Remember the Maine?

[daleko]

Apr 23, 2018 21:10:27 GMT -5 daleko said:

Apr 23, 2018 19:14:58 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

But the "official" government story-- as we all know-- is that the WTC towers were NOT professionally demolished," right?

They, allegedly imploded after being hit by Boeing jetliners.

Hence, the importance of my question.

What pulverized all of those tons of WTC concrete?

The exact tonnage (requested by Cheese Burgher) is not the issue.

Well, now that we know you are a ploymath, pardon me while I genuflect, and an expert in all things, we can have a conversation. So, what would be the chemical bond energy that would have to occur to break all of those yards of concrete in that tube in tube constructed high rise? And as you said, the exact tonnage is not the issue.

Upon reflection never mind. You'll just deflect and post more BS. My cathexis in you has reached a no return point on the investment curve.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2018 22:14:49 GMT -5 daleko said:

Apr 23, 2018 21:10:27 GMT -5 daleko said:

Well, now that we know you are a ploymath, pardon me while I genuflect, and an expert in all things, we can have a conversation. So, what would be the chemical bond energy that would have to occur to break all of those yards of concrete in that tube in tube constructed high rise? And as you said, the exact tonnage is not the issue.

Upon reflection never mind. You'll just deflect and post more BS. My cathexis in you has reached a no return point on the investment curve.

You still haven't answered my question.

Regardless of the exact quantity or the bond strength, what HAPPENED to all of that concrete?

What pulverized it, explosively, into nothing but particulates?

Certainly not mere gravity/potential energy. Most of it was pulverized during the sequential explosions-- not after falling 100 floors and hitting the street, etc.

[Walter]

Apr 23, 2018 23:33:10 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 23, 2018 22:14:49 GMT -5 daleko said:

Upon reflection never mind. You'll just deflect and post more BS. My cathexis in you has reached a no return point on the investment curve.

You still haven't answered my question.

Regardless of the exact quantity or the bond strength, what HAPPENED to all of that concrete?

What pulverized it, explosively, into nothing but particulates?

Certainly not mere gravity/kinetic energy.

Really?
Why not?
The kinetic energy was a billion times more than detonated charges could possibly have generated. Not even close.
I feel for the poor Brown students to whom you tutored...SAD!

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2018 23:38:28 GMT -5 Walter said:

Apr 23, 2018 23:33:10 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

You still haven't answered my question.

Regardless of the exact quantity or the bond strength, what HAPPENED to all of that concrete?

What pulverized it, explosively, into nothing but particulates?

Certainly not mere gravity/kinetic energy.

Really?
Why not?
The kinetic energy was a billion times more than detonated charges could possibly have generated. Not even close.
I feel for the poor Brown students to whom you tutored...SAD!

Don't cry for me, Angelino.

Go study the film.

The concrete was mostly pulverized, explosively, where it stood-- prior to falling or being impacted by any pile driver effects (kinetic) from above.

But, how could you know that without using your eye peepers and your noodle?

[Walter]

Apr 23, 2018 23:50:24 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 23, 2018 23:38:28 GMT -5 Walter said:

Really?
Why not?
The kinetic energy was a billion times more than detonated charges could possibly have generated. Not even close.
I feel for the poor Brown students to whom you tutored...SAD!

Don't cry for me, Angelino.

Go study the film.

The concrete was mostly pulverized, explosively, where it stood-- prior to falling or being impacted by any pile driver effects (kinetic) from above.

But, how could you know that without using your eye peepers and your noodle?

Can you explain for us how a plane of concrete 4" thick and spread out across an acre of land x 110 stories could ALL be pulverized by explosive means?

[oujour76]

Apr 24, 2018 10:11:22 GMT -5 Walter said:

Apr 23, 2018 23:50:24 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Don't cry for me, Angelino.

Go study the film.

The concrete was mostly pulverized, explosively, where it stood-- prior to falling or being impacted by any pile driver effects (kinetic) from above.

But, how could you know that without using your eye peepers and your noodle?

Can you explain for us how a plane of concrete 4" thick and spread out across an acre of land x 110 stories could ALL be pulverized by explosive means?

If you get around to it, could you also look around for those "pyroclastic" flows? Nobody can seem to find them. Thanks in advance.

[Deleted]

Apr 24, 2018 10:11:22 GMT -5 Walter said:

Apr 23, 2018 23:50:24 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Don't cry for me, Angelino.

Go study the film.

The concrete was mostly pulverized, explosively, where it stood-- prior to falling or being impacted by any pile driver effects (kinetic) from above.

But, how could you know that without using your eye peepers and your noodle?

