WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[DGM]

Originally Posted by enik

You.

That wasn't so hard.

Originally Posted by enik

That is an obscure question, especially if I got the right answer for the wrong reasons. Are you covering for ozeco41? Can you tell me how I got the right answer with the wrong assumptions?

I'm wondering why you're asking me these questions. I simply assumed you had an issue with NIST's FEA and you had already contacted them.

Am I wrong, do you not have a problem with their FEA and have contacted them for correction?

[enik]

Originally Posted by DGM

That wasn't so hard.



I'm wondering why you're asking me these questions. I simply assumed you had an issue with NIST's FEA and you had already contacted them.

Am I wrong, do you not have a problem with their FEA and have contacted them for correction?

Nope. Your assumption is not correct. My FEA agrees with the NIST but ozeco41 says I got the right answer for the wrong reasons. I want him to clarify and provide me with his assumptions.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by enik

Nope. Your assumption is not correct. My FEA agrees with the NIST but ozeco41 says I got the right answer for the wrong reasons. I want him to clarify and provide me with his assumptions.

For those of us that don't want to search the thread for your quotes of ozeco41, you might link them.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by enik

Nope. Your assumption is not correct. My FEA agrees with the NIST but ozeco41 says I got the right answer for the wrong reasons. I want him to clarify and provide me with his assumptions.

Sorry, I was confused.

BTW: I don't believe I feel the need to "cover for" ozeco41 (or anyone else), he's a big boy.

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by enik

My FEA agrees with the NIST but ozeco41 says I got the right answer for the wrong reasons.

Funny, that's not what you quoted him as saying as recently as #2323. Did I miss something?

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by MarkLindeman

Funny, that's not what you quoted him as saying as recently as #2323. Did I miss something?

No quote links in that one either, so no way to see the full context.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The shock wave from a directional device is orders of magnitude greater in the direction designed for.

No, not really. As I showed above, the blast energy emanating from any point on the surface of a shaped charge is no stronger than the energy from any other point. The blast energy from any point on the back and sides of a shaped charge is just as strong as any point inside the conical portion. All the shaping does is cause blast energy to converge on a central point.

The photograph provided by miragememories confirms exactly what I have described.



The image of an armor plate defeated by a shaped charge "HEAT" warhead (High Explosive Anti-Tank) shows rapidly expanding gases, fragments and spalling from both sides of the armor plate. Standing on either side of the plate would be just as destructive to a material as weak as glass.

Look again at the image of the shaped charge held by Mark Loizeaux:

The copper sheath does not attenuate the blast energy. It makes it stronger (see my reference to the US military Mk-84 bomb above). The copper on the indented side would be compressed, superheated and turned into a hypersonic jet of liquid metal. the copper sheathing on the back side of the charge would be torn apart by the blast and turned into shards of shrapnel.

Here's an experiment; turn to the nearest window, walk to the point in the room farthest from it and fire a pistol at it. Now multiply that millions of times over and spread it out across the otherwise undamaged side of WTC7. That is what we would have observed had WTC7 been a controlled demolition.

Quote:

Windows were broken on a face that was parallel to two faces of column 79 and I have shown that.

Actually, ~I~ posted the photo showing the handful of windows breaking.

Quote:

You are trying to refute that with the simplistic and enormous leap that windows on all sides would have to be broken.

You aren't even reading what I have posted. Let alone going outside this message board trying to learn something before embarrassing yourself with me here.

I never said that just one or a few charges would break every window in the building, I said that all of the charges would do that.

I stated that thousands of charges would have been necessary to bring down WTC7. Dr Niels Harrit, your co-author on the paper that you were unable to get properly reviewed and published agrees with me. he stated that "I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance... Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!"

Controlled Demolition Inc. describes their efforts to bring down the J.L. Hudson building in Detroit:

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

WTC7 was twice the height of the Hudson building. it was a building of more modern construction than Hudson and the above ground portions were wider and deeper too. it's likely that in any plausible scenario, anywhere between 8,000 to 12,000 shaped charges would have been needed.

CDI goes on to describe additional precautions taken during their preparations:

Even with all the precautions to control overpressure, the age, existing cracks, and poor condition of glazing windows in vacant structures on the north, east and west sides of the J.L. Hudson complex, window breakage was a concern. CDI had seven glass company crews on standby to handle any problems. Although Homrich/NASDI has placed over 2,000 yards of soil over utilities in the four adjacent streets, emergency utility crews were also standby "just in case."

