Loose Change - Part III

[MarkyX]

Yet, Mr. Avery, wouldn't it be sweet, sweet satisfaction to really stick it to Mr. Roberts, counter all his points, and put him in his place, what with all the evidence at your disposal?

Oh, wait...

Best part is he fell for it.

P.S http://www.myspace.com/avery_dylan

 

[CptColumbo]

Isn't Myspace.com supposed to be a site for kids? He's trying to debate with teenagers, and their nosy parents.

 

[dubfan]

Well, for sake of argument (and to reduce the amount of C-4 needed), let's assume lightweight concrete without rebar (other options are dense concrete or reinforced concrete). Our formula is
P=R³KC
Where P is pounds of TNT, R is the thickness, K is the material factor, and C the tamping factor.
So, let's assume a minimal C-4 needed. We'll use K=.88 for lightweight concrete less than .3 meters thick, C=1.0 assuming charges placed in the center of the floor thickness, and R=2 inches (about .166 feet).

So we get
P=0.166³*0.88*1.0 = 0.004025 lbs. per charge. With C-4's ReF of 1.34, that means 0.003004 lbs. per charge. Not much, but we're asssuming a charge placed every 4 inches (to waste less blast above and below the floor). So, that number is how much C-4 is needed to destroy concrete in a 2 inch radius around the charge. Again, fo rsake of argument, let's assume the radius is cubical, and each of these charges will pulverize 0.0046296 ft³ of concrete.

Now, we have 32,000 cubic meters of concrete, approximately, which gives us 1,130,060 ft³, roughly. Divide that by how much our charges destroy and you get 244,094,522 charges, which equates to 733,260 lbs of C-4, or about 365 tons.

Let's get a bit more reasonable and assume a charge placed every 15 feet in a grid. Our K value now becomes 0.27 for concrete over 2.1 meters. C stays the same, and R is 7.5:
P=7.5³*.27*1.0 = 113.90625 lbs of TNT or 85 lbs. of C-4 per charge (rounded down slightly). Each of these charges will take out a 15' by 15' by 4 inch area of flooring (floor is only 4 inches thick), or 75 cubic feet. So, using our figure of 1,130,060 ft³ of concrete, that gives us 15067 charges, or 1,280,695 lbs. of C-4, or 640 tons. As you increse the charge size, the amount required goes up.

Thanks dub, azazal. Sounds like concrete over the steel, so we can effectively ignore the steel. Actually, you could figure that the steel would add to the destructive force in my second scenario (larger charges) by reflecting some of the blast back into the concrete, But it's only going to be a reduction of 30% to 40% at best.

Oh, and just an aside, my figures for Christophera's reinforced concrete core did NOT include cutting the reinforcement, just the concrete.

Hm. 640 tons. Ought to take 4 guys about 10 trips each, huh?

 

[JamesB]

I hear Karl Schwarz is an expert on that stuff.

Patmos Nanotechnology is the leading researcher in the area. They have over 1000 PhDs who have filed over 400 patents on nanothermate alone.

I wonder if they managed to fill out the default entries on their webpage template yet?

 

[Kent1]

Patmos Nanotechnology is the leading researcher in the area. They have over 1000 PhDs who have filed over 400 patents on nanothermate alone.

I wonder if they managed to fill out the default entries on their webpage template yet?

Here's Fetzer's Open Letter to the Editor, to the Chronicle of Higher Education

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticleFetzer_29Jun2006.html

 

[dubfan]

But of course he simply omitted the obvious clarification of what I meant as well as my observation that we were preparing a formal reply to the "911myths" site for publication on st911.org. Which we will do.

woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I can't wait for Fetzer's "oh isht" moment when he actually gets around to reading that site.

Mike W, are you worried? The "scholars" are preparing a formal reply.

 

[pgwenthold]

Here's Fetzer's Open Letter to the Editor, to the Chronicle of Higher Education

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticleFetzer_29Jun2006.html

For those who don't want to read this, allow me to summarize:

"Waaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh, they were mean to me."

I love the part about how

The buildings exploded from the top down, as is
visible to anyone paying attention

I have to say, it may or may not be visible, because to be honest, I don't even know what it means to "explode from the top down."

 

[azazal]

Hm. 640 tons. Ought to take 4 guys about 10 trips each, huh?

Actually a quick question for Huntsman, the 325 or 640 tons of C4 number is just the explosives correct? You did not add in the weight of detonators, det-cord, ect, right?

 

[JamesB]

Here's Fetzer's Open Letter to the Editor, to the Chronicle of Higher Education

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticleFetzer_29Jun2006.html

Can he not realize the ridiculous irony of this statement?

