The shock wave from a directional device is orders of magnitude greater in the direction designed for.
No, not really. As I showed above, the blast energy emanating from any point on the surface of a shaped charge is no stronger than the energy from any other point. The blast energy from any point on the back and sides of a shaped charge is just as strong as any point inside the conical portion. All the shaping does is cause blast energy to converge on a central point.
The photograph provided by miragememories confirms exactly what I have described.
The image of an armor plate defeated by a shaped charge "HEAT" warhead (High Explosive Anti-Tank) shows rapidly expanding gases, fragments and spalling from
both sides of the armor plate. Standing on either side of the plate would be just as destructive to a material as weak as glass.
Look again at the image of the shaped charge held by Mark Loizeaux:
The copper sheath does not attenuate the blast energy. It makes it stronger (see my reference to the US military Mk-84 bomb above). The copper on the indented side would be compressed, superheated and turned into a hypersonic jet of liquid metal. the copper sheathing on the back side of the charge would be torn apart by the blast and turned into shards of shrapnel.
Here's an experiment; turn to the nearest window, walk to the point in the room farthest from it and fire a pistol at it. Now multiply that millions of times over and spread it out across the otherwise undamaged side of WTC7. That is what we would have observed had WTC7 been a controlled demolition.
Windows were broken on a face that was parallel to two faces of column 79 and I have shown that.
Actually, ~I~ posted the photo showing the handful of windows breaking.
You are trying to refute that with the simplistic and enormous leap that windows on all sides would have to be broken.
You aren't even reading what I have posted. Let alone going outside this message board trying to learn something before embarrassing yourself with me here.
I never said that just one or a few charges would break every window in the building, I said that
all of the charges would do that.
I stated that
thousands of charges would have been necessary to bring down WTC7.
Dr Niels Harrit, your co-author on the paper that you were unable to get properly reviewed and published
agrees with me. he stated that "
I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance... Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!"
Controlled Demolition Inc. describes
their efforts to bring down the J.L. Hudson building in Detroit:
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
WTC7 was twice the height of the Hudson building. it was a building of more modern construction than Hudson and the above ground portions were wider and deeper too. it's likely that in any plausible scenario, anywhere between 8,000 to 12,000 shaped charges would have been needed.
CDI goes on to describe additional precautions taken during their preparations:
Even with all the precautions to control overpressure, the age, existing cracks, and poor condition of glazing windows in vacant structures on the north, east and west sides of the J.L. Hudson complex, window breakage was a concern. CDI had seven glass company crews on standby to handle any problems. Although Homrich/NASDI has placed over 2,000 yards of soil over utilities in the four adjacent streets, emergency utility crews were also standby "just in case."
The backblast from the non-shaped portions of the charges is so great that CDI was concerned about blast waves and shrapnel breaking windows in buildings across the street. In this case we have been discussing windows in WTC7 itself. This is
devastating to your claims.
That would require quantification, which you have not done. It is incredible that you would have the nerve to declare victory without doing so, as you essentially have no argument without quantification.
Now you are blatantly lying. You have managed to cast doubt on both your skill in your chosen profession and your moral character (though arguably not as much as your anti-semitic attacks on Mark Roberts).
On the other hand, my argument has merit on the directionality issue alone.
I backed my claims up with real world examples. You have done nothing but proclaimed yours to be the Word of God and insisted that you don't need anything else.
On the bright side, I now know how Ryan
"I creamed him without breaking a sweat" Mackey must have felt.
