. Since e^n accepts a similar impact and fire possibility for the far less plausible OCT WTC7 natural collapse hypothesis, it's no surprise that he agrees with this explanation for WTC 1 & 2.

Again you selectively ignore my major points on that subject and try maneuver your response to a matter of mathematical calculations. This is not a laboratory experiment.

As I said, "Explosives provide energy based on the type of explosive used, the concentration of explosive, where the explosive was planted and what building characteristics might have been available to help focus the released energy." We need to answer these questions in order to have any hope of accurately calculating the effects on the building.

The difference e^n, and it's a significant difference, is that I don't claim the ability to perform accurate, relevant calculations outside of my profession. Unlike you, I'm not satisfied that the college level engineering and physics courses I took are sufficient to challenge the calculations of of those who have far greater credentials than myself. Dr. Steven Jones has a PhD in Physics and has taught at university for a number of years, but in other threads (JREF), you have arrogantly dismissed him and claimed to have thoroughly debunked his work while slandering and mocking him in the process.

I have had lengthy discussions with both Newton's Bit and R.Mackey and they are far from the golden boys you make them out to be. I don't intend to get derailed dredging up all those past exchanges, so if readers prefer your version of the truth, so be it.

That's your best attack? You do love calling people liars. That's a bad habit you picked up while polishing boots in JREF. Anyone who wants to know Ryan's story can read it online or in a number of books that include his story. He's been very open about it. It amazes me that you act like Dr. Jones was supposed to be acting as Ryan's official biographer.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
I suggest you read from the above site.
If you are going to state Dr. Jones is a liar now about his knowledge of thermate, I suggest you source your evidence that he knowingly misstated the truth!

Perhaps you should worry less about post count and more about the accuracy of your statements.
I accurately challenged your foolish opening statement; to requote you e^n, "Mass has no bearing on gravity.." Since gravity is a product of mass, I couldn't let that ridiculous statement pass regardless of how accurate your following statements may have been.

MM

Indeed. But he's clearly talking about the mass of the falling object. The mass of the earth is a constant in these calculations.

But anybody with even a slim grasp of the subject would realise he only becomes technically "wrong" - in absolute terms - at some very distant significant figure. In terms of any useful calculation this doesn't even warrant being classed as "wrong".

I could count the hairs on my dog, get it wrong by one, and it would be a much much bigger error, proportionately. Do you understand that?

But, credit where credit's due. You finally got something right, albeit in an esoteric and totally irrelevant way. Bravo!

When someone like e^n makes a scientific statement that is patently false, it certainly casts doubt on how much care he puts into his use of scientifically derived formulae and all the data assumptions he fuels them with.

e^n became wrong as soon as he wrote the words "Mass has no bearing on gravity..". From there he proceeded to make a number of statements which were for the most part statements of fact that were solely based on opinion.

For example; e^n stated; "The falling of the upper section released easily enough kinetic energy for all the fragments combined"

That statement makes one huge assumption. He's assuming the nature of the upper section's descent was rapid enough to release sufficient kinetic energy to satisfy his opinion about the effect on all the combined fragments.

He then states; "and I did the math on a few of them at one point to check it out."

Well that's all very well and nice but again e^n is basing his math on his assumptions. If his assumptions are wrong so will be his math. No matter how great his formulas and equations are.

e^n continues with the statement; "The outer walls pivoted outwards and as such the debris was consistent in a 360 degree circle, the heaviest amounts of debris were confined to sections radiating from the four sides of the tower." In a later post e^n expands on that statement; "I am suggesting that the pivot action of external walls as the collapse progresses provides ample opportunity for transferring energy in a direction other than 'straight down'. I am not suggesting it's certainly the culprit but it is observed in the collapses."

They pivoted. In other words there was some partial rotation. Somehow this partial rotation was justification for his believe that instead of dropping downward, large multi-ton columns, some estimated to weigh hundreds of tons, were now thrown laterally, in some cases over 600 feet.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1807467434260776490

e^n wants us to believe those towers did more than a partial twist at the top section. He wants us to believe they spun like 'merry-go-rounds' doing everything but cork screwing into the basement.

I saw an erupting progressive collapse. I never saw a significantly rotating collapsing mass.

From there, e^n continues his lecture by displaying his expertise in explosives. He has decided that, I quote e^n; "Explosives do not provide nearly enough energy to move that amount of steel, they detonate extremely quickly in order to destroy steel and the only effect felt further away is a shockwave with only limited power."

