Review of Gravy's film at ABOVE TOP SECRET

[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.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

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

intarwesting...

 

[Trifikas]

Out of curiousity

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.

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.