|
Post by echnaton on May 2, 2006 8:58:52 GMT -4
Yes, Bush is the MAN put in place by the Military Industrial Complex guys ... That’s funny, I thought he was put in place by the U. S. Supreme Court because the Florida Supreme Court was handling the election fiasco in an unconstitutional manner. Don’t tell me they are part of the military industrial complex too.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 2, 2006 13:38:13 GMT -4
Actually he was fairly elected. All the Supreme Court did was stop recounts that would not have changed the outcome (as was proved by several newspapers that completed the recounts with the most favorable conditions for the democratic candidate and found that George Bush still won). And then of course he won again in 2004.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on May 2, 2006 13:40:35 GMT -4
Still haven't answered my question. Whatever amount of concrete you think was turned to dust, how much energy was needed to do so? How much energy was available from sources other than bombs? If you claim it wasn't enough without bombs you must have at least an OOM estimate.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 2, 2006 15:52:14 GMT -4
Actually he was fairly elected. All the Supreme Court did was stop recounts that would not have changed the outcome (as was proved by several newspapers that completed the recounts with the most favorable conditions for the democratic candidate and found that George Bush still won). And then of course he won again in 2004. The comment was really just a small jab at feelfree222. There is little doubt about the fair outcome of the 2000 election. The only question that remains is if the Zero Factor will come into play in the next 2 ½ years or did Reagan break the cycle? Enquiring minds want to know.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 2, 2006 17:55:46 GMT -4
Still haven't answered my question. Whatever amount of concrete you think was turned to dust, how much energy was needed to do so? How much energy was available from sources other than bombs? If you claim it wasn't enough without bombs you must have at least an OOM estimate. Like I said before Hoffman gives an OOM estimation for the energy needed. Me think OOM calculations made by Hoffman are compatible with the use of some thermobaric bombs edited to add links New added (version 4) 911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev4.htmlOOM estimation paper version 3,1 October 16, 2003 911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 2, 2006 18:01:54 GMT -4
Yes, Bush is the MAN put in place by the Military Industrial Complex guys ... That’s funny, I thought he was put in place by the U. S. Supreme Court because the Florida Supreme Court was handling the election fiasco in an unconstitutional manner. Don’t tell me they are part of the military industrial complex too. To answer your question: all depend about the implication during the election and political influence of those associated political]From Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complexThe term military-industrial complex usually refers to the combination of the U.S. armed forces, arms industry and associated political and commercial interests ,which grew rapidly in scale and influence in the wake of World War II, although it can also be used to describe any such relationship of industry and military. It is sometimes used to refer to the iron triangle that is argued to exist among weapons makers/military contractors (industry), The Pentagon (military), and the United States Congress (government).
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 3, 2006 5:30:35 GMT -4
Curiously, while the term "military-industrial complex" has been seen as the source of all evil by the opponents of the US government, throughout the Cold War a powerful component of the Soviet government was the Military-Industrial Commission.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on May 3, 2006 13:45:34 GMT -4
Still haven't answered my question. Whatever amount of concrete you think was turned to dust, how much energy was needed to do so? How much energy was available from sources other than bombs? If you claim it wasn't enough without bombs you must have at least an OOM estimate. Like I said before Hoffman gives an OOM estimation for the energy needed. Me think OOM calculations made by Hoffman are compatible with the use of some thermobaric bombs edited to add links New added (version 4) 911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev4.htmlOOM estimation paper version 3,1 October 16, 2003 911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.htmlHe makes several obvious mistakes there. He assumes zero mixing of the volumn of air in the tower and the surrounding air, and assumes that the cloud reached its size relative to the size of the tower by thermal expansion alone. He also just guesses the volume of the buildings inside the cloud, rather than look up the actual sizes, and uses a rather crude estimate of the size of the cloud itself. He also doesn't take into account other sources of energy, for example the heat of the fires. He also has no good estimate of the actual amount of pulverized concrete or other materials, he just uses some other CT's estimate. And he uses pictures of the north tower collapse to find the size.... that fell AFTER the south tower which had already filled the area with dust & smoke! How can you take that paper seriously?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on May 3, 2006 13:51:10 GMT -4
How can you take that paper seriously? Um, because it tells him what he wants to hear?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 3, 2006 23:18:15 GMT -4
Phunk wrote He also has no good estimate of the actual amount of pulverized concrete or other materials, he just uses some other CT's estimate. So ,What is the official estimation of the actual amount of pulverized concrete or other materials ?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 3, 2006 23:26:55 GMT -4
He makes several obvious mistakes there. He assumes zero mixing of the volumn of air in the tower and the surrounding air, and assumes that the cloud reached its size relative to the size of the tower by thermal expansion alone. Hmm, your reply seem very inspired fromGreening's Energy_Transfer_Addendum. www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdfwhich is about a previous paper (version 3 )from Hoffman which is corrected in version 3,1 released January 5, 2004 see also currently under development version 4 see down that page 911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html
|
|
|
Post by phunk on May 4, 2006 0:23:32 GMT -4
Not sure how I could be inspired by something I haven't read.
