Review of Gravy's film at ABOVE TOP SECRET

[njslim]

Over at the conspiracy website "ABOVE TOP SECRET" one of the members
using name CAPTAIN OBVIOUS has posted link to film created by Gravy
with some commentry. The good CAPT is not a twofer - he is a member
here who reads the posts (but doesn't post himself). Frequently posts
information from here debunking some of crazy moonbats who hang out there.

Check out the thread

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread315607/pg1

Good work CAPT!!!

[contra]

Thanks for posting this

*rubs tear from under eye*
most of the comments are classics

I wonder what the reception would be to a false film a skeptic makes promoting the 9/11 conspiracy with all clearly false info. I'm willing to be it would not be looked at with the same detail.

[Mangoose]

Interesting, thanks for the link!

Captain Sensible, Captain Obvious, we need more captains here! :)

[Sporanox]

Lol and a mere two pages later or so a gentleman truther pipes up with the classic "I find the evidence specious at best"...I really don't know what to say to that. What I find the funniest, though, is the insistence of every truther that "it just looked like a CD, therefore it probably could have been."

I wonder how many of them have ever witnessed a real CD before in their lives. Outside of a movie, I mean.

-Sporanox

[Gravy]

Thanks for the writeup! I may do another version and take out the snarky remarks. I guess I was in a bad mood when I made that.

Interesting that the ATS crowd is throwing their hands in the air and saying, "Who says explosives were used?"

Er, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, Alex Jones, Gordon Ross, Frank Legge, William Rodriguez, Webster Tarpley, Eric Hufschmid, Kevin Barrett, Torin Wolf, Crockett Grabbe, Craig Furlong, Tony Szamboti, 911truth.org, NY911truth, WeAreChange, Loose Change (all versions), 9/11 Mysteries, Improbable Collapse, 9/11 Revisited, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 Why the Official Story Can't be True, dozens of YouTube videos, dozens of people who have posted here, and every conspiracist who cites witness accounts of explosions.

Many of these people claim that not only were explosives used, so much explosives were used that giant steel sections were tossed around the site and nearly all the concrete was pulverized. That's the point of my video.

[EventHorizon]

Over at the conspiracy website "ABOVE TOP SECRET" one of the members
using name CAPTAIN OBVIOUS has posted link to film created by Gravy
with some commentry. The good CAPT is not a twofer - he is a member
here who reads the posts (but doesn't post himself). Frequently posts
information from here debunking some of crazy moonbats who hang out there.

Check out the thread

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread315607/pg1

Good work CAPT!!!

Lots and lots of Stundie-worthy material in that thread. Wow!

[GreNME]

Thanks for the writeup! I may do another version and take out the snarky remarks. I guess I was in a bad mood when I made that.

Interesting that the ATS crowd is throwing their hands in the air and saying, "Who says explosives were used?"

Er, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, Alex Jones, Gordon Ross, Frank Legge, William Rodriguez, Webster Tarpley, Eric Hufschmid, Kevin Barrett, Torin Wolf, Crockett Grabbe, Craig Furlong, Tony Szamboti, 911truth.org, NY911truth, WeAreChange, Loose Change (all versions), 9/11 Mysteries, Improbable Collapse, 9/11 Revisited, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 Why the Official Story Can't be True, dozens of YouTube videos, dozens of people who have posted here, and every conspiracist who cites witness accounts of explosions.

Many of these people claim that not only were explosives used, so much explosives were used that giant steel sections were tossed around the site and nearly all the concrete was pulverized. That's the point of my video.

But you're obviously wrong. Or a shill. Or an NWO operative sent to implant brainwave-altering technology on our computers through your movies and posts.

Why do you hate America, Gravy?

[Slayhamlet]

But you're obviously wrong. Or a shill. Or an NWO operative sent to implant brainwave-altering technology on our computers through your movies and posts.

Why do you hate America, Gravy?

I might have something to do with that awful, awful song "A Horse With No Name". At least that's why I hate America.

[GreNME]

I might have something to do with that awful, awful song "A Horse With No Name". At least that's why I hate America.

Are you talking about the Neil Young song? If so, you got the wrong country, bub.

[CptColumbo]

Are you talking about the Neil Young song? If so, you got the wrong country, bub.That's the name of the group. Bub.

[Slayhamlet]

Are you talking about the Neil Young song? If so, you got the wrong country, bub.

Nope. You're thinking of "Heart of Gold". I actually like Neil Young.

[Gravy]

Nope. You're thinking of "Heart of Gold". I actually like Neil Young.Many people think "A Horse With No Name" is a Neil Young song. There's a definite vocal similarity, and it's got a similar folk-rock style to Young's wishy-washy "Heart of Gold" stuff. America sounds even more like a CSN tribute band.

[R.Mackey]

The songs "Heart of Gold" and "Horse With No Name" also appeared in the public consciousness almost simultaneously. That doesn't help.

[Mangoose]

"The heat was hot."

So sayeth America. At least that's according to the official story (OCT). But not hot enough to melt steel.

But then we get the truth:

"There were plants and birds and rocks and things."

Plants = planted bombs, birds = airplanes, rocks = concrete core, things = da therrrrrmites and stalagtites..

[GreNME]

Wow, I got that totally wrong. :eek:

[Mangoose]

More on America's explosive revelations:

"There was sand and hills and rings"

Sand = dust/debris, hills = debris mounds at GZ, rings = Judy Wood's smoke rings

"The first thing I met was a fly with a buzz"

AA11

"And the sky with no clouds"

As on 9/11

"But the air was full of sound"

AA11's jet engines.


Gee, I'm have a much easier time with "Horse With No Name" than with Nostradamus... at least don't have to make up fictitious Nostradammy oracles to get what I want.

[Foolmewunz]

Many people think "A Horse With No Name" is a Neil Young song. There's a definite vocal similarity, and it's got a similar folk-rock style to Young's wishy-washy "Heart of Gold" stuff. America sounds even more like a CSN tribute band.

And Neil Young's solo band was Crazy Horse, which I believe adds to the confusion.

Then again, I'm a relic of the era and I would NEVER confuse Neil Young with America, so what would I know?

[jhunter1163]

My mother loved "Heart of Gold". It was probably her favorite song. She also loved Liberace, John Denver and Gordon Lightfoot. Given all that, I think it's a miracle that I'm as well adjusted as I am.

And that's a swell video Gravy. Kudos to the good captain, too.

[leftysergeant]

The poster Spoodily at ATS seems about as sharp as a bowling ball, doesn't he? "Ropes" of thermite? Too freaking much, man!

[njslim]

Love to have the tin foil concession at the ABOVE TOP SECRET convention - make a
fortune!!!

[Hyperviolet]

This really is a great video.
I posted it a few times on other forums to combat conspiracist claims.

It was this video that made me aware of the steel column/aluminium cladding error. An error which, incidentally, made it into the undebunkable LCFC.

[Hyperviolet]

I just love this post

all of the stuff in this video has been debunked. he doesnt have any evidance to back of anything he says just some videos we have all seen before. he looks like a huge idiot also because there is evidance of thermite used. its called molten metal.


:D

[SpitfireIX]

My mother loved "Heart of Gold". It was probably her favorite song. She also loved Liberace, John Denver and Gordon Lightfoot. . . .


Do not diss my main man John Denver. :mad:

[Gravy]

"Ropes" of thermite?I get that sometimes after I eat at Happy Fresh Taco.

[WilliamSeger]

Dibs on this Stundie:
you think if they developed small charges be it chemicle or a type of small detonating device that can cut through thick steel almost immediatly they would let the whole world know about it? i think not. open your eyes.

[jhunter1163]

Do not diss my main man John Denver. :mad:

I respect the man. He had the cojones to stand up in front of Tipper Gore's witch hunt and say "This is censorship, no matter how you dress it up, and it's wrong." He believed that even music some people would consider offensive should be heard.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to exercise my right to not listen to his music.

Thanks for defending that right, John.

[Sabrina]

Thermite rope.... XD

That made me giggle.

[rwguinn]

My mother loved "Heart of Gold". It was probably her favorite song. She also loved Liberace, John Denver and Gordon Lightfoot. Given all that, I think it's a miracle that I'm as well adjusted as I am.

And that's a swell video Gravy. Kudos to the good captain, too.

At least you grew up hearing some lyrics that make sense, and great musicians.
Gord is with the Canadian NWO Disinfo group. Why else would he tour Tornado Alley in the US this year?
Liberace's taste was all in his attire, however.

[jhunter1163]

Liberace's taste was all in his attire, however.

My mother was Liberace's #1 fan. I vividly remember a battle between her and my father: Liberace concert on TV vs. the World Series. My mom won.

[CptColumbo]

My mother was Liberace's #1 fan. I vividly remember a battle between her and my father: Liberace concert on TV vs. the World Series. My mom won.Ouch.

[jhunter1163]

My parents remained married for about 20 years after that, until my mom died; however, if they had gotten divorced during that time, that incident would have been the first thing my father mentioned in the filing.

[kookbreaker]

Hmmm. There's a marked different reaction at ATS then you would get at LCF. At LCF you'd get a bunch of folks whining and whinging about the film and Gravy with the obvious fact that they hadn't watched the movie.

At ATS, it seems they did watch the movie, its just that THEY DON'T CARE IF IT DEBUNKS THEIR BELIEFS. They just keep going.

[leftysergeant]

ATS is a little more legitimate than LCF, in that they actually encourage debate. The debunkers at ATS would probably be banned within a post or two at LCF. So it behooves the members of ATS to actually look at the evidence, whether as part of an actual inquiry or as recon before attacking Gravy's position.

Even twoofers have some reservations about making themselves look incompetant in front of their fellows. (Okay. Limited ability to tell when they have walked out of the latrine with their zippers down, but that is another matter.)

[JMarshall]

Crying out loud! Max's Thermite-tube, and now rope thermite? I guess I'm just going to have to forget all of the things I have ever learned about explosives and demolitions, since there's all these new-fangeled devices out there!:confused:

Maybe I will get a frontal lobotomy just to better understand the twoofers, and their crack-pot ideas... As my father has always told me, the best way to combat an enemy is to learn to think like an enemy... LOL Hmm, on second thought I think I will instead just drink myself into stupidity, at least that way I won't drool as much as with the lobotomy...

[R.Mackey]

Maybe I will get a frontal lobotomy just to better understand the twoofers, and their crack-pot ideas... As my father has always told me, the best way to combat an enemy is to learn to think like an enemy... LOL Hmm, on second thought I think I will instead just drink myself into stupidity, at least that way I won't drool as much as with the lobotomy...

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than have to have a frontal lobotomy (http://www.themadmusicarchive.com/song_details.aspx?SongID=442)... :D

[Mr.Herbert]

Rut Ro Mark..... Your NWO cover has been blown!!!!!

From FloydGreen@ ATS:

Also, if Mr. Roberts is hiring himself out as an official NY "tour guide" he is doing so illegally. Of the 266 licensed guides listed at www.newyorkcitytourguides.com... (http://www.newyorkcitytourguides.com/PPages/GetGuides.asp), Mr. Roberts is not among them.

Of course, as often is the case, the truth can sometimes be found among the lies. I have to admit Mr. Roberts did focus my gaze at the tilting inward of the outer walls as one of the towers began to fall. Perhaps I'm way off here, yet I thought to myself, "an explosion to create an implosion." Create a vacuum and everything gets sucked into it.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/3718229.html

[Mr.Herbert]

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than have to have a frontal lobotomy (http://www.themadmusicarchive.com/song_details.aspx?SongID=442)

.....I drink too much, but at least i'm not insane......


The good ol days of listening to Dr. Demento late Sunday nights.... *sighs*

[The Doc]

The ATS crowd is vastly different to the LC crowd.

[kookbreaker]

Uh, yeah, and what is this newyorkcitytourguides.com and why are they a legal authority on anything?

Troofer FloydGreen demonstrates the classic troofer move of shooting from the hip and hitting his own foot.

[NYCEMT86]

They aren't. They appear to be a non-profit organization that caters to private groups. The legal authority on tour guides would be the Department of Consumer Affairs.

[A W Smith]

They aren't. They appear to be a non-profit organization that caters to private groups. The legal authority on tour guides would be the Department of Consumer Affairs.


Check it out (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/downloads/pdf/10-07_tour_guides.pdf):bigclap



Guides marked with a star (٭)
took the test to get a license and earned an exemplary score of 120 or more.


hey that even rhymes :D

[NYCEMT86]

Check it out (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/downloads/pdf/10-07_tour_guides.pdf):bigclap



hey that even rhymes :D

thats what i was looking for, thanks AW.


And congrates on the score Gravy

[njslim]

Wow - a Gold star next to Gravy's name! I knew something was special about him.

[njslim]

Maybe I will get a frontal lobotomy just to better understand the twoofers, and their crack-pot ideas... As my father has always told me, the best way to combat an enemy is to learn to think like an enemy... LOL Hmm, on second thought I think I will instead just drink myself into stupidity, at least that way I won't drool as much as with the lobotomy...

Going to ATS - sometimes just have to put brain in neutral and let the waves of
stupidity wash over you like waves breaking on the beach.....

[Gravy]

thats what i was looking for, thanks AW.
And congrates on the score Gravy
Thanks. I actually had the highest score in the history of the test (don't know if that's changed since). I used to teach a course that prepared people to take the test, and I believe that all of my students who took the test, passed it.

[Unsecured Coins]

Thanks. I actually had the highest score in the history of the test (don't know if that's changed since). I used to teach a course that prepared people to take the test, and I believe that all of my students who took the test, passed it.


by comparrison, I was the first person to score a perfect rating on the writing test in the history of my school, and IIRC, the only person to do so to date. Whatchoo got now, Graaaavay?

[Gravy]

by comparrison, I was the first person to score a perfect rating on the writing test in the history of my school, and IIRC, the only person to do so to date.How long was your school bus again? :D

Whatchoo got now, Graaaavay?I won a spelling bee in 5th grade, and I was elected Prom King in high school. Wait...are these supposed to be highlights or lowlights?

[Unsecured Coins]

I said a writing test, not a spelling test, mr smarty pants :)

[LashL]

Troofer FloydGreen demonstrates the classic troofer move of shooting from the hip and hitting his own foot.


Indeed. Like most twoofers, he has poor to non-existent research skills and is quick to illegitimately draw false conclusions and post them as factual. I guess we will have to wait to see whether he retracts his errors and his unfounded accusations.

[jhunter1163]

I won a spelling bee in 5th grade.. <snip>

Oh yeah? Well, I won every spelling bee I was allowed to participate in when I was in fourth grade. By about the end of January the teacher wouldn't let me be in them any more so the other kids would have a chance to win. In fact, I went through my entire fourth-grade year without misspelling a single word.

I peaked early, it seems.

[kookbreaker]

Ah, I see that GreenFlloyd has just been utterly humiliated at ATS over this 'not a tour guide' issue.

Warms my heart to hear a troother squeal like a pig.

[Hyperviolet]

Thanks. I actually had the highest score in the history of the test.

You just couldn't help yourself could you? lol

[JMarshall]

Oh yeah? Well, I won every spelling bee I was allowed to participate in when I was in fourth grade. By about the end of January the teacher wouldn't let me be in them any more so the other kids would have a chance to win. In fact, I went through my entire fourth-grade year without misspelling a single word.

I peaked early, it seems.

Oh yeah well i scored a 229 on my ASVAB, of course you get points for spelling you name right, and back then the total score was 300, but I is smart dangit!

[Tony Szamboti]

Thanks for the writeup! I may do another version and take out the snarky remarks. I guess I was in a bad mood when I made that.

Interesting that the ATS crowd is throwing their hands in the air and saying, "Who says explosives were used?"

Er, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, Alex Jones, Gordon Ross, Frank Legge, William Rodriguez, Webster Tarpley, Eric Hufschmid, Kevin Barrett, Torin Wolf, Crockett Grabbe, Craig Furlong, Tony Szamboti, 911truth.org, NY911truth, WeAreChange, Loose Change (all versions), 9/11 Mysteries, Improbable Collapse, 9/11 Revisited, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 Why the Official Story Can't be True, dozens of YouTube videos, dozens of people who have posted here, and every conspiracist who cites witness accounts of explosions.

Many of these people claim that not only were explosives used, so much explosives were used that giant steel sections were tossed around the site and nearly all the concrete was pulverized. That's the point of my video.

Just so you know where I stand concerning explosives and incendiaries being used in the destruction of the Twin Towers, I believe there was a minimal amount used to get the collapse going and to keep it moving. There was no need for large explosives of the type Mark illustrates in his film. A 1 to 2 lb. properly placed charge can easily cut right through most of the columns in the towers. Additionally, if the central core was demolished it would not be visible as it was surrounded by free space and the perimeter columns. However, the central cores carried the majority of the gravity loads and their demolition, with relatively small charges and/or incendiaries, which do not make noise, would cause the buildings to collapse, without it being very visible or audible. However, we do know that many people who were actually in the towers, like William Rodriguez and some firefighters, claimed to have heard explosions, and some within a close proximity outside claimed to have seen sychronized low level flashes.

I do not believe that explosives were responsible for much of the pulverization or the distance that steel beams or aluminum cladding were thrown from the buildings. I believe the gravitational potential energy released by the cutting of the columns was responsible for most of these phenomena observed.

I explain the reason that it is likely that the columns were cut in my papers on the Journal of 911 Studies.

Mark Roberts' recent video does not represent what is usually done in demolitions of buildings. Large charges are not used. This can be verified by looking up the total weight of the charges used in various demolitions with the number of charges. One instance of a large building demolition used a total of 150 lbs. of explosives split up into 650 different locations.

[JMarshall]

Just so you know where I stand concerning explosives and incendiaries being used in the destruction of the Twin Towers, I believe there was a minimal amount used to get the collapse going and to keep it moving. There was no need for large explosives of the type Mark illustrates in his film. A 1 to 2 lb. properly placed charge can easily cut right through most of the columns in the towers. Additionally, if the central core was demolished it would not be visible as it was surrounded by free space and the perimeter columns. However, the central cores carried the majority of the gravity loads and their demolition, with relatively small charges and/or incendiaries, which do not make noise, would cause the buildings to collapse, without it being very visible or audible.

I do not believe that explosives were responsible for much of the pulverization or the distance that steel beams or aluminum cladding were thrown from the buildings. I believe the gravitational potential energy released by the cutting of the columns was responsible for most of these phenomena observed.