Another statement of fact with not an ounce of sourcing to back it up. Professor e^n has stated it, so it must be so.

He totally ignores;

Type of explosives.
Concentration of explosives.
Placement of explosives.
Location effects on detonated explosives.

To finish his post, in his typical, arrogant, pompous fashion, e^n states; "I can do the maths for you if you choose a section of steel and give me it's mass, originating location on the towers and how far it traveled laterally."

Amazing. Pick any section of steel, of any mass, choose any original location and provide the distance it travelled and e^n will do the math for you.

Well of course with known mass, and known distance of travel, it's no challenge to determine how much energy was required to do the work. The issue is where did the energy come from. e^n goes back to assumptions about the initial collapse mechanism combined with his spinning tower while claiming his expertise in explosive technology makes it impossible for that method to provide an explanation.

He's an OCT illusionist using claims of peer reviewable calculations to mesmerize his readers into thinking his arguments are uncontestable.

Personally, I'm more interested in the science and less concerned about the ever changing math proofs that seem to be the obsession of OCT believers.

MM

I can see this is going to be another long topic but as always I am game.

No it was not MM, it was a little more ambiguous than I would have liked given your response but that doesn't change the fact that it is correct as I will illustrate.

That's odd because it was covered in my high school physics courses but hey I guess education must be different over there.

I never claim sufficient knowledge of any complex failure method, indeed earlier in this thread you see me referring someone to JREF to ask a structural engineer as even approximations are beyond me. Indeed I have so far calculated the following:

• Kinetic energy of a projectile two or three times
  
  
• Surface area of a truss structure
  

What you somehow seem to misunderstand is that I only ever profess to be able to provide calculations when there are only one or two variables involved in very simple situations. I would for example not claim to be able to calculate the bending moment caused by increasing the weight on a truss structure. However Newtons Bit can, not only did he study engineering he is qualified in it. However you seem to be more than happy to completely ignore what he is telling you because you personally don't think what he is saying is correct. You have performed no calculations of your own to disprove his, you simply state 'he believes in X which i find to be impossible therefore i dismiss his professional opinion for my amateur opinon'.

Indeed this is not the only time this has happened! From some trivial research it seems that R. Mackey spent a fair period over at JREF arguing with you and you exhibited exactly the same behavior there, denial of anything which did not support you based on a faulty premise (That you are more fit to judge what is plausible in engineering terms).

You clearly have no interest in legitimate debate as three people including me so far have shown you why you are wrong yet you persist in this arrogant shouting match where you take the physical explanation for gravity and act as if it was relevant to calculations relating to acceleration due to gravity. I will elaborate on einsteen's post below in order to show you exactly why you need to stop making this ludicrous claim.

I'm 23 now actually but that aside, this is just an elaborate 'YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH'. I have read plenty of peer reviewed papers MM and as I said before, I have nothing interesting to contribute to the scientific debate regarding 9/11. Anything I would put forward is either irrelevant, accepted or already been said.

Yes, this is true but a scientific paper contains more than a list of data, a list of formulas and the resulting values. The parlance used in such papers is beyond me due to my lack of training in the relevant subject. I don't see why you are elaborating on this because I have already stated I am not qualified or experienced enough to submit a paper to any popular engineering journal.

MM I must ask are you joking here? Do you really mean to say that you understand 'pivot action' to mean a rotation around the central vertical axis of the upper section?

No, please tell me you don't mean this!

Oh dear it's true.

MM I apologise! I was using 'pivot action' as a synonym for 'fulcrum'. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion however I suspect it is more a case of you trying to play devil's advocate. Regardless this is not what I am implying in any way whatsoever and I can't imagine how you got this idea.

Oh MM, you do believe that you have the authority to challenge those with experience and qualifications! I have never claimed to be able to 'out-calculate' Dr Jones when it comes to his physics calculations but I don't see that many in any of his papers. I challenge him when it comes to simple facts, for example he claims that Kevin Ryan was fired from EHL for publicly disclosing NIST fire tests of trusses, wheras in reality Kevin Ryan was fired for falsely claiming UL tested individual steel elements instead of those with fireproofing applied. This is not a matter of scientific calculation, it's a matter of simple fact checking.

Regardless you have challenged the calculations of Bazant, Newtons Bit, Greening, R. Mackey amongst others.

What is Barium Nitrate?

