Review of Gravy's film at ABOVE TOP SECRET

[Gravy]

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

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

A serious question: are you insane?

 

[beachnut]

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

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

This is your evidence. Just as I thought, you look at stills and make up ideas, then spew them on the internet. Wrong comes to mind when I see your post, and your paper.

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

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

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

 

[phunk]

Upward movement? Did he really just say that?

 

[funk de fino]

He said he couldn't understand the math.

What did you want me to do?

And may I ask what might be your expertise?

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

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

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

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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

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

 

[Disbelief]

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

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

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

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

 

[cmcaulif]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Disbelief]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bell]

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

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

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

 

[JMarshall]

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

 

[leftysergeant]

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

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

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

 

[tacodaemon]

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

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

 

[cmcaulif]

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

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

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

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

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

Please explain.

 

[Gravy]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3167791&postcount=76

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

 

[steve s]

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

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

Steve S.

 

[cmcaulif]

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

Steve S.

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

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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

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




Please explain.

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

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

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

 

[Tony Szamboti]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3167791&postcount=76

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

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

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

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

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

 

[stilicho]

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

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

 

[ref]

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

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

47 times 37 = 1692 charges.

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