Review of Gravy's film at ABOVE TOP SECRET

[Gravy]

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.

Why lie, Tony? My video refutes the claims that enough high explosives were used to pulverize concrete and throw hundreds of tons of steel around the site. It also points out that there is absolutely no evidence of the use of any explosives at the WTC on 9/11. Perhaps you were too entranced with the images to read the text. And if you want to claim that silent explosives that do not disturb the air around them were used, you'll need to provide evidence that such things exist.

You said you do not run from questions. Prove it. Here they are for the third time:

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, compared to a "natural" collapse. Show your work or cite relevant sources. Again, you must know this answer to support your claim.

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.

Remember, on the 18th you said,

I'll have to get back to you tomorrow on the other things as I actually have to go to work tomorrow.

Can you do it, Tony?

 

[leftysergeant]

How was such a massive amount of explosives so covertly placed on all the columns, without anyone noticing?

That seems to me an even less relevant question than why no one saw them going off.

The failure clearly occurs on floors tjat were largely engulfed in fire, yet the flames don't go shooting out horizontally.

No way does an explosive charge big enough to cut the columns not blow flames out the windows.

Further, NOTHING was done to the core columns below the floors on which failure occurred in either building, other than being battered horrendously by the dbris near their bases.

 

[sleahead]

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.

In real controlled demolitions, in which the objective is to use the least amount of explosives to get the job done, the building is gutted, walls are removed and columns are pre-weakened. Despite this, real controlled demoltions are very loud. Why do you think this is?

 

[ref]

Lefty, that's another problem. I just pointed out one of many.

Other big problem is, that we saw big portions of core still standing moments after the collapses. If charges were placed on core columns every three floors, they damn sure didn't work very efficiently.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Lefty, that's another problem. I just pointed out one of many.

Other big problem is, that we saw big portions of core still standing moments after the collapses. If charges were placed on core columns every three floors, they damn sure didn't work very efficiently.

The charges would have only needed to be on the outer central core columns, to remove enough support and allow the weight of the building to then cause a collapse. This which would have left some of the inner columns standing.

 

[ref]

The charges would have only needed to be on the outer central core columns, to remove enough support and allow the weight of the building to then cause a collapse. This which would have left some of the inner columns standing.

Ok then.. So why charges every 3 floors? Why not just one floor? Just curious.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why lie, Tony? My video refutes the claims that enough high explosives were used to pulverize concrete and throw hundreds of tons of steel around the site. It also points out that there is absolutely no evidence of the use of any explosives at the WTC on 9/11. Perhaps you were too entranced with the images to read the text. And if you want to claim that silent explosives that do not disturb the air around them were used, you'll need to provide evidence that such things exist.

You said you do not run from questions. Prove it. Here they are for the third time:

The things that we agree on are that it wasn't the explosives which caused the pulverization or steel to be thrown around the site. The gravitational potential energy, once released by cutting the columns, did that due to huge impulsive loads. However, your video's main message is that no explosives were used or necessary, and on that we certainly disagree.

1) You said,


How were the dust clouds in the three collapses in any way "pyroclastic flows?" Do you know what "pyro" means?

I believe the dust clouds were the same as you get from any controlled demolition. The majority of which is due to gravity pulverization.

2) Why did you agree with Barrett's insane claim?

I did not agree with Barrett's claim. If you listen I said a lot of people underestimate the gravitational potential energy once released by the series of three story controlled demolitions. All I said about it was there was some amount of dust cloud expansion by the charges. That is what I was also discussing earlier with the banana peel plumes moving upward.

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.

You need to tell me just how high the top would be, as there wouldn't necessarily be a collapse unless it was high enough. I really think you need to do some work here. This is a mute point anyway as a fire induced collapse would not have caused a dynamic load.

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.

Gordon Ross already did this and the minor nitpick about elastic vs. plastic buckling does not discount his work. There will also be other papers coming out showing this in other ways.

5) You said,

Explain how the expansion of the dust clouds would differ from what is observed in the three collapses, compared to a "natural" collapse. Show your work or cite relevant sources. Again, you must know this answer to support your claim.

I already mentioned the banana peel plumes moving upward. That wouldn't happen in a "natural collapse".