I explain the reason that it is likely that the columns were cut in my papers on the Journal of 911 Studies.

Mark Roberts recent video does not represent what is usually done in demolitions of buildings. Large charges are not used. This can be verified by looking up the total weight of the charges used in various demolitions with the number of charges. One instance of a large building demolition used a total of 150 lbs. of explosives split up into 650 different locations.

What do you base the 1-2 lb charge on? Do you have any idea how much C4 is needed to cut through structural steal? Not to mention the amount of prep work that must be done for the smaller charges used in CD's to work?

[Tony Szamboti]

What do you base the 1-2 lb charge on? Do you have any idea how much C4 is needed to cut through structural steal? Not to mention the amount of prep work that must be done for the smaller charges used in CD's to work?

I am saying 1 to 2 lbs. based on the pressures generated and the force required for the sizes of the columns in the towers.

If prep work is done and the charge confined in an internal space the amount of explosive on an individual column could be even less. How do you know prep work couldn't have been done clandestinely?

[Unsecured Coins]

If "if" was a fifth, we'd all be drunk. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

[PhantomWolf]

realcddeal,

If the collaspe was progressed by a series of timed explosives, then where did the initial dust come from? The photos and footage show large amounts of dust as part of the collapse, but if the collapse was being created by explosives droipping each floor in turn then there would have been no resistance on the way down, and so no dust could have been formed during the collapse. How do you explain this problem? Most Truthers explain by the massive explosive theory, but since you claim that their was no massive explosives, how can you marry the no-resistance argument with the dust created evidence?

[Tony Szamboti]

realcddeal,

If the collaspe was progressed by a series of timed explosives, then where did the initial dust come from? The photos and footage show large amounts of dust as part of the collapse, but if the collapse was being created by explosives droipping each floor in turn then there would have been no resistance on the way down, and so no dust could have been formed during the collapse. How do you explain this problem? Most Truthers explain by the massive explosive theory, but since you claim that their was no massive explosives, how can you marry the no-resistance argument with the dust created evidence?

No, this isn't true at all and many are confused by it. The upper stories are already moving when the lower stories are blown and there will be a relative collision. As an example, imagine a car sitting in a lane with barriers on each side. Then imagine a truck moving at 100 ft./sec. approaching from behind the car and the car starts to accelerate at 32.2 ft./sec. when the truck is 67.8 feet behind. What happens 1 second later? The truck and car collide with a relative velocity of 67.8 ft./sec. That is what would have been happening all the way down in the tower and is why there was so much pulverization.

The lower stories simply can't get out of the way fast enough, since their acceleration is limited to that due to gravity, and the upper material has a head start moving, and in this case more than makes up for the distance between them. These collisions are just tens or a few hundreds of microseconds long and would have caused some reduction in the momentum of the upper material and that is why the time to collapse is considered near free fall in a controlled demolition.

[PhantomWolf]

No, this isn't true at all and many are confused by it. The upper stories are already moving when the lower stories are blown and there will be a relative collision. As an example, imagine a car sitting in a lane with barriers on each side. Then imagine a truck moving at 100 ft./sec. approaching from behind the car and the car starts to accelerate at 32.2 ft./sec. when the truck is 100 feet behind. What happens 1 second later? The truck and car collide with a relative velocity of 67.8 ft./sec. That is what would have been happening all the way down in the tower and is why there was so much pulverization.

However the floors below the collapse weren't moving at all. Have you watched the video of the start of the collapse? How do you explain the curving in of the columns?

[Tony Szamboti]

However the floors below the collapse weren't moving at all. Have you watched the video of the start of the collapse? How do you explain the curving in of the columns?

At the initiation of the collapse the lower floors do not appear to be moving and then all of a sudden they start. The collision is relative no matter whether the lower section is moving or not. The velocity shock would impart significant dynamic loads into the lower stories and bust it up pretty well. Which is what we see.

If I were to engineer a demolition to look like a natural collapse I would have the top fall onto a stationary section and then initiate the movemment.

I believe it was the demolition of the core columns which caused them to pull on the perimeter columns through the floor trusses. If you haven't seen it take a look at the fall of the North Tower antenna which falls ten to twelve feet before the perimeter line of the roof. This indicates the core is being taken out.

I have not seen a video showing inward bowing of the perimeter columns for more than seconds before the collapse. That would fit with the core columns going down and pulling in the perimeter column theory.

[Tony Szamboti]

No, this isn't true at all and many are confused by it. The upper stories are already moving when the lower stories are blown and there will be a relative collision. As an example, imagine a car sitting in a lane with barriers on each side. Then imagine a truck moving at 100 ft./sec. approaching from behind the car and the car starts to accelerate at 32.2 ft./sec. when the truck is 67.8 feet behind. What happens 1 second later? The truck and car collide with a relative velocity of 67.8 ft./sec. That is what would have been happening all the way down in the tower and is why there was so much pulverization.

The lower stories simply can't get out of the way fast enough, since their acceleration is limited to that due to gravity, and the upper material has a head start moving, and in this case more than makes up for the distance between them. These collisions are just tens or a few hundreds of microseconds long and would have caused some reduction in the momentum of the upper material and that is why the time to collapse is considered near free fall in a controlled demolition.


If you notice I needed to make a correction here where the truck, moving at 100 feet/sec is 67.8 feet behind the car when it begins to accelerate.

[JMarshall]

I am saying 1 to 2 lbs. based on the pressures generated and the force required for the sizes of the columns in the towers.

If prep work is done and the charge confined in an internal space the amount of explosive on an individual column could be even less. How do you know prep work couldn't have been done clandestinely?

Ok, to cut a piece of structural steal that is 14" wide by 4" deep, you would need 21lbs of TNT. I got that from this formula:

P=(3/8)A

P is TNT in Pounds
A is Cross Section Area of the steel member in square inches

Now TNT has a RE (relative effectiveness factor) of 1.00, it is the base for all other explosives, C4 is 1.34, Tetrytol is 1.20, M118 Sheet Explosives is 1.14, Dynamite is 0.092, etc...

In order for us to calculate the amount of explosives we need for anything other than TNT, we need to know the RE of the explosive we wish to use, and put it into this formula:

P/RE

P is again the pounds of TNT
RE is of course the RE of the explosive you are going to use.

If we were going to use C4 we would need roughly 16 lbs (It's good to always round up just in case).

Now this is only if you are using non-shape charge C4, and with the minimum of prep work, meaning the charges are placed directly against the steal.

If you are using a shape charge, it makes a difference what material you use in the construction of the shape charge, and the degree of angle of the cavity. I'm not going to get into the exact technicalities of shape charges, but even with shape charge you would still need around 8 lbs (or more depending on the factors I mentioned) just to cut through that same piece of structural steal.

As to having it inside an enclosure, the explosive cutting force is not improved, only the amount of over-pressure.

Next the prep work that could or couldn't have been done clandestinely... In order for CD shape charges to work, you must torch pieces of the steal out in areas, not to mention all explosives used to cut steal are placed directly onto the steal, if you have concrete around it you have to get it off, before you can place the charges. In my professional opinion the work would be too much, to be done clandestinely without anyone noticing.

[Tbone]

At the initiation of the collapse the lower floors do not appear to be moving and then all of a sudden they start. The collision is relative no matter whether the lower section is moving or not. The velocity shock would impart significant dynamic loads into the lower stories and bust it up pretty well. Which is what we see.

If I were to engineer a demolition to look like a collapse I would have the top fall onto a stationary section and then initiate the movemment.

I believe it was the demolition of the core columns which caused them to pull on the perimeter columns through the floor trusses. If you haven't seen it take a look at the fall of the North Tower antenna which falls ten to twelve feet before the perimeter line of the roof. This indicates the core is being taken out.

I have not seen a video showing inward bowing of the perimeter columns for more than seconds before the collapse. That would fit with the core columns going down and pulling in the perimeter column theory.

Please provide evidence that the floors below the collaspe begin to move.

Why would destroying the cores cause the outer columns to pull inward? There would be nothing to pull them in.

[Tony Szamboti]

Please provide evidence that the floors below the collaspe begin to move.

Why would destroying the cores cause the outer columns to pull inward? There would be nothing to pull them in.

Are you actually saying the lower floors don't ever move? I guess I don't understand your question.

The core columns were connected to the perimeter columns via the floor trusses remember. If the core columns go down inside then they pull the perimeter columns inward and the weight above the perimeter columns causes them to buckle. I explained this earlier.

[Gravy]

Just so you know where I stand concerning explosives and incendiaries being used in the destruction of the Twin Towers, I believe there was a minimal amount used to get the collapse going and to keep it moving. There was no need for large explosives of the type Mark illustrates in his film. A 1 to 2 lb. properly placed charge can easily cut right through most of the columns in the towers. 1-2 lb. charges can throw hundreds of tons of structural steel all over the site? 1-2 lb. charges went off in the north tower basement before flight 11 hit? 1-2 lb. charges can pulverize hundreds of tons of concrete? Conspiracists claim that explosives were responsible for these events.

YOU claim that explosives are responsible for pulverization of concrete and expansion of the "pyroclastic cloud" of dust.


Barrett: "A hundred times as much energy would have been required to pulverize it, as was there for gravity."

Szamboti: "There's no question. I just reviewed a paper along those lines, and the guy shows that. The PhD from Australia. So, there's no doubt that there was explosives.

There is an energy deficit in expanding those clouds. That's really where the energy deficit comes in."

Explain how 1-2 lb. explosives did that, Mr. Szamboti.

I await your non-insane reply.

[Tony Szamboti]

Ok, to cut a piece of structural steal that is 14" wide by 4" deep, you would need 21lbs of TNT. I got that from this formula:

P=(3/8)A

P is TNT in Pounds
A is Cross Section Area of the steel member in square inches

Now TNT has a RE (relative effectiveness factor) of 1.00, it is the base for all other explosives, C4 is 1.34, Tetrytol is 1.20, M118 Sheet Explosives is 1.14, Dynamite is 0.092, etc...

In order for us to calculate the amount of explosives we need for anything other than TNT, we need to know the RE of the explosive we wish to use, and put it into this formula:

P/RE

P is again the pounds of TNT
RE is of course the RE of the explosive you are going to use.

If we were going to use C4 we would need roughly 16 lbs (It's good to always round up just in case).

Now this is only if you are using non-shape charge C4, and with the minimum of prep work, meaning the charges are placed directly against the steal.

If you are using a shape charge, it makes a difference what material you use in the construction of the shape charge, and the degree of angle of the cavity. I'm not going to get into the exact technicalities of shape charges, but even with shape charge you would still need around 8 lbs (or more depending on the factors I mentioned) just to cut through that same piece of structural steal.

As to having it inside an enclosure, the explosive cutting force is not improved, only the amount of over-pressure.

Next the prep work that could or couldn't have been done clandestinely... In order for CD shape charges to work, you must torch pieces of the steal out in areas, not to mention all explosives used to cut steal are placed directly onto the steal, if you have concrete around it you have to get it off, before you can place the charges. In my professional opinion the work would be too much, to be done clandestinely without anyone noticing.


First, you need to know what the cross section of each column was in the towers. You use a sample beam of 14 x 4 inches or 56 sq. inches. Most of the columns, at least in the upper stories, did not have that size cross sectional area. I will grant that for lower columns there would have been a need for more explosive, but even there it isn't anywhere near 100 lbs. per column as Mark Roberts' video would imply. That was my point.

What would be interesting is to determine the total amount of explosives needed. I will do that and see what it is. I also believe that only the outer columns of the central core actually had to be taken out to effect a collapse. I don't think it would have taken as much work as you believe.

You have your opinion of whether it was too much work to be done to prep the columns, but I also believe this was done over a significant period of time and certain people who had something to gain had some control over security in those towers.

[R.Mackey]

I have not seen a video showing inward bowing of the perimeter columns for more than seconds before the collapse. That would fit with the core columns going down and pulling in the perimeter column theory.


This is the source of the problem, right here. We've come to this point before.

Never mind that NIST shows photographs of bowing columns long before collapse -- nobody has provided a "video" for Mr. Szamboti's perusal, so he rejects it out of hand.

Shifting the burden of proof is no way to argue. Either prove NIST is wrong, or produce an explosives theory that also gradually bows the external columns. Those are your options.

[JMarshall]

First, you need to know what the cross section of each column was in the towers. You use a sample beam of 14 x 4 inches or 56 sq. inches. Most of the columns, at least in the upper stories did not have that size cross sectional area. I will grant that for lower columns there would have been a need for more explosive, but it isn't 100 lbs. per column as Mark Roberts' video would imply. That is the point I was making.

What would be interesting is to determine the total amount of explosives needed. I will do that and see what it is. I also believe that only the outer columns of the central core actually had to be taken out to effect a collapse.

You have your opinion of whether it was too much work to be done to prep the columns, but I believe this was done over a significant period of time and certain people who had something to gain had some control over security in those towers.

If you're willing to provide me with the exact size of each floor's columns, along with the exact geometry of them in correlation to the rest of the structure, I too would like to do my own calculations, and off the top of my head I would say it would need more than just the outer core columns to be demolished in order to initiate collapse (considering the outer columns fail first).

As to the prep work again, I'm not sure if you really realize what type of prep work I am talking about. This is concrete removal, torching, placing of the charges, priming of the charges, concealing the charges, emplacement of line mains and ring mains, concealing the mains, calculating delays, emplacement of delay fuse, concealing the delay fuse, and all of this done while no one sees it.... It isn't even close to accomplish-able, even if it was done over a long time frame. I haven't even gone into the shelf-life of most explosives, and the deterioration rate of the compounds...

[Tony Szamboti]

1-2 lb. charges can throw hundreds of tons of structural steel all over the site? 1-2 lb. charges went off in the north tower basement before flight 11 hit? 1-2 lb. charges can pulverize hundreds of tons of concrete? Conspiracists claim that explosives were responsible for these events.

YOU claim that explosives are responsible for pulverization of concrete and expansion of the "pyroclastic cloud" of dust.



Explain how 1-2 lb. explosives did that, Mr. Szamboti.

I await your non-insane reply.

First, it sounds like you didn't even read all of what I said here tonight, let alone get straight what I was saying on the radio show.

Concerning the 1 to 2 lb. explosive per column situation, I was speaking of the columns in the top of the tower, certainly not the basement. I was really speaking about a collapse initiation.

I just said here tonight that I do not believe that explosives were responsible for hurling beams hundreds of feet or for most of the pulverization. I believe it was the sudden release of gravitational energy and the resulting dynamic loads during the impacts that are accountable for much of the observed phenomena. Of course, the sudden release of that energy was due to the columns being cut.

If you actually listened to all of what I was saying to Kevin Barrett on that radio show, I said that many people underestimate the released gravitational potential energy and that it is what caused most if not all of the pulverization. The show is archived so you can link it here.

The energy deficit comes from the lack of a purely gravitational fall to continue. There needed to be additional energy input into the system to continue to fail the columns. This would have also caused some expansion of the dust clouds. All controlled demolitions cause huge dust clouds when they fall to the ground. I believe the tower collapses were caused by controlled demolitions every three stories all the way down. That means they would have been generating dust clouds every three stories due to collisions and that would create a lot of dust. I also said that on that radio show. Why don't you quote that part?

You seem to live in a fantasy land where a collapse, which should have never even happened, can blow through the rest of the building at near free fall speed, with no external energy source. You don't explain anything and only come up with non-sensical strawmen like look how much explosive would be needed. Tens of thousands of pounds if one were to take your video seriously.

Next time you want to berate someone at least have the courtesy to read and/or listen to what they say.

[Newtons Bit]

If you're willing to provide me with the exact size of each floor's columns, along with the exact geometry of them in correlation to the rest of the structure, I too would like to do my own calculations, and off the top of my head I would say it would need more than just the outer core columns to be demolished in order to initiate collapse (considering the outer columns fail first).

As to the prep work again, I'm not sure if you really realize what type of prep work I am talking about. This is concrete removal, torching, placing of the charges, priming of the charges, concealing the charges, emplacement of line mains and ring mains, concealing the mains, calculating delays, emplacement of delay fuse, concealing the delay fuse, and all of this done while no one sees it.... It isn't even close to accomplish-able, even if it was done over a long time frame. I haven't even gone into the shelf-life of most explosives, and the deterioration rate of the compounds...

The loss of a few exterior columns would not cause a collapse. That's pretty obvious based on the fact that the planes severed a large number of exterior columns without an immediate collapse. Being that they're moment frames, they can easily (and elastically) redistribute loads around the damaged areas.

The core columns on the other hand were very different. The loss of a small percentage of these would definitely lead to collapse. I ran the numbers of what size the core columns would about be. I came up with a W14x370. It's 17.9in deep, has a web thickness of 1.66in, a flange width of 16.4in and a flange thickness of 2.66in.

Oddly enough, that's thicker and bigger than your example.

[Tony Szamboti]

If you're willing to provide me with the exact size of each floor's columns, along with the exact geometry of them in correlation to the rest of the structure, I too would like to do my own calculations, and off the top of my head I would say it would need more than just the outer core columns to be demolished in order to initiate collapse (considering the outer columns fail first).

As to the prep work again, I'm not sure if you really realize what type of prep work I am talking about. This is concrete removal, torching, placing of the charges, priming of the charges, concealing the charges, emplacement of line mains and ring mains, concealing the mains, calculating delays, emplacement of delay fuse, concealing the delay fuse, and all of this done while no one sees it.... It isn't even close to accomplish-able, even if it was done over a long time frame. I haven't even gone into the shelf-life of most explosives, and the deterioration rate of the compounds...

I hear you about how much work is involved but as I said I believe it happened over a significant period of time. As for the shelf life of explosives I wonder if the setups weren't done over a long period and the actual loads placed fairly close to the event.

There is a site which has the cross sections of all the columns from the NIST SAP2000 data which was released due to a FOIA request. I will find it and send it to you via PM. I will also show how much of the total gravity load the outer core columns took and how they could have been all that was needed to be taken out.

[Newtons Bit]

You seem to live in a fantasy land where a collapse, which should have never even happened, can blow through the rest of the building at near free fall speed, with no external energy source. You don't explain anything and only come up with non-sensical strawmen like look how much explosive would be needed. Tens of thousands of pounds if one were to take your video seriously.

And yet you do live in a fantasy land where the collapse wouldn't progress on it's own. It's been proven, move on.

[JMarshall]

Oddly enough, that's thicker and bigger than your example.

