Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Edx]

You do know if they agree and don't find "therm*te" they were bought off the "them"?

I still say with your connection to a multitude of scientists, start by asking for a "peer-review" of what they already have. This would be a nice little baseline of their methods at the very least.

Peer review means nothing... unless its their Bentham paper they are talking about, and then it means everything.

 

[Edx]

"I didn't test the chips in an argon atmosphere because the buildings weren't demolished in an argon atmosphere." I've been trying to find the words to express how amusingly obtuse that assertion is. So far, the best I can do is analogies.

Im no scientist and my jaw drops at how stupid that quote sounds.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Im no scientist and my jaw drops at how stupid that quote sounds.

But you have to admit it matches the intelligence of the target audience perfectly. Harrit is not trying to convince intelligent people, he is only interested in converting fools.

 

[chrismohr]

Hey, I just blew up at a good friend who sent me a YouTube video about the "global warming hoax," which said that scientists are perpetrating a vast hoax (reminds me of NIST "fraud" claims of 9/11), only an idiot would believe that global warming could be caused by us humans (those buildings couldn't have come down) and major scientists disagree on the cause of global warming (a tiny handful most with puffed up resumes, against hundreds of scientific organizations who agree with the theory), and then they bandied about a bunch of climatological terms no layperson can understand and said see, only an idiot would deny this, and what about this and this and this... I just blew up, calling it a bunch of pseudoscientific (expletive here)... something I try not to do, but the parallels between this Global Warming Hoax video and the 9/11 Truth stuff I've been wading through was enough for me to just snap. Hope I haven't lost a friend!

Anyway, still working on the thermitic dust protocol. Will keep you informed, but for now I'm treading lightly and making sure my ducks are in a row before I say too much.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Hey, I just blew up at a good friend who sent me a YouTube video about the "global warming hoax," which said that scientists are perpetrating a vast hoax (reminds me of NIST "fraud" claims of 9/11), only an idiot would believe that global warming could be caused by us humans (those buildings couldn't have come down) and major scientists disagree on the cause of global warming (a tiny handful most with puffed up resumes, against hundreds of scientific organizations who agree with the theory), and then they bandied about a bunch of climatological terms no layperson can understand and said see, only an idiot would deny this, and what about this and this and this... I just blew up, calling it a bunch of pseudoscientific (expletive here)... something I try not to do, but the parallels between this Global Warming Hoax video and the 9/11 Truth stuff I've been wading through was enough for me to just snap. Hope I haven't lost a friend!

Anyway, still working on the thermitic dust protocol. Will keep you informed, but for now I'm treading lightly and making sure my ducks are in a row before I say too much.

Chris, whilst there are many parallels between the two there are also very large financial interests on both sides of the AGW discussion that make it wise to be very skeptical of the claims of both sides.
I try to keep out of it as its really moot who is right as we are not going to reduce our C02 output as a species so at best we slow the effects by a few years over a century but there are lots of other reasons to cut fossil fuel use so I support most of the green power initiatives.


Thanks for the good work on the dust.

 

[cantonear1968]

The real question for these truthers is "How do you get explosives to throw large bits of steel?"
To be a bit more precise, given that truthers tend to claim that thrown large lumps of steel are proof of explosive CD. Which in turn means the thrown steel is an artefact of cutting the steel for demolition. It's not easy to get explosives to throw large lumps of steel even if that was the primary objective. Near enough impossible as a "side effect" of steel cutting. Yes you will throw little bits. At high velocities etc. BUT not big bits.

So I won't spell out how asinine stupid that alleged logic is - to any one who knows what they are talking about with the use of explosives.

I am very, very sorry for doing this. I hate having to ask a question of you all. But I have searched and searched and I cannot find where this has been answered, nor can I even begin to work it out myself.

To wit: how much explosives would be needed to eject 50 ton steel beams 500 ft, as is claimed by AE911Truth?

I understand that there is a lot more problems with this claim than simply being able to eject it laterally, but if we can keep it to that on a basic level, it would be very, very much appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Cantonear

 

[BasqueArch]

"I didn't test the chips in an argon atmosphere because the buildings weren't demolished in an argon atmosphere." I've been trying to find the words to express how amusingly obtuse that assertion is. So far, the best I can do is analogies.