The backblast from the non-shaped portions of the charges is so great that CDI was concerned about blast waves and shrapnel breaking windows in buildings across the street. In this case we have been discussing windows in WTC7 itself. This is devastating to your claims.

Quote:

That would require quantification, which you have not done. It is incredible that you would have the nerve to declare victory without doing so, as you essentially have no argument without quantification.

Now you are blatantly lying. You have managed to cast doubt on both your skill in your chosen profession and your moral character (though arguably not as much as your anti-semitic attacks on Mark Roberts).

Quote:

On the other hand, my argument has merit on the directionality issue alone.

I backed my claims up with real world examples. You have done nothing but proclaimed yours to be the Word of God and insisted that you don't need anything else.

On the bright side, I now know how Ryan "I creamed him without breaking a sweat" Mackey must have felt.

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by carlitos

No quote links in that one either, so no way to see the full context.

Quite right. I believe he is quoting 2197.

In fairness, he may not have figured out multiquote yet -- it took me a while. That doesn't excuse the bad paraphrase, of course.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

The backblast from the non-shaped portions of the charges is so great that CDI was concerned about blast waves and shrapnel breaking windows in buildings across the street. In this case we have been discussing windows in WTC7 itself. This is devastating to your claims.

Great post, though I've just clipped out this part of it, as it bears repeating.

The "shape" of a shaped charge just ensures that the copper strip does its job. That the rest of it blasts itself to hell and back is not in doubt, except in Szamboti-land.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

No, not really. As I showed above, the blast energy emanating from any point on the surface of a shaped charge is no stronger than the energy from any other point. The blast energy from any point on the back and sides of a shaped charge is just as strong as any point inside the conical portion. All the shaping does is cause blast energy to converge on a central point....

My commendation yet again Sword_Of_Truth for an excellent explanation.

...and my qualifications include Civil/Structural engineering AND Military Engineering with demolitions training.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Originally Posted by enik

Nope. Your assumption is not correct. My FEA agrees with the NIST but ozeco41 says I got the right answer for the wrong reasons. I want him to clarify and provide me with his assumptions.

For those of us that don't want to search the thread for your quotes of ozeco41, you might link them.

Enik is misrepresenting my statements - again. I suspect that it is genuine misunderstanding rather than deliberate dishonesty. However even misunderstanding is hard to accept because my posts were explicit and clear - or so I thought.

These are relevant bits:
Post 2167 makes it clear that I admire a lot of Enik's work just as I admire the technical research work done by femr2 and Major_Tom. ... BUT to be very clear the fact that I admire some aspects of anyone's work does not imply that I am a slavish supporter of every word they utter.

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Enik's FEA work is impressive. I would expect it to be correct within the context of boundary assumptions. It is the boundary assumptions I am not sure about at this stage. There can be no doubt that Tony Sz's boundary assumptions were not supported. Enik has gone a bit broader in the physical boundary but still using the same temperature assumptions. (And there are other factors.)
Far too much for me to comment on at this time and my current location...

So note my caution was about the boundary assumptions. And very clearly stated. It has been shown many times in this thread that Toby Sz's boundary assumptions may be wrong (and probably are wrong). Tony's claim fails because HE has not dealt with the "may" of "may be wrong" - the "probably" bit is not critical.

Enik in his first FEA took the same boundary therefore the same constraint which he failed to acknowledge despite the topic being identified many times in this thread.

For his second FEA it appeared at first glance that Enik has extended the boundary for the FEA. A good step. I could not determine if:
A) he had gone far enough; OR
B) Adequately dealt with the temperature effects.

Since he was agreeing with NIST and disagreeing with Tony I thought it likely that debunker members could jump on Enik's work as proof that NIST was right. Therefore I advised caution.

Now Enik's recent post makes a statement and a request. The statement:

Originally Posted by enik

...but ozeco41 says I got the right answer for the wrong reasons. I want him to clarify....

That is a misinterpretation of something where I had been quite precise. I did not say Enic "got...." I said (words to the effect of) "may have got....and I don't know yet." See the earlier part of this post Enic and others who are interested.