What we must all understand is that even the most carefully and
painstakingly argued position, such as Steve Jones' studies and
David Ray Griffin's books, can be subjected to ridicule relatively
effortlessly by employing the fallacy of special pleading and only
citing evidence favorable to your side.

 

[Hellbound]

Actually a quick question for Huntsman, the 325 or 640 tons of C4 number is just the explosives correct? You did not add in the weight of detonators, det-cord, ect, right?

That is absolutely correct. You'd need one detonator per charge (perhaps two per using the 85 lb. charges).

Det cord would add some additional tons, possibly as much as the C-4 itself. Even MDI would be heavy, but significantly lighter than det cord. I'm not familiar with electrical systems as much, but that would likely be your lightest weight.

 

[azazal]

That is absolutely correct. You'd need one detonator per charge (perhaps two per using the 85 lb. charges).

Det cord would add some additional tons, possibly as much as the C-4 itself. Even MDI would be heavy, but significantly lighter than det cord. I'm not familiar with electrical systems as much, but that would likely be your lightest weight.

Excellent, thought so. So guessing that at a minimum, the CD of the towers would take 500 (direct access to the support columns) to 1000(general area of support columns) tons of material per tower is not unreasonable.

You know, I really wish some one would sit down with one of the CD company's reps and map out what would be needed to drop the towers with CD, just to show what a massive undertaking it would be.

 

[Kent1]

Can he not realize the ridiculous irony of this statement?

With the amount of stupid things Fetzer says you could almost apply it to others.

Fetzer (Fet-zer) adj.
1. to make astonishing/overwhelming stupid statements
2. lacking normal intelligence beyond belief
3. implies lack of intelligence or incapacity for perceiving, learning etc.

Here is angry Fetzer at the education forum
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7192&st=0&gopid=66189&

 

[Brainster]

With the amount of stupid things Fetzer says you could almost apply it to others.

Fetzer (Fet-zer) adj.
1. to make astonishing/overwhelming stupid statements
2. lacking normal intelligence beyond belief
3. implies lack of intelligence or incapacity for perceiving, learning etc.

Here is angry Fetzer at the education forum
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7192&st=0&gopid=66189&

Heheh. I love this bit:

In presenting any complex argument on a controversial subject, it is easy to make someone look silly: just give their conclusions and ignore all their premises!

This is something that I've definitely noticed about the Truthers; they always want you to focus on minutiae and not on the big picture, because the big picture's absurd whereas you can believe for a second that puffs of smoke are actually squibs from explosives.

That's why I still believe that the most effective way of defeating the Truthers is to reveal their nutty conclusions right off the bat: The planes were forced to land somewhere, other planes were flown into the WTC buildings, a missile was fired at the Pentagon, and they just dumped some trash in a ditch in Shanksville and called it Flight 93. The passengers were all killed in a NASA building in Cleveland, except for Barbara Olson who's counterfeiting Lira in Germany. Oh, yes, and the Joooos did it.

 

[MikeW]

Mike W, are you worried? The "scholars" are preparing a formal reply.

Yes, I noticed that. Don't want to say more about it in public, but let's just say I'm not worried. At all.

 

[dubfan]

I think we've just verb-ified the word "Fetzer".

Fet'-zer. v. To employ the fallacy of special pleading, citing only that evidence which is favorable to one's side.

 

[Belz...]

All this is all the more perplexing considering so many components of the alternate 9/11 theories are so far beyond rationality. And considering the official story is simple, sufficiently detailed, and fairly dripping with common sense, it's all the more...mystifying.

Well you see, Reg, I think it's precisely those qualities that make the official story LESS convincing to these people. It's TOO simple, TOO conclusive.

I think people have been fed too many intrigue stories in the last few decades.

 

[Belz...]

Best part is he fell for it.

P.S http://www.myspace.com/avery_dylan

Not enough "I mean,"'s

 

[Gravy]

[qimg]http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/8930/40933238shanni2033007qr.jpg[/qimg]

Johnny, I hardly knew ye.

 

[Gravy]

Don't know.

Greening says "lightweight concrete", but the context of his analysis is the energy required to pulverize the concrete. I don't think he considered the presence or absence of rebar in his analysis.

Ought to be an easy enough thing to find out though, or maybe on of our WTC construction gurus here might know offhand...

Gravy?

Lightweight concrete without rebar, mostly 4" thick, on corrugated steel.

 

[Gravy]

Just got this in email right now.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=89557162

Best. Profile. Picture. Ever.

Very funny. And I see that Sheen's ex is now "Denise Roberts." Come on over, dahlin'. I'll take good careaya, not like that glue-sniffin', gun-totin', wife-smackin', vaccination-hatin', Chiropracter-goin', houseplant-throwin', sucky sitcom-starrin', Johnson self-picture-takin', 9/11 conspiralatin', gamblin' money-losin', prostitute-addictionated chucksheen.