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

Coming from a person who lacks even basic education in physics and demonstrate no ability to follow logical arguement...its laughable...

Go smoke your crack-pipe...spam elsewhere.

MMC,

You can cast dispersions on my Physics background as soon as YOU prove that your ASSERTION that explosives begin with an EXPLOSIVE DECOMPOSITIOIN that creates an IMPLOSION.


Arthur

The Explosive and Weapons forum
http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/printthre...hp?t=1892&pp=50

MMC.

Why do you take the above description out of context?

Obviously your reference is to a description of a LABORATORY SET-UP involving a FLASK with nitric acid contents and A MAN-MADE VACUUM.

The safety aspect comes in when considering what liquid may be ON THE OUTSIDE of that flask if it ever 'implodes' because of the that man-made VACUUM.

The danger comes from the flask walls thus FAILING and destroying the APPARATUS, so allowing the outer liquid to mix with the inner nitric acid.

There is NO 'explosives-related 'imlosion'. The ONLY 'implosion' will come from the OUTER ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE 'crushing' and compromising the walls of the flask because the VACUUM was too great for the strength of the wall material.

AT NO TIME is there any 'IMPLOSION' due to EXPLOSIVES DECOMPOSITION REACTIONS; in fact, the OPPOSITE is true....any possibly explosive mixture of nitric acid and outer liquid can ONLY happen if the flask walls fail FIRST. But that failure has nothing to do with explosive forces, but rather, the failure of a PRE-EXISTING MAN-MADE VACUUM within the flask setup.

MMC....you are doing this sort of thing throughout the thread. You read some interesting-looking info somewhere which you MISCONSTRUE in an attempt to 'fit' to and 'bolster' your previous erroneous assertions and fantasies.

You provide NO consistent physics for ANYTHING you hypothesise. Bad science all round on your part, really. So much for the scientific method, heh?

For all such 'twisting' that you keep doing in this thread, you are being rightly derided by all true scientists here. And no wonder, if your above misapplied information is an example of what you put forward as 'physics' arguments!

RC.
.

MMC.

About your fantasised nuclear devices you say brought down the towers.

YOU have said more than once in this thread that you KNOW the 'details' of such exotic devices, but cannot disclose same in case terrorists are watching.

But MMC, cannot you see that, if YOU or any old nutter can ALREADY KNOW these 'details', so can any OTHER crazy or terrorist with access to a computer!

UNLESS of course you are telling us that you have some sort of official, high-level security-clearance in this area which makes you privy to 'classified' and so-far unpublished info? Is that it?

RC.
.

MMC.

First there is the OUTWARDS BLAST from your 'NEW' high-explosives which compress the fuel to fusion temps; THEN there is the SUDDEN VAPORISATION/EXPANSION of the HOT FUSING FUEL (it will be at millions of degrees, remember?).

All that BLAST and HEAT and SUDDEN EXPANSION will OF COURSE create havoc and sounds which will be FIRST AND FOREMOST EXPLOSIVE in effect, no matter what 'controls' are attempted at a later stage (if possible, given the temps involved).

So, MMC, please describe IN DETAIL how such a high-explosive-&-fusion-temp-fuel 'cocktail' can be so 'surgically' controlled/directed in the scenario you posit.

FAIR INFO & WARNING for you MMC:

In both towers, the lower half of the 'CENTRAL TUBE STRUCTURE' stood for a bit AFTER the rest of the building collapsed AROUND IT from top to bottom. Please explain how your 'directed energy' can affect the core in some places WITHOUT destroying said structure; and WITHOUT the blast/expansion waves propagating up and down the severed elevator & other vertical shafts going from ground to roof WITHIN THAT HOLLOW CENTRAL TUBE STRUCTURE. And remember, such propagation WAS possible because immediately after plane impact the jet fuel-air mix in the severed shafts ignited and sent a fireball all the way down to the ground WITHIN that central structure.

MMC.
.