And the request:

Originally Posted by enik

... and provide me with his assumptions.

...I have been holding fast against Tony Sz's attempt to get me to accept "reversed burden of proof" and have previously stated why I will not do it for Tony. Enik is caught by the same reasoning which is two parts - maybe three:
1) I won't accept reverse burden of proof; AND
2) I doubt - see my lengthy post #2390 - that it is possible to be conclusive BUT Enik is as good as anyone we have posting at applying FEA. So good luck to him.

Post 2148 contains my comment which Enik has now misrepresented. At the time I posted it I was on holiday in Fiji and had poor computer/Internet facilities. So the reason for my limited comment should be obvious. This is what I said - responding to Oystein BTW:

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Enik initially made the same technical error as Tony Szamboti made here - on which error I and tfk challenged Tony. Enik initially accepted Tony's false context. He has now slightly broadened his parameters and come up with an answer which agrees with NIST.

I am not convinced at this stage- I suspect he may have got the NIST agreeing answer for wrong reasons. I will study his findings in more detail - not for some time I am in Fiii on a holiday....

Whilst I was not very explicit the key words were in the caution I suggested by saying "I suspect" - not "know" merely "suspect" and "may have got" - not "has got..." I expected anyone posting on engineering matters to be familiar with the common problem of getting the "right answer for the wrong reasons" and my caution until I knew better was professionally prudent. At least one other member agreed on that - Mark Lindeman IIRC.
However this was Enik's immediate response:

Originally Posted by enik

I will look forward to your FEA when you return.

Which was exactly the same style as the evasive truther trickery and (pretended I think) obtuseness which Tony Sz had been responding with. So I lost interest in further discussion with Enik at this stage.

And that should be enough to show the context for Enik's misunderstandings of what I said.

At this point I may as well foreshadow the next barrier facing Tony if he ever does get past the boundary assumptions problem. It is this:

My interest remains in the "CD or Not CD at WTC7?" question. And whether NIST was right or wrong is irrelevant to that question. If anyone cannot see why we can have another derail into details whilst I explain. It may be off-topic but not as far off topic as the sinking of the Titanic.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by MarkLindeman

Quite right. I believe he is quoting 2197...
.

You could be right Mark.

I did not include all of my multiple clarifications of the points of logic and procedure in my Post #2411 response above - It would have been three more pages in length. Explaining what should not need further explanations.

Cheers and thanks for the link.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

The copper on the indented side would be compressed, superheated and turned into a hypersonic jet of liquid metal.

Do you happen to have an idea of what temperature is it heated to? I've been looking for that in past but found nothing.

Great explanation, by the way.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

Do you happen to have an idea of what temperature is it heated to? I've been looking for that in past but found nothing.

Great explanation, by the way.

I tried Google with search terms 'copper temperature "shaped charge" ' and got a lot of hits.

This one seems to be one of the landmark papers which others are quoting/referring to:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login...mber%3D5102725

Quote:

Abstract

A two‐band ir radiometer was used to measure the residual temperature of thin copper plates shocked with various explosives. Evidence indicates that a large shock‐induced emittance has been largely compensated, and the results agree with other experiments but not with hydrodynamic theory. Preliminary results for the temperature of a copper shaped charge jet in flight yield a temperature of 432 °C.

I haven't done any further research and zero "Quality Assurance"

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

Do you happen to have an idea of what temperature is it heated to? I've been looking for that in past but found nothing.

450^oC to 1080^oC according to Global Security.org.

This differs somewhat from Ozecos source, though.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

450^oC to 1080^oC according to Global Security.org.

This differs somewhat from Ozecos source, though.

Thank you very much for the reference. Not so much actually, I think you have misunderstood the reference. The source says it reaches a mean temperature of about 450°C, which is consistent with 432°C for a single shot, and mentions the copper melting point of 1083°C to indicate that therefore the jet is a solid, but might have a molten core, etc.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

No, not really. As I showed above, the blast energy emanating from any point on the surface of a shaped charge is no stronger than the energy from any other point. The blast energy from any point on the back and sides of a shaped charge is just as strong as any point inside the conical portion. All the shaping does is cause blast energy to converge on a central point.