I just picked numbers out of the air for my example, just to prove the fact that cutting charges aren't small 1- 2lb devices. Unfortunately I fear realcddeal completely missed that point. As far as the core apposed to the outer columns, I merely base it on a limited understanding of physics and large structures... My demolitions experience is limited to bridges, and smaller steal structures, so I will admitingly be wrong when it comes to larger structures.

[Tony Szamboti]

And yet you do live in a fantasy land where the collapse wouldn't progress on it's own. It's been proven, move on.

Are you a believer in the Bazant fantasy? If not, then who else proved that a progressive collapse was possible? Please don't use Seffen's recent paper. The entire tower was not a slender column, as it would relate to buckling, as he wants to imply.

Additionally, as I have said to you before there would have been no dynamic load to even start a continuing collapse if it was fire induced. Any fire induced collapse would have arrested quickly as it would have not have caused a significant dynamic load. Bazant pulls his dynamic load out of thin air by saying one to two stories just completely went away.

[Gravy]

First, it sounds like you didn't even read all of what I said here tonight, let alone get straight what I was saying on the radio show.
Yet more unmitigated b.s., Tony? You ran away from my televised debate challenge. Now everyone gets to see you run away from this one.

1) You said,
Look at any standard controlled demolition. Look at building 7. Look at the tremendous uh, clouds. You know, the pyroclastic surge after that dropped.How were the dust clouds in the three collapses in any way "pyroclastic flows?" Do you know what "pyro" means?

2) Why did you agree with Barrett's insane claim?
"Barrett: a hundred times as much energy would have been required to pulverize it, as was there for gravity."

Szamboti: "There's no question. I just reviewed a paper along those lines, and the guy shows that. The PhD from Australia. So, there's no doubt that there was explosives."3) If the top of one of the towers were lifted up and dropped on the bottom with enough force to cause global collapse, how long would the collapse take? In order for you to make your claim, you must be able to answer this question. So do it.

4) Show your calculations, or those that you reviewed and agree with, that show a deficit in gravitational potential energy to initiate progressive collapse in the three towers.

5) You said,
There is an energy deficit in expanding those clouds. That's really where the energy deficit comes in. Explain how the expansion of the dust clouds would differ from what is observed in the three collapses in a "natural" collapse.

6)
Concerning the 1 to 2 lb. explosive per column situation, I was speaking of the columns in the top of the tower, certainly not the basement. I was really speaking about a collapse initiation.
Ahem. You said:
The way the towers were really brought down was a series of 3-story controlled demolitions. Around 25 to 30 controlled demolitions every three stories.
a) Explain this discrepancy. As I said yesterday, it is clear that you are just making this up as you go along.

b) Please show evidence of these hundreds of massive explosions in the three towers.

c) Explain why, for example, as the top 40 floors were descending, demolition charges would be needed on the floors below.

You've got some work to do, Tony. Are you going to run away from it? Remember, the fate of the free world is riding on this. Time to man up.

[Newtons Bit]

Are you a believer in the Bazant fantasy? If not, then who else proved that a progressive collapse was possible? Please don't use Seffen's recent paper. The entire tower was not a slender column, as it would relate to buckling, as he wants to imply.

Additionally, as I have said to you before there would have been no dynamic load to even start a continuing collapse if it was fire induced. Any fire induced collapse would have arrested quickly as it would have not have caused a significant dynamic load. Bazant pulls his dynamic load out of thin air by saying one to two stories just completely went away.

I proved it. Using very simple math. Or rather, I disproved the only source saying that it self-arrests. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584

[Tony Szamboti]

Yet more unmitigated b.s., Tony? You ran away from my televised debate challenge. Now everyone gets to see you run away from this one.

1) You said,
How were the dust clouds in the three collapses in any way "pyroclastic flows?" Do you know what "pyro" means?

2) Why did you agree with Barrett's insane claim?
3) If the top of one of the towers were lifted up and dropped on the bottom with enough force to cause global collapse, how long would the collapse take? In order for you to make your claim, you must be able to answer this question. So do it.

4) Show your calculations, or those that you reviewed and agree with, that show a deficit in gravitational potential energy to initiate progressive collapse in the three towers.

5) You said,
6) You said:
a) Please show evidence of these hundreds of massive explosions in the three towers.

b) Explain why, for example, as the top 40 floors were descending, demolition charges would be needed on the floors below.

You've got some work to do, Tony. Are you going to run away from it? Remember, the fate of the free world is riding on this. Time to man up.


I did not run away from a televised debate with you. I never accepted it. I simply don't like the way Ron Wieck runs his show and do think you two would come up with some way of having an advantage. That isn't running away. Most people consider it smart not to go into a situation where their adversary has an upper hand. I debate with you here all the time.

I'll have to get back to you tomorrow on the other things as I actually have to go to work tomorrow. Do you? I really am wondering when you sleep. Are you on the night shift for tour guides this weekend?

[Unsecured Coins]

If you really did have rock solid proof, then... wouldn't YOU have the upper hand?

[R.Mackey]

Additionally, as I have said to you before there would have been no dynamic load to even start a continuing collapse if it was fire induced. Any fire induced collapse would have arrested quickly as it would have not have caused a significant dynamic load. Bazant pulls his dynamic load out of thin air by saying one to two stories just completely went away.

OK, this is just plain wrong.

If you want to attempt to disprove Bazant, either his original with Zhou or the update with Le, Benson and Greening, you have the floor. Proceed, or drop it and admit your error.

[Gravy]

I did not run away from a televised debate with you. I never accepted it. I simply don't like the way Ron Wieck runs his show and do think you two would come up with some way of having an advantage.Yes, we have the advantage of having all the evidence on our side.

Pure intellectual cowardice, Tony. You make many claims. You say you have proof. You even say that you saw Larry Silverstein declare that WTC 7 was demolished for safety reasons.

Yet you are unwilling to show your proof, and you don't care enough about this world-shaking news to publicly confront knowledgeable critics and show the world why 9/11 was an inside job.

Why, Tony?

That isn't running away. Most people consider it smart not to go into a sitaution where there adversary has an upper hand. I debate with you here all the time.No, you don't. You run away from debate all the time. Do I really have to remind you that you explicitly refused to defend your paper in a debate with me here? And immediately afterwards, you began debating the details of that paper with others?

Pure intellectual cowardice, Tony.

I'll have to get back to you tomorrow on the other things as I actually have to go to work tomorrow.Make sure you check my post again. I edited it, and I expect non-insane answers.

Remember, Tony, rational adults can admit when the evidence shows that they're wrong. That's called learning.

[Tony Szamboti]

OK, this is just plain wrong.

If you want to attempt to disprove Bazant, either his original with Zhou or the update with Le, Benson and Greening, you have the floor. Proceed, or drop it and admit your error.

Ryan, I really do have to get to bed. However, I am going to write a paper showing how there would not have been a dynamic load if the initiation was fire induced. I will have to talk to you later.

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes, we have the advantage of having all the evidence on our side.

Pure intellectual cowardice, Tony. You make many claims. You say you have proof. You even say that you saw Larry Silverstein declare that WTC 7 was demolished for safety reasons.

Yet you are unwilling to show your proof, and you don't care enough about this world-shaking news to publicly confront knowledgeable critics and show the world why 9/11 was an inside job.

Why, Tony?

No, you don't. You run away from debate all the time. Do I really have to remind you that you explicitly refused to defend your paper in a debate with me here? And immediately afterwards, you began debating the details of that paper with others?

Pure intellectual cowardice, Tony.

Make sure you check my post again. I edited it, and I expect non-insane answers.

Remember, Tony, rational adults can admit when the evidence shows that they're wrong. That's called learning.

Mark, as I said I have to get to bed. However, in your case I am thinking about not even responding to you anymore as you just lob insults and don't really have much to say.

[R.Mackey]

Ryan, I really do have to get to bed. However, I am going to write a paper showing how there would not have been a dynamic load if the initiation was fire induced. I will have to talk to you later.

I'll watch for it. But you're going to have quite a lot of explaining to do before I'll believe that the columns could somehow gently bend down a whole floor upon failing. And even if it was possible, this doesn't match the video.

[cmcaulif]

Are you a believer in the Bazant fantasy? If not, then who else proved that a progressive collapse was possible? Please don't use Seffen's recent paper. The entire tower was not a slender column, as it would relate to buckling, as he wants to imply.

Additionally, as I have said to you before there would have been no dynamic load to even start a continuing collapse if it was fire induced. Any fire induced collapse would have arrested quickly as it would have not have caused a significant dynamic load. Bazant pulls his dynamic load out of thin air by saying one to two stories just completely went away.

I guess you did not read Bazant and Verdure, and the differential equation for crush down presented in it, which shows resistance as soon as collapse initiates.

Seffen's paper shows the same, you can see this in figure 5. I dont know where you get the idea that the towers are treated as slender columns, his data on the column properties was taken from the Omika study.

[Gravy]

Mark, as I said I have to get to bed. However, in your case I am thinking about not even responding to you anymore as you just lob insults and don't really have much to say.I had quite a few specific things to say in my post 76. Don't worry, though, Tony. No one expects you to mount an evidence-based defense, or any defense at all.

[leftysergeant]

There is evidence that, to my eye, suggests that the columns in the towers may have started to bend slightly, then broke. In one of the many videos I have had to sit through with my eyes Scotch-taped open to stay awake, possibly Shafquat's piece, some one is showing us a bent column and remarking on how regular the surface looks., with no cracking. I think it is the one i have included as an attachment here. Look at the ends of the columns turned toward the camera. The ends are broken.

[Disbelief]

I hear you about how much work is involved but as I said I believe it happened over a significant period of time. As for the shelf life of explosives I wonder if the setups weren't done over a long period and the actual loads placed fairly close to the event.



So then, who are the perpetrators? How long would it take to do all the prep work? How many more people are now involved since it is over a long period of time?

[Gravy]

doppelpost

[Gravy]

So then, who are the perpetrators? How long would it take to do all the prep work? How many more people are now involved since it is over a long period of time?

All you'd have to do is invisibly gain unlimited access to every third floor many times over a period of years, do the deconstruction, install the explosives without being questioned, repair everything, have the work survive all construction, renovation, multiple inspections, bomb-sniffing dogs, airliner impacts, and fires, and use explosives that can't be detected by the human ear or by audiovisual and seismic devices, that don't disturb nearby smoke when they detonate, and that leave no trace of themselves or their cuts on hundreds of pieces of steel.

What's so difficult about that?

[Disbelief]

All you'd have to do is invisibly gain unlimited access to every third floor many times over a period of years, do the deconstruction, install the explosives without being questioned, repair everything, have the work survive all construction, renovation, multiple inspections, bomb-sniffing dogs, airliner impacts, and fires, and use explosives that can't be detected by the human ear or by audiovisual and seismic devices, that don't disturb nearby smoke when they detonate, and that leave no trace of themselves or their cuts on hundreds of pieces of steel.

What's so difficult about that?

You forgot that it is only a small group of military demolition experts who only follow orders. Add that, and I see your point.:eek:

[Unsecured Coins]

Now that you mention it, Korey DID join the Army because he "wanted to blow stuff up"

intarwesting...

[Trifikas]

Don't you need the Lower floors to be relativly-intact to produce the lateral ejecta from the collapse that hit WTC 3-7? If the lower floors were weakend via whatever, wouldn't the upper floors collapsing on the lower floors just "blow through" (colloquialism, not saying that's the technical term) the floors below, rather then colliding and creating the forces to send the debris laterally?

[Dave Rogers]

You seem to live in a fantasy land where a collapse, which should have never even happened, can blow through the rest of the building at near free fall speed, with no external energy source. You don't explain anything and only come up with non-sensical strawmen like look how much explosive would be needed. Tens of thousands of pounds if one were to take your video seriously.

I have a problem with this, based on thermodynamics - in other words, the energy requirements for collapse.

According to Hoffman, the energy in each tower is roughtly equivalent to 250 tons of TNT, or roughly 500,000 pounds. Hoffman uses the 500,000 ton figure for the weight of the towers, which now appears an overestimate; let's assume Gregory Urich's figure, which I think was around 235,000 tons, and scale Hoffman's numbers, so we get an energy equivalent of about 235,000 pounds of TNT. You're claiming that this is insufficient energy for the collapse to propagate, so you've postulated an additional energy source in the form of explosive charges. You're assuming 2lb charges on the core columns at every 3 storeys, so that's 2 x 47 x 110 / 3 = about 3500lb of charges; from your above comment that tens of thousands of pounds is a nonsensical strawman, I assume that's a reasonable estimate. Please let me know if it isn't.

Note now that 3500/235000 = 0.015 to 2 significant figures. In other words, your explosive energy is of order 1.5% of the GPE of the tower.

What bothers me about this is that you're stating that the GPE of the towers is self-evidently too small to allow the collapse to propagate, yet an additional energy of only 1.5% of that is enough to ensure global collapse. And we're not talking about anything being left to chance here; for the conspiracy theory to be valid, the conspirators would have to be quite certain that the towers would collapse fully, because partial collapse -> unambiguous evidence of explosives -> lots of executions. So what you need to prove is that the GPE was less than needed to propagate collapse, but by less than 1.5%, and also that adding that 1.5% is enough to ensure total collapse with a sufficiently good safety margin that the secrecy of the entire conspiracy is allowed to hinge on it.

Basically, I think you're trying to thread your theory through the eye of a needle, and it's far too small. It's a fundamental problem with CD theories; either the explosive energy is comparable to the GPE of the towers, in which case it's inconceivable that the explosive blast wouldn't have deafened half of Manhattan, or the explosive energy is not comparable with the GPE of the towers, in which case (a) the argument that the GPE was too small to ensure progressive collapse becomes untenable and (b) the requirement of the conspiracy theory, that the explosives would ensure collapse, becomes implausible to satisfy.

It's all rather handwaving and not very quantitative, but given that the only published analysis stating the towers would not have collapsed is Ross's, and that is so flawed as to be utterly worthless, I think it's probably at least as valid as any argument based on insufficient GPE.

Dave

[JMarshall]

You forgot that it is only a small group of military demolition experts who only follow orders. Add that, and I see your point.:eek:

Hmmm, perhaps now wouldn't be a good time to mention I was a military demolitions expert prior to and during 9/11... *whistling inconspicously*
I'll just be going now.... Hey look over there! It's NWO KITTY! *Points*
Run away!

[Tony Szamboti]

Ok, to cut a piece of structural steal that is 14" wide by 4" deep, you would need 21lbs of TNT. I got that from this formula:

P=(3/8)A

P is TNT in Pounds
A is Cross Section Area of the steel member in square inches

Now TNT has a RE (relative effectiveness factor) of 1.00, it is the base for all other explosives, C4 is 1.34, Tetrytol is 1.20, M118 Sheet Explosives is 1.14, Dynamite is 0.092, etc...

In order for us to calculate the amount of explosives we need for anything other than TNT, we need to know the RE of the explosive we wish to use, and put it into this formula:

P/RE

P is again the pounds of TNT
RE is of course the RE of the explosive you are going to use.

If we were going to use C4 we would need roughly 16 lbs (It's good to always round up just in case).

Now this is only if you are using non-shape charge C4, and with the minimum of prep work, meaning the charges are placed directly against the steal.

If you are using a shape charge, it makes a difference what material you use in the construction of the shape charge, and the degree of angle of the cavity. I'm not going to get into the exact technicalities of shape charges, but even with shape charge you would still need around 8 lbs (or more depending on the factors I mentioned) just to cut through that same piece of structural steal.

As to having it inside an enclosure, the explosive cutting force is not improved, only the amount of over-pressure.

Next the prep work that could or couldn't have been done clandestinely... In order for CD shape charges to work, you must torch pieces of the steal out in areas, not to mention all explosives used to cut steal are placed directly onto the steal, if you have concrete around it you have to get it off, before you can place the charges. In my professional opinion the work would be too much, to be done clandestinely without anyone noticing.


I am not sure where you got the P = (3/8)A formula from, as you didn't give a reference. However, just to show that there is enough energy in a one pound block of C4, to take out a majority of the columns in the twin towers, here are some energy calculations.

The energy content of a pound of gasoline is 2.2 x 10e7 joules.

TNT has 1/15 the energy content of gasoline so it has 1.46 x 10e6 joules per pound.

C4 has 1.34 times the energy of TNT and so it has 1.96 x 10e6 joules per pound.

One joule = .735 foot pounds

So the energy in one pound of C4 is 1.44 x 10e6 foot pounds or 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds.

In your example of a 14 inch x 4 inch cross section steel beam I am assuming it is A36 as that is what the tower core columns were made from. The tensile strength of A36 structural steel is 36,000 psi. The shear strength is .577 x tensile strength so the shear strength of A36 steel is 20,772 psi.

The shear area would be 14" x 4" = 56 sq. inches.

Dividing 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds by 56 sq. inches = 309,540 pounds per inch.

That is nearly 15 times more than the 20,772 pound minimum required to shear through a sq. inch of the A36 steel.

Just one pound would provide enough energy to shear through an A36 steel column with an 800 sq. inch cross sectional area as 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds/800 sq. inches = 21,625 pounds/inch, which is still above the minimum.

Oddly enough, it seems the one pound charge also takes care of the W14x370 wide flange cross section brought up by Newtons Bit, which has a cross sectional area of about 120 sq. inches.

As I said most of the core columns in those towers could have been taken out with 1 to 2 pound charges.

[JMarshall]

I am not sure where you got the P = (3/8)A formula from as you didn't give a reference. However, just to show that there is enough energy in a one pound block of C-4 to take out a the majority of the columns in the twin towers here are some energy calculations.

The energy content of a pound of gasoline is 2.2 x 10e7 joules.

TNT has 1/15 the energy content of gasoline so it has 1.46 x 10e6 joules per pound.

RDX has 1.34 times the energy of TNT and so it has 1.96 x 10e6 joules.

One joule = .735 foot pounds

So the energy in one pound of RDX is 1.44 x 10e6 foot pounds or 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds.

In your example of a 14 inch x 4 inch cross section steel beam I am assuming it is A36 as that is what the tower core columns were made from. The tensile strength of A36 structural steel is 36,000 psi. The shear strength is .577 x tensile strength so the shear strength of A36 steel is 20,772 psi.

The shear area would be 14" x 4" = 56 sq. inches.

Dividing 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds by 56 sq. inches = 309,540 pounds per inch.

That is nearly 15 times more than the 20,772 pound minimum required to shear through the steel.