"We didn't test the new fighter plane design in a wind tunnel because fighter pilots don't dogfight in wind tunnels."

"I didn't refrigerate the milk because cows don't live in refrigerators and people don't drink milk in refrigerators."

"Find the puncture in the inner tube by holding it underwater? That won't work. I wasn't riding the bicycle underwater when the puncture happened."

"No, Watson, put that magnifying glass away. We needn't examine the murder scene with a magnifying glass because the murderer didn't kill the victim with a magnifying glass. Elementary."

(Or the CSI/Law and Order crossover version: "Dr. Grissom, you've testified that you examined the crime scene using an ultraviolet light. Tell me... was the crime committed in ultraviolet light? It's a simple question, Doctor. YES OR NO!?")

"I didn't perform your knee surgery under sterile conditions because your knee wasn't injured under sterile conditions."

Respectfully,
Myriad

Nice, thank you.
Another example that there are many ways to be wrong but only one way to be right. The truthies have cornered the many-ways-to-be-wrong market.

I have tried to find that - how truthers vs rationals read a scattergram illustration. It was posted at JREF a year or so ago. Connect the dots illustration.
Does someone know where it is?

 

[chrismohr]

I am very, very sorry for doing this. I hate having to ask a question of you all. But I have searched and searched and I cannot find where this has been answered, nor can I even begin to work it out myself.

To wit: how much explosives would be needed to eject 50 ton steel beams 500 ft, as is claimed by AE911Truth?

I understand that there is a lot more problems with this claim than simply being able to eject it laterally, but if we can keep it to that on a basic level, it would be very, very much appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Cantonear

Hi cantinear,
First of all, even though my YouTube video tries to explain lateral ejection of steel, I've recently discovered that there was likely NO lateral ejection of steel at all, but large parts of one of the towers peeling off like a banana peel and falling outward 600 feet from the perimeter.
Here are pictures showing debris underneath the famous pictures of the steel beams sticking out of the buildings to back up this claim (see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GIxWjWA3Ec
and this JREF post and several after): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7523908&postcount=2397

Someone else can calculate how much energy it would take to hurl these beams laterally, but a much more important thing is to realize they weren't hurled at all!

 

[Oystein]

Hi cantinear,
First of all, even though my YouTube video tries to explain lateral ejection of steel, I've recently discovered that there was likely NO lateral ejection of steel at all, but large parts of one of the towers peeling off like a banana peel and falling outward 600 feet from the perimeter. ...

Many truthers assert that the fact that the steel structures falling down straight ("into their footprint" and all) is proof of CD, because they believe that the towers should have tipped over and fallen to the side.
But when there are significant parts of the structure that don't fall straight down but instead tip over and fall to the side, that too is proof for CD to them!

 

[leftysergeant]

Someone else can calculate how much energy it would take to hurl these beams laterally, but a much more important thing is to realize they weren't hurled at all!

Actually, I can see no way that they were not given some lateral propulsion by the expanding dust plume. There is nop way that all of that falling debris was not over-pressurizing the interiors of the buildings as they collapsed. With the narrow openings for the windows, the segments of joined perimeter columns would have become somewhat leaky sails during the collapse. I should think that, at that height, it should take only a few extra foot pounds of pressure to move a segement out from the footprint. This might be a difference of only a few feet, but, from that high up, it would make a big difference later.

 

[chrismohr]

Actually, I can see no way that they were not given some lateral propulsion by the expanding dust plume. There is nop way that all of that falling debris was not over-pressurizing the interiors of the buildings as they collapsed. With the narrow openings for the windows, the segments of joined perimeter columns would have become somewhat leaky sails during the collapse. I should think that, at that height, it should take only a few extra foot pounds of pressure to move a segement out from the footprint. This might be a difference of only a few feet, but, from that high up, it would make a big difference later.