From the Global Security website you linked to

In 1965 a Russian scientist proposed that a shaped charge originally developed for piercing thick steel armor be adapted to the task of accelerating shock waves. The resulting device, looking little like a wind tunnel, is called a Voitenko compressor. The Voitenko compressor initially separates a test gas from a shaped charge with a malleable steel plate. When the shaped charge detonates, most of its energy is focused on the steel plate, driving it forward and pushing the test gas ahead of it. Ames translated this idea into a self-destroying shock tube. A 66-pound shaped charge accelerated the gas in a 3-cm glass-walled tube 2 meters in length. The velocity of the resulting shock wave was a phenomenal 220 000 feet per second. The apparatus exposed to the detonation was, of course, completely destroyed, but not before useful data were extracted.

You should also read the first paragraph in this article http://nowa.pirotechnika.one.pl/www2/kumulacja.pdf which talks about energy directionality. The container provides tamping and redirects energy. It isn't just about convergence.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

When the shaped charge detonates, most of its energy is focused on the steel plate, driving it forward and pushing the test gas ahead of it.

How many "orders of magnitude" is one "most"?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

You should also read the first paragraph in this article http://nowa.pirotechnika.one.pl/www2/kumulacja.pdf which talks about energy directionality. The container provides tamping and redirects energy. It isn't just about convergence.

That's fully consistent with the explanation given by Sword before. Are you sure you want to dig deeper?

[R.Mackey]

The temperature of the copper extrusion is highly variable. Nearly all of the heating is due to strain energy in the extrusion itself. Furthermore, the jet is at such high kinetic energy that its temperature is hard to sense -- and indeed difficult to define. Depending on the mission, one might actually attempt to tune the temperature of the copper jet, subtly altering the geometry until you got precisely the right working temperature, and thus the correct mix of strength, ductility, contact friction, abrasiveness, and secondary (heat) effect on the target.

Anyway, Sword Of Truth is of course quite correct, and Tony is of course quite full of nonsense. While it is indeed true that a shaped charge focuses its energy, and the shock wave will be strongest along that focus, it is complete madness to think there's effectively no damage away from the axis of the focus.

This is easy to demonstrate. Once again, I find myself indebted to Mythbusters:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This is a HEAT-style RPG warhead exploded inside a light structure. As you can clearly see, the explosion is focused (you can see the jet exit at left), but it's nowhere near 100%. The remainder is more than sufficient to completely obliterate light construction at close range.

This has been known forever. Modern tankers typically have a choice of HEAT-style or kinetic energy penetrator (e.g., APFSDS) rounds. When encountering lightly armored or unarmored targets, they use HEAT. Sure, the jet effect is probably going to be wasted completely, but there is still a substantial blast effect, enough to kill and injure at a surprising distance. Furthermore, this is for a military shaped charge which focuses onto a single line, as opposed to a demolition-style shaped charge which is a so-called "linear shaped charge" and focuses into a plane. The conventional demolition charge is a great deal less focused than the example above.

It should also be pointed out that the pressure to destroy structural steel is vastly higher than that to break a window -- typically on the order of 36,000 PSI, whereas a window may not survive even 2 PSI. If we insist on the ability to destroy columns without damaging windows nearby, we are talking about a stupendously effective focus, one that does not exist in reality. If it did, I can easily imagine a wide range of useful applications for such a technology.

Pressure isn't the whole story anyway. This is just another example of untrained individuals reaching past their expertise, and being forced to think in terms of linear approximations, first-order guesses, and so on. In an actual shaped charge attack, it is the actual momentum of the driver mass (the copper liner) coupled with the extremely high strain rates that result that cause fracture, spalling, and rupture of the target. Pressure also doesn't like to stay put -- even if we could contain the primary blast 100%, the reflected shockwaves from the steel surface would likely have enough power to break windows. So would pieces of the copper jet, which then bounce around inside the target just like bullets. The noise alone might be enough to break windows, as might the vibration.

In short, to claim the magic of shaped charges means demolition that preserves nearby windows is not merely ignorant, it is in fact indicative of a rather limited or biased imagination that borders on incompetence.

Nice to see you again, Tony. I really wish you'd find a healthier hobby. You've got some smarts, you just need to use 'em better.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

How many "orders of magnitude" is one "most"?...