Can you explain for us how a plane of concrete 4" thick and spread out across an acre of land x 110 stories could ALL be pulverized by explosive means?

Good question, for once, Wally.

We know that it WAS pulverized, right?

(Hint:  This is where you and Mr. Chicken need to, FINALLY, use your eye peepers.)

What type of pre-planted, high-tech explosives could have pulverized all of those tons of WTC concrete, and turned all of those steel beams into molten steel?

It's never too late for you to FINALLY use your noodle.

[Walter]

Apr 24, 2018 11:12:35 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 24, 2018 10:11:22 GMT -5 Walter said:

Can you explain for us how a plane of concrete 4" thick and spread out across an acre of land x 110 stories could ALL be pulverized by explosive means?

Good question, for once, Wally.

We know that it WAS pulverized, right?

(Hint:  This is where you and Mr. Chicken need to, FINALLY, use your eye peepers.)

What type of pre-planted, high-tech explosives could have pulverized all of those tons of WTC concrete, and turned all of those steel beams into molten steel?

It's never too late for you to FINALLY use your noodle.

I've already done the math in another thread. To the best I figured, 1.08 million lbs of TNT would be necessary.
So, you are claiming to us that roughly that amount of explosives were secretly planted in the two buildings.

[Deleted]

Apr 24, 2018 13:33:43 GMT -5 Walter said:

Apr 24, 2018 11:12:35 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Good question, for once, Wally.

We know that it WAS pulverized, right?

(Hint:  This is where you and Mr. Chicken need to, FINALLY, use your eye peepers.)

What type of pre-planted, high-tech explosives could have pulverized all of those tons of WTC concrete, and turned all of those steel beams into molten steel?

It's never too late for you to FINALLY use your noodle.

I've already done the math in another thread. To the best I figured, 1.08 million lbs of TNT would be necessary.
So, you are claiming to us that roughly that amount of explosives were secretly planted in the two buildings.

Keep thinking, Wally...   You're finally getting intellectually curious.

That is something that never happens to Cheese Burgher or Harry Chicken around here.

[Walter]

Apr 24, 2018 13:47:20 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 24, 2018 13:33:43 GMT -5 Walter said:

I've already done the math in another thread. To the best I figured, 1.08 million lbs of TNT would be necessary.
So, you are claiming to us that roughly that amount of explosives were secretly planted in the two buildings.

Keep thinking, Wally...   You're finally getting intellectually curious.

That is something that never happens to Cheese Burgher or Harry Chicken around here.

Intellectually curious? Yes, about just HOW idiotic your dumbass ideas could be.
As soon as I finish this thread, I'm moving on to holograms.

[lz2112]

Apr 24, 2018 13:33:43 GMT -5 Walter said:

Apr 24, 2018 11:12:35 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Good question, for once, Wally.

We know that it WAS pulverized, right?

(Hint:  This is where you and Mr. Chicken need to, FINALLY, use your eye peepers.)

What type of pre-planted, high-tech explosives could have pulverized all of those tons of WTC concrete, and turned all of those steel beams into molten steel?

It's never too late for you to FINALLY use your noodle.

I've already done the math in another thread. To the best I figured, 1.08 million lbs of TNT would be necessary.
So, you are claiming to us that roughly that amount of explosives were secretly planted in the two buildings.

This is what happens when a million pounds of TNT is detonated.

[daleko]

Apr 24, 2018 13:47:20 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 24, 2018 13:33:43 GMT -5 Walter said:

I've already done the math in another thread. To the best I figured, 1.08 million lbs of TNT would be necessary.
So, you are claiming to us that roughly that amount of explosives were secretly planted in the two buildings.

Keep thinking, Wally...   You're finally getting intellectually curious.

That is something that never happens to Cheese Burgher or Harry Chicken around here.

IOW you don't have a clue, you really aren't a polymath, you don't understand the BS you are reading on your conspiracy sites as BS and you don't know jack shit about structural engineering. Further I've never seen on any of your links something you blew off, but is critical to any analysis, the chemical formula for the concrete. What was the chemical bond strength? How much energy would it take to dissipate that bond. What raws were used ie what type of cement, resin, aggregate (% fine V course)? Was the cement calcium aluminate or lime? Which reminds me didn't you once ask why aluminate was found in the rubble? LOL. There is more to it than acing your frshmn at Brown physics course. It's why people study this shit for 4-6 yrs just to get an understanding of it. Being a Polymath doesn't absolve you of the need to put in your 10,000 hrs to be an expert.

[daleko]

Apr 24, 2018 13:33:43 GMT -5 Walter said:

Apr 24, 2018 11:12:35 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Good question, for once, Wally.

We know that it WAS pulverized, right?