Lets just remember my initial statement again

Now I admit that this was a foolish statement with MM around, what I should have said was 'Mass has no bearing on the rate of acceleration due to gravity'. However anyone with even the tiniest bit of physics training would have understood my point and indeed einsteen and gwb clearly did. Let me elaborate further however, the formula for the acceleration of two point masses is
F=G mM/r²
We already know force is F=ma so we can substitute it in to end up with
a=G m+M/r²
Even if we weren't only interested in one part of this equation (ie how much gravity accelerates the steel towards the earth) we can see that the difference in scale between m and M is 1:10²⁰. From this alone you should realise what I am saying.

I cannot honestly work out your motivation MM, you seem only interested in playing Devil's Advocate and I have yet to see you propose a single theory of your own, simply trying to ridicule others quite ineffectually. Ah well, if you respond with anything relevant I will be more than happy to address it.

edit: ooh quickly

Do you know why I ignore these things MM? Because I would have assumed 100% efficiency in all aspects of them, we can see whether all of the released energy from explosives being converted into kinetic energy would be enough, I strongly doubt it would not and obviously no explosive even approaches 100% efficiency.

Let's consider the energetics of concrete pulverization by explosive blast...

I will base this discussion on a number of reports that provide useful experimental data on blast fragmentation of concrete or similar brittle materials:

V. M. Kuznetsov. “The Mean Diameter of the Fragments Formed by Blasting Rock.” Soviet Mining Science Vol. 9(2), 144, (1973).

A. Rustan. “The Influence of Specific Charge, Geometric Scale and Physical Properties of Homogenous Rock on Fragmentation.” Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, page 114, (1983).

B. M. Luccioni et al. “Concrete Pavement Slab Under Blast Loads.” International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 32, 1248, (2006).

These papers show that explosive blast is not a particularly effective means of pulverizing concrete especially if the explosive charges are not in direct contact with the target. Thus, for example, spherical charges of 10 kg TNT-equivalent placed 0.5 m above a 3 m x 1.5 m area, 15 centimeter thick concrete slab produce a post-detonation crushed zone only about 30 cm in diameter. It is for this reason that mining and quarrying operations always use explosive charges placed into drilled boreholes to achieve maximum fragmentation.

A. Rustan, (see reference list above), using 1.2 m x 1.2 m area, 10 cm thick concrete blocks, showed that a specific charge (mass of explosive/volume of material fragmented) of about 20 kg/m3 is required to reduce concrete to an average mesh size of 1 mm. Since the detonation of a 1 kg charge of TNT within a brittle material such as concrete releases about 4 MJ of chemical energy, Rustan’s data indicates that only about 1 % of the available energy is directly utilized in fragmentation. This should be compared to the impact-induced fragmentation of concrete where the energy utilization efficiency is over 10 %. It follows that, without the help of gravitational collapse, the degree of pulverization observed during the collapse of WTC 1 would have required over 600 tonnes of high explosive pre-placed in hundreds of boreholes in the concrete.

It follows that, without the help of gravitational collapse, the degree of pulverization observed during the collapse of WTC 1 would have required over 600 tonnes of high explosive pre-placed in hundreds of boreholes in the concrete.

Reminds me of a physorg post from Neu-Fonze. Gravity is of course always very helpfull

If the core structure fell first in the North Tower as evidenced by the 353 ton antenna falling first, then the help from a gravitational collapse would be there wouldn't it, and the
600 tonnes of high explosives pre-placed in hundreds of boreholes in the concrete would be un-necessary, would it not? After all, the official reason for collapse did not require
600 tonnes of high explosives, did it? Everyone saw the 353 ton North Tower roof antenna fall first in the videos and the white smoke spewing out of the South Tower first floor
before that collapse. Of course many others have theorized a similar scenario. B)
The WTC Attack - Experienced demolitions expert

Goes without saying. You would lose too much face as an OCT propagandist if you backed down from an assault on your credibility.

W R O N G. Your ego just won't let you admit that in your eagerness to punch out another post you falsely stated a primary piece of science.

This was your complete sentence; quote e^n"Mass has no bearing on gravity, only the amount of energy required to accelerate it."

Later in this thread you finally acknowledge your mistake.

quote e^n"Now I admit that this was a foolish statement..., what I should have said was 'Mass has no bearing on the rate of acceleration due to gravity'.

Is this where I say "ouch"?

Where did I say high school physics coverage of the subject of Dynamics was the same as the college level engineering course in Dynamics? I could list quite a few subjects I studied in college that I also studied in high school. I assumed you realized that at the college level, course subjects sharing the same name as those taught in high school, were presented at a far more advanced and complex level?