Probably less than one decimal order - I would be surprised is it was two or more. That comment straight off the "top of my head" after a brief thought about the three dimensional mechanics involved. The physics involved is still Newtonian BUT given the extremely high velocities involved the mass and inertia of the components taking part would be of far greater significance than most of "us" (and certainly "I") have any "gut feeling" for. So pull out the slide rules*.



* "Slide rules" - yes I am from that era...

PS I see Ryan beat me to the post with a good explanation. Just two points on Ryan's comments:
1) the 32,000 to 2 is about four decimal orders of magnitude - way beyond the <1 probable and <2 almost certain of my guestimation for the focussing of "most" energy.

2) Ryan focuses on the artillery/ordnance uses in the military. Army engineers also use linear shaped charges for demolitions so both "single line focussed" AND "linear shaped charges" are in the military inventory.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

The temperature of the copper extrusion is highly variable. Nearly all of the heating is due to strain energy in the extrusion itself. Furthermore, the jet is at such high kinetic energy that its temperature is hard to sense -- and indeed difficult to define. Depending on the mission, one might actually attempt to tune the temperature of the copper jet, subtly altering the geometry until you got precisely the right working temperature, and thus the correct mix of strength, ductility, contact friction, abrasiveness, and secondary (heat) effect on the target.

Anyway, Sword Of Truth is of course quite correct, and Tony is of course quite full of nonsense. While it is indeed true that a shaped charge focuses its energy, and the shock wave will be strongest along that focus, it is complete madness to think there's effectively no damage away from the axis of the focus.

This is easy to demonstrate. Once again, I find myself indebted to Mythbusters:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This is a HEAT-style RPG warhead exploded inside a light structure. As you can clearly see, the explosion is focused (you can see the jet exit at left), but it's nowhere near 100%. The remainder is more than sufficient to completely obliterate light construction at close range.

This has been known forever. Modern tankers typically have a choice of HEAT-style or kinetic energy penetrator (e.g., APFSDS) rounds. When encountering lightly armored or unarmored targets, they use HEAT. Sure, the jet effect is probably going to be wasted completely, but there is still a substantial blast effect, enough to kill and injure at a surprising distance. Furthermore, this is for a military shaped charge which focuses onto a single line, as opposed to a demolition-style shaped charge which is a so-called "linear shaped charge" and focuses into a plane. The conventional demolition charge is a great deal less focused than the example above.

It should also be pointed out that the pressure to destroy structural steel is vastly higher than that to break a window -- typically on the order of 36,000 PSI, whereas a window may not survive even 2 PSI. If we insist on the ability to destroy columns without damaging windows nearby, we are talking about a stupendously effective focus, one that does not exist in reality. If it did, I can easily imagine a wide range of useful applications for such a technology.

Pressure isn't the whole story anyway. This is just another example of untrained individuals reaching past their expertise, and being forced to think in terms of linear approximations, first-order guesses, and so on. In an actual shaped charge attack, it is the actual momentum of the driver mass (the copper liner) coupled with the extremely high strain rates that result that cause fracture, spalling, and rupture of the target. Pressure also doesn't like to stay put -- even if we could contain the primary blast 100%, the reflected shockwaves from the steel surface would likely have enough power to break windows. So would pieces of the copper jet, which then bounce around inside the target just like bullets. The noise alone might be enough to break windows, as might the vibration.

In short, to claim the magic of shaped charges means demolition that preserves nearby windows is not merely ignorant, it is in fact indicative of a rather limited or biased imagination that borders on incompetence.

Nice to see you again, Tony. I really wish you'd find a healthier hobby. You've got some smarts, you just need to use 'em better.

This is all a derail, and a happy one, because I am learning so much from it. Thanks Ryan, Ozeco, and Sword of Truth!

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

The temperature of the copper extrusion is highly variable. Nearly all of the heating is due to strain energy in the extrusion itself. Furthermore, the jet is at such high kinetic energy that its temperature is hard to sense -- and indeed difficult to define. Depending on the mission, one might actually attempt to tune the temperature of the copper jet, subtly altering the geometry until you got precisely the right working temperature, and thus the correct mix of strength, ductility, contact friction, abrasiveness, and secondary (heat) effect on the target.

Anyway, Sword Of Truth is of course quite correct, and Tony is of course quite full of nonsense. While it is indeed true that a shaped charge focuses its energy, and the shock wave will be strongest along that focus, it is complete madness to think there's effectively no damage away from the axis of the focus.