6)
Ahem. You said:


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

a) I think you are the one making things up.

b) The energetic blowouts we see coming out of the sides of the towers in the videos are certainly caused by explosions inside. These were well below anything which has free fallen from above on the outside and there have been papers written showing these narrow energetic blowouts had to be results of explosives in the towers. The speed of collapse is evidence for the use of explosives. By design it was not intended that the explosives not be visible and that is why the core was demolished.

c) A huge dynamic load would have been needed to induce a collapse and that doesn't even mean it would progress to the bottom of the tower. I doubt that you would understand the difference between a static and dynamic load and I don't have the time to explain it now. I am going to do a paper showing there would have been no dynamic load in a fire induced collapse. You will have to wait.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ok then.. So why charges every 3 floors? Why not just one floor? Just curious.

The columns were welded every third floor and it would be easier to take out the columns at their welds. In addition, there would be no need to use explosives on every floor. Controlled demolitions use the minimum number of explosives and in this case trying to mimic a natural collapse could be accomplished by blowing every third floor.

 

[ref]

The columns were welded every third floor and it would be easier to take out the columns at their welds. In addition, there would be no need to use explosives on every floor. Controlled demolitions use the minimum number of explosives and in this case trying to mimic a natural collapse could be accomplished by blowing every third floor.

But you said the weight of the building caused the collapse. So why would you need to blow out every third floor, if the weight of the building would do the exact same thing if just one floor was blow?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Gordon Ross already did this and the minor nitpick about elastic vs. plastic buckling does not discount his work.

Haven't you read Newtons Bit's analysis of Ross? It's more than a minor nitpick, Ross's entire analysis rests on a fundamental error which is not just serious but utterly absurd.

I came up with a good analogy for Ross's error, in fact. Suppose I go out shopping with a hundred dollars, buy a forty-dollar pair of shoes, buy some lunch, and come back with thirty-three dollars. Analysing this according to Ross's approach, I must have stolen the shoes. Why?

Starting cash: $100
Amount spent shopping: $67
Amount left: $33
Therefore there was not enough money left over after shopping to buy a $40 pair of shoes.

Check Ross's energy tables. The analogy is exact.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

But you said the weight of the building caused the collapse. So why would you need to blow out every third floor, if the weight of the building would do the exact same thing if just one floor was blow?

The weight of the building did it after the columns were cut as their fall and the resulting collisions with the lower mass caused high dynamic loads. The weight of the building would not have been capable of doing that without the columns being cut, as they were designed to take the load and more with a factor of safety, which neither the damage from the aircraft or fires removed enough of.

Every third floor was used for the reasons I explained earlier. Why use more explosive than is necessary? The intent would have been to make it look natural. The problem is that buildings like the towers or even smaller skyscrapers have never been known to have a progressive collapse. There are no examples of this in history. The taking out of the central core with explosives is what caused the collapse.

 

[ref]

The weight of the building did it after the columns were cut as their fall and the resulting collisions with the lower mass caused high dynamic loads. The weight of the building would not have been capable of doing that without the columns being cut, as they were designed to take the load and more with a factor of safety, which neither the damage from the aircraft or fires removed enough of.

Every third floor was used for the reasons I explained earlier. Why use more explosive than is necessary? The intent would have been to make it look natural. The problem is that buildings like the towers or even smaller skyscrapers have never been known to have a progressive collapse. There are no examples of this in history. The taking out of the central core with explosives is what caused the collapse.

And how many outer central core colums would have been cut every three floors? Five, ten, twenty?

Edit: Rest of the post cut with thermite.

 

[leftysergeant]

I believe the dust clouds were the same as you get from any controlled demolition. The majority of which is due to gravity pulverization.

This is one of the few accurate statements you have made.

That is what I was also discussing earlier with the banana peel plumes moving upward.

Again, you are right about the dust acting like the dust in any CD. You are wrong about the upward motion, to some extent. It is an error in observation.

Like the dust in any CD, it tended to rise when it met resistance. It met resistance at the uncollapsed floors, but quickly overcame that resistance. But it spread out meeting that resistance. Then it met resistance at those parts of the perimeter walls that had not been driven outward by the weight of the debris that fell against them. So it rose, but only very slightly, as it did again at ground level where it meet buildings and vehicles and such. But the degree to which it rose is accentuated in the eyes of observers because the dust in the center is still falling.

