Steven Jones debates Leslie Robertson

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...

Okay, what percentage of the weight of the floors above (and the collapsing floors) are you assuming is getting ejected laterally to arrive at the conclusion that the kinetic energy is not greater than the plastically dissipated energy?
 
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...

Show your calculations Laith. The entire industry disagrees with you. Forget opinions, produce the figures.
 
Arus I think you were mixing up that Barret character with Jones.

Just curious did Jones ever get around to publishing his paper in an appropriate academic journal as he promised he would back