Review of Gravy's film at ABOVE TOP SECRET

[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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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.