Let's take a look at some of that paper you like so much:
He completely ignores the wind that was generated by the air being squeezed out of the collapsing building. THAT is the source of the cloud blowing down the street, quite simply.
The front of the dust cloud was not the front of the air mass moving down the street. There would be a rush of air ahead of the cloud from the air displaced by the falling building.
Why should a cloud suddenly diffuse on a scale large enough to be seen in pictures from half a mile away? Layers form in air all the time, you just can't see them without clouds to hilight them. Ever noticed that clouds in the sky seem to all start at the same height? Why don't those diffuse?
Why is thermal expansion a better candidate to do that than wind created by purely mechanical means? A huge amount of air was squeezed from the towers as they fell, and it happened fastest at the bottom, where the towers would be falling fastest and there was the least amount of room for that air to spread due to surrounding buildings.
The largest factor in his equation:
The suspended concrete doesn't need to be heated at all to billow up! Only the air has to be moved to carry the dust. That movement could be generated by heat OR mechanical means, such as a large building collapsing.
His conclusion:
10-fold! Think about that. That's a huge amount of energy to attribute to unknown sources. He's basically saying a bomb (what else could he be implying?) released 10x as much energy as the falling towers. So why does the siesmic data not show any evidence of that? Why doesn't any of the video show any evidence of such a huge explosion?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 4, 2006 1:06:18 GMT -4
Phunk wrote ........ Edited for precision So,How do you explain the heat wave front carried by the expansion of the dust cloud? :911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.htmlIn section: 2. Factoring out Mixing and Diffusion New York Daily News photographer David Handschuh recalled: Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was [an urge] to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave-- a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet and I wound up about a block away.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 4, 2006 3:16:05 GMT -4
Feelfree222 asled:
Well, some of the material in the WTC towers had been burned, or was burning, when the towers collapsed, and so would have been at temperatures of hundreds of degrees Celsius. But most of the material in the WTC towers was at ambient temperature of around 15 degrees Celsius.
But when the towers collapsed, all of this material was mixed together. As a result, the cloud would have reached an average temperature, taking into account the relative amounts and temperatures of the burned and unburned material. That would suggest it would average out at a temperature between the two, but closer to ambient.
I'm not sure, but I wonder whether the cloud might have been heated by energy released from the breaking steel as well. That would increase the temperature.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 4, 2006 10:03:24 GMT -4
Hoffman's mistake is to attribute the expansion of the clouds to thermal causes. If instead you consider the air being driven out of the collapsing building as a purely mechanical effect, you can get an estimate of the required energy from the kinetic energy of the moving air. Using Hoffman's figures for the volume of the building (60,000,000 cubic feet) and the air velocity (25 mph), and assuming that all the air has that velocity (1/2 m v^2), I calculate that the energy given to the air is 1.3x10^8 J. This is less than Hoffman's figure for the available energy by a factor of 3000, leaving plenty of energy available to heat the air.
|
|