This is easy to demonstrate. Once again, I find myself indebted to Mythbusters:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This is a HEAT-style RPG warhead exploded inside a light structure. As you can clearly see, the explosion is focused (you can see the jet exit at left), but it's nowhere near 100%. The remainder is more than sufficient to completely obliterate light construction at close range.

This has been known forever. Modern tankers typically have a choice of HEAT-style or kinetic energy penetrator (e.g., APFSDS) rounds. When encountering lightly armored or unarmored targets, they use HEAT. Sure, the jet effect is probably going to be wasted completely, but there is still a substantial blast effect, enough to kill and injure at a surprising distance. Furthermore, this is for a military shaped charge which focuses onto a single line, as opposed to a demolition-style shaped charge which is a so-called "linear shaped charge" and focuses into a plane. The conventional demolition charge is a great deal less focused than the example above.

It should also be pointed out that the pressure to destroy structural steel is vastly higher than that to break a window -- typically on the order of 36,000 PSI, whereas a window may not survive even 2 PSI. If we insist on the ability to destroy columns without damaging windows nearby, we are talking about a stupendously effective focus, one that does not exist in reality. If it did, I can easily imagine a wide range of useful applications for such a technology.

Pressure isn't the whole story anyway. This is just another example of untrained individuals reaching past their expertise, and being forced to think in terms of linear approximations, first-order guesses, and so on. In an actual shaped charge attack, it is the actual momentum of the driver mass (the copper liner) coupled with the extremely high strain rates that result that cause fracture, spalling, and rupture of the target. Pressure also doesn't like to stay put -- even if we could contain the primary blast 100%, the reflected shockwaves from the steel surface would likely have enough power to break windows. So would pieces of the copper jet, which then bounce around inside the target just like bullets. The noise alone might be enough to break windows, as might the vibration.

In short, to claim the magic of shaped charges means demolition that preserves nearby windows is not merely ignorant, it is in fact indicative of a rather limited or biased imagination that borders on incompetence.

Nice to see you again, Tony. I really wish you'd find a healthier hobby. You've got some smarts, you just need to use 'em better.

Hi Ryan.

You are being speculative in much the same way Sword of Truth is. The pressure at a distance follows the inverse square law and is nowhere near the values you gave even a short distance away as it decays rapidly. This is why cluster bombs are used with each having its own charge. The comparison of the omnidirectional blast of the RPG in a tiny trailer is hardly comparable to some form of linear shaped charge on column 79 in WTC 7. The omnidirectional components of the linear shaped charge would be significantly less than the directional component and could have easily decayed to a less than capable of breaking windows value well before reaching any windows from column 79.

Sword of Truth is making an unsupported statement by insisting any charge on column 79 would break all of the windows in the vicinity.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Pressure isn't the whole story anyway. This is just another example of untrained individuals reaching past their expertise, and being forced to think in terms of linear approximations, first-order guesses, and so on.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

You are being speculative in much the same way Sword of Truth is. The pressure at a distance follows the inverse square law and is nowhere near the values you gave even a short distance away as it decays rapidly. This is why cluster bombs are used with each having its own charge.

Thanks for making my point so succinctly. You make a great "straight man."

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Thanks for making my point so succinctly. You make a great "straight man."

My original point was that the directional shock wave would have possibly been capable of breaking the windows at a distance, while the omnidirectional components were not and that may be why we see four windows broken which were in the direction normal to the north and south faces of column 79.

Since you are here I might as well ask what you think of the NIST walk-off failure now?

[ozeco41]

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

I stated that thousands of charges would have been necessary to bring down WTC7.

It never seems to sink in with bedunkers why this argument -- from their side -- is nonsensical.

BTW, misquoting Harrit -- not that it matters.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Well, at least ozeco now openly acknowledges where he fits into the discussion here.

Originally Posted by ozeco41

I suspect he may have got the NIST agreeing answer for wrong reasons. I will study his findings in more detail - not for some time I am in Fiii on a holiday.....

So don't take Enik's work as definitive proof at this stage.

I will return.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

I enjoy being a layperson and taking an allegedly qualified engineer to the woodshed even more. It's quite gratifying.

Tony, were you aware that SoT has these thoughts about you?

Quote:

His antisemtism is merely peripheral.