Lefty's right, of course... 1/2 million cubic feet of air per floor getting pushed out of the collapsing floors at up to 12 floors/second during the towers's collapses created 484 mph winds, more twice the wind speed of a tornado. That could explain the aluminum cladding flying out so violently, and even help push entire columns outwards. But as for massive steel beams flying 600 feet laterally, I have seen no video record of this happening during the collapses. But there IS video record of an entire perimeter wall peeling away and collapsing, 600 feet worth, making lateral ejection of these steel beams hundreds of feet unliklely.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Lefty's right, of course... 1/2 million cubic feet of air per floor getting pushed out of the collapsing floors at up to 12 floors/second during the towers's collapses created 484 mph winds, more twice the wind speed of a tornado. That could explain the aluminum cladding flying out so violently, and even help push entire columns outwards. But as for massive steel beams flying 600 feet laterally, I have seen no video record of this happening during the collapses. But there IS video record of an entire perimeter wall peeling away and collapsing, 600 feet worth, making lateral ejection of these steel beams hundreds of feet unliklely.

What a joke. Suddenly huge clouds of dust appear and large amounts of debris are ejected. All the steel support columns fail.

BTW That's what an explosion looks like.

 

[tsig]

What a joke. Suddenly huge clouds of dust appear and large amounts of debris are ejected. All the steel support columns fail.

BTW That's what an explosion looks like.

Looks like a gravity driven collapse caused by damage and fire to me.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

All the steel support columns fail.

yet its clear that the core ones did not until near the end and that many of the exterior ones peeled off when still attached together.....

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/northofvdot.png


clearly they came apart as the floors pancaked down. Only stuff that traveled any real distance through the air was dust and the aluminium cladding wihich was so light one person could pick it up.

Clayton, wouldn't it be better to make claims that were not easy to show to be false?

 

[000063]

What a joke. Suddenly huge clouds of dust appear and large amounts of debris are ejected. All the steel support columns fail.

BTW That's what an explosion looks like.

Explosions include blasts of force which cause injuries and barotrauma. Very specific injuries, in fact. None of those were present in New York on 9/11, even among people who were inside the buildings in question. I'm not sure how the USG would've figured out a manner of explosive demolition that doesn't actually explode, but there's a reason conventional demos have a safety radius well beyond the expected resting place of the collapsed building.

I note that you never answered my egg question at the top of the page. Of course.

 

[cantonear1968]

Hello all. I truly appreciate your efforts and I honestly get all that. This is truly a minor point and one that I'm not getting hung up on. However, it would be a nice club to have to show the ridiculousness of their claims. For example, I found this bit of information very handy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion

The Halifax Explosion occurred on Thursday, December 6, 1917

At 9:04:35 AM, the cargo of Mont-Blanc exploded with more force than any man-made explosion before it, equivalent to roughly 3 kilotons of TNT (about 1.26 x 1013 joules). (Compare to atomic bomb Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima, which had an estimated power of 15 kilotons TNT equivalent.)

A portion of Mont-Blanc's anchor shaft, weighing 517 kilograms (1,140 lb) was thrown 3,780 metres

The explosion was felt and heard in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, roughly 215 kilometres (130 mi) north, and as far away as North Cape Breton, 360 kilometres (220 mi) east

So, a roughly 3 kiloton bomb of TNT hurled a 1/2 ton anchor 12,000 feet. A much longer distance than we are talking about, but also a much smaller object. And this was felt and heard 220 miles away. The obvious question is: what would bomb sound like less than a km away (as many people were when the buildings collapsed) that would hurl a 60 ton object 500 ft and how much of Lower Manhattan would be leveled by this?

With all due respect Chris, we're all well aware you cannot dissuade a truther of a claim that they are sure of; especially when it has shown up on AE911Truth's website. So telling or even proving that no beams were ejected laterally won't sink in. But proving the explosive power needed to accomplish this fete, and the destructive power of such, IS something that they cannot as easily dismiss.

With all that said, it's honestly not a major point that is bogging me down and the Halifax Explosion reference actually makes my point. Thank you all again for your efforts.

 

[BasqueArch]

Lefty's right, of course... 1/2 million cubic feet of air per floor getting pushed out of the collapsing floors at up to 12 floors/second during the towers's collapses created 484 mph winds, more twice the wind speed of a tornado. That could explain the aluminum cladding flying out so violently, and even help push entire columns outwards. But as for massive steel beams flying 600 feet laterally, I have seen no video record of this happening during the collapses. But there IS video record of an entire perimeter wall peeling away and collapsing, 600 feet worth, making lateral ejection of these steel beams hundreds of feet unliklely.