Just one pound would provide enough energy to shear through a column with an 800 sq. inch cross sectional area.

Oddly enough, I think the one pound charge also takes care of the W14x370 wide flange cross section brought up by Newtons Bit, which has a cross sectional area of about 120 sq. inches.

As I said most of the core columns in those towers could have been taken out with 1 to 2 pound charges.

My reference is US Army FM5-34, but good luck getting your hands on one, they are a restricted publication. But you may be able to find the same formula elsewhere, I just do everything as stated by the "engineer bible" as it's known to Combat Engineers.

RDX has a RE of 1.60 but because of the composition of Composition-4 (that's what C-4 really stands for),containing plasticizes and other additions, therefore only has a RE of 1.34. By my calculations a 1 lb charge would only have the ability to cut through a little over 2 square inches. I'm not going to argue you calculation and formulas since I have very little knowledge of Joules and potential energy...

[Tony Szamboti]

My reference is US Army FM5-34, but good luck getting your hands on one, they are a restricted publication. But you may be able to find the same formula elsewhere, I just do everything as stated by the "engineer bible" as it's known to Combat Engineers.

RDX has a RE of 1.60 but because of the composition of Composition-4 (that's what C-4 really stands for),containing plasticizes and other additions, therefore only has a RE of 1.34. By my calculations a 1 lb charge would only have the ability to cut through a little over 2 square inches. I'm not going to argue you calculation and formulas since I have very little knowledge of Joules and potential energy...


Earlier and probably while you were replying I did correct my post to C-4 not RDX. I do realize that C-4 is made up of several constituents of which RDX is one at approximately 80 to 90 percent with the rest being plasticizers etc.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[cmcaulif]

realcddeal:

Aside from the fact that you are trying to use the units of pounds per square inch and pounds per inch as if they were interchangeable, a linear shaped charge expends its energy in all directions when fired, it is also not efficient. Unless you are accounting for this, your numbers aren't worth much more than a guess.

[Newtons Bit]

I am not sure where you got the P = (3/8)A formula from, as you didn't give a reference. However, just to show that there is enough energy in a one pound block of C4, to take out a majority of the columns in the twin towers, here are some energy calculations.

The energy content of a pound of gasoline is 2.2 x 10e7 joules.

TNT has 1/15 the energy content of gasoline so it has 1.46 x 10e6 joules per pound.

C4 has 1.34 times the energy of TNT and so it has 1.96 x 10e6 joules per pound.

One joule = .735 foot pounds

So the energy in one pound of C4 is 1.44 x 10e6 foot pounds or 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds.

In your example of a 14 inch x 4 inch cross section steel beam I am assuming it is A36 as that is what the tower core columns were made from. The tensile strength of A36 structural steel is 36,000 psi. The shear strength is .577 x tensile strength so the shear strength of A36 steel is 20,772 psi.

The shear area would be 14" x 4" = 56 sq. inches.

Dividing 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds by 56 sq. inches = 309,540 pounds per inch.

That is nearly 15 times more than the 20,772 pound minimum required to shear through a sq. inch of the A36 steel.

Just one pound would provide enough energy to shear through an A36 steel column with an 800 sq. inch cross sectional area as 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds/800 sq. inches = 21,625 pounds/inch, which is still above the minimum.

Oddly enough, it seems the one pound charge also takes care of the W14x370 wide flange cross section brought up by Newtons Bit, which has a cross sectional area of about 120 sq. inches.

As I said most of the core columns in those towers could have been taken out with 1 to 2 pound charges.

Does anyone else want to take this on? I'm tired of bunk energy calculations.

[Tony Szamboti]

realcddeal:

Aside from the fact that you are trying to use the units of pounds per square inch and pounds per inch as if they were interchangeable, a linear shaped charge expends its energy in all directions when fired, it is also not efficient. Unless you are accounting for this, your numbers aren't worth much more than a guess.

You can't be serious.

But just in case you are: what I am saying is there is 309,000 plus pounds of force for every square inch to be sheared in the situation of a one pound charge of C-4 and the 56 sq. inch cross section.

Shaped charges don't expend their energy in all directions.

Why don't you tell us what the efficiency is then since you are trying to pour water on the argument? Do you know? I think you are the one guessing.

[Tony Szamboti]

Does anyone else want to take this on? I'm tired of bunk energy calculations.

Sounds like you are a bad sport who isn't tired of sour grapes. Get used to it.

[Newtons Bit]

Sounds like you are a bad sport who isn't tired of sour grapes. Get used to it.

No, I think the point is that I *am* tired of sour grapes.

[JMarshall]

Shaped charges don't expend their energy in all directions.


Yes they do, it's just that the cavity focuses more of the energy on it's side... If shaped charges didn't expend all of it's energy in all directions, then you would be able to stand right next to a shaped-charge... If you want to try that, by all means, because I wouldn't...

[Tony Szamboti]

No, I think the point is that I *am* tired of sour grapes.

Well you seemed to have joined the fray and appear to have been wrong about whether the core columns could have been taken out by 1 to 2 pound C-4 charges.

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes they do, it's just that the cavity focuses more of the energy on it's side... If shaped charges didn't expend all of it's energy in all directions, then you would be able to stand right next to a shaped-charge... If you want to try that, by all means, because I wouldn't...

Technically you are right, but most of it goes in the direction intended. Even if it were only 50% efficient, and this is very unlikely, a one pound charge still has over seven times the amount of energy needed for the cross section you discussed, a two pound charge would have over fourteen times the energy necessary, even at 50% efficiency, for that cross section.

The general point here is that one to two pound charges were more than sufficient to take out the core columns of the Twin Towers.

[pomeroo]

I did not run away from a televised debate with you. I never accepted it. I simply don't like the way Ron Wieck runs his show and do think you two would come up with some way of having an advantage. That isn't running away. Most people consider it smart not to go into a situation where their adversary has an upper hand. I debate with you here all the time.

I'll have to get back to you tomorrow on the other things as I actually have to go to work tomorrow. Do you? I really am wondering when you sleep. Are you on the night shift for tour guides this weekend?


Someone on the LC forum brought you to my attention by claiming that there was a fantasist Mark was afraid to debate. I replied that there were no doubt fantasists who Mark regarded as too ridiculous or loathsome to debate, but as the entire evil movement is built on bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright falsehoods, there couldn't possibly be anyone whose forensic prowess he had to fear. I guess I was right.

What don't you like about the way I host 'Hardfire'? Jim Fetzer and the Boys could not have been too pleased with the outcomes of their debates, but they didn't complain about their treatment. You are too accustomed to preaching to an extremely dull-witted and uncritical choir.

[cmcaulif]

You can't be serious.

[quote]But just in case you are: what I am saying is there is 309,000 plus pounds of force for every square inch to be sheared in the situation of a one pound charge of C-4 and the 56 sq. inch cross section.

no you are not:

Dividing 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds by 56 sq. inches = 309,540 pounds per inch.

A pound per inch and a pound per square inch are not the same, one could represent a distributed load while the other is in the dimensions of stress. Checking units is just a quick and simple way to check your calculations, yours don't jive.

it seems you are either trying to say that and pound inch is a force, or an inch is an area. Does any of that make sense?

Shaped charges don't fire in all directions.

erm, yes they do. They are designed to concentrate the explosion on the desired point, but any explosive, will expand in all directions, and energy losses due to this is unavoidable.

Why don't you tell us what the efficiency is then since you are trying to pour water on the argument? Do you know? I think you are the one guessing.

last time I checked it was you who was proposing the CD scenario, I apologize for pointing out that you should take realistic factors into consideration in your calculation. The heat of the explosion for TNT is 4000 kJ/kg

If I wanted to pour water on the arguement, I would just cite the papers below, then be done with it.






Autocatalytic thermal decomposition kinetics of TNT
Thermochimica Acta, Volume 388, Issues 1-2, 18 June 2002, Pages 175-181
Gregory T. Long, Brittany A. Brems and Charles A. Wight

Abstract

previous termThermalnext term analysis has been employed to determine the kinetics and the energetics of the slow cook-off chemistry of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (previous termTNT)next term by isothermal differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) in high-pressure crucibles sealed under air. Model-free isoconversional analysis of the DSC kinetic traces has been used to determine activation energies (Eα) and the functional form of the reaction model (dependence of reaction rate on the extent of conversion, α). While the variation in Eα with α is in qualitative agreement with the literature it is nevertheless constant within the 95% confidence limits at 140±10 kJ mol−1. Hence, no systematic variation in Eα occurs over the course of the reaction. Rather, the reaction model exhibits a large increase in the range 0.1<α<0.25 and a decrease for 0.25<α<0.43. Thus, the observed acceleratory period is caused by an increase in the reaction model, not by a decrease in activation energy, as might be expected for autocatalysis. This kinetic behavior is ascribed to nucleation and growth of reaction centers in liquid state previous termTNT.next term In addition, a heat of reaction, Q=(4.9±1.5)×102 kJ mol−1 during the previous termthermal decomposition of TNTnext term has been shown to be independent of the heating rate and sample size.

Thermal Decomposition of a Melt-Castable High Explosive: Isoconversional Analysis of TNAZ
Long, G. T.; Wight, C. A.
J. Phys. Chem. B.; (Article); 2002; 106(10); 2791-2795.

Abstract:

The thermal decomposition kinetics of the high explosive 1,3,3-trinitroazetidine (TNAZ) have been measured by nonisothermal differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Samples of TNAZ in open pans and pierced pans undergo mainly melting (Hfus = 27 ± 3 kJ mol-1) and vaporization (Hvap = 74 ± 10 kJ mol-1) during heating. However, when confined in sealed high-pressure crucibles, exothermic thermal decomposition is observed. The activation energy for thermal decomposition has been determined as a function of the extent of reaction by isoconversional analysis. The initial value of 184 kJ mol-1 at the start of the reaction decreases to 38 kJ mol-1 near the end of the reaction. The rates clearly exhibit acceleratory behavior that is ascribed to autocatalysis. The measured heat release of thermal decomposition (Q = 640 ± 150 kJ mol-1) is independent of the heating rate and the sample mass. These results are consistent with proposed mechanisms of TNAZ decomposition in which the initial step is preferential loss of the nitramine NO2 group over loss of a gem-dinitroalkyl NO2 group.

Thermal Activation of the High Explosive NTO: Sublimation, Decomposition, and Autocatalysis
Long, G. T.; Brems, B. A.; Wight, C. A.
J. Phys. Chem. B.; (Article); 2002; 106(15); 4022-4026.

Abstract:

Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) show that the heating of 5-nitro-2,4-dihydro-3H-1,2,4-triazol-3-one (NTO) leads to competitive sublimation and condensed-phase exothermic decomposition. Model-free isoconversional analysis has determined activation energies (E) for these processes as a function of the extent of conversion, . Sublimation occurs most readily in an open pan; although more than simple sublimation was observed, a global activation energy of E = 130-140 kJ mol-1 for sublimation was determined. Nonisothermal TGA and DSC traces run on pierced pan samples provide convincing evidence for competitive sublimation and condensed-phase decomposition of NTO. Confining NTO samples in a closed pan results in condensed-phase decomposition that leads to the formation of gaseous reaction products and shows autocatalytic behavior during the latter stages. Isoconversional analysis of DSC traces of closed pan samples yield activation energies for exothermic decomposition that increase from E = 273 kJ mol-1 for = 0.01 to a plateau of 333 kJ mol-1 for 0.17 0.35 prior to decreasing to 184 kJ mol-1 for = 0.99. The decrease in E with during the latter stages of decomposition agrees with previous reports of autocatalytic behavior.

Competitive Vaporization and Decomposition of Liquid RDX
Long, G. T.; Vyazovkin, S.; Brems, B. A.; Wight, C. A.
J. Phys. Chem. B.; (Article); 2000; 104(11); 2570-2574.

Abstract:

The thermal decomposition of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) has been studied by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Activation energies as a function of the extent of conversion, , have been determined by model-free isoconversional analysis of these data. In open pans, evaporation is a prevalent process with an activation energy of ~100 kJ mol-1. Confining the system in either a pierced pan or a closed pan promotes liquid state decomposition of RDX that occurs with an activation energy of ~200 kJ mol-1, which suggests scission of an N-N bond as the primary decomposition step. In such a confined environment, gas phase decomposition is a competing channel with an activation energy estimated to be ~140 kJ mol-1. In a closed pan, RDX generates a heat release of ~500 kJ mol-1 that is independent of both the heating rate, , and the mass.

[cmcaulif]

here is a video of a linear shaped charge cutting a plate, you can decide if 100 percent of the energy goes into the plate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZRAbUcUkIc

[Tony Szamboti]

Someone on the LC forum brought you to my attention by claiming that there was a fantasist Mark was afraid to debate. I replied that there were no doubt fantasists who Mark regarded as too ridiculous or loathsome to debate, but as the entire evil movement is built on bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright falsehoods, there couldn't possibly be anyone whose forensic prowess he had to fear. I guess I was right.

What don't you like about the way I host 'Hardfire'? Jim Fetzer and the Boys could not have been too pleased with the outcomes of their debates, but they didn't complain about their treatment. You are too accustomed to preaching to an extremely dull-witted and uncritical choir.

I would definitely not say I am preaching to an extremely dull-witted and uncritical choir here and I have been spending a good bit of my time here lately.

As for Mark I have shown that the premise of his video, claiming that those who believe the buildings were taken down via controlled demolition think there needed to be a huge amount of explosives, is simply wrong.

A controlled demolition of the twin towers would have used a minimum amount of explosives. As I have shown here, one to two pound charges were plenty capable of taking out the core columns. All that was necessary to bring those buildings down was to take out a majority of the core columns.

It wouldn't have been anything like the huge charges that Mark shows on his video, and since the charges would have been on the core columns they would have been well inside the perimeter, keeping the demolition charges from being visible, although a few did escape the perimeter. The collapse of the buildings would have masked the audible sounds of these relatively small charges.

For now I think the written word is the appropriate way to debate this topic. Maybe when it is all over, if you want, I will stop by your show.

[beachnut]

Sounds like you are a bad sport who isn't tired of sour grapes. Get used to it.
Have you fixed the errors in you paper yet?
You have zero clue on any thing CD realcddeal is a real neat name for someone with a paper which proves you have no clue about CD or 9/11.

But Gravy did an outstanding job on his video; makes your attempt at a paper look like junk. Good job Gravy, outstanding job Mark. Free beer if you ever find me. realcddeal needs a lot of free beer too, for being so bad at engineering (as seen in his paper).

[Newtons Bit]

Well you seemed to have joined the fray and appear to have been wrong about whether the core columns could have been taken out by 1 to 2 pound C-4 charges.

You're funny, but I'm not laughing. Here's the start genius, go back to first principles. Shear energy is derived from the triple integral of (Txy)*y*dx*dy*dz.

Where Txy = T / dA

Where

T = Shear Force
A = Cross-sectional Area


This ultimately translates to yet another integral of (1/2)*(T^2)/(A^2*G)*dx*DA

Where G is the shear modulus of steel (roughly 0.4*E)


Now, that ******** you did, is exactly that: ********. And I regret that this forum censors that out.

[Newtons Bit]

A pound per inch and a pound per square inch are not the same, one could represent a distributed load while the other is in the dimensions of stress. Checking units is just a quick and simple way to check your calculations, yours don't jive.

You'd think he'd at least make sure that his units matched when making up calculations.

Truther-logic at it's best, where in*lb = lb/in!

[Tony Szamboti]

here is a video of a linear shaped charge cutting a plate, you can decide if 100 percent of the energy goes into the plate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZRAbUcUkIc

Where did I say it was 100% efficient?

I did the calculations to show how much energy was available and it is many times what is necessary.

Your problem is that you do not want to believe that one to two pound charges could take out the core columns.

The reality is that they could and the energy calculations show that even a relatively low efficiency still allows far more than enough to do the job.

[Newtons Bit]

Where did I say it was 100% efficient?

I did the calculations to show how much energy was available and it is many times what is necessary.

Your problem is that you do not want to believe that one to two pound charges could take out the core columns.

The reality is that they could and the energy calculations show that even a relatively low efficiency still allows far more than enough to do the job.

Please elaborate on how in*lb = lb/in. You forgot the first part of his post where he showed you were MAKING **** UP.

[cmcaulif]

Where did I say it was 100% efficient?

I did the calculations to show how much energy was available and it is many times what is necessary.

Your problem is that you do not want to believe that one to two pound charges could take out the core columns.

The reality is that they could and the energy calculations show that even a relatively low efficiency still allows far more than enough to do the job.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth. I am only trying to point out the fact that there are energy losses to this and to heat when you re do your energy calculations, since your current ones do not mean anything. You do realize by now the importance of correct units right?

[Tony Szamboti]

You're funny, but I'm not laughing. Here's the start genius, go back to first principles. Shear energy is derived from the triple integral of (Txy)*y*dx*dy*dz.

Where Txy = T / dA

Where

T = Shear Force
A = Cross-sectional Area


This ultimately translates to yet another integral of (1/2)*(T^2)/(A^2*G)*dx*DA

Where G is the shear modulus of steel (roughly 0.4*E)


Now, that ******** you did, is exactly that: ********. And I regret that this forum censors that out.

deleted due to redundant post

[Tony Szamboti]

You're funny, but I'm not laughing. Here's the start genius, go back to first principles. Shear energy is derived from the triple integral of (Txy)*y*dx*dy*dz.

Where Txy = T / dA

Where

T = Shear Force
A = Cross-sectional Area


This ultimately translates to yet another integral of (1/2)*(T^2)/(A^2*G)*dx*DA

Where G is the shear modulus of steel (roughly 0.4*E)


Now, that ******** you did, is exactly that: ********. And I regret that this forum censors that out.

Stop trying to impress everyone with the integral BS. You know darn right well that the rule of thumb for shear stress for steel is .5 of tensile stress and the less conservative Von Mises stress for steel is .577 of tensile stress.

Are you trying to say that the shear yield stress for A36 steel is not in the vicinity of 21,000 psi?

[cmcaulif]

You'd think he'd at least make sure that his units matched when making up calculations.

Truther-logic at it's best, where in*lb = lb/in!

I wish I could change units like that when doing an assignment, save time, better grades, it sounds like a much easier system for everyone involved.

[Tony Szamboti]

Have you fixed the errors in you paper yet?
You have zero clue on any thing CD realcddeal is a real neat name for someone with a paper which proves you have no clue about CD or 9/11.