Gordon Ross already did this and the minor nitpick about elastic vs. plastic buckling does not discount his work. There will also be other papers coming out showing this in other ways.

Ross is a nincompoop who still believes he has pictures of columns cut with thermite, even though the is a welder standing in one corner of his photographic "evidence." The twit needs to get out more and watch people with real jobs at work.

I already mentioned the banana peel plumes moving upward. That wouldn't happen in a "natural collapse".

As I stated above, they most certainly would. All dust clouds in CD rise when they have nowhere else to go. The more extensive the blocking object is, the higher the dust rises until it runs out of energy or gets around the obstruction, after which it starts falling back down toward ground level.

The energetic blowouts we see coming out of the sides of the towers in the videos are certainly caused by explosions inside.

They most certainly were not. Any explosion powerful enough to sever steel columns would over-pressurize and entire floor, not blow out selected windows, one per floor. If you look closely enough, you might notice that in the videos, there is already some distortion of the outer walls where the dust plumes emerge, except on those fllors where large banks of elevators terminate. The majority of the "squibs" emerge on floors that are already in collapse on the side of the building away from the camera. Those on floors that are clearly not yet in collapse are much more readily explained by dust being forced down stairways or elevator shafts, and in all cases, they grow more dense and energetic as the wave of collapse approaches. They are just collapse-driven dust.

The speed of collapse is evidence for the use of explosives.

No.

By design it was not intended that the explosives not be visible and that is why the core was demolished.

This makes no sense. There is no way to contain the explosive force to the immediate area of the columns without massively sand-bagging the area, which would have sort of given away their attempts to do it discretely with people working in the building. Any charges strong enough to do the job would leave a visible indication of their action such as blowing dust out horizontally with tremendous energy and hurling smaller bits of debris out on a trajectory far beyond that taken by the falling segments of the perimeter walls, perhaps even up through the dust plume. We don't see that happening. Everything except the aluminum cladding follows the same trajectory. The cladding deviates only because of air resistance.

Do go back and take another look at Gravy's evidence. But this time, do not view it through your belly button.

 

[Gravy]

Tony, I'm going to take a couple of points at a time so you don't get lost or try to move the goalposts, as you usually do.

The things that we agree on are that it wasn't the explosives which caused the pulverization or steel to be thrown around the site. The gravitational potential energy, once released by cutting the columns, did that due to huge impulsive loads. However, your video's main message is that no explosives were used or necessary, and on that we certainly disagree.

My video's main message is that there is absolutely no evidence for the use of explosives, and I demonstrated that the conspiracist claims I examined are false.

Since it's your conspiracy theory, you will need to furnish the evidence. You won't even try to get a copy or transcript of the Earth-shattering interview in which you say Silverstein said WTC 7 was demolished for safety reasons. Why don't you care? Why aren't you spreading that information to every single truther website? Why don't you file a lawsuit to get the damning evidence that you KNOW exists? You'll be a hero, Tony.

Instead, you choose to spend your time whining on an internet forum. Why?

I believe the dust clouds were the same as you get from any controlled demolition. The majority of which is due to gravity pulverization.

A) Controlled demolitions do not produce pyroclastic flows. Do you retract that statement and promise never to use it again?

B) Then explain why you said this: "There is an energy deficit in expanding those clouds. That's really where the energy deficit comes in." Back your claims with facts and calculations.

I did not agree with Barrett's claim.

That is a lie.

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."

Why do you lie like this, Tony? Doesn't it embarrass you? Don't you want to be respected?

 

[Gravy]

You need to tell me just how high the top would be, as there wouldn't necessarily be a collapse unless it was high enough. I really think you need to do some work here. This is a mute point anyway as a fire induced collapse would not have caused a dynamic load.

No, Tony, you need to tell me how high the top would be. I've already asked you what the minimum would be. You didn't answer.

So do it. It's your theory, and you must be able to answer this question to support it.

Gordon Ross already did this and the minor nitpick about elastic vs. plastic buckling does not discount his work.