Well I'm sorry if I misunderstood that in all your countless offers to calculate critical data results, you were merely referring to simple two variable calculations. A + B = C. Gee why not just tell the reader what 2 numbers to apply in your two-variable formulas and let them do that basic math rather than insulting them by offering to do the calculations yourself? For that matter, why go to the trouble of "blowing your own horn" by magnanimously offering to do calculations for readers, when, if they are so simple, you could just quickly do them and drop them into your posted reply?

I never asked you to, nor would I expect a non-engineer such as yourself to be comfortable with such a calculation.

I never ignore anyone unless there is no content in what they have to say.

Newton's Bit and I had a number of lengthy exchanges which you chose to sum up in a few words, claiming I ignore him merely because I don't "think he is correct".

My problem with Newton's Bit is that most of his argument was based on assumption. My confidence in his judgment was seriously undermined when he started making poorly thought out statements and seemed to be totally unaware of how ludicrous they were. It was like he was maybe thinking one thing but saying something completely different. I don't know, it baffled me that a structural engineer would post the things that he did and not proofread and make corrections afterwards.

The most telling example of this was his statement, that if as much as a single structural column failed in a non-government building, as a structural engineer, he would have a strong expectation that the building would collapse. Where as NIST at least felt compelled to support their collapse hypothesis with model arguments claiming multiple column failures, Newton's Bit was ready to casually accept collapse likelihood based more on a "nudge" than a "slap". I just felt he was 'losing it' and wondered if maybe he was retired and in his final years?

Regarding the opinions of other structural engineers, there are a significant number who stand in disagreement with Newton's Bit.

To name a few;

Dr. Michael Voschine, PhD., Structural Engineer, of Miami, Florida

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Architect & structural engineer Haluk Akol, of Lafayette, California

Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering
Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both emeritus professors in structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university

Unlike yourself, I refuse to argue about things in a manner that I don't feel I'm sufficiently qualified. My feeling is that arguing via calculations requires a very high level of expertise and credibility. Not only does the reader have to respect the author, they are also being asked to trust the data that was used in the calculations.

This has happened? What, that I am not so foolish as to play by ground rules set by others who rely on 'canned' 10,000 pages of NIST rhetoric to smother anyone who wanders into that morass?

R. Mackey and I had much lengthier exchanges over on JREF than I've had with Newton's Bit here in LC. It's easy for you to state here amongst those readers, who were not witnesses to those lengthy exchanges, that I behaved in a certain manner. I saved all those exchanges and can safely say they put the lie to your statement. I won't bore the readers with a rehash but if enough interest was expressed, I might start a new thread here based on those exchanges with R. Mackey. In my last post to him, I believe I provided several examples that proved he was lying. One amusing point in particular was his denial that a moderator had censured his remarks in a certain post to me and he accused me of lying about it. Unfortunately for him, I kept the original post and the moderators statement that proved him wrong. The long and the short of it though is, that arguing in JREF, and in particular, arguing with ground rules based on the 10,000 page NIST Bible, just bogs the debater down in a quagmire which appears was that report's intent.

I'm not shouting (see no CAPs). I don't think I'm arrogant but I know how writing style can be interpreted in ways not intended by the writer.

Legitimate debate is of great interest to me because as I've stated many times, those who are seeking 9/11 Truth and who believe 9/11 was an inside job, have to face the horror of that belief.

Your OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory) belief is much more to my liking. Why would I want to embrace the belief that Americans murdered 3,000+ Americans on 9/11 just to further a future NWO agenda? I want skeptics to convince me I'm wrong because your point of view is far more comfortable and soothing.

So my point is, I'm open to changing my mind and have great motivation for wanting to.

You on the other hand, have every reason to fear what I believe and all kinds of motivation to block out any argument that might cast doubt on your beliefs.

I stand corrected. You never told me your birth date so I couldn't send you a card.

Not at all. I will yell this out. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE AGE, GENDER, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR NATIONALITY OF ANYONE UNLESS IT IS NEGATIVELY BIASING THEIR BEHAVIOR. If I show age prejudice towards you e^n, it's because you show such little respect for experience and the wisdom that comes from it.

Yet you keep disgorging it all here anyway. Your mission is to propagandize for the OCT.

Ah the parlance (a particular way of speaking or using words).

In other words, you haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about because you only understand math and formulas.

That is a very dangerous position to be in and continue to argue your science-based point of view.