But Gravy did an outstanding job on his video; makes your attempt at a paper look like junk. Good job Gravy, outstanding job Mark. Free beer if you ever find me. realcddeal needs a lot of free beer too, for being so bad at engineering.

Not you again!

Mark's video is very nice and I enjoyed the music but its premise is wrong.

The size of the charges on the core columns in the towers would not need to be large.

[bynmdsue]

If "1 to 2 lb. shaped charges" took out the core columns,why did the cores remain standing longer than the rest?

[cmcaulif]

Stop trying to impress everyone with the integral BS. You know darn right well that the rule of thumb for Maximum shear stress for steel is .5 of ultimate tensile stress and the less conservative Von Mises stress for steel is .577 of ultimate tensile stress.

Are you trying to say that the shear stress for A36 steel is not in the vicinity of 21,000 psi?

psi stands in stead of pounds per square inch. a pound is in the units of force. You were using the energy of a TNT explosion, energy is in units of work, which is force times distance.

So if you use the shear capacity of steel in units of force per area, and try to compare with the energy of TNT, in units of work, it wont be dimensionally homogeneous, in other words, it doesn't mean anything.

If you want to use energy methods, you have to use the shear energy, compared to the TNT energy.

[Newtons Bit]

Stop trying to baffle everyone with the integral BS. You know darn right well that the rule of thumb is that Maximum shear stress is .5 of ultimate tensile stress for steel and the less conservative Von Mises stress is .577 of ultimate tensile stress.

Are you trying to say that the maximum shear stress of A36 steel is not in the vicinity of 21,000 psi?

Okay, let's analyze a couple of things here. The maximum shear stress is typically taken as 0.6*Fy (Fy = yield stress) in modern codes. Older codes allowed as much as 0.8, as this was backed up by testing. More modern research showed that there was a larger variance in shear capacity of steel, this led to the allowable shear capacity being lowered to increase the confidence in shear. In layman's terms, they lowered the allowable because a small percentage of [b]correctly[/b designed, correctly manufactured and correctly constructed (by code) steel members were still failing.

You also say "ultimate tensile stress". This is not the yield stress of 36ksi. Ultimate stress, or tensile stress of A36 steel is at a minimum 58ksi (for very large sections) and can be as high as 80ksi. If you were a professional who used these terms since you graduated college, wouldn't mess them up.


And I'm saying: you're full of ****. Please elaborate on how in*lb = lb/in.

[R.Mackey]

I wish I could change units like that when doing an assignment, save time, better grades, it sounds like a much easier system for everyone involved.

The problem isn't units, it's more fundamental than that.

realcddeal is attempting to calculate shear strength. He does this by estimating the shear strength per unit cross-section, starting with an estimate of shear strength in PSI (lb / in2) and then multiplying by the thickness (PSI x in = lb in / in2 = lb in).

of course, it just isn't anywhere near that simple.

ETA: Actually, on review, he's not even estimating strength. He's dividing total explosive energy by cross-section, comparing that to a hypothetical calculation as above, and then assuming the result is so large that he doesn't have to compute it. Neither calculation is valid, of course.

[Tony Szamboti]

I wish I could change units like that when doing an assignment, save time, better grades, it sounds like a much easier system for everyone involved.


Okay, I'll mollify you.

A one pound charge of C-4 has 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds of energy.

It takes 20,772 inch pounds of energy to shear through one sq. inch of A36 steel.

17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds/(20,772 inch pounds/sq. inch) = 832.8 sq. inches

This shows that there is enough energy available at 100% efficiency (not saying it is) to shear through 832.8 sq. inches of A36 steel.

This is for just a one pound charge. Two pounds will do 1665.6 sq. inches.

If you want to quibble about efficiency now you are going to have to show something real because the numbers are overwhelming.

[beachnut]

I would definitely not say I am preaching to an extremely dull-witted and uncritical choir here and I have been spending a good bit of my time here lately.

As for Mark I have shown that the premise of his video, claiming that those who believe the buildings were taken down via controlled demolition think there needed to be a huge amount of explosives, is simply wrong.

A controlled demolition of the twin towers would have used a minimum amount of explosives. As I have shown here, one to two pound charges were plenty capable of taking out the core columns. All that was necessary to bring those buildings down was to take out a majority of the core columns.

It wouldn't have been anything like the huge charges that Mark shows on his video, and since the charges would have been on the core columns they would have been well inside the perimeter, keeping the demolition charges from being visible, although a few did escape the perimeter. The collapse of the buildings would have masked the audible sounds of these relatively small charges.

For now I think the written word is the appropriate way to debate this topic. Maybe when it is all over, if you want, I will stop by your show.
You are so challenged on research. Mark's video is very good. You have just shown you do not understand CD. Gravity is the prime mover on CD as it was the only mover on 9/11 after the failure due to impact and fire. Mark makes it clear to me that the idiots for 9/11 truth think the explosives were used to dustify the WTC concrete. Dim witted 9/11 truth movement dolts are all into the crap of CD without a single piece of evidence.

It is clear, when you see Mark's example of the 5 pounds of TNT, there were zero explosives on 9/11. Further, the kind of CD that uses small amount of explosives have to be on the steel beam, and includes extra charges to cut the steel. Such an effort would have been discovered by tenants who do not want their walls cut! What kind of engineer would believer 9/11 truth junk? Hello?

You may not like the video because it makes sense, not like the tripe you put in your paper at the 9/11 truth journal, peer reviewed by total idiots when it comes to 9/11 topics. Sorry, but at my engineering school they thought you should be rational not stupid.

The video is an excellent tool to get a good idea about what real explosives do.

[Tony Szamboti]

Okay, let's analyze a couple of things here. The maximum shear stress is typically taken as 0.6*Fy (Fy = yield stress) in modern codes. Older codes allowed as much as 0.8, as this was backed up by testing. More modern research showed that there was a larger variance in shear capacity of steel, this led to the allowable shear capacity being lowered to increase the confidence in shear. In layman's terms, they lowered the allowable because a small percentage of [b]correctly[/b designed, correctly manufactured and correctly constructed (by code) steel members were still failing.

You also say "ultimate tensile stress". This is not the yield stress of 36ksi. Ultimate stress, or tensile stress of A36 steel is at a minimum 58ksi (for very large sections) and can be as high as 80ksi. If you were a professional who used these terms since you graduated college, wouldn't mess them up.



And I'm saying: you're full of ****. Please elaborate on how in*lb = lb/in.


I did mean to say tensile yield stress. Which for A36 is 36,000 psi. I will correct that but it does not change anything.

The point is that small charges could take out those core columns and you know that. If you don't you should.

Again I am asking you if you are trying to claim that the shear yield stress for A36 is not in the vicinity of 21,000 psi?

If we use a maximum ultimate tensile strength of 80 ksi which would give an absolute maximum shear stress of 46.16 ksi then the one pound charge is still capable of taking out a 375 sq. inch cross section. A two pound charge then does 750 sq. inches. These are way beyond the 120 sq. inch crosss section wide flange you mentioned.

[Tony Szamboti]

If "1 to 2 lb. shaped charges" took out the core columns,why did the cores remain standing longer than the rest?

I believe that only the outer core columns needed to go to bring down the towers. Much of the inner columns in rows 600, 700, 800, and 900 would have been dragged down by the outer columns at the upper levels were they were weaker. Lower levels remained due to their ability to resist being dragged down by their beam connections to the outer columns.

[Tony Szamboti]

You are so challenged on research. Mark's video is very good. You have just shown you do not understand CD. Gravity is the prime mover on CD as it was the only mover on 9/11 after the failure due to impact and fire. Mark makes it clear to me that the idiots for 9/11 truth think the explosives were used to dustify the WTC concrete. Dim witted 9/11 truth movement dolts are all into the crap of CD without a single piece of evidence.

It is clear, when you see Mark's example of the 5 pounds of TNT, there were zero explosives on 9/11. Further, the kind of CD that uses small amount of explosives have to be on the steel beam, and includes extra charges to cut the steel. Such an effort would have been discovered by tenants who do not want their walls cut! What kind of engineer would believer 9/11 truth junk? Hello?

You may not like the video because it makes sense, not like the tripe you put in your paper at the 9/11 truth journal, peer reviewed by total idiots when it comes to 9/11 topics. Sorry, but at my engineering school they thought you should be rational not stupid.

The video is an excellent tool to get a good idea about what real explosives do.


You are sure that the planting of charges would be discovered. What makes you so sure?

[cmcaulif]

Okay, I'll mollify you.

A one pound charge of C-4 has 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds of energy.

It takes 20,772 inch pounds of energy to shear through one sq. inch of A36 steel.

17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds/(20,772 inch pounds/sq. inch) = 832.8 sq. inches

This shows that there is enough energy available at 100% efficiency (not saying it is) to shear through 832.8 sq. inches of A36 steel.

This is for just a one pound charge. Two pounds will do 1665.6 sq. inches.

If you want to quibble about efficiency now you are going to have to show something real because the numbers are overwhelming.

Wait, was that a joke? I just made a tongue in cheek remark about how you don't understand units, and you reply with a display of your misunderstanding of units.

21000 pounds per square inch is the approximate shear capacity of A36 by the code.

If you want to calculate the energy needed to shear a given cross section, it is dependent on the shear force, shear modulus, and the section geometry, as NB showed.

[beachnut]

Not you again!

Mark's video is very nice and I enjoyed the music but its premise is wrong.

The size of the charges on the core columns in the towers would not need to be large.
But tell all the people how close the charges have to be to the steel. Tell them how they have to remove all the insulation and place the charge; then tell them how the wires have to run. Then tell them how the shaping charges have to be placed to blow the columns the direction you want them to go. Yes, I know there are only a small about of explosives needed to bring down a building compared to the energy of gravity stored in the building. I know gravity is the primary energy in all CD. I know the charges have to be on the steel, unless you use massive amounts of explosives. I know there were zero explosives used to bring down the WTC on 9/11. You have made up false ideas without any evidence. You just make it up. So sad to have a few engineers in the whole world make up lies about 9/11 with NO evidence. You are in select few people with idiot ideas on 9/11, that is less than 0.00067 percent of all engineers. So few wrong. So sad. Pathetic.

When did the evil doers set the explosives up? How close does that little charge have to be? Why do most 9/11 truth movement people think there were lots of explosives? Why do you have so many errors in you paper?

Then pleas answer the question why section of the core stood well after most the mass of the WTC left? Then try to correct your paper of errors before someone you know sees your work of woo.

If only you have a coherent story for this big CD plot; what does this remind me of Bigfoot or some other weird junk made up by real weird people?

[beachnut]

You are sure that the planting of charges would be discovered. What makes you so sure?
Okay, tell me how they were planted? Tell me where, and how much insulation was removed? How thick the insulation was? Where did they put the insulation after it was removed? Where they ran the wires? If you used radios, please tell me the frequency they used; please do not use 2.4 Ghz? Next, since there were no blast sounds or effects found during or after 9/11; what new stealth explosives were used? Why were there no blast effects? What was there zero evidence of cutter charges on the thousands and thousands of beams form the WTC which many independent investigators had access to?

Why did you leave out all the fancy ways of setting up explosives in your incredibly error ridden paper?

Do not forget to tell us all how the explosives were set off? How? Good luck tony.

[Tony Szamboti]

Wait, was that a joke? I just made a tongue in cheek remark about how you don't understand units, and you reply with a display of your misunderstanding of units.

21000 pounds per square inch is the approximate shear capacity of A36 by the code.

If you want to calculate the energy needed to shear a given cross section, it is dependent on the shear force, shear modulus, and the section geometry, as NB showed.


You criticism can't even be called nit picking. Are you trying to tell me that that material won't start to move in shear at around 21,000 psi?

[Tony Szamboti]

Okay, tell me how they were planted? Tell me where, and how much insulation was removed? How thick the insulation was? Where did they put the insulation after it was removed? Where they ran the wires? If you used radios, please tell me the frequency they used; please do not use 2.4 Ghz? Next, since there were no blast sounds or effects found during or after 9/11; what new stealth explosives were used? Why were there no blast effects? What was there zero evidence of cutter charges on the thousands and thousands of beams form the WTC which many independent investigators had access to?

Why did you leave out all the fancy ways of setting up explosives in your incredibly error ridden paper?

Do not forget to tell us all how the explosives were set off? How? Good luck tony.

Only someone like you, with a one track mind, would dismiss what I am saying concerning the erroneous premise in Mark Roberts video. The reality is that small charges were used to bring down those towers and they would not be very visible being on the core columns nor very audible during the collapse which was a rolling wave due to being taken down every three stories.

Gravity then did the rest of the work, like pulverization, due to tremendous dynamic loads, only after these columns were cut loose.

Goodnight and good luck to you too.

[Newtons Bit]

You criticism can't even be called nit picking. Are you trying to tell me that that material won't start to move in shear at around 21,000 psi?

Your units don't match. You cannot compare lb/in and lb*in and say one is bigger than the other, they're completely different things.

There now, is that big enough for you? You can't avoid text that big.

[cmcaulif]

You criticism can't even be called nit picking. Are you trying to tell me that that material won't start to move in shear at around 21,000 psi?

Pointing out that stress and energy are NOT interchangeable is nitpicking? :hb:

Of course the material will move in shear at around 21000 psi, however you have not proven that it will reach that stress. You can attack the problem in two ways, from load, or energy, but you cannot say that the STRESS at which the material slips in shear is the exact same number as the ENERGY that the cross section slips in shear.

Newtons Bit gave you the equation you need to calculate the shear energy, since you are using the energy of the explosion, you will need to use this equation for your calculation to mean anything.

[Newtons Bit]

It takes 20,772 inch pounds of energy to shear through one sq. inch of A36 steel.

No, it doesn't. It takes 20,772 pounds of force to shear through one square inch of A36 steel.

[Tony Szamboti]

Your units don't match. You cannot compare lb/in and lb*in and say one is bigger than the other, they're completely different things.

There now, is that big enough for you? You can't avoid text that big.

You apparently didn't look at the post where I showed the units properly to mollify your irrelevant nitpicking.

I have to say that you have a very nasty disposition there pal.

Don't forget that you are the one who threw the first snide remark as in "Oddly enough" and you were wrong. I don't think I need to increase the font here. You will get the message.

[beachnut]

Only someone like you, with a one track mind, would dismiss what I am saying concerning the erroneous premise in Mark Roberts video. The reality is that small charges were used to bring down those towers and they would not be very visible being on the core columns nor very audible during the collapse which was a rolling wave due to being taken down every three stories.

Goodnight and good luck to you too.
As expected you can not even tell me how they planted the explosives next to the steel. Zero evidence, no idea. This is 9/11 truth. Good job tony man.

Tony, Marks Video shows the blast effects of a small charge; you can not even tell me how they were planted in the WTC. Where did they put the insulation? How did they get the explosives to be silent; RDX makes a sound that would be recorded for miles! Why are you unable to produce any sound. Please do not post the fraud sound videos.

Run away

[Newtons Bit]

You apparently didn't look at the post where I showed the units to mollify your nitpicking.

You mean where you showed lb*in = lb?

[cmcaulif]

You apparently didn't look at the post where I showed the units to mollify your nitpicking.

Yea, in that post you said:

It takes 20,772 inch pounds of energy to shear through one sq. inch of A36 steel.

Please tell me that you can identify the giant error in this statement

[Newtons Bit]

I'm going to show what it should read.

It takes 20,772 inch pounds of energy to shear through one sq. inch of A36 steel.


This is wrong. The correct version would read:

"It takes 20,772 pounds of force to shear through one sq.inch of A36 steel".


17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds/(20,772 inch pounds/sq. inch) = 832.8 sq. inches

This is incorrect. The correct version would read:

"17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds/(20,772 pounds/sq. inch) = 832.8 inches"


And wtf does that even mean?

[Tony Szamboti]

No, it doesn't. It takes 20,772 pounds of force to shear through one square inch of A36 steel.

No, you are wrong again. It takes a certain amount of WORK to shear through one square inch of A36 steel. Work and energy use the same units, which would be FORCE x DISTANCE.

As you snidely said to me about a semantic error, which this case isn't, you should not make mistakes like that as an engineer.

I really don't appreciate your nasty disposition and will probably consider this the last time I respond to you on this forum.

[Newtons Bit]

I have to say that you have a very nasty disposition there pal.

Only towards people who betrayed my entire profession by posting idiotic claims* of faked engineering. I worked hard to get the education I have and value it, and the education of others who have similar degrees. Posting such garbage like this crap devalues the hard work that myself and other people have gone through to achieve an understanding of the physical world.


*Note: I'm not talking about your 911 fantasy, I'm talking about your math. I consider the latter far more disappointing in a human being. I can only hope that you open your eyes to this egregious error and realize you're not perfect. You don't have all the answers, and you do make mistakes. Just like the rest of the world.

[Newtons Bit]

No, you are wrong again. It takes a certain amount of WORK to shear through one square inch of A36 steel. Work and energy use the same units, which would be FORCE x DISTANCE.

As you snidely said to me about a semantic error, which this case isn't, you should not make mistakes like that as an engineer.

I really don't appreciate your nasty disposition and will probably consider this the last time I respond to you on this forum.

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp


Seriously? Please show me how stress*cross-sectional area = work.

[cmcaulif]

No, you are wrong again. It takes a certain amount of WORK to shear through one square inch of A36 steel. Work and energy use the same units, which would be FORCE x DISTANCE.

As you snidely said to me about a semantic error, which this case isn't, you should not make mistakes like that as an engineer.

I really don't appreciate your nasty disposition and will probably consider this the last time I respond to you on this forum.

It seems you are getting somewhere.

Now, is FORCE x DISTANCE = or != FORCE x DISTANCE-2

[Arus808]

holy dang. how thick can someone be? three engineers and REalCD is attempting to go against their claims?

[Newtons Bit]

No, you are wrong again. It takes a certain amount of WORK to shear through one square inch of A36 steel. Work and energy use the same units, which would be FORCE x DISTANCE.

As you snidely said to me about a semantic error, which this case isn't, you should not make mistakes like that as an engineer.

I really don't appreciate your nasty disposition and will probably consider this the last time I respond to you on this forum.

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp


Seriously? Please show me how stress(psi)*cross-sectional area(in^2) = work(lb*in).

I keep doing the algebra, but psi*in^2 keeps equaling lb and not lb*in.