You're basing your theory on Gordon Ross's completely discredited paper? Okay, specifically what do Newton's Bit and Ryan Mackey get wrong that invalidates their refutations?

Newton's Bit Examines Gordon Ross' conservation of momentum paper

Ryan Mackey on Gordon Ross

Below are more examples of Gordon Ross's incompetence. Does it bother you that your very best are completely incompetent?

"Scholars for Truth" Gordon Ross and Craig T. Furlong write a paper claiming that an explosion at the WTC was recorded by seismic instruments before the first aircraft impact. They hilariously forget to check one little thing.... (Paper remains online and uncorrected to this day). http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63740&page=10#394

Gordon Ross claims that the core columns that were most accessible from the elevator shafts (the outer, he says) were destroyed first in the south tower collapse. I show why he's making that up. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2748783&postcount=6 Accompanying graphic: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Columnaccessibility_2.jpg

There will also be other papers coming out showing this in other ways.

Unfortunately, Tony, your hypothesis cannot be proven by imaginary papers. That a tour guide needs to explain this to someone trained in science should make you think.

Time to show your work, mechanical engineer.

 

[Gravy]

Haven't you read Newtons Bit's analysis of Ross? It's more than a minor nitpick, Ross's entire analysis rests on a fundamental error which is not just serious but utterly absurd.

I came up with a good analogy for Ross's error, in fact. Suppose I go out shopping with a hundred dollars, buy a forty-dollar pair of shoes, buy some lunch, and come back with thirty-three dollars. Analysing this according to Ross's approach, I must have stolen the shoes. Why?

Starting cash: $100
Amount spent shopping: $67
Amount left: $33
Therefore there was not enough money left over after shopping to buy a $40 pair of shoes.

Check Ross's energy tables. The analogy is exact.

Dave

That is an excellent analogy.

 

[twinstead]

That is an excellent analogy.

Yea. Even I can understand it now.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

No, the shear strength is approximately 0.6*Fy ksi, however that includes a reasonable factor of safety. If you actually knew what you were doing, you would be using the yield strength.

But in any event folks, behold truther math:

Shear strength of a 1"x1" piece of steel = 0.577*36,000psi*1"x1" = 20722lb. But this is also equal to 20,722lb*in of energy. Why? Because in realcddeal's world, a lb and a lb*in are identical. They're somehow completely interchangeable.

Nevermind all that tricky math that involves volume integrals and background theory of how material behaves when sheared. Also nevermind the fact that the demolition charges are going to be putting a bending moment on the columns. Unless of course the charges are completely rapped around the column such that Dr. Oppenheimer would be proud.

edit: I should also point out that this is only elastic strain energy. It doesn't include the energy to actually tear and deform the steel. It also doesn't include strain rates, which will be rather high for an explosive.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Haven't you read Newtons Bit's analysis of Ross? It's more than a minor nitpick, Ross's entire analysis rests on a fundamental error which is not just serious but utterly absurd.

I came up with a good analogy for Ross's error, in fact. Suppose I go out shopping with a hundred dollars, buy a forty-dollar pair of shoes, buy some lunch, and come back with thirty-three dollars. Analysing this according to Ross's approach, I must have stolen the shoes. Why?

Starting cash: $100
Amount spent shopping: $67
Amount left: $33
Therefore there was not enough money left over after shopping to buy a $40 pair of shoes.

Check Ross's energy tables. The analogy is exact.

Dave

I like this riddle also, it's similar:

Three men go to spend the night at a hotel. They pay for a $30 dollar room, each giving $10 for their share. When they go to their room, however, the manager realizes that the room is on sale for $25, and gives $5 to the bagboy to return to the men. The bagboy goes to give back the five dollars, and when he does, the men take it, but give the bagboy $2 as a tip, thereby keeping one dollar each for themselves. However, one of the men is disturbed, remarking, "Hey, we each spent 9 dollars just now, since we got one back, which means $27 total, right? Plus the $2 we gave the bagboy, that's only $29! Where's the extra dollar?"

 

[Hyperviolet]

I like this riddle also, it's similar:

Heh, that riddle got me at 1st; then the penny dropped.