Also, according to Chandler if the top columns exploded at 50mph they should have outpaced the concomitant expelled dust, but video shows they did not

THREE- Visual evidence proves that for explosive CD the expelled columns should have outpaced the dust plumes, they did not.

​

3A. Since we know from the above visual evidence that explosives/thermite were not placed inside the columns at the hand access holes or near the spandrel plates, the purported explosives could only have been placed in the ceiling lay-in tile plenum offset from the face of the columns a sufficient distance (and still discoverable) and with the necessarily large enough quantity of explosives to have expelled the columns horizontally hundreds of feet.

3B. Proximity and relative height of WTC1 to WTC7 (in picture directly to the left of WTC1) and Winter Garden.(in picture directly below WTC1)
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc1heli.jpg
Large sections of attached, toppled column assemblies at Winter Garden that David Chandler claims below were exploded 600 feet distant.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/columns.jpg

3C. From this video of WTC1 stop it two seconds after failure (at 33sec). The plumes on the right side are about 60 feet from the building. Stop the video two seconds later (at 35 sec). The plumes are about 120 feet from the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVDaAufKnLc

3D David Chandler calculates that at this failed floor WTC1 (96th floor), the explosive velocity of the columns propelled 600 feet horizontally onto the Winter Garden would be about 50 mph. At two seconds after failure, this would put the exploded columns at 73 fps x 2 seconds = 146 feet away from the building, outpacing the dust plume (60 feet) and should have been visible in the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

At four seconds after failure, this would put the exploded columns at 73 fps x 4 seconds = 292 feet away from the building, outpacing the dust plume (120 feet) and should have been visible in videos.

3E. But since the expelled columns ahead of the dust plume are not visible, the columns could not have reached 600 feet by the use of large explosive charges in the ceiling plenum, or elsewhere for that matter, they reached 600 feet by toppling, David Chandler and the CTs are wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4

3F For the first ten seconds, until the collapse reached the ground and all the dust fell and continually expanded horizontally, all the exploded exterior columns should have outpaced its trailing explosion plumes and have been visible. If you take a baseball and handful of dust in one hand and throw it, the baseball will always travel farther and faster, and outpace the dust due to air friction.
"If you don't like these conclusions you can reject the theories, but you can't reject the facts." -DavidChandler.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums

/showthread.php?postid=4962945#post4962945

 

[Oystein]

Hello all. I truly appreciate your efforts and I honestly get all that. This is truly a minor point and one that I'm not getting hung up on. However, it would be a nice club to have to show the ridiculousness of their claims. For example, I found this bit of information very handy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion






So, a roughly 3 kiloton bomb of TNT hurled a 1/2 ton anchor 12,000 feet. A much longer distance than we are talking about, but also a much smaller object. And this was felt and heard 220 miles away. The obvious question is: what would bomb sound like less than a km away (as many people were when the buildings collapsed) that would hurl a 60 ton object 500 ft and how much of Lower Manhattan would be leveled by this?

With all due respect Chris, we're all well aware you cannot dissuade a truther of a claim that they are sure of; especially when it has shown up on AE911Truth's website. So telling or even proving that no beams were ejected laterally won't sink in. But proving the explosive power needed to accomplish this fete, and the destructive power of such, IS something that they cannot as easily dismiss.

With all that said, it's honestly not a major point that is bogging me down and the Halifax Explosion reference actually makes my point. Thank you all again for your efforts.

There are heuristic formulas that I read about a short while ago - unfortunately I forgot the name, something with Neumann? - that calculate the effect of explosives on solids - for example, how fast a projectile will get expelled from a cannon. Several formals are needed to account for different geometies. For example, obviously the effectt of an explosive will be different depending on whether it fires in a totally (bomb) or partially (barrel) enclosed space, or in the open (demo charge); whether is in direct contact with the object in question or at a distance; whether it is concentratet, like a ball of explosive, or spread out over an area; etc.