(Hint:  This is where you and Mr. Chicken need to, FINALLY, use your eye peepers.)

What type of pre-planted, high-tech explosives could have pulverized all of those tons of WTC concrete, and turned all of those steel beams into molten steel?

It's never too late for you to FINALLY use your noodle.

I've already done the math in another thread. To the best I figured, 1.08 million lbs of TNT would be necessary.
So, you are claiming to us that roughly that amount of explosives were secretly planted in the two buildings.

Seismograph readings would have picked up that along with picking up the thousands of people who would have been picked up and tossed who were running blocks away. Off course Willie then says it was really a different kind of explosive material, must be super secret that left the building next door standing for awhile, anyway. In any case how ever initiated, it still has to equal an energy number to disrupt chemical and mechanical bonds. Wait, wait, I think Willie once read on one of his UFO conspiracy sites that aliens had a new way to destroy things and had an advanced way of projecting aircraft.

[Walter]

Apr 24, 2018 16:04:09 GMT -5 daleko said:

Apr 24, 2018 13:33:43 GMT -5 Walter said:

I've already done the math in another thread. To the best I figured, 1.08 million lbs of TNT would be necessary.
So, you are claiming to us that roughly that amount of explosives were secretly planted in the two buildings.

Seismograph readings would have picked up that along with picking up the thousands of people who would have been picked up and tossed who were running blocks away. Off course Willie then says it was really a different kind of explosive material, must be super secret that left the building next door standing for awhile, anyway. In any case how ever initiated, it still has to equal an energy number to disrupt chemical and mechanical bonds. Wait, wait, I think Willie once read on one of his UFO conspiracy sites that aliens had a new way to destroy things and had an advanced way of projecting aircraft.

I don't think any of the kooks are claiming that the explosives were meant to pulverize all the concrete. That's just Willie misunderstanding the meaning of there having been pulverized concrete and erroneously assuming that explosives must have caused it rather than the forces of the collapse.

Fun facts:

Each building weighed approximately a half million tons.
If we assume the center of mass is at about the 55th floor, that's about a half million tons suspended roughly 700 feet in the air.

That (to use OUJour's unit of measure) is a shitload, maybe two shitloads, of potential energy. That tallies to about 7.0e11 joules. For reference, the bomb at Hiroshima was estimated at 63.0e13 joules

[Deleted]

Apr 24, 2018 18:17:08 GMT -5 Walter said:

Apr 24, 2018 16:04:09 GMT -5 daleko said:

Seismograph readings would have picked up that along with picking up the thousands of people who would have been picked up and tossed who were running blocks away. Off course Willie then says it was really a different kind of explosive material, must be super secret that left the building next door standing for awhile, anyway. In any case how ever initiated, it still has to equal an energy number to disrupt chemical and mechanical bonds. Wait, wait, I think Willie once read on one of his UFO conspiracy sites that aliens had a new way to destroy things and had an advanced way of projecting aircraft.

I don't think any of the kooks are claiming that the explosives were meant to pulverize all the concrete. That's just Willie misunderstanding the meaning of there having been pulverized concrete and erroneously assuming that explosives must have caused it rather than the forces of the collapse.

Fun facts:

Each building weighed approximately a half million tons.
If we assume the center of mass is at about the 55th floor, that's about a half million tons suspended roughly 700 feet in the air.

That (to use OUJour's unit of measure) is a shitload, maybe two shitloads, of potential energy. That tallies to about 7.0e11 joules. For reference, the bomb at Hiroshima was estimated at 63.0e13 joules

<iframe width="22.960000000000036" height="17.82000000000005" style="position: absolute; width: 22.960000000000036px; height: 17.82000000000005px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_15634927" scrolling="no"></iframe>

<iframe width="22.960000000000036" height="17.82000000000005" style="position: absolute; width: 22.96px; height: 17.82px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1089px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_68570981" scrolling="no"></iframe>

<iframe width="22.960000000000036" height="17.82000000000005" style="position: absolute; width: 22.96px; height: 17.82px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 818px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_48297168" scrolling="no"></iframe>

<iframe width="22.960000000000036" height="17.82000000000005" style="position: absolute; width: 22.96px; height: 17.82px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1089px; top: 818px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_44168941" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Wally,
    
     You still haven't used your eye peepers or your noodle.

      Where and when was the WTC concrete pulverized?

      In your erroneous formulation of the potential energy above, your false assumption is that the concrete was pulverized after falling (on average) 700 feet.

      So, go back and study the film of the demolition.

      Also, you mistakenly question the empirical fact that the concrete was, visibly, pulverized by explosives.

      Try starting with the empirical evidence, instead.  It's called, "science."