Yeah, right...next thing you are going to tell me is that there is evidence of a nuclear explosion at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right?

MMC.

About your Harrods bombing scenario.

I assume you've also seen video of the atomic bomb tests.

Note where a strong searing wind from the blast drags and tears at everything as it screams OUTWARD and AWAY from the explosion SITE.

Note that a little later, a strong wind is NOW screaming BACK TOWARDS the explosion SITE.

What is happening?

The first (outgoing) wind is caused by air EXPANDING OUTWARDS from the site due to the high temps & blast produced by the bomb.

The second (incoming) wind is caused by air being 'sucked' BACK to the site because of the LOW-PRESSURE REGION now formed at the site due to COOLING (hence CONTRACTION) and UPDRAFT (hence MUSHROOM CLOUD) of the air at ground zero.

This is what happens at EVERY chemical/nuclear explosion site because the 'heat/blast' creates such OUTWARDS-first winds and INWARDS-soon-after winds.

This would explain your Harrods picture.

The initial blast caused any thinner/weaker windows to blow IN from the first blast-winds (which is why there are ample recorded cases of death and serious injury caused by INFLYING glass shards caused by bombs OUTSIDE restaurants etc). Stronger windows capable of resisting the initial blast-winds would have by now already flexed inwards, and are REBOUNDING OUTWARDS by the time 'shrapnel' from the bomb (and any container) hits and fractures the glass in those windows. At this point, while the glass segments immediately surrounding the shrapnel holes may be taken inwards by the shrapnel piece, the window-glass MEMBRANE as a whole is still rebounding outwards, so that when the WHOLE glass 'pane' disintegrates, the majority of the shards will fall OUTWARDS. MOREOVER, if any cracked-but-not-yet-disintegrated panels are still 'in place', they TOO will probably be 'sucked' OUTWARDS and disintegrated THEN because of the movement of air BACK towards the explosion site due to the lower-pressure region thereat caused by the air-contraction & updraft (as described earlier) that occurs at 'ground zero' AFTER EVERY SUCH EXPLOSION IN THE ATMOSPHERE, and especially at ground level in that atmosphere.

Add to all these things the venturi/slipstream effects I describred in an earlier post, and you can see the chaotic/turbulent profile of advancing/retreating blast/winds fronts, and therefore the variety of effects that can ensue both during the explosive expansion phase and THEN the subsequent contraction/updraft phase.

BTW, MMC: I see an awning/portico/entrance structure on the sidewalk in that picture you posted of the Harrods bombing. Do you have a 'before' picture of the same place. Basically I wish to know if there were any GLASS PANEL WINDBREAKS etc. as part of that entrance structure? I only ask because if there WERE such panels, they might also have added to that glass debris on the sidewalk. Just curious.

Anyway, MMC, I hope this helps clear up some of your misconceptions about bomb blast effects and their SUBSEQUENT 'low-pressure/winds' effects.

RC.
.

lets try not too give any psycho, or religion driven nuts any kind of head start on how to make bombs and kill people. u should keep those defined facts separated in the 100s of books u found them in and not consolidate the info for them!!!!!!

Hi TOE!

Agreed. That's why I have only dealt GENERALLY:

- ONLY with what can ALREADY be found in any SINGLE chemistry book insofar as bomb materials are concerned (witness the fertiliser bombs etc. being used by halfwits all over the world NOW);

- ONLY with the well-known EFFECTS associated with ANY conventional/nuclear bomb/explosion; and

- ONLY with well-known PRINCIPLES of Nuclear bombs/explosions which can ALREADY be found collated in any ONE of MANY 'popular science' type magazine articles/publications.

Anyone already intent on such atrocities would already have read those (and much else besides, on more relevant internet sites).

So don't worry about us discussing such GENERAL info here, TOE, because such nutters ALREADY do what they do WITHOUT needing to refer to our pages to guide them in their insanity. That said, I nevertheless applaud your caution/concern in such matters. Much appreciated by everyone here, I think, TOE. Ciao.

