hey guys, been away all this week so im going to try to catch up all at once. i see some great points raised by both sides of the debate as always,
keep up the good work
next id just like to say that in regards to many general questions on demo, and some of the questions posed to me, ive already answered most of them
in the debate thread ive linked ad nauseum, so regardless if you agree with me or not, i challenge each of you to go read it. there is some good
stuff i put in there on general demo knowledge (along with some citations so you dont have to simply take my word for it, id never expect that)
lastly before i get on with my dissertation, id just like to say to griff, again, im not picking on you, its just that you consistantly raise the best
points for discussion. go you
reply to post by CaptainObvious
well thats a subjective question CO. if youre talking about lb/lb then they wont be all that much different, but it takes much less ordinance to do
the same job using LSC's. so to take and compare 1lb tnt to 1lb actual HE yeild for an LSC the lsc would actually be louder (not significantly
overall but still) but it would take a fraction of the yeild to cut the same steel. that make sense?
reply to post by Leo Strauss
well leo, ive said in several posts before this that this is the ONE clip of that day that even keeps me open minded about a CD.
HOWEVER, having said that, lets examine it real fast. its obvious that it took place after at least one of the towers collapsed, but theres no real
reference to what it could be. could have been a ruptured gas main that filled a room and hit its LEL and detonated. could ahve been a steam pipe
for all we know. given acoustics and the fact that its on a camera mike...could have even been part of a building collapsing (i dont think that one
but lets face it, it COULD have been) and yes, it could have been a bomb.
but, the bottom line is that we JUST DONT KNOW!! there isnt enough of a frame of reference for it.
ill go on record once again and say that it IS a very interesting clip and its one of the only ones thats kept my mind open on this topic. but try as
anyone might, one simply cannot build a case around one arbitrary video clip no matter how strange it is.
reply to post by mastermind77
are you speaking of the video that they had to "time correct" by 9 full seconds? we're supposed to to accept an admittedly edited video as proof
of anything? and just how fast does sound travel that they had to correct by NINE seconds?
sorry that video doesnt prove anything to me.
reply to post by Griff
griff, good find. though i cant seem to load the patent images from the uspto.gov website but im working on that.
though i would like to piont out that you stated that "They don't give out patents to things that don't work." and id challenge you to search the
patent office site just for fun for things like "flying saucers" and "perpetual motion" devices.
you dont always need a working prototype to get a patent. sometimes guys will patent things based on theory so taht when tech catches up they're
already in on it.
reply to post by Griff
lol well also not to nitpick but whats easier to create? an overpressure or negative pressure? but to actually answer your question, yes, the same
problems might occur but to a lesser degree. IF the "squibs" were in fact windows popping due to overpressure caused by the collapse, the massive
holes in teh buildings would have already been "sealed" by the falling upper floors yeah? also, regardless of if the overpressure was from air due
to a piston action of the upper floors or from explosives, we did see an opposite of what i said should happen in a negative pressure scenario. the
windows blew and the walls really didnt.
of course i could be wrong.
Originally posted by Haroki
Actually, it would be interesting to get a report from that Danish demo guy on how much explosives would be needed to cut all the columns on a single
floor so that we would have something to gauge it.
why bother with the danish guy? go back a few pages and click the link i put in for the debate i had. ive already done the math. 172lbs/floor to cut
EVERY coulumn, which segways nicely to griffs next post which was:
This is a logical fallacy that I see often.
People believe that fires that got the steel to loose only half of it's strength is what caused the collapses. Why would we need to sever EVERY
single column to achieve the same?
well we've discussed this before, without legit tech drawings we cant say just how many would have to go, but what i do know is that for each one,
assuming they DID use LSC's (simply because it is the most efficient way to do it) you need 3.7lbs/column (thats based on teh "leaked" plans and
then based on the dimensions of the core columns on the 66th floor and we all know they got bigger and thicker as you went down teh building so you'd
need more HE to cut them) and IMO any more than 50lbs per floor and they might as well have put up a huge neon sign saying "WE JUST SET OFF
EXPLOSIVES IN THIS BUILDING!!" so that means that any more than 13 columns and the covert side IMO is shot to hell.
reply to post by Griff
couldnt agree more my friend.
originally posted by griff:All this could be set up farther down from the impact zones so I don't want to hear "what about the planes
and fire ruining the explosives/thermite". Not saying you CO.
lol gee might that be me then?
id hope not cuz im pretty sure we've discussed that i do agree that IF it was a cd they could cut lower and it
would still fail at the impact zones
but, the fire/crash etc MOST LIKELY would have damaged any of their ordinance packages IN THE IMPACT zones.
As far as no blasting caps found etc. I was watching "Future Weapons" not long ago. They were showing mortars that had like 8 bombs attached.
These bombs had sensors on them that would find targets. When a target was found, the bombs would explode with molten copper and burn anything around.
If the bombs didn't find a target, they specifically said that the bomb would detonate in the air above.
Why did I tell you this? Because they specifically said that no material is left to be collected by the enemy. That means mortar shells, sensors,
copper, bomb encasings etc. So, the fact they didn't find things doesn't automatically negate it in my mind. Especially after watching that
yes, but the reason they detonate in the air isnt to simply destroy the package, its so that A) theres no UEO left in the area that local children can
find and play with and then die and B) so that the enemy cant find it laying around and use its HE components for an IED to kill soldiers later.
there would still be bits of blasting cap, casing etc left. it doesnt just vaporize.
reply to post by LaBTop
im interested in what you would have expected to see from what you would think of as just the collapse. cuz if it was a thermobaric id have expected
to see the smoke/dust/debris wave being expelled from the building much faster with an audible report that should have been obvious to everyone for
distances in the miles. but thats just me. i have nothing to back that up other than opinion so on this one im going to just have to say i disagree
reply to post by ANOK
ok, for a second im going to just totally agree with you about the need for external force to eject such heavy chunks as far as they were ejected.
but, im going to pose a question to you: given that the inside of the building was pretty wide open, how large of an explosion (if it was from HE)
would you think it would take to eject said chunks of debris? ive never needed to move debris in that fashion so my reference materials are worthless
to do a real calculation and when it comes to the math of explosions i hate speculating TOO much, but given that the overpressure of teh explosion
needs something to force against (equal and opposite and all that) wouldnt you agree it would be a REALLY big explosion? does what we witness from
both a visual and auditory standpoint support this? i dont think it does but again, just my opinion, no math to back it up. if you happen to have
any math on it (from an explosives standpoint) id love to see it. im not so arrogant as to think i cant learn from someone who's done thier research
as extensivly as some of you have.
but one thing everyone can consider. ever go to drive a nail and hit it just slightly off center and have it take off like a bullet across yer work
area? no one said that everything coming down in that collapse was 100% straight down and on center to what it was hitting....not a great analogy but
i think it makes my piont
reply to post by Matthew5012
all i can ever say to this comment (many many many have made it) is that if the buildings fell faster than freefall, why was there a large amount of
debris falling even faster than that? and no, it wasnt explosives, theres NO evidence to support that it was.
[edit on 23-11-2007 by Damocles]