To what? Yours? I don't doubt that whatever you're talking about, yours is much, much bigger. Just because.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by ergo

It never seems to sink in with bedunkers why this argument -- from their side -- is nonsensical.

It never seems to sink in with twoofers that while they scream and bitch and whine that fire can't melt steel, and that only a controlled demolition could have brought the towers down, they scream bitch and whine even louder at any suggestion that their theory of 9/11 includes a controlled demolition.

Quote:

BTW, misquoting Harrit -- not that it matters.

No I didn't. I provided the exact quote and the link to the interview so you can check it yourself.

You apparently prefer your moral character down in the gutter next to Tonys.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by ergo

Tony, were you aware that SoT has these thoughts about you?

I honestly don't know how he/she can be congratulating him/herself here after erroneously claiming that the force in a linear shaped charge is the same in all directions, in an attempt to justify his/her unsupported claim that there couldn't have been a shaped charge on column 79 as it would have blown out all of the windows in the vicinity.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I honestly don't know how he/she can be congratulating him/herself here after erroneously claiming that the force in a linear shaped charge is the same in all directions, in an attempt to justify his/her unsupported claim that there couldn't have been a shaped charge on column 79 as it would have blown out all of the windows in the vicinity.

Somebody got that Wooooosh parrot for Tony?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Sword of Truth is making an unsupported statement

Mackey paid you a compliment and tried to encourage better behavior from you, and I almost felt about how snarky I've been.

Until you started lying again.

My comments were well supported with numerous real world examples. Even your comrade Miragememories provided a particularly damning example of why your claims are utter nonsense.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

by insisting any charge on column 79 would break all of the windows in the vicinity.

If you're not working in your chosen field at this time, it shouldn't be a mystery to you why. But if you actually believed that and could explain it adequately put it down on paper (and actually get it reviewed and published for real this time) you could approach Mark Loizeaux and explain to him how to save he and his clients millions in expensive and time consuming, and according to you unnecessary, safety precautions like large security/safety zones and having to pay a half dozen glass companies to be on hot standby when windows in other buildings than the ones being demolished break from the backblasts.

You could also win millions of dollars for the family of 12 year old Katie Bender when you explain how she wasn't really killed by debris from the botched Canberra Hospital implosion that flew half a kilometre across an entire lake and that it was really something else.

[cjnewson88]

So we're back to hush-a-boom high explosive (except when it's not) bombs? Oh dear..

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Anyway, Sword Of Truth is of course quite correct, and Tony is of course quite full of nonsense. While it is indeed true that a shaped charge focuses its energy, and the shock wave will be strongest along that focus, it is complete madness to think there's effectively no damage away from the axis of the focus.

Tony is effectively claiming that you can lay a brick of RDX on your coffee table and destroy your living room (more likely your entire home), but if you carve a notch along one side of it, it will only destroy half your house.

As you rightfully pointed out, this is what we in the psychiatric community refer to technically as "stark raving bug-@#$%".

Quote:

It should also be pointed out that the pressure to destroy structural steel is vastly higher than that to break a window -- typically on the order of 36,000 PSI, whereas a window may not survive even 2 PSI.

You can drive a half-ton pickup truck at a 100 miles per hour into a modern skyscraper structural column and possibly warp it slightly. But a window can be destroyed by the errant toss of a softball by a small child.

Quote:

If we insist on the ability to destroy columns without damaging windows nearby, we are talking about a stupendously effective focus, one that does not exist in reality. If it did, I can easily imagine a wide range of useful applications for such a technology.

I proposed a "brute force" solution a few pages back. Basically a big-ass block of concrete the size of a washing machine for each charge like the one Loizeaux was pictured holding encased in additional layers of steel and concrete to minimize spalling. We could even mold baffled channels into the block to allow the release and attenuation of the energy of the expanding gasses.

If we were to assume some kind of small, lightweight, unobtanium casing for the charges, that would be even worse for Tonys hallucinatory nin-jews. Being small and lightweight they would effectively turn the 8,000+ charges into small ultra-short burn duration solid fueled rockets, turning WTC7 into a 47 story Stalin's Organ. These mythical casings would be landing all over Central Park and upper Manhattan.

Quote:

This is just another example of untrained individuals reaching past their expertise, and being forced to think in terms of linear approximations, first-order guesses, and so on.

