Steven Jones debates Leslie Robertson

Arus808 said:
so, I may have been mistakened - it may not be him (but I do remember a professor/university teacher being admonished for making students in his syllabus required to read some questionable papers on 9/11).

However, it still doesn't detract from the fact that it was his papers that got him into trouble.

So, again, why should Robertson know anything beyond the construction and design of the WTC towers?
Click to expand...

So you outright lied to counter my argument. Thanks
 
Can anyone imagine a scenario where the building would've stopped collapsing when it started? How would a structure designed to hold a certain stationary mass somehow stop a falling and undistributed mass (i.e. all the falling floors from above)? Unless the building fell in such a way that the top stories didn't collapse onto the bottom stories (which obviously isn't what we saw in the World Trade Center terrorist attack), sorry. Kinetic energy is clearly going to bring the whole damn thing down.
 
Laith said:
So you outright lied to counter my argument. Thanks
Click to expand...

making a mistatement, and lying are two different things.
But you have problem as always, docker, with taking things out of context to suit your needs.

Still, why do you ignore that it was his papers that got him into trouble anyway, so if he planned on using it in his class or not, is actually a moot point.
 
You know what. I am now convinced, beyond a doubt, that if one of the NIST engineers, like Sunder, or Lew, were to debate with Jones, he (Jones) would leave crying...

TAM
 
delphi_ote said:
Can anyone imagine a scenario where the building would've stopped collapsing when it started? How would a structure designed to hold a certain stationary mass somehow stop a falling and undistributed mass (i.e. all the falling floors from above)? Unless the building fell in such a way that the top stories didn't collapse onto the bottom stories (which obviously isn't what we saw in the World Trade Center terrorist attack), sorry. Kinetic energy is clearly going to bring the whole damn thing down.
Click to expand...

Could you give me a calculation showing this? I can't find one.

I would suspect the collapse would dissipate in the sense of lateral loss of debris so when the thicker core columns were reched the collapse would stop.
 
delphi_ote said:
Can anyone imagine a scenario where the building would've stopped collapsing when it started? How would a structure designed to hold a certain stationary mass somehow stop a falling and undistributed mass (i.e. all the falling floors from above)? Unless the building fell in such a way that the top stories didn't collapse onto the bottom stories (which obviously isn't what we saw in the World Trade Center terrorist attack), sorry. Kinetic energy is clearly going to bring the whole damn thing down.
Click to expand...

Not really. Only if the planes had struck very close to the top of the building, and if the floor collapse was partial.
 
Laith said:
Could you give me a calculation showing this? I can't find one.

I would suspect the collapse would dissipate in the sense of lateral loss of debris so when the thicker core columns were reched the collapse would stop.
Click to expand...

Could you give me a calculation showing this? I can't find one.
 
Laith said:
I would suspect the collapse would dissipate in the sense of lateral loss of debris so when the thicker core columns were reched the collapse would stop.
Click to expand...


you dont understand gravity and force do ya?
 
Laith said:
Could you give me a calculation showing this? I can't find one.

I would suspect the collapse would dissipate in the sense of lateral loss of debris so when the thicker core columns were reched the collapse would stop.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

To halt the collapse, the plastically dissipated energy (the energy to form plastic hinges in the columns) in the impacted floor would have to be greater than the gravitational potential energy released from the fall of the floors above (converted to kinetic energy). In the WTC, the kinetic energy was on the order of 8 times greater than the energy required to form plastic hinges. Consequently, the collapse would accelerate from floor to floor.
 
Laith said:
Who's docker? What violations?
Click to expand...

dont worry, I'll let the admins deal with you. They can deduce whether you're not docker or you are under another name. Till this time, I will believe that you are docker. Evidence provided thus far, only makes me believe that you are.
 
Augustine said:
Wrong.

To halt the collapse, the plastically dissipated energy (the energy to form plastic hinges in the columns) in the impacted floor would have to be greater than the gravitational potential energy released from the fall of the floors above (converted to kinetic energy). In the WTC, the kinetic energy was on the order of 8 times greater than the energy required to form plastic hinges. Consequently, the collapse would accelerate from floor to floor.
Click to expand...

But what about the large amounts of debris that came out laterally and pulverised? That weight would be lost as the columns were actually getting thicker towards the bottom.
 
Why is everyone attacking me?

If anyone can give me the calculation I have asked for please do.
 
Laith said:
But what about the large amounts of debris that came out laterally and pulverised? That weight would be lost as the columns were actually getting thicker towards the bottom.
Click to expand...

So you honestly think that the small amount of large debris, ejected during collpase, would be enough to slow a global collapse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom