Scientific Forums


Pages: (137) « First ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Closed Topic · Start new topic · Start new poll


> 911 WTC - Evidence of an Nuclear explosion?, Your advice & Input Required
DaBigEd
Posted: Jan 17 2006, 08:44 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17-January 06

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


MMC You want physics....


You said.....
QUOTE

The energy required to crush rock is roughly proportional to 1/sqrt(powder diameter), so the exact amount of energy required is critically dependent on the fineness of the powder. The energy required to reduce solid rock to 60 micron powder is about 20 kwh/ton...


but then you also said:

QUOTE

So, if we take the value of 900,000 to create 60 micron and assume a linear relationship (which would produce LOWER energy values):

30 microns = 1,800,000 KWH
3 microns = 18,000,000 KWH
0.3 microns = 180,000,000 KWH



So lets all be brutally honest here, it would be VERY WRONG TO ASSUME A LINEAR DEPENDENCE and any mathematician would know that. Assuming a inverse square root relationship you get the following results.

The energy required to reduce the ENTIRE MASS OF BOTH WTC BUILDINGS to the following particle sizes is:

30 microns = 1,272,792.206 KWH
3 microns = 4,024,922.359 KWH
0.3 microns = 12,727,922.06 KWH

QUOTE

So, you can see that I was being VERY CONSERVATIVE with my values:


CONSERVATIVE is not the word I would use considering you were out by more than an order of magnitude and you failed to realize that this calculation is only applicable when all the mass is pulverized.

It should be noted however that the entire exercise of this calculation is pointless since not all of the mass was turned into particles of that size, as adoucette pointed out. I am merely pointing out MMC's flawed logic, flawed calculations and flawed conclusions.
Top
MMC
  Posted: Jan 17 2006, 04:23 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 31.25%
Feedback Score: -26


DaBigEd,

It is slightly more complicated than that...that equation assumes a lot of factors and numerous aspects are not considered:

1. Shape...highly critical...
2. Other compounds...again, highly critical...concrete is mixed with other substances in order to increase the PSI required to crush it...Other compounds allow it to flex a little, which also increases the energy required to pulverise it...
3. Materials absorbing the impact...such as plastic, wood, fibre glass, etc...
4. Ambient temperature
5. Concentration of force...not evenly distributed during a collapse...
6. Distance from applied force...note that we have 10 micron particles at 200m and 2 micron particles at 400m...
7. The fact that when a building pancakes, from the top to the bottom, the potential energy is arrested at each stage of the collapse, lowering the overall energy delivered as it arrives in a series of pulses...

This list is extensive, I could continue all day, the overall effect is that the energy required to pulverise the concrete rises sharply...especially to achieve smaller diameters...and the potential energy of the collapse decreases...

So, let's now relate your figures, against the goodyear power plant:

QUOTE

The first year of operation of the Goodyear Lake small-scale hydro plant near Oneonta, NY is reported with monthly data for August 1980 through July 1981 on power generated, operating costs, income generated, and maintenance requirements.^Due to the dryest year in living memory in the area with an average flow of 60% of the mean flow for the past 20 years, the plant produced on 3,886,050 kWh versus an estimated 7,500,000 kWh.^Actual operating costs were $89,011 as compared with an estimate of $99,840.^(LCL)


30 microns = 1,272,792.206 KWH (around 2 months worth of power)
3 microns = 4,024,922.359 KWH (around 6-7 months worth of power)
0.3 microns = 12,727,922.06 KWH (around 20 months worth of power)

Now let me show you something, examine the energy requirements of the following:

QUOTE

Severe earthquake (Richter 8)  10^18 J
100-megaton H-bomb 10^17 J
Fission one ton of Uranium  10^17 J
D-D fusion energy possible from 1 gal. of water  10^11  J
Explosion of 1 kg of TNT  10^6  J


http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ENE...ICY/tables.html

The WTC buildings were designed to withstand upto around Richter 7 events, by disappating the energy, even during a collapse, this process would still function, albeit, with less efficiency.

Even with your figures, which do not reflect a real scenario, to achieve 0.3 micron particles we need to deliver over 20 months of power from the Goodyear power plant (operating at peak performance), in the time it takes for the WTC to collapse...

Can you demonstrate that such energies can be achieved, and then also account for the distance and elevation relationship, which is consistant with an expanding horizon of a detonation?
Top
MMC
  Posted: Jan 17 2006, 05:22 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 31.25%
Feedback Score: -26


QUOTE

CONSERVATIVE is not the word I would use considering you were out by more than an order of magnitude and you failed to realize that this calculation is only applicable when all the mass is pulverized.


No, its not...to achieve particle sizes such as this, the overall energy would need to be within this region, if not, particles of this size cannot be created, in the quantities described, as localised energy levels cannot approach the levels required...

I understand what you are saying about uneven distribution of mass, however, this study would indicate a far more wide-spread phenomenon:

QUOTE

Environmental site studies after the collapse reported concentrations of airborne and respirable particulates ranging up to 100 mg/m3 and 1 mg/m3, respectively (CDC 2002a). Analysis of settled WTC dust samples collected 5 and 6 days postcollapse from areas east of the WTC revealed a complex mixture of particulate matter and combustion/pyrolysis products, composed mostly of building debris fibers (e.g., mineral wool, fiberglass, asbestos, wood, paper, cotton) contaminated with polycyclic hydrocarbons (Landrigan et al. 2004; Lioy et al. 2002).

More than 90% of the particles in these bulk samples were > 10 μm in diameter and many were fibers with widths < 5 μm and lengths > 10 μm. Further, many were caustic cement particles with a pH of 9–11 (Landrigan et al. 2004; Lioy et al. 2002).


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1247622


There is this report, however, it must be purchased:

QUOTE

Gintautas, V. Hackley, V. A. Lum, L. H. (CERAMICS DIVISION - 852) Ferraris, C. F. (MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH DIVISION - 861)
Partical Size Analysis by Laser Diffraction Spectrometry: Application to Cementitious Powders
NISTIR (NISTIR 7097) -


http://ois.nist.gov/nistpubs/technipubs/re...fm?dbibid=15825


You can read about the USGS study and some of its "cryptic" answers, especially, in relation to radioactive isotopes:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html


From this report, we can get an idea of the amount of concrete pulverised:

QUOTE

WTC dust was found to consist predominantly (95%) of coarse particles and contained pulverized cement, glass fibers, asbestos, lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polychlorinated furans and dioxins....

...The collapse of the towers pulverized cement, glass, and building contents and generated thousands of tons of particulate matter (PM) composed of cement dust, glass fibers, asbestos, lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, and polychlorinated furans and dioxins (Clark et al. 2003; Lioy et al. 2002; McGee et al. 2003)...

...Each sample of settled dust had a highly alkaline pH (9.0-11.0). Asbestos levels ranged from 0.8% to 3.0% of mass; PAHs comprised > 0.1% of total mass; and lead content ranged from 101 to 625 ppm. Morphologically, most of the dust was fibrous and contained mineral wool, glass fibers, asbestos, wood, paper, and cotton fibers (Figure 1). Coarse cement particles were also a major component (Figure 2).

To assess the composition of settled dust by size, samples were mechanically sieved and then separated aerodynamically into three fractions (Lioy et al. 2002; McGee et al. 2003). More than 95% of the mass consisted of PM > 10 µm in diameter. The largest mass concentration consisted of PM > 53 µm in diameter, and there were proportionately more particles in this large size range in outdoor than in indoor samples. PM < 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5) comprised 0.88-1.98% of total mass. Alkalinity decreased with decreasing particle size, and PM2.5 had a more nearly neutral pH (Lioy et al. 2002; McGee et al. 2003). This finding is consistent with the dominant presence of highly alkaline, coarse cement particles in the large size fraction. There was no geographical variation in particle size distribution in the settled dust samples, nor was a relationship found in indoor samples between particle size distribution and height above the ground.



One of the most important things to note is this, the lack of any material that would allow proper independent 3rd party analysis...

Have you noticed how it is all hidden away?
Top
MMC
  Posted: Jan 17 2006, 05:58 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 31.25%
Feedback Score: -26


The most important material to determine if an explosion was involved in the collapse of a building, if other tests prove inconclusive, are statistics relating to the average particle sizes, geographical spread and amount of each of the constituents, such as concrete, etc.

Such an analysis, would provide a ballpark figure for the energy involved.

Such a basic analysis for the WTC collapse is missing...

Why?
Top
MMC
  Posted: Jan 17 2006, 06:02 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 31.25%
Feedback Score: -26


The closest I could find is this report:

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

Which concludes:

QUOTE

Conclusion
The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.

The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows.



Where is the government report?
Top
MMC
  Posted: Jan 17 2006, 06:13 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 31.25%
Feedback Score: -26


Someone was asking earlier in the thread if a nuclear weapon, or the energy from it, could be directed...

Well, here is your answer...yes...

QUOTE

Project Orion

Project Orion was the first serious attempt to design a nuclear pulse rocket. The design effort was carried out at General Atomics in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Orion reacted small directional nuclear explosives against a large steel pusher plate attached to the spacecraft with shock absorbers. Efficient directional explosives maximized the momentum transfer, leading to specific impulses in the range of 6,000 seconds (about twelve times that of the SSME). With refinements a theoretical maximum of 100,000 seconds (1 MN·s/kg) might be possible. Thrusts were in the millions of short tonnes, allowing spacecraft larger than 8×106 short tonnes to be built with 1958 materials.
Top
MMC
  Posted: Jan 17 2006, 06:36 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 31.25%
Feedback Score: -26


As for fallout...here is a section on "clean bombs"...

QUOTE

But perhaps the greatest uncertainty arises from the recent development of the socalled “clean” bomb. A “clean” bomb is a nuclear weapon in which most of the explosive power is derived from thermonuclear reactions. It has been stated that
a 96 per cent clean bomb has already been produced; the remaining 4 per cent of the explosive power is presumably due to the fission core needed to trigger the
fusion reaction. In the future it might be possible to develop a weapon in which the explosion is initiated directly by a thermonuclear reaction.

...In such a case, however, the bombs used would be in the kiloton rather than in the megaton range, and the question of large-scale radioactive contamination
would not have arisen even with fission bombs. Another case is the defensive use of large nuclear weapons; for example, the explosion of hydrogen bombs high in the air above one’s own territory for the purpose of destroying in flight enemy missiles whose trajectories have been determined.

...Whatever the actual construction of the hydrogen bomb may be, it appears that it
requires a "tamper" or an inert material to contain the fusion substances long enough for the reaction to develop. In a clean bomb such a tamper would be made
of a material which would not contribute to the explosive power. In a dirty bomb, however, the tamper is made of natural uranium; in this case a considerable
increase in explosive power can be obtained, without any extra weight, due to the fission of the uranium produced by the neutrons released in the fusion reactions.
A larger explosive power means a greater range of destruction; thus, for the same weight of the missile, a fission bomb presents a much more effective military
weapon.
Even foregoing the advantages of the use of dirty bombs, resulting from driving the enemy population into shelters and underground retreats for many weeks
after the explosion, and even with all the good will with which we credit our leaders, can they afford to give up the advantages of fission bombs without being sure that the enemy will do the same? It has been suggested such
assurance might be obtained by giving the secret of making clean bombs to the enemy.

The above considerations, which indicate that in a future war fission bombs would be employed for strategic bombing, lead also to the conclusion that these
bombs would be exploded in such a way as to produce the maximum damage by heat and blast.


http://www.thebulletin.org/pdf/rotblat/014_001_020.pdf



If we replace the fission trigger, with a sonoluminessence trigger...(Note: This is a milestone in civilan research):

QUOTE

November 27, 2005

Laser Fusion Milestone Achieved

A major milestone was reached recently when scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California reported that they had demonstrated that laser pulses shot into a cavity can produce the conditions required to trigger nuclear fusion reactions.  The finding was a crucial test of principle for Livermore's National Ignition Facility (NIF), the $3.5 billion complex now under construction and expected to start full operations in 2009.


http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/fusion/

No fallout...or fallout in the range of background radiation...such as increased levels of tritium...
Top
Guest
Posted: Jan 17 2006, 07:16 PM


Unregistered









Round 2, ding ding dry.gif
Top
MMC
  Posted: Jan 17 2006, 08:31 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 31.25%
Feedback Score: -26


Still no credible explanation to the unaccounted energy...
Top
RealityCheck
Posted: Jan 17 2006, 09:00 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6426
Joined: 1-July 05

Positive Feedback: 70%
Feedback Score: 9


QUOTE (RealityCheck @ Jan 17 2006, 04:25 AM)
QUOTE (MMC @ Jan 17 2006, 12:40 AM)
A small clue...

QUOTE

Developers, led by Eric J. Lerner, are developing Focus Fusion, a fusion process to generate electricity that is expected to be relatively cheap, highly efficient, and small enough to fit into a garage.  The process which channels hydrogen-boron fuel through a plasma focusing device, uses a smaller, more elegant approach than is currently being pursued by conventional fusion researchers.  This device could be fired up and shut off with the flip of a switch, with no damaging radiation, no threat of meltdown, and no possibility of explosions


http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/fusion/

Unless you wanted it to...and designed it to explode.


Is this the first time you have alluded to WWW.FOCUSFUSION.ORG and the Focus Device for Fusion?


MMC,

Have you answered my above question?


--------------------
RealityCheck is a terrorist, crybaby and poster of anti-scientific crap.
RealityCheck is the sound of one hand wanking.
Top
MMC
  Posted: Jan 17 2006, 09:37 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 31.25%
Feedback Score: -26


QUOTE

Is this the first time you have alluded to WWW.FOCUSFUSION.ORG and the Focus Device for Fusion?


Is this the group you claimed to be working on a fusion device with???

Or more accurately, the group to which you paid a certain amount of money so that you could call yourself a member???

Did you know such organisations, especially with that donate and become a member structure, are known fronts for intelligence gathering purposes?
Top
adoucette
Posted: Jan 17 2006, 09:47 PM


Illegitimi non carborundum
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 12894
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205


QUOTE (MMC @ Jan 17 2006, 01:58 PM)
The most important material to determine if an explosion was involved in the collapse of a building, if other tests prove inconclusive, are statistics relating to the average particle sizes, geographical spread and amount of each of the constituents, such as concrete, etc.

Such an analysis, would provide a ballpark figure for the energy involved.

Such a basic analysis for the WTC collapse is missing...

Why?

Because no one without a political agenda or with a minimum level of intelligence believes bombs were used.

Arthur


--------------------
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay
Top
MMC
  Posted: Jan 17 2006, 10:16 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 31.25%
Feedback Score: -26


QUOTE

Because no one without a political agenda or with a minimum level of intelligence believes bombs were used.


No...because no idiot checked...under who's orders exactly???


QUOTE

The process which channels hydrogen-boron fuel through a plasma focusing device


From what I can see, they are using the boron to absorb excess neutrons, the result is that it decays to lithium and ionises matter in the reaction...and the "plasma focusing device", is really electromagnetic containment...compression, etc...

QUOTE

The magnetic fields very quickly collapse, and these changing magnetic fields induce an electric field which causes a beam of electrons to flow in one direction and a beam of ions (atoms that have lost electrons) in the other. The electron beam heats the plasmoid thus igniting fusion reactions which add more energy to the plasmoid. So in the end, the ion and electron beams contain more energy than was input by the original electric current.


The language is vague, but, I get it...nonlinear evolution of Langmuir waves...and create a piston effect to produce a singularity...

Timing is critical...as its multi-staged...other than engineering, I don't see much stopping it from working...

The only problem I have is making efficient use of that energy...

Nice principle...I'd love to play with it...
Top
RealityCheck
Posted: Jan 17 2006, 10:27 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6426
Joined: 1-July 05

Positive Feedback: 70%
Feedback Score: 9


QUOTE (MMC @ Jan 17 2006, 09:37 PM)
QUOTE

Is this the first time you have alluded to WWW.FOCUSFUSION.ORG and the Focus Device for Fusion?


Is this the group you claimed to be working on a fusion device with???

Or more accurately, the group to which you paid a certain amount of money so that you could call yourself a member???

Did you know such organisations, especially with that donate and become a member structure, are known fronts for intelligence gathering purposes?


MMC,

You are as reckless with the truth as anyone I have ever come across.

And your paranoia is showing.

I, like many others, have made a ONE-OFF contribution to Mr Lerner's Plasma Focus Fusion Power project. I am NOT a 'member' of his organisation. And pray tell, where did I 'claim' to be working on a Plasma Focus Fusion Device with Mr Lerner or his organisation? For that matter, where did I claim to be working on developing the Plasma Focus Fusion Device myself at all? Just because someone RESEARCHES INTO the principles/mechanisms involved, DOESN'T MEAN that someone is DOING DEVELOPMENT work on it, does it? For your information I have been developing a COMPLETELY ORIGINAL concept/system, far far different from the PLASMA FOCUS concept/system. Therefore all your logic, and all your conclusions derived thereby, are as faulty as your "truth" faculties.

And if you care to peruse all my posts in PhysOrgForums from DAY ONE, it will become abundantly clear that I am A LONE RESEARCHER IN MANY THINGS, and guard my INDEPENDENCE in SCIENCE and my RESULTS in TECHNOLOGY zealously. It has been a long-standing RULE with me that I do NOT COLLABORATE or 'share' my ideas, facilities, financing or interim results with ANYONE on ANYTHING (the ONLY exception to that rule being my collaboration with others on the Special Cosmology T.O.E. Project in these forums...and I made THAT exception ONLY because of the frustration felt at the general stagnation of 'real', as opposed to 'speculative', progress in Cosmology Theorising). So even THERE you are mistaken!

So far you have been 100% WRONG about everything, so why should that last shy of yours at the 'truth' be any different?

Now tell me, why is it you quote debunked/discredited people/sites/documents/comments in order to 'support' your WILD ASSERTIONS? I thought when you started this thread you were ONLY going to cover the physics AND NOTHING ELSE.

So you WEREN'T telling the truth about THAT, even! Because soon afterwards, you began to post patently POLITICAL and NON-Physics SPAM-RANTS on this supposedly 'sacrosanct' thread of yours purportedly dedicated by you to PHYSICS matters ONLY.

The facts are there for all to see. No twisting them NOW. You had better see to your ‘truth’ (amongst other) faculties, MMC...they need URGENT ADJUSTMENT/REPLACEMENT.



RC.
.


--------------------
RealityCheck is a terrorist, crybaby and poster of anti-scientific crap.
RealityCheck is the sound of one hand wanking.
Top
MMC
  Posted: Jan 17 2006, 10:36 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 31.25%
Feedback Score: -26


QUOTE

I, like many others, have made a ONE-OFF contribution to Mr Lerner's Plasma Focus Fusion Power project.


What sort of contribution...did you send him an email with an idea?

Or was it something more formal?




QUOTE

So far you have been 100% WRONG about everything, so why should that last shy of yours at the 'truth' be any different?


You have yet to provide any proof...I'm trying to balance security and open analysis...you know how dangerous this stuff is.

That's why I'm not getting to specific...

I have not seen you present one shred of physics to support yourself, nor any evidence at all that you have any substantial knowledge of physics in general...

Beyond wild claims and dismissive comments...nothing.

Considering this little fact about your posting history:

QUOTE

Creation / Evolution
552 posts in this forum
( 55% of this member's active posts )


All I see is someone who can ramble a lot...
Top

Topic Options Pages: (137) « First ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... Last »

Closed Topic · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use