[Hokulele]

No, you are wrong again. It takes a certain amount of WORK to shear through one square inch of A36 steel. Work and energy use the same units, which would be FORCE x DISTANCE.


What?

Why do I feel as if a discussion about scalars vs. vectors is about to ensue?

[R.Mackey]

Once again, let me intervene in this trainwreck.

realcddeal's mathematical approach is wrong. There's no doubt about that.

What he's attempting is closer to computations of bullet penetration than shear. In such a situation you may divide the bullet energy (in foot-pounds, typically) by the cross-section to get a relative estimate of penetrating power. But that just doesn't hold in this case.

Cratering charges will act by applying impulse to a section of column. This impulse translates into stress, which may fail the column through shear, through bending, or through fracture. This is complicated. You can't just divide energy by cross-section and be done with it.

Shaped charges are similar, but apply their impulse over a smaller area. There is also an erosive effect, particularly with respect to things like HEAT shells. This is way more complicated and generally requires modeling.

realcddeal, you've got a lot to learn...


This whole discussion is moot, anyway. I personally have estimated that it would take about 150 kg of TNT equivalent to destroy an average WTC floor. Not huge charges, but large enough ones. But that ignores that somehow my charges have to:
Pull in the exterior columns first
Provide no visible, audible, or seismically detectable flash, blast, or shock
Survive the impact and fires (particularly impossible for shaped charges)
Get placed to begin with
Leave a good chunk of the ruddy core standing after the rest of the collapse was complete!

It's a non-starter. Even if it only took a tiny amount of explosives, it's just not credible. Nor supported by any evidence. So stop fussing about it, please.

[Jonnyclueless]

But will end in:

"But your equations are poopy!"

[Newtons Bit]

For those few of you who are interesting in the math, I found a decent powerpoint presentation of strain energy and the different derivatives of it.

http://me.queensu.ca/courses/MECH422/Lecture13.ppt The relevant stuff starts at page 16.

It's from Queens University in Canada, which makes me somewhat suspicious. You can't trust those Canadians.

I should also note that this is about ELASTIC strain energy. Plastic strain energy (which is important here) is extremely important to the discussion at hand, but the fracture mechanics involved are umm... complicated.

[leftysergeant]

First, let me admit that the math goes right over my head. Second, let me state that it means bugger-all, given that evidence exists that no explosive charges were detonated at any time prior to the point at which the upper portions of the building began to move.

No smoke or dust was expelled from the burning floors before the upper structure began collapsing onto the still-stationary floors. No glass shot out of the windows before structures began to move.

There was no ear-splitting noise at the instant of initiation of the collapse.

No fire fighter, cop or iron worker noted any blasted steel or segments of steel cut in inexplicable ways. Don't even bring up any BS about "gag orders" or people being silenced by threats of unemployment. Honorable men like fire fighters and cops, when threatened, tend to get more angry and vindictive than intimidated, especially after seeing their brothers killed in what they might begin to see as a murder. And union iron workers are just too tough to be pushed around by even high-ranking government officials under an administration that they know is out to bust up the unions.

There is not the first sign that explosives could have been used on the core columns. The existance of the spires proves without question that no explosives were applied below the points at which collapse was initiated, and the lack of ejecta at or above those points proves, with one hundred percent certainty that they were not used at that point.

Doodle all you want, there is no way in this time/space continuum to set an explosive charge that would leave no visual clue that a detonation had occurred.

And don't give me any blather about setting charges on the perimeter columns without there being a visual signiture. It just cannot be done. No blast, not even the best-designed shaped charge is entirely linear. The blast ALWAYS radiates outward in all directions. The Monroe effect merely concentrates a some of the energy in a particular direction. The force that is applied inward to shape that projected force is still pushing outward as well as inward.

There would have been shockwaves and noise and ejecta.

You're talking out the wrong oriffice, possibly because of your posture.

[Tony Szamboti]

No, it doesn't. It takes 20,772 pounds of force to shear through one square inch of A36 steel.

Take a look at the below link from an anlysis on pipes from General Electric. On page 11 you will notice that the term fracture energy is discussed using the units inch pounds/square inch, which you are trying to say is incorrect.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/4776601-OCrMUl/4776601.PDF

[Tony Szamboti]

First, let me admit that the math goes right over my head. Second, let me state that it means bugger-all, given that evidence exists that no explosive charges were detonated at any time prior to the point at which the upper portions of the building began to move.

No smoke or dust was expelled from the burning floors before the upper structure began collapsing onto the still-stationary floors. No glass shot out of the windows before structures began to move.

There was no ear-splitting noise at the instant of initiation of the collapse.

No fire fighter, cop or iron worker noted any blasted steel or segments of steel cut in inexplicable ways. Don't even bring up any BS about "gag orders" or people being silenced by threats of unemployment. Honorable men like fire fighters and cops, when threatened, tend to get more angry and vindictive than intimidated, especially after seeing their brothers killed in what they might begin to see as a murder. And union iron workers are just too tough to be pushed around by even high-ranking government officials under an administration that they know is out to bust up the unions.

There is not the first sign that explosives could have been used on the core columns. The existance of the spires proves without question that no explosives were applied below the points at which collapse was initiated, and the lack of ejecta at or above those points proves, with one hundred percent certainty that they were not used at that point.

Doodle all you want, there is no way in this time/space continuum to set an explosive charge that would leave no visual clue that a detonation had occurred.

And don't give me any blather about setting charges on the perimeter columns without there being a visual signiture. It just cannot be done. No blast, not even the best-designed shaped charge is entirely linear. The blast ALWAYS radiates outward in all directions. The Monroe effect merely concentrates a some of the energy in a particular direction. The force that is applied inward to shape that projected force is still pushing outward as well as inward.

There would have been shockwaves and noise and ejecta.

You're talking out the wrong oriffice, possibly because of your posture.

Those banana peel plumes we see sure do look like they were due to explosives. Try to explain their upward movement with a gravity only collapse. They are narrow and appear to emanate from point like sources not a pressure wave. When standard controlled demolitions are done and the building falls to the ground the cloud is wide and diffuse not narrow.

No matter who you think did it, the towers were taken down every third floor in a series of controlled demolitions from the top down and those plumes are from explosives going off on the floors just below the collapse zone.

[Bell]

Those banana peel plumes we see sure do look like they were due to explosives. Try to explain their upward movement with a gravity only collapse.

What propelled the dust outwards? Gravity?

[funk de fino]

Those banana peel plumes we see sure do look like they were due to explosives. Try to explain their upward movement with a gravity only collapse.

I cannot believe an engineer just posted that.

Was that the best you could do to rebut his entire post?

Pathetic

[Tony Szamboti]

I cannot believe an engineer just posted that.

Was that the best you could do to rebut his entire post?

Pathetic


He said he couldn't understand the math.

What did you want me to do?

And may I ask what might be your expertise?

It is time for me to go to work so I'll have to talk to you fellows later.

[Newtons Bit]

Take a look at the below link from an anlysis on pipes from General Electric. On page 11 you will notice that the term fracture energy is discussed using the units inch pounds/square inch, which you are trying to say is incorrect.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/4776601-OCrMUl/4776601.PDF

The best thing you can find to support your excrement is tests on damaged pipes by GE in 1968? Out of all the literature available on strain energy you picked that something that uses CHARPY V-NOTCH tests to determine the fracture strength of corroded and already damaged pipes?

It's comical how much you're twisting and turning to admit you calculated strain energy wrong.

edit: read this realcddeal, http://me.queensu.ca/courses/MECH422/Lecture13.ppt . Tell me why the complicated strain energy calculation there is so very wrong and your incredibly simple one is so right! I mean, why do we bother with all this math and theory?

[Free Thinkr]

I get that sometimes after I eat at Happy Fresh Taco.
Cad! I just spit coffee on my keyboard! :D

I wish I knew enough JREFers IRL to actually work the term "ropes of thermite" into my standard lexicon.

[Gravy]

Those banana peel plumes we see sure do look like they were due to explosives. Try to explain their upward movement with a gravity only collapse. They are narrow and appear to emanate from point like sources not a pressure wave. When standard controlled demolitions are done and the building falls to the ground the cloud is wide and diffuse not narrow.

No matter who you think did it, the towers were taken down every third floor in a series of controlled demolitions from the top down and those plumes are from explosives going off on the floors just below the collapse zone.A serious question: are you insane?

[beachnut]

Those banana peel plumes we see sure do look like they were due to explosives. Try to explain their upward movement with a gravity only collapse. They are narrow and appear to emanate from point like sources not a pressure wave. When standard controlled demolitions are done and the building falls to the ground the cloud is wide and diffuse not narrow.

No matter who you think did it, the towers were taken down every third floor in a series of controlled demolitions from the top down and those plumes are from explosives going off on the floors just below the collapse zone.
This is your evidence. Just as I thought, you look at stills and make up ideas, then spew them on the internet. Wrong comes to mind when I see your post, and your paper.

Every third floor? LOL, zero evidence.
Series of (silent) controlled demolitions? LOL, zero evidence

You being an engineer? Priceless, your work? Your professors need to see this tripe. Maybe they can add a class to catch that 0.00067 percent of future engineer who falls for and spews woo. And stop future idiot ideas coming from engineers. You could get help for to cure your delusional ideas, and a refund for your education.

Goes to prove, you do not have to go to college. What a waste.

[phunk]

Upward movement? Did he really just say that?

[funk de fino]

He said he couldn't understand the math.

What did you want me to do?

And may I ask what might be your expertise?

It is time for me to go to work so I'll have to talk to you fellows later.

You could have explained all the anomolies he pointed out to your fantasy without maths buddy? You know like using some commonsense or even if you are feeling bold, some evidence?

My expertise is that I have a brain and I'm not afraid to use it at a level above junior school.

[Jonnyclueless]

Those banana peel plumes we see sure do look like they were due to explosives. Try to explain their upward movement with a gravity only collapse. They are narrow and appear to emanate from point like sources not a pressure wave. When standard controlled demolitions are done and the building falls to the ground the cloud is wide and diffuse not narrow.

No matter who you think did it, the towers were taken down every third floor in a series of controlled demolitions from the top down and those plumes are from explosives going off on the floors just below the collapse zone.

:dl:

[Disbelief]

Those banana peel plumes we see sure do look like they were due to explosives. Try to explain their upward movement with a gravity only collapse. They are narrow and appear to emanate from point like sources not a pressure wave. When standard controlled demolitions are done and the building falls to the ground the cloud is wide and diffuse not narrow.

No matter who you think did it, the towers were taken down every third floor in a series of controlled demolitions from the top down and those plumes are from explosives going off on the floors just below the collapse zone.

I try to avoid posting when so many structural guys are critiquing your arguments, but I have a couple of questions:

Why do you continue to say gravity only collapse? Why do you forget about the planes and fire? Isn't that a lie of omission?

[cmcaulif]

I try to avoid posting when so many structural guys are critiquing your arguments, but I have a couple of questions:

Why do you continue to say gravity only collapse? Why do you forget about the planes and fire? Isn't that a lie of omission?

He says gravity only because we are talking about global collapse (not collapse initiation, in which impact and fire were a catalyst for global colapse) in which the gravitational potential energy released is the only energy available to deform the structure.

Things like the impact wont matter on floors that did not receive impact damage, and fire can only decrease resistance on the fire floors as well, and it will do so by decreasing the compressive strength of the steel, as well as the energy dissipated per degree of rotation when a plastic hinge forms in post buckling, and less energy will be required to pulverize concrete, due to the built up internal pressures from evaporated water in the pores of the concrete, as Dr. Greening has discussed.

Dr. Benson, who recently started posting here, notes that it only takes 2 seconds for the collapse front to travel past the fire affected floors, so in terms of global collapse, fire and impact don't make a big difference.

You might not want to throw the word 'lie' around so hastily.

[Disbelief]

He says gravity only because we are talking about global collapse (not collapse initiation, in which impact and fire were a catalyst for global colapse) in which the gravitational potential energy released is the only energy available to deform the structure.

Things like the impact wont matter on floors that did not receive impact damage, and fire can only decrease resistance on the fire floors as well, and it will do so by decreasing the compressive strength of the steel, as well as the energy dissipated per degree of rotation when a plastic hinge forms in post buckling, and less energy will be required to pulverize concrete, due to the built up internal pressures from evaporated water in the pores of the concrete, as Dr. Greening has discussed.

Dr. Benson, who recently started posting here, notes that it only takes 2 seconds for the collapse front to travel past the fire affected floors, so in terms of global collapse, fire and impact don't make a big difference.

You might not want to throw the word 'lie' around so hastily.

Gotcha. So, real, I apologize for saying you lied by omission since I misinterpreted what you were saying. Thanks cm for helping me understand. Of course, I totally disagree with his conclusions since I have seen how steel performs in the real world under various conditions. While it has been years since I have had to do the math (thankfully), I can follow most of it.

[Bell]

Those banana peel plumes we see sure do look like they were due to explosives. Try to explain their upward movement with a gravity only collapse. They are narrow and appear to emanate from point like sources not a pressure wave. When standard controlled demolitions are done and the building falls to the ground the cloud is wide and diffuse not narrow.

No matter who you think did it, the towers were taken down every third floor in a series of controlled demolitions from the top down and those plumes are from explosives going off on the floors just below the collapse zone.

Next time try to be nice and point out that you added the part (bolded by me) half an hour after your original post. At least then you APPEAR to be honest.

[JMarshall]

Look realcddeal, your math is wrong, I can't exactly say where, since it is way above my head, but from your claim that one pound of C4 would be able to cut through the columns, you are wrong. There is no way in the world to get 1 lb to do that much, if it could we (the Military) would place small satchel charges on bridges and watch it blow sky high, we don't we calculate the exact amounts and proper delays in order to cause collapse.

[leftysergeant]

The upward thrust of the dust plumes is largely an illusion. Although there is a very slight lift as pressure buildis up behind perimeter walls before they give way, the fact that the dust cloud is being pulled down somewhat around the core as the wave of collapse passes creates and illusion of a far greater rise in the clouds. Notice that the thinner streams of dust are being largely shepherded by large sections of perimeter wall creating a slip stream. They follow a trajectory totally consistant with that of an boject which tipped over and fell from a great height with only a slight nudge from other falling objects.

Given the height of the towers, this makes it no surprise that some of it fell hundreds of feet away and inflicted the sort of damage observed at theVerizon and Deutsche Bank buildings.

Consider that, had the towers toppled, parts of them would have landed in the river.

[tacodaemon]

Thanks. I actually had the highest score in the history of the test (don't know if that's changed since). I used to teach a course that prepared people to take the test, and I believe that all of my students who took the test, passed it.


I am slightly weirded out by the people who see the phrase "tour guide" and (as far as I can tell) think of something like the bored teenagers hired to show people around the local Mystery Hole in some one-stoplight town, instead of understanding that being an independent guide of any sort in a large tourist-heavy city requires a great deal of knowledge, quick recall, flexible thinking, and ability to draw connections between the details and the big picture. The same skills that make you good at the debating stuff. Makes me wonder (as a Washington, DC, local) if they have any experience in a big, heavily tourist-drawing city at all.

[cmcaulif]

Take a look at the below link from an anlysis on pipes from General Electric. On page 11 you will notice that the term fracture energy is discussed using the units inch pounds/square inch, which you are trying to say is incorrect.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/4776601-OCrMUl/4776601.PDF

This is incredible, that link is completely irrelevant because you have not calculated the fracture energy for the cross section.

All you did was take the shear capacity, and say it was energy needed to shear a unit area of A36.

It takes 20,772 inch pounds of energy to shear through one sq. inch of A36 steel.


Please explain.

[Gravy]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3167791&postcount=76

Where have you gone, Tony Szambotio? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Woo woo woo.

[steve s]

Dr. Benson, who recently started posting here, notes that it only takes 2 seconds for the collapse front to travel past the fire affected floors, so in terms of global collapse, fire and impact don't make a big difference.


But still totally ignoring the difference between static and dynamic loads.

Steve S.

[cmcaulif]

But still totally ignoring the difference between static and dynamic loads.

Steve S.

ehh, were you referring to me there? I was talking about the role of aircraft impact in a crush down/crush up collapse scenario. I'm quite aware of the differences between static and dynamic loads.

[Tony Szamboti]

This is incredible, that link is completely irrelevant because you have not calculated the fracture energy for the cross section.

All you did was take the shear capacity, and say it was energy needed to shear a unit area of A36.




Please explain.

In an earlier post I gave an example using the highest ultimate shear strength A36 steel could have. As it's greatest ultimate tensile strength is 80 ksi then .577 x 80 ksi = 46.16 ksi.

Taking the energy in a one pound block of C-4 again 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds, and dividing by the fracture energy required per square inch of 46,160 inch pounds/sq. inch gives an ability to fracture a cross section of 375 sq. inches. That is bigger than most of the core columns in the Twin Towers. A two pound block provides enough energy to take out 750 sq. inches of the highest strength the A36 could have possibly been.

The core columns could have been destroyed with a couple of pounds of C-4 each not the monstrous amount that Mark Roberts wants to imply was necesary and that would have been obvious.

[Tony Szamboti]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3167791&postcount=76

Where have you gone, Tony Szambotio? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Woo woo woo.


Why don't you try to discuss your video and it's assertions that large charges would have been needed to take down the Twin Towers, and that there couldn't have been charges then since they would have been visible and audible? Probable Reason: You can't.

I have shown here that the core columns in the Twin Towers could have been easily taken out by a couple of pounds of C-4 each, with gravity doing the rest of the work due to impulsive loads, and you have not been able to refute that.

Your video is what is "Very Silly" and a lot of bolonio. It appears to be the work of someone who is either not smart enough to figure out what was necessary scientifically or of a cunning sophist trying to con people into believing that explosives could not have been used in the towers, with an attempt at creating a misleading meme.

Since you insist on ad hominem I might as well tell you what anyone with half a brain would think of your video, and that is that it is a pile of poo, poo, and more poo.

[stilicho]

Gee, I'm have a much easier time with "Horse With No Name" than with Nostradamus... at least don't have to make up fictitious Nostradammy oracles to get what I want.

Plus: "A Horse With No Name, Stupid" is an anagram for "When Nostradamus Hits Poi". Clearly, Pearl Harbor was an inside job by the band America.

[ref]

I have shown here that the core columns in the Twin Towers could have been easily taken out by a couple of pounds of C-4 each, and you have not been able to refute that.



That's 47 core columns, charges every third floor like you said. 110 floors divided by three is approx. 37, so 37 floors had charges placed on core columns.