I'm a layman and I'm doing ok.

This only means, however, that neither Tony nor his lay-toadies have an excuse for not understanding the material being explained to them.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Tony is effectively claiming that you can lay a brick of RDX on your coffee table and destroy your living room (more likely your entire home), but if you carve a notch along one side of it, it will only destroy half your house....

..and it means that us military engineer types using shaped charges to cut steel didn't need to hide behind barriers to protect us from the back blast. And all those bits that whistled over our heads were either our imaginations OR pure coincidence from some other activity which seemed to happen every time we used the shaped charges.

Somehow I think I will stay with the conventional understanding. Even if Tony was prepared to put his money where his mouth is and stand unprotected behind an exploding shaped charge I would still retreat the distance and behind cover.

BTW did you notice the couple of comments about Tony's claim of "most" - pgimeno highlighted it and I put a ball park around it and Ryan provided some real numbers for target damaging. AND there was at least a 100:1 gap in the dangerous direction which true to style Tony ignores. That should be far more than enough to break windows even allowing for inverse square diminution of effects.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

...As you rightfully pointed out, this is what we in the psychiatric community refer to technically as "stark raving bug-@#$%"....

...there are two more likely explanations but neither of them does Tony any credit. His latest comments should even be demeaning to ergo who tried to support him.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

...I'm a layman and I'm doing ok....

You sure are - keep up the good work.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

...This only means, however, that neither Tony nor his lay-toadies have an excuse for not understanding the material being explained to them.

Remember "There's none so blind as they that won't see." - usually attributed to Jonathon Swift though often used in multitudinous variants.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I honestly don't know how he/she can be congratulating him/herself here after erroneously claiming that the force in a linear shaped charge is the same in all directions, in an attempt to justify his/her unsupported claim that there couldn't have been a shaped charge on column 79 as it would have blown out all of the windows in the vicinity.

Even if there could have been a shaped charge, it still would take thousands of charges to bring down WTC 7, according to our woodshed friend. Just cutting col. 79 wouldn't do it.

Oh, wait a minute...

[ergo]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Remember "There's none so blind as they that won't see."

.
.

Originally Posted by ozeco41

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

So we're back to hush-a-boom high explosive (except when it's not) bombs? Oh dear..

Real suspects of 911
Paul Bremer: His offices were hit when the plane hit the North Tower, but he did not go to work that day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpw7f...ature=youtu.be
On Board of directors of:
1:53 "Komatsu - In July 1996 patented a nano-thermite demolition device
Patent 5532449 Issued on July 2, 1996

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/55...scription.html

This device could melt/destroy concrete, It would be a fairly simple matter to make a device to melt/cut steel. We can only speculate about specifics but the possibility that nano-thermite devices could be used to destroy the TT cannot be denied.

[cjnewson88]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Real suspects of 911
Paul Bremer: His offices were hit when the plane hit the North Tower, but he did not go to work that day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpw7f...ature=youtu.be
On Board of directors of:
1:53 "Komatsu - In July 1996 patented a nano-thermite demolition device
Patent 5532449 Issued on July 2, 1996

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/55...scription.html

This device could melt/destroy concrete, It would be a fairly simple matter to make a device to melt/cut steel. We can only speculate about specifics but the possibility that nano-thermite devices could be used to destroy the TT cannot be denied.

No where in that link does it state "nano-thermite". Also, the towers were not concrete. Double fail C7.

So Paul was on the executive board for Marsh & McLennan, which had offices in the South tower, not the north. Did Paul have an office in the tower? We don't know if he even worked there. Saying he took a day off on 9/11 is completely irrelevant if he didn't even work in the towers.

My god that entire video is complete garbage. People are still saying Marvin Bush ran security for the towers??

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

Even if there could have been a shaped charge, it still would take thousands of charges to bring down WTC 7, according to our woodshed friend. Just cutting col. 79 wouldn't do it.

Oh, wait a minute...

Are you claiming that is is possible, even plausible, that a single charge to column 79 would lead to exactle the progressive collapse of WTC7 that we witnessed - including the EMP drop, the few seconds till the screenwall and the WMP came down, Chandler's period of about freefall of the north wall, Gage's "symmetry", etc? Or do you disagree that this is possible or plausible?

Tony, how do you answer that question?