• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Review of Gravy's film at ABOVE TOP SECRET

I'm going to show what it should read.

realcddeal said:
It takes 20,772 inch pounds of energy to shear through one sq. inch of A36 steel.
Click to expand...

This is wrong. The correct version would read:

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

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

This is incorrect. The correct version would read:

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


And wtf does that even mean?
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:

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

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

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

I really don't appreciate your nasty disposition and will probably consider this the last time I respond to you on this forum.
 
realcddeal said:
I have to say that you have a very nasty disposition there pal.
Click to expand...

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


*Note: I'm not talking about your 911 fantasy, I'm talking about your math. I consider the latter far more disappointing in a human being. I can only hope that you open your eyes to this egregious error and realize you're not perfect. You don't have all the answers, and you do make mistakes. Just like the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
No, you are wrong again. It takes a certain amount of WORK to shear through one square inch of A36 steel. Work and energy use the same units, which would be FORCE x DISTANCE.

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

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

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


Seriously? Please show me how stress*cross-sectional area = work.
 
realcddeal said:
No, you are wrong again. It takes a certain amount of WORK to shear through one square inch of A36 steel. Work and energy use the same units, which would be FORCE x DISTANCE.

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

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

It seems you are getting somewhere.

Now, is FORCE x DISTANCE = or != FORCE x DISTANCE-2
 
holy dang. how thick can someone be? three engineers and REalCD is attempting to go against their claims?
 
realcddeal said:
No, you are wrong again. It takes a certain amount of WORK to shear through one square inch of A36 steel. Work and energy use the same units, which would be FORCE x DISTANCE.

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

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

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


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

I keep doing the algebra, but psi*in^2 keeps equaling lb and not lb*in.
 
Once again, let me intervene in this trainwreck.

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

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

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

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

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


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

It's a non-starter. Even if it only took a tiny amount of explosives, it's just not credible. Nor supported by any evidence. So stop fussing about it, please.
 
Last edited:
For those few of you who are interesting in the math, I found a decent powerpoint presentation of strain energy and the different derivatives of it.

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

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

I should also note that this is about ELASTIC strain energy. Plastic strain energy (which is important here) is extremely important to the discussion at hand, but the fracture mechanics involved are umm... complicated.
 
Last edited:
First, let me admit that the math goes right over my head. Second, let me state that it means bugger-all, given that evidence exists that no explosive charges were detonated at any time prior to the point at which the upper portions of the building began to move.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There would have been shockwaves and noise and ejecta.

You're talking out the wrong oriffice, possibly because of your posture.
 
leftysergeant said:
First, let me admit that the math goes right over my head. Second, let me state that it means bugger-all, given that evidence exists that no explosive charges were detonated at any time prior to the point at which the upper portions of the building began to move.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There would have been shockwaves and noise and ejecta.

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

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

No matter who you think did it, the towers were taken down every third floor in a series of controlled demolitions from the top down and those plumes are from explosives going off on the floors just below the collapse zone.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
Those banana peel plumes we see sure do look like they were due to explosives. Try to explain their upward movement with a gravity only collapse.
Click to expand...

I cannot believe an engineer just posted that.

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

Pathetic
 
funk de fino said:
I cannot believe an engineer just posted that.

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

Pathetic
Click to expand...


He said he couldn't understand the math.

What did you want me to do?

And may I ask what might be your expertise?

It is time for me to go to work so I'll have to talk to you fellows later.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
Take a look at the below link from an anlysis on pipes from General Electric. On page 11 you will notice that the term fracture energy is discussed using the units inch pounds/square inch, which you are trying to say is incorrect.

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

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

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

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

Back
Top Bottom