47 times 37 = 1692 charges.

And that's only core columns. How was such a massive amount of explosives so covertly placed on all the columns, without anyone noticing?

[Gravy]

Why don't you try to discuss your video and it's assertions that large charges would have been needed to take down the Twin Towers, and that there couldn't have been charges then since they would have been visible and audible? Probable Reason: You can't.Why lie, Tony? My video refutes the claims that enough high explosives were used to pulverize concrete and throw hundreds of tons of steel around the site. It also points out that there is absolutely no evidence of the use of any explosives at the WTC on 9/11. Perhaps you were too entranced with the images to read the text. And if you want to claim that silent explosives that do not disturb the air around them were used, you'll need to provide evidence that such things exist.

You said you do not run from questions. Prove it. Here they are for the third time:

1) You said,
Look at any standard controlled demolition. Look at building 7. Look at the tremendous uh, clouds. You know, the pyroclastic surge after that dropped.

How were the dust clouds in the three collapses in any way "pyroclastic flows?" Do you know what "pyro" means?

2) Why did you agree with Barrett's insane claim?
"Barrett: a hundred times as much energy would have been required to pulverize it, as was there for gravity."

Szamboti: "There's no question. I just reviewed a paper along those lines, and the guy shows that. The PhD from Australia. So, there's no doubt that there was explosives."3) If the top of one of the towers were lifted up and dropped on the bottom with enough force to cause global collapse, how long would the collapse take? In order for you to make your claim, you must be able to answer this question. So do it.

4) Show your calculations, or those that you reviewed and agree with, that show a deficit in gravitational potential energy to initiate progressive collapse in the three towers.

5) You said,
There is an energy deficit in expanding those clouds. That's really where the energy deficit comes in.
Explain how the expansion of the dust clouds would differ from what is observed in the three collapses, compared to a "natural" collapse. Show your work or cite relevant sources. Again, you must know this answer to support your claim.

6)Concerning the 1 to 2 lb. explosive per column situation, I was speaking of the columns in the top of the tower, certainly not the basement. I was really speaking about a collapse initiation.
Ahem. You said:
The way the towers were really brought down was a series of 3-story controlled demolitions. Around 25 to 30 controlled demolitions every three stories.

a) Explain this discrepancy. As I said yesterday, it is clear that you are just making this up as you go along.

b) Please show evidence of these hundreds of massive explosions in the three towers.

c) Explain why, for example, as the top 40 floors were descending, demolition charges would be needed on the floors below.

Remember, on the 18th you said, I'll have to get back to you tomorrow on the other things as I actually have to go to work tomorrow.Can you do it, Tony?

[leftysergeant]

How was such a massive amount of explosives so covertly placed on all the columns, without anyone noticing?

That seems to me an even less relevant question than why no one saw them going off.

The failure clearly occurs on floors tjat were largely engulfed in fire, yet the flames don't go shooting out horizontally.

No way does an explosive charge big enough to cut the columns not blow flames out the windows.

Further, NOTHING was done to the core columns below the floors on which failure occurred in either building, other than being battered horrendously by the dbris near their bases.

[sleahead]

Why don't you try to discuss your video and it's assertions that large charges would have been needed to take down the Twin Towers, and that there couldn't have been charges then since they would have been visible and audible? Probable Reason: You can't.


In real controlled demolitions, in which the objective is to use the least amount of explosives to get the job done, the building is gutted, walls are removed and columns are pre-weakened. Despite this, real controlled demoltions are very loud. Why do you think this is?

[ref]

Lefty, that's another problem. I just pointed out one of many.

Other big problem is, that we saw big portions of core still standing moments after the collapses. If charges were placed on core columns every three floors, they damn sure didn't work very efficiently.

[Tony Szamboti]

Lefty, that's another problem. I just pointed out one of many.

Other big problem is, that we saw big portions of core still standing moments after the collapses. If charges were placed on core columns every three floors, they damn sure didn't work very efficiently.


The charges would have only needed to be on the outer central core columns, to remove enough support and allow the weight of the building to then cause a collapse. This which would have left some of the inner columns standing.

[ref]

The charges would have only needed to be on the outer central core columns, to remove enough support and allow the weight of the building to then cause a collapse. This which would have left some of the inner columns standing.

Ok then.. So why charges every 3 floors? Why not just one floor? Just curious.

[Tony Szamboti]

[QUOTE=Gravy;3174897]Why lie, Tony? My video refutes the claims that enough high explosives were used to pulverize concrete and throw hundreds of tons of steel around the site. It also points out that there is absolutely no evidence of the use of any explosives at the WTC on 9/11. Perhaps you were too entranced with the images to read the text. And if you want to claim that silent explosives that do not disturb the air around them were used, you'll need to provide evidence that such things exist.

You said you do not run from questions. Prove it. Here they are for the third time:

The things that we agree on are that it wasn't the explosives which caused the pulverization or steel to be thrown around the site. The gravitational potential energy, once released by cutting the columns, did that due to huge impulsive loads. However, your video's main message is that no explosives were used or necessary, and on that we certainly disagree.
1) You said,


How were the dust clouds in the three collapses in any way "pyroclastic flows?" Do you know what "pyro" means?

I believe the dust clouds were the same as you get from any controlled demolition. The majority of which is due to gravity pulverization.

2) Why did you agree with Barrett's insane claim?

I did not agree with Barrett's claim. If you listen I said a lot of people underestimate the gravitational potential energy once released by the series of three story controlled demolitions. All I said about it was there was some amount of dust cloud expansion by the charges. That is what I was also discussing earlier with the banana peel plumes moving upward.


3) If the top of one of the towers were lifted up and dropped on the bottom with enough force to cause global collapse, how long would the collapse take? In order for you to make your claim, you must be able to answer this question. So do it.

You need to tell me just how high the top would be, as there wouldn't necessarily be a collapse unless it was high enough. I really think you need to do some work here. This is a mute point anyway as a fire induced collapse would not have caused a dynamic load.


4) Show your calculations, or those that you reviewed and agree with, that show a deficit in gravitational potential energy to initiate progressive collapse in the three towers.

Gordon Ross already did this and the minor nitpick about elastic vs. plastic buckling does not discount his work. There will also be other papers coming out showing this in other ways.


5) You said,

Explain how the expansion of the dust clouds would differ from what is observed in the three collapses, compared to a "natural" collapse. Show your work or cite relevant sources. Again, you must know this answer to support your claim.

I already mentioned the banana peel plumes moving upward. That wouldn't happen in a "natural collapse".

6)
Ahem. You said:


a) Explain this discrepancy. As I said yesterday, it is clear that you are just making this up as you go along.

b) Please show evidence of these hundreds of massive explosions in the three towers.

c) Explain why, for example, as the top 40 floors were descending, demolition charges would be needed on the floors below

a) I think you are the one making things up.

b) The energetic blowouts we see coming out of the sides of the towers in the videos are certainly caused by explosions inside. These were well below anything which has free fallen from above on the outside and there have been papers written showing these narrow energetic blowouts had to be results of explosives in the towers. The speed of collapse is evidence for the use of explosives. By design it was not intended that the explosives not be visible and that is why the core was demolished.

c) A huge dynamic load would have been needed to induce a collapse and that doesn't even mean it would progress to the bottom of the tower. I doubt that you would understand the difference between a static and dynamic load and I don't have the time to explain it now. I am going to do a paper showing there would have been no dynamic load in a fire induced collapse. You will have to wait.

[Tony Szamboti]

Ok then.. So why charges every 3 floors? Why not just one floor? Just curious.


The columns were welded every third floor and it would be easier to take out the columns at their welds. In addition, there would be no need to use explosives on every floor. Controlled demolitions use the minimum number of explosives and in this case trying to mimic a natural collapse could be accomplished by blowing every third floor.

[ref]

The columns were welded every third floor and it would be easier to take out the columns at their welds. In addition, there would be no need to use explosives on every floor. Controlled demolitions use the minimum number of explosives and in this case trying to mimic a natural collapse could be accomplished by blowing every third floor.

But you said the weight of the building caused the collapse. So why would you need to blow out every third floor, if the weight of the building would do the exact same thing if just one floor was blow?

[Dave Rogers]

Gordon Ross already did this and the minor nitpick about elastic vs. plastic buckling does not discount his work.

Haven't you read Newtons Bit's analysis of Ross? It's more than a minor nitpick, Ross's entire analysis rests on a fundamental error which is not just serious but utterly absurd.

I came up with a good analogy for Ross's error, in fact. Suppose I go out shopping with a hundred dollars, buy a forty-dollar pair of shoes, buy some lunch, and come back with thirty-three dollars. Analysing this according to Ross's approach, I must have stolen the shoes. Why?

Starting cash: $100
Amount spent shopping: $67
Amount left: $33
Therefore there was not enough money left over after shopping to buy a $40 pair of shoes.

Check Ross's energy tables. The analogy is exact.

Dave

[Tony Szamboti]

But you said the weight of the building caused the collapse. So why would you need to blow out every third floor, if the weight of the building would do the exact same thing if just one floor was blow?

The weight of the building did it after the columns were cut as their fall and the resulting collisions with the lower mass caused high dynamic loads. The weight of the building would not have been capable of doing that without the columns being cut, as they were designed to take the load and more with a factor of safety, which neither the damage from the aircraft or fires removed enough of.

Every third floor was used for the reasons I explained earlier. Why use more explosive than is necessary? The intent would have been to make it look natural. The problem is that buildings like the towers or even smaller skyscrapers have never been known to have a progressive collapse. There are no examples of this in history. The taking out of the central core with explosives is what caused the collapse.

[ref]

The weight of the building did it after the columns were cut as their fall and the resulting collisions with the lower mass caused high dynamic loads. The weight of the building would not have been capable of doing that without the columns being cut, as they were designed to take the load and more with a factor of safety, which neither the damage from the aircraft or fires removed enough of.

Every third floor was used for the reasons I explained earlier. Why use more explosive than is necessary? The intent would have been to make it look natural. The problem is that buildings like the towers or even smaller skyscrapers have never been known to have a progressive collapse. There are no examples of this in history. The taking out of the central core with explosives is what caused the collapse.

And how many outer central core colums would have been cut every three floors? Five, ten, twenty?

Edit: Rest of the post cut with thermite.

[leftysergeant]

[QUOTE]
I believe the dust clouds were the same as you get from any controlled demolition. The majority of which is due to gravity pulverization.


This is one of the few accurate statements you have made.

That is what I was also discussing earlier with the banana peel plumes moving upward.


Again, you are right about the dust acting like the dust in any CD. You are wrong about the upward motion, to some extent. It is an error in observation.

Like the dust in any CD, it tended to rise when it met resistance. It met resistance at the uncollapsed floors, but quickly overcame that resistance. But it spread out meeting that resistance. Then it met resistance at those parts of the perimeter walls that had not been driven outward by the weight of the debris that fell against them. So it rose, but only very slightly, as it did again at ground level where it meet buildings and vehicles and such. But the degree to which it rose is accentuated in the eyes of observers because the dust in the center is still falling.


Gordon Ross already did this and the minor nitpick about elastic vs. plastic buckling does not discount his work. There will also be other papers coming out showing this in other ways.

Ross is a nincompoop who still believes he has pictures of columns cut with thermite, even though the is a welder standing in one corner of his photographic "evidence." The twit needs to get out more and watch people with real jobs at work.

I already mentioned the banana peel plumes moving upward. That wouldn't happen in a "natural collapse".

As I stated above, they most certainly would. All dust clouds in CD rise when they have nowhere else to go. The more extensive the blocking object is, the higher the dust rises until it runs out of energy or gets around the obstruction, after which it starts falling back down toward ground level.


The energetic blowouts we see coming out of the sides of the towers in the videos are certainly caused by explosions inside.


They most certainly were not. Any explosion powerful enough to sever steel columns would over-pressurize and entire floor, not blow out selected windows, one per floor. If you look closely enough, you might notice that in the videos, there is already some distortion of the outer walls where the dust plumes emerge, except on those fllors where large banks of elevators terminate. The majority of the "squibs" emerge on floors that are already in collapse on the side of the building away from the camera. Those on floors that are clearly not yet in collapse are much more readily explained by dust being forced down stairways or elevator shafts, and in all cases, they grow more dense and energetic as the wave of collapse approaches. They are just collapse-driven dust.


The speed of collapse is evidence for the use of explosives.

No.

By design it was not intended that the explosives not be visible and that is why the core was demolished.

This makes no sense. There is no way to contain the explosive force to the immediate area of the columns without massively sand-bagging the area, which would have sort of given away their attempts to do it discretely with people working in the building. Any charges strong enough to do the job would leave a visible indication of their action such as blowing dust out horizontally with tremendous energy and hurling smaller bits of debris out on a trajectory far beyond that taken by the falling segments of the perimeter walls, perhaps even up through the dust plume. We don't see that happening. Everything except the aluminum cladding follows the same trajectory. The cladding deviates only because of air resistance.

Do go back and take another look at Gravy's evidence. But this time, do not view it through your belly button.

[Gravy]

Tony, I'm going to take a couple of points at a time so you don't get lost or try to move the goalposts, as you usually do.


The things that we agree on are that it wasn't the explosives which caused the pulverization or steel to be thrown around the site. The gravitational potential energy, once released by cutting the columns, did that due to huge impulsive loads. However, your video's main message is that no explosives were used or necessary, and on that we certainly disagree.My video's main message is that there is absolutely no evidence for the use of explosives, and I demonstrated that the conspiracist claims I examined are false.

Since it's your conspiracy theory, you will need to furnish the evidence. You won't even try to get a copy or transcript of the Earth-shattering interview in which you say Silverstein said WTC 7 was demolished for safety reasons. Why don't you care? Why aren't you spreading that information to every single truther website? Why don't you file a lawsuit to get the damning evidence that you KNOW exists? You'll be a hero, Tony.

Instead, you choose to spend your time whining on an internet forum. Why?

I believe the dust clouds were the same as you get from any controlled demolition. The majority of which is due to gravity pulverization. A) Controlled demolitions do not produce pyroclastic flows. Do you retract that statement and promise never to use it again?

B) Then explain why you said this: "There is an energy deficit in expanding those clouds. That's really where the energy deficit comes in." Back your claims with facts and calculations.

I did not agree with Barrett's claim.That is a lie.
Barrett: "A hundred times as much energy would have been required to pulverize it, as was there for gravity."

Szamboti: "There's no question. I just reviewed a paper along those lines, and the guy shows that. The PhD from Australia. So, there's no doubt that there was explosives."Why do you lie like this, Tony? Doesn't it embarrass you? Don't you want to be respected?

[Gravy]

You need to tell me just how high the top would be, as there wouldn't necessarily be a collapse unless it was high enough. I really think you need to do some work here. This is a mute point anyway as a fire induced collapse would not have caused a dynamic load.No, Tony, you need to tell me how high the top would be. I've already asked you what the minimum would be. You didn't answer.

So do it. It's your theory, and you must be able to answer this question to support it.

Gordon Ross already did this and the minor nitpick about elastic vs. plastic buckling does not discount his work.You're basing your theory on Gordon Ross's completely discredited paper? Okay, specifically what do Newton's Bit and Ryan Mackey get wrong that invalidates their refutations?

Newton's Bit Examines Gordon Ross' conservation of momentum paper (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584)

Ryan Mackey on Gordon Ross (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1822297&postcount=576)

Below are more examples of Gordon Ross's incompetence. Does it bother you that your very best are completely incompetent?

"Scholars for Truth" Gordon Ross and Craig T. Furlong write a paper claiming that an explosion at the WTC was recorded by seismic instruments before the first aircraft impact. They hilariously forget to check one little thing.... (Paper remains online and uncorrected to this day). http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740&page=10#394

Gordon Ross claims that the core columns that were most accessible from the elevator shafts (the outer, he says) were destroyed first in the south tower collapse. I show why he's making that up. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2748783&postcount=6 Accompanying graphic: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Columnaccessibility_2.jpg

There will also be other papers coming out showing this in other ways.Unfortunately, Tony, your hypothesis cannot be proven by imaginary papers. That a tour guide needs to explain this to someone trained in science should make you think.

Time to show your work, mechanical engineer.

[Gravy]

Haven't you read Newtons Bit's analysis of Ross? It's more than a minor nitpick, Ross's entire analysis rests on a fundamental error which is not just serious but utterly absurd.

I came up with a good analogy for Ross's error, in fact. Suppose I go out shopping with a hundred dollars, buy a forty-dollar pair of shoes, buy some lunch, and come back with thirty-three dollars. Analysing this according to Ross's approach, I must have stolen the shoes. Why?

Starting cash: $100
Amount spent shopping: $67
Amount left: $33
Therefore there was not enough money left over after shopping to buy a $40 pair of shoes.

Check Ross's energy tables. The analogy is exact.

DaveThat is an excellent analogy.

[twinstead]

That is an excellent analogy.

Yea. Even I can understand it now.

[Newtons Bit]

In an earlier post I gave an example using the highest ultimate shear strength A36 steel could have. As it's greatest ultimate tensile strength is 80 ksi then .577 x 80 ksi = 46.16 ksi.

Taking the energy in a one pound block of C-4 again 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds, and dividing by the fracture energy required per square inch of 46,160 inch pounds/sq. inch gives an ability to fracture a cross section of 375 sq. inches. That is bigger than most of the core columns in the Twin Towers. A two pound block provides enough energy to take out 750 sq. inches of the highest strength the A36 could have possibly been.

The core columns could have been destroyed with a couple of pounds of C-4 each not the monstrous amount that Mark Roberts wants to imply was necesary and that would have been obvious.

No, the shear strength is approximately 0.6*Fy ksi, however that includes a reasonable factor of safety. If you actually knew what you were doing, you would be using the yield strength.

But in any event folks, behold truther math:

Shear strength of a 1"x1" piece of steel = 0.577*36,000psi*1"x1" = 20722lb. But this is also equal to 20,722lb*in of energy. Why? Because in realcddeal's world, a lb and a lb*in are identical. They're somehow completely interchangeable.

Nevermind all that tricky math that involves volume integrals and background theory of how material behaves when sheared. Also nevermind the fact that the demolition charges are going to be putting a bending moment on the columns. Unless of course the charges are completely rapped around the column such that Dr. Oppenheimer would be proud.

edit: I should also point out that this is only elastic strain energy. It doesn't include the energy to actually tear and deform the steel. It also doesn't include strain rates, which will be rather high for an explosive.