If we consider that a terrorist bomb would more likely be attached to the side of a steel member, and not be drilled into it, then its energy will be dispersed in several ways:

1. Some heat - which is basically waste
2. The shockwave - really a wave that propagates without accelerating any mass away from the center of explosion. Part of that shockwave will turn into fracture and deformation energy. This is the part of the explosion that does of the intended work
3. Kinetic energy of the reaction products. Part of that energy in turn may accelerate the steel mass that it is attached to

Note that 1-3 are distinct effects of the reaction. Only #3 is what interests here. So only a part of the chemical energy of the explosive gets turned into kinetic energy.

To compute the kinetic energy transferred to the steel member, we basically have to look at conversation of energy, and conversation of momentum. Half of the kinetic energy goes into reaction products that fly away from the steel member. The other half hits the steel at various angles from -90° to +90°. As a first approximation, let's say effective velocity of the reaction products is half their absolute velocity. As another approximation, let's assume the reaction products get reflected from the steel in an elastic collision (their effective velocity after collision is the inverted).
The numbers we then need are:
- Mass of the explosive charge - or actually half of that, as only half the mass gets in contact with the steel
- Velocity of explosives - or actually half of that, as they effectively hit the steel with only half their velocity.
- Mass of the steel

In an elastic collision between a light and a heavy object, the light one carries away most of the energy. Try a collision between a billiard ball and a glass marble to see what I mean.


I calculated an example:

I assume that the initial velocity of the reaction products of the explosion is supersonic (>330 m/s), but slower than the shockwave in the explosive (detonation velocity, <8200 m/s for many common high explosives) and go for a medium value of 4000 m/s
I further assume a charge that is 1% of the mass of the steel - say 10lb of explosive on 1000lb of steel.

Effective velocity is then 2000 m/s
Effective mass of explosive is 5lb
I assume that 100% of the energy goes into kinetic - that's of course overestimating resulting velocities.

The steel piece will then gain a velocity of just under 20 m/s.
If it falls freely from the top of the WTC, which takes less than 10s, it would travel at most 200m laterally - that's about 600ft.


If you want to fiddle with assumptions: velocity of steel scales linearly with velocity of explosive ejecta.
Velocity of steel scales roughly linearly with the mass proportion between steel and explosives - there's a term (f-1)/2 in the formula, where f is the mass ratio (mass(steel) / mass(explosives)). As long as f is larger than 10, the -1 doesn't hurt much. As soon as we assume that very large pieces of steel were propelled by nearly equal volumes of explosives, we are in lala-land of unrealistic scenarios.


Comnclusion: If you gear everything toward maximum ejection speed of large steel members, you need massive explosive charges for massive steel members - more than 10 pounds of high explosives for 1000 pounds of steel.

Here we see 20 pounds C4 detonate behind the horizon:

The mike pics up a sharp crack, but more importantly, the guy shakes the camera as he is shocked by the sound of blast, even though he expected it.

10 pounds of ammonium nitrate, a not-so-high explosive:

Find many more videos of single charges omn youtube, if you like.
And of course we have videos of the explosive demolitions of buildings like the Landmark Tower in Fort Worth,. where typical charge size is well under 1 pound (they used a total of only 364 pounds of explosives, divided into a whole lot of charges), and listen to how stunningly loud they are:

Again, cameraperson is so shocked by the first blast that he shakes the camera.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

[qimg]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/article-1249885-083BEFD2000005DC-203_964x1175-1.jpg[/qimg]


yet its clear that the core ones did not until near the end and that many of the exterior ones peeled off when still attached together.....

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/northofvdot.png


clearly they came apart as the floors pancaked down. Only stuff that traveled any real distance through the air was dust and the aluminium cladding wihich was so light one person could pick it up.

Clayton, wouldn't it be better to make claims that were not easy to show to be false?

oops linked to wrong second picture

and I repeat, Clayton, wouldn't it be better to make claims that were not so easy to show to be false?

 

[cantonear1968]

There are heuristic formulas that I read about a short while ago......

Thank you very much Oystein. I didn't expect you to go into so much detail and I very much appreciate the effort. This is extremely helpful.

Cantonear