When I took engineering, my professors went to great lengths to make sure we understood how a formula was derived so that we knew how and where to use it properly. A scientific paper certainly goes well beyond listing data, formulas and mathematical results. It uses that information in conjunction with detailed observations and to bolster explanations and conclusions.

Well I'm sincerely sorry if I misunderstood you e^n but that was how I translated this statement of yours; to quote e^n ""The outer walls pivoted outwards and as such the debris was consistent in a 360 degree circle, the heaviest amounts of debris were confined to sections radiating from the four sides of the tower."

My dictionary reinforces my interpretation of usage by stating these definitions regarding the use of the word "pivot";

- the central point, pin, or shaft on which a mechanism turns or oscillates

- the sail pivots around the axis of a virtually static mast

- he swung around, pivoting on his heel

Sad, but apparently true. e^n is an english man that apparently has a poor grasp of his own language. Pity.

Well I guess I have to apologize for not being a mind reader. I did see, especially in the case of the South Tower (WTC2) it partially lean as if to topple just before collapse initiation. This observation was less evident with the North Tower (WTC1).

I do wish you would be clearer in your explanations. "pivoting", "outer walls pivoted" (there are 4 walls), "360 degree circle", "radiating from the four sides" and "transferring energy in a direction other than 'straight down' ".

Maybe it's my advanced age but I got the impression you were arguing 'rotation' and not just 'tilt'.

Well after 'calculations', don't we get into what you termed as 'parlance'. Didn't you say, again I quote e^n; "The parlance used in such papers is beyond me due to my lack of training in the relevant subject. I don't see why you are elaborating on this because I have already stated I am not qualified or experienced enough to submit a paper to any popular engineering journal"

As I already replied, Kevin Ryan has issued a full and clear explanation of what occurred and I see little significance in Dr. Jones's supposed misstatement. Maybe you might provide that source so we can see what he said and how terribly inaccurate it really was?

That story certainly isn't being kept a secret and therefore it makes little sense for Dr. Jones to make statements in opposition to the public record.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

WRONG.

I have challenged the basis for their calculations and the resulting conclusions they derive from the data assumptions they use to fuel their calculations.

This is what I said;

"Let's talk about that upper block since you place so much importance on it's potential energy converted to kinetic energy. OCTers like tossing KE (Kinetic Energy) calculations around as proof that the collapse can be explained by impact and fire damage.

What they fail to do in any effective manner, is prove that the potential kinetic energy in the block (the group of intact floors above the impact zones) is ever developed and focused in a manner that would cause the lower intact floors to be overcome in an irresistible cascading collapse. I've talked about this subject a lot in older threads here. In the North Tower, WTC1, we see the multi-ton rooftop antenna drop before full collapse initiation. Gordon Ross has nicely illustrated with video stills how the WTC1 upper block was actually collapsing prior to the collapse initiation at the original impact zone. In other words, that block had lost significant mass and rigidity prior to the collapse initiation at the impact zone. At the impact zone, we are expected to believe the Bazant hypothesis which is what NIST supports and so do you e^n, that the 'intact' block dropped at virtual freefall speed across the height of a complete floor. Bazant expects us to believe that all the major structural columns simultaneously lost total supporting integrity to allow this to be possible and thus give his calculations sufficient data strength to prove sufficient kinetic energy to initiate a progressive collapse. Since e^n accepts a similar impact and fire possibility for the far less plausible OCT WTC7 natural collapse hypothesis, it's no surprise that he agrees with this explanation for WTC 1 & 2."

Barium Nitrate is a highly water soluble crystalline Barium source for uses compatible with nitrates and lower (acidic) pH.

I consider every reader when I post, and not just gwb and einsteen.

I know you love to post formulas to impress readers and imply a superior grasp of the subject e^n but I'm not interested in your formulas. What I am interested in is the valid use of formulas based on accurate data. You lack the engineering background necessary to argue with any validity, that you are not erroneously using formulas, and you lack necessary expertise to judge the quality of the data that you insert into them.

Somethings can't be calculated with the use of two variables e^n.

I simply want a proper investigation into 9/11.

You on the other hand continue your relentless efforts to thwart such an investigation.

100% of what?

How can you assume or assign values to things you do not know?

You have no idea how much kinetic energy was potentially produced, or how the power of the explosives was influenced by there unknown locations in the building.

e^n, you think you have an acceptable answer for just about everything, even when you don't.

Apparently for you, doubt and uncertainty are signs of unforgivable weakness.

MM

Talking obsessively without answering the question, are we? What makes you so sure this is not an important question?