RC.
.

bit late for that.......

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

I have a really dumb question. Can you explain the physics of the plane versus the building? How fast does the plane have to be going and how much does it have to weigh in order to "cut " through the buildings? I am just NOT educated in physics and was discussing this with co-workers. He can't see a plane doing it but, we see it on film...(not that it can't be manipulated). There has to be a lay-person answer for this...can someone help?

Thanks

Even high explosives, with oxidizing compounds, consume oxygen in the surrounding air.

The oxygen is drawn from the surrounding atmosphere at such a rate that it acts like an implosion. The effect is used in oil rig fires to starve the fire.

Rapid decomosition thus results in a loss of atmospheric pressure, the oxygen must be consumed before any resulting expansion can occur.

I take it that you are from the US???

These are common enough facts, in fact, just look for the Anarchist's/Terrorist's handbook...its already compiled.

I would have a better understanding of physics than most people with Phd's...

Enough to show you forms of radiation, not commonly known...as I have demonstrated.

We are NOT talking about a "standard nuclear device", but rather a hybrid device that does not require fissile material...Explosive force is not the intention. It generates heat in a certain direction...weaking the building by exploding concrete, melting steel and causing a steam explosion from the water (200,000 gallons +) falling down. This steam explosion ejects the matter through the open top of the building...as it meets the material falling down, it is ejected in a sideways fashion.

The form of radition it produces does not fall in the standard catagories, such as alpha, beta or gamma...it produces 2/1 H (1/2 a) and the free neutrons are captured by a secondary stage.

Very little of the effects would be above background radiation level and elevated levels of tritium would be present...all of which is consistant with the scientific material in the public domain.

You may know about physics but you don't know much about basic logic, if this theory of yours leaves no evidence of radiation then it's far more probable that the heat from the JET FUEL melted the steel within the structure. This is not improbable, whereas the idea that these terrorists had the technology to do what you're suggesting is LAUGHABLE. (unless the CIA did it)

Ockham's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is probably correct. Not definitely correct, but until there's real evidence that you're right, I'm afraid you'll have to go back to wearing your tinfoil hat. It's stupid to suggest that someone went to the extra effort and risk of smuggling nuclear explosives through the airport when the plane would do jsut as well, and even if your physics is correct you're constructing it around an ASSUMPTION that they used these weapons and that they constructed it to leave no evidence. In other words, you don't have evidence of anything but for some reason you're obsessed with the idea, so you constructed your theory around that,

Even high explosives, with oxidizing compounds, consume oxygen in the surrounding air.

The oxygen is drawn from the surrounding atmosphere at such a rate that it acts like an implosion. The effect is used in oil rig fires to starve the fire.

Rapid decomosition thus results in a loss of atmospheric pressure, the oxygen must be consumed before any resulting expansion can occur.

Total BS.

It is NOT an IMPLOSION that puts out the fire, but the EXPLOSION.

You really ARE a nut case.

There is NO WAY an EXPLOSION could consume the Oxygen in the surrounding air and still be explosive.

The WHOLE POINT of an explosive is to chemically bind the required oxidizer with the Fuel. The Explosion proceeds at SUPERSONIC rates, thus there is NO TIME for anything to get SUCKED anywhere.

For the love of God, please LEARN something or the only likely implosion you will ever see is when your EARs meet.

Arthur

Please to forgive if this has already been considered..
From
http://www.matter-antimatter.com/energy.htm

I get 1 ton of TNT is about 4 x 10^9 joules. These buildings were high and heavy .. do we have a ball-park estimate of mass and height.. ie PE of the structure. My uninformed guess would be an average of 30^3 tons at say 300metres.. by my calc about 10^10 joules.. about 2 tons of TNT. Is it worth considering that a fair proportion of the PE might have been converted to heat in some parts of the steel girders and they might literally explode?