[Newtons Bit]

Haven't you read Newtons Bit's analysis of Ross? It's more than a minor nitpick, Ross's entire analysis rests on a fundamental error which is not just serious but utterly absurd.

I came up with a good analogy for Ross's error, in fact. Suppose I go out shopping with a hundred dollars, buy a forty-dollar pair of shoes, buy some lunch, and come back with thirty-three dollars. Analysing this according to Ross's approach, I must have stolen the shoes. Why?

Starting cash: $100
Amount spent shopping: $67
Amount left: $33
Therefore there was not enough money left over after shopping to buy a $40 pair of shoes.

Check Ross's energy tables. The analogy is exact.

Dave

I like this riddle also, it's similar:


Three men go to spend the night at a hotel. They pay for a $30 dollar room, each giving $10 for their share. When they go to their room, however, the manager realizes that the room is on sale for $25, and gives $5 to the bagboy to return to the men. The bagboy goes to give back the five dollars, and when he does, the men take it, but give the bagboy $2 as a tip, thereby keeping one dollar each for themselves. However, one of the men is disturbed, remarking, "Hey, we each spent 9 dollars just now, since we got one back, which means $27 total, right? Plus the $2 we gave the bagboy, that's only $29! Where's the extra dollar?"

[Hyperviolet]

I like this riddle also, it's similar:

Heh, that riddle got me at 1st; then the penny dropped.
:p

[Calcas]

And if you want to claim that silent explosives that do not disturb the air around them were used, you'll need to provide evidence that such things exist.


On this point I think Tony is taking a page from the CIT's new playbook where Ranke is now using this gem.

"But I do know that the suspect in question has access to the most advanced weaponry in the world including unknown technology."

See, they don't have to prove it because they "know" the gubmint has sooper sekret explosives that defy physics.

So there.

[Alferd_Packer]

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

[R.Mackey]

The charges would have only needed to be on the outer central core columns, to remove enough support and allow the weight of the building to then cause a collapse. This which would have left some of the inner columns standing.

And here we have a classic example of inflation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2320446#post2320446).

The more we question your theory, the more ridiculous it gets. It's not much of a theory, then, is it?

Besides, I'm still waiting to hear how those exterior columns bowed for tens of minutes beforehand. You can't run from that knowledge forever.

[RedIbis]

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

Ah, leave it to Rumsfeld to clear things up for us.

[Swing Dangler]

And here we have a classic example of inflation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2320446#post2320446).

The more we question your theory, the more ridiculous it gets. It's not much of a theory, then, is it?

Besides, I'm still waiting to hear how those exterior columns bowed for tens of minutes beforehand. You can't run from that knowledge forever.

Is there any evidence proving the bowing wasn't caused by the initial impact and explosion?
i.e. photos of the area immediately after impact that do not show the bowing and then after the alloted time, photos showing the bowing caused by weakening of the structure?

[R.Mackey]

Is there any evidence proving the bowing wasn't caused by the initial impact and explosion?
i.e. photos of the area immediately after impact that do not show the bowing and then after the alloted time, photos showing the bowing caused by weakening of the structure?

Why, absolutely there is! See for instance http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf, especially pages 4 through 6.

Thanks for asking!

[cmcaulif]

In an earlier post I gave an example using the highest ultimate shear strength A36 steel could have. As it's greatest ultimate tensile strength is 80 ksi then .577 x 80 ksi = 46.16 ksi.

you have correctly calculated the shear capacity based on the tensile strength, according to code, and then....

Taking the energy in a one pound block of C-4 again 17.3 x 10e6 inch pounds, and dividing by the fracture energy required per square inch of 46,160 inch pounds/sq. inch

oops, since when is the fracture energy of a cross section equal to the shear capacity of the steel its made from?

I just asked you to explain this, and you gave me this crap answer, which was just to repeat your mistake.

So I'll try again, justify that the fracture energy of the cross section is equal to the shear capacity of the steel, or demonstrate that a pound inch and a pound are the same thing.

[cmcaulif]

The core columns could have been destroyed with a couple of pounds of C-4 each not the monstrous amount that Mark Roberts wants to imply was necesary and that would have been obvious.

Let's assume, for the sake of arguement, that the equation given by JMarshall is not valid and wildly over predicts the amount of high explosive needed to cut a cross section, and the engineers of the world have huffed enough glue to believe that a pound inch is no different that a pound.

The fact remains that the collapse initiated on the fire and impact floors, so then the explosives on these floors would have to survive fire and impact. Explosive material can ignite when subjected to rapid shear, and a linear shaped charge could be completely destroyed by impact. Explosives will also be rendered inert by heat decomposition, even at temperatures lower than the fires in the towers.

How does this fit into your speculations?

[leftysergeant]

The fact remains that the collapse initiated on the fire and impact floors, so then the explosives on these floors would have to survive fire and impact. Explosive material can ignite when subjected to rapid shear, and a linear shaped charge could be completely destroyed by impact. Explosives will also be rendered inert by heat decomposition, even at temperatures lower than the fires in the towers.

And don't forget the wires to the detonators. No way on earth insulated wire would survive fires that would melt aluminum.

Don't say radio-controlled detonation. No bomb tech in his right mind is going to install blasting caps into a charge in a building with a bazillion cell phones in use over the course of a day, or that huge antenna array on the roof.

[ref]

The charges would have only needed to be on the outer central core columns, to remove enough support and allow the weight of the building to then cause a collapse. This which would have left some of the inner columns standing.

Would you call these "some of the inner columns"?

WTC 1
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-73.jpg

WTC 2
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-43.jpg

[leftysergeant]

I didn't realize before just how much of the south tower cores were still standing after the perimeter collapsed. So much for bombs in the basement or mini-nukes, right?

[Tony Szamboti]

And here we have a classic example of inflation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2320446#post2320446).

The more we question your theory, the more ridiculous it gets. It's not much of a theory, then, is it?

Besides, I'm still waiting to hear how those exterior columns bowed for tens of minutes beforehand. You can't run from that knowledge forever.

I would call it convergence and there is a basis for the outer central core columns being the only columns that would have actually needed to be cut in a demolition.

If you disagree and don't refute anything then it is only your opinion. That is all you are stating here as you haven't refuted anything.

As for the exterior columns bowing in beforehand I have asked for a video showing them bowing inward for minutes before the collapses and nobody here seems to be able to produce anything but a video of the South Towers perimeter columns bowing in during the last few seconds, just before the collapse.

[Tony Szamboti]

you have correctly calculated the shear capacity based on the tensile strength, according to code, and then....



oops, since when is the fracture energy of a cross section equal to the shear capacity of the steel its made from?

I just asked you to explain this, and you gave me this crap answer, which was just to repeat your mistake.

So I'll try again, justify that the fracture energy of the cross section is equal to the shear capacity of the steel, or demonstrate that a pound inch and a pound are the same thing.


In this case it is the strain energy at failure that I think you are asking for. It is the area under the stress strain curve. It is essentially stress x strain. So you have force/area x strain. That is what I gave in the form of inch pounds/sq. inch using the ultimate shear stress.

[Tony Szamboti]

Let's assume, for the sake of arguement, that the equation given by JMarshall is not valid and wildly over predicts the amount of high explosive needed to cut a cross section, and the engineers of the world have huffed enough glue to believe that a pound inch is no different that a pound.

The fact remains that the collapse initiated on the fire and impact floors, so then the explosives on these floors would have to survive fire and impact. Explosive material can ignite when subjected to rapid shear, and a linear shaped charge could be completely destroyed by impact. Explosives will also be rendered inert by heat decomposition, even at temperatures lower than the fires in the towers.

How does this fit into your speculations?

Strain Energy in the form inch pounds/sq. inch is valid. I have shown you that.

As for where the collapses initiated I think you should take a look at where NIST puts the failure initiations. They are at the 82nd floor on the South Tower and the 98th floor on the North Tower. Then take a look at the damage studies of those floors. There was some damage on the 82nd floor of the South Tower, but not significant. There was almost no damage on the 98th floor of the North Tower. I don't know about the explosives being rendered inert by the heat. I will have to look into that.

[Newtons Bit]

In this case it is the strain energy at failure that I think you are asking for. It is the area under the stress strain curve. It is essentially stress x strain. So you have force/area x strain. That is what I gave in the form of inch pounds/sq. inch using the ultimate shear stress.

That's how tensile/compressive strain energy works, unfortunately, it's not that simple for shear strain energy. But again, you still can't keep your units right. Force/area x strain with units is equal to force (lb) / area (in^2) x strain (in/in) = lb/(in^2) or psi which is NOT lb*in/sq.inch. Even that's still moot, since you never even showed what strain the steel would fail at.

Again, I recommend you look at:

http://me.queensu.ca/courses/MECH422/Lecture13.ppt or another classical source of energy methods. If this is so simple you should be able to find literature examples of the METHOD that you used to calculate shear strain energy.

[JMarshall]

I have shown here that the core columns in the Twin Towers could have been easily taken out by a couple of pounds of C-4 each, with gravity doing the rest of the work due to impulsive loads, and you have not been able to refute that.

You haven't shown that at all... THE FACT IS: A couple of pounds of explosives can not do it!

You claiming your math, and equations, and all that other crap, can prove my expertise and experience wrong is, in my eyes insulting!

I gave you the best way for calculating the explosives needed to cut any structural steal over 2 inches thick... In my example it would take roughly 16 pounds (C4) to cut the 14"x4" piece. Now are you really insinuating that I don't know how to do my job?

Oh wait... I know, since it was the government behind 9-11, they purposely misprinted all of the FM 5-34 Engineer Field Data books ever printed, and trained every Combat Engineer the wrong procedures! That must be it!

To keep things civil, I really suggest you rethink your claim of the 1-2 lb charge theory...

A scan of page 9-9, in FM 5-34:
Image removed just so there is no chance I get thrown in jail, for the information...

The fact that you can't find this book, or get your hands on it is good, because it contains classified information (I made sure none of the information on this page was classified; I don't want to go to jail by any means!) and as such would be a great tool for terrorists, and enemies, you remember them right? The ones that flew the planes into the buildings!

[Tony Szamboti]

That's how tensile/compressive strain energy works, unfortunately, it's not that simple for shear strain energy. But again, you still can't keep your units right. Force/area x strain with units is equal to force (lb) / area (in^2) x strain (in/in) = lb/(in^2) or psi which is NOT lb*in/sq.inch. Even that's still moot, since you never even showed what strain the steel would fail at.

Again, I recommend you look at:

http://me.queensu.ca/courses/MECH422/Lecture13.ppt or another classical source of energy methods. If this is so simple you should be able to find literature examples of the METHOD that you used to calculate shear strain energy.

Care to tell me how the area under the shear stress vs. strain diagram doesn't equal the shear strain energy just as the area under the axial load stress vs. strain diagram does.

As for the strain energy at failure it can be expressed as inch pounds/unit area. I have shown you that. The GE paper was just one I plucked off of the Internet. There are many examples.

What you said about the units is basically a circular argument in case you don't realize it. You basically said psi = psi and claimed the strain has nothing to do with it.

What units do you get for strain energy when you take the area under the stress vs. strain curve?

[Tony Szamboti]

You haven't shown that at all... THE FACT IS: A couple of pounds of explosives can not do it!

You claiming your math, and equations, and all that other crap, can prove my expertise and experience wrong is, in my eyes insulting!

I gave you the best way for calculating the explosives needed to cut any structural steal over 2 inches thick... In my example it would take roughly 16 pounds (C4) to cut the 14"x4" piece. Now are you really insinuating that I don't know how to do my job?

Oh wait... I know, since it was the government behind 9-11, they purposely misprinted all of the FM 5-34 Engineer Field Data books ever printed, and trained every Combat Engineer the wrong procedures! That must be it!

To keep things civil, I really suggest you rethink your claim of the 1-2 lb charge theory...

A scan of page 9-9, in FM 5-34:
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb68/T3KN1K4L/img028.jpg

The fact that you can't find this book, or get your hands on it is good, because it contains classified information (I made sure none of the information on this page was classified; I don't want to go to jail by any means!) and as such would be a great tool for terrorists, and enemies, you remember them right? The ones that flew the planes into the buildings!

That looks like a military field manual you show, but what we don't know is what level of overkill they are using. The energy equations do say that most of the twin tower columns could be taken out by a couple pounds of C-4. Even given the probable extreme overkill present in this manual it still doesn't call for what Mark Roberts video tries to imply would have been necessary. Nor does it make the case that there were no explosives in those towers.

[Newtons Bit]

Care to tell me how the area under the shear stress vs. strain diagram doesn't equal the shear strain energy just as the area under the axial load stress vs. strain diagram does.


Show me a shear stress vs. strain diagram. When you figure that out, you'll probably also figure out how to correctly calculate strain energy.


As for the strain energy at failure it can be expressed as inch pounds/unit area. I have shown you that. The GE paper was just one I plucked off of the Internet. There are many examples.


Show me papers that show how to calculate shear strain energy to failure. Please!


What you said about the units is basically a circular argument in case you don't realize it. You basically said psi = psi and claimed the strain has nothing to do with it.

What units do you get for strain energy when you take the area under the stress vs. strain curve?

No, what you said is moronic. Let's revisit your earlier post:

It is the area under the stress strain curve. It is essentially stress x strain.

The area under a stress-strain curve (in tension or compression) is the integral of f*u*du. Where f is the stress and u is the strain. In no world does that equal f*u. Are you getting the basic concept yet?


This is a more correct way to calculate ELASTIC strain energy. It does not include the energy required to fracture however.

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3812/shearstrainvf6.jpg

You know nothing about what you are talking about.

[JMarshall]

http://www.fortliberty.org/military-library/fm5-250/fm5-250.shtml

That link goes to FM 5-250 Explosives And Demolitions... In it you will find a section that talks about charges to create an Abatis. In an Abatis the goal is to fall trees along the side of a road, without cutting all the way through the trunk of the tree... What does this have to do with things? Well, we use C4 to do this, and if your math were correct the C4 would blast right through the trunks leaving no parts still attached, unless we used a very small amount... Lets check the equation out, shall we?

P=0.02(D squared)

P is pounds TNT
D is diameter of tree

1 lb of C4 would be able to cut a tree approximately 8 inches in diameter, granted this is for a test shot, since all trees have different physical properties. But if what you are saying is correct then that one pound charge would blast all the way through the tree and thus rendering it completely useless for an Abatis.

The Military doesn't like it's Combat Engineers to "overkill", we are taught to use the bare minimum.

[Newtons Bit]

http://www.fortliberty.org/military-library/fm5-250/fm5-250.shtml

That link goes to FM 5-250 Explosives And Demolitions... In it you will find a section that talks about charges to create an Abatis. In an Abatis the goal is to fall trees along the side of a road, without cutting all the way through the trunk of the tree... What does this have to do with things? Well, we use C4 to do this, and if your math were correct the C4 would blast right through the trunks leaving no parts still attached, unless we used a very small amount... Lets check the equation out, shall we?

P=0.02(D squared)

P is pounds TNT
D is diameter of tree

1 lb of C4 would be able to cut a tree approximately 8 inches in diameter, granted this is for a test shot, since all trees have different physical properties. But if what you are saying is correct then that one pound charge would blast all the way through the tree and thus rendering it completely useless for an Abatis.

The Military doesn't like it's Combat Engineers to "overkill", we are taught to use the bare minimum.

But... wo0d is so much stronger than steel! </truther>

[leftysergeant]

And when the C-4 detonates and makes the tree fall, it will make a noise.

Have you ever listened to the Kevin Cosgrove tape? There were NO detonations as the building started to collapse. Figure all you want, you are stuck with that fact. HE does not detonate silently. Never happens within any space that is not a total vacuum. Anybody who says it can is out to lunch and not expected back any time soon. Wearing a tin foil turban. Batcrap crazy.

Do you get what I'm saying?

[Jonnyclueless]

And when the C-4 detonates and makes the tree fall, it will make a noise.

Even if no one is around?

[leftysergeant]

Even if no one is around?

I have never been able to run far enough to not hear it. If anyone is standing around close enough to hear the tree fall, he will probably not hear it because of the effect of the sound that the charge makes. Tends to kind of slam your eardrums together in the middle of your head.

[cmcaulif]

In this case it is the strain energy at failure that I think you are asking for. It is the area under the stress strain curve. It is essentially stress x strain. So you have force/area x strain. That is what I gave in the form of inch pounds/sq. inch using the ultimate shear stress.

and once again, you switched pounds for pound inches.

do not bother responding until you realize that a pound is not equal to a pound inch.

[cmcaulif]

Strain Energy in the form inch pounds/sq. inch is valid. I have shown you that.

A pound does not equal a pound inch. Which is what your calculation relies on, aside from the fact that you have not correctly calculated the energy needed to fracture the cross section.

As for where the collapses initiated I think you should take a look at where NIST puts the failure initiations. They are at the 82nd floor on the South Tower and the 98th floor on the North Tower. Then take a look at the damage studies of those floors. There was some damage on the 82nd floor of the South Tower, but not significant. There was almost no damage on the 98th floor of the North Tower. I don't know about the explosives being rendered inert by the heat. I will have to look into that.

I posted papers on the thermal decomposition of different high explosives here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3170818&postcount=108).

As for limited impact damage on the initiation floors, all I can do is laugh. Does that mean that the Perpetrators of this conspiracy accepted a limited risk of having their plot fail, or worse, being found out? Or better yet, was there some way for them to know where exactly the planes would hit so they would know exactly where to plant the explosives to avoid impact damage, yet still produce a failure on the fire and impact floors?

If you are interested, here are some resources on initiation of explosives due to rapid shear:

Shock and shear initiation of explosive
P. C. Chou, D. Liang and W. J. Flis
Shock Waves Volume 1, Number 4 / December, 1991 pp 285-292

DTIC report
Accession Number : ADA090391
Title : The Initiation of Explosive Charges by Rapid Shear
Corporate Author : ARMY BALLISTIC RESEARCH LAB ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD
Personal Author(s) : Frey, Robert B.

The Role of Shear in Shock Initiation of Explosives
Cart, E. J.; Lee, R. J.; Gustavson, P. K.; Coffey, C. S.; Sutherland, G. T.
SHOCK COMPRESSION OF CONDENSED MATTER - 2003: Proceedings of the Conference of the American Physical Society Topical Group on Shock Compression of Condensed Matter. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 706, pp. 925-928 (2004).