911 WTC - Evidence of an Nuclear explosion?, Your advice & Input Required

MMC You want physics....


You said.....

but then you also said:

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

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.

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:

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:

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?

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:

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


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

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:

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?

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?

The closest I could find is this report:

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

Which concludes:

Where is the government report?

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...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

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

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):

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

No fallout...or fallout in the range of background radiation...such as increased levels of tritium...

Round 2, ding ding

Still no credible explanation to the unaccounted energy...

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?

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?

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

Arthur

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

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...

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...

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.
.

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

Or was it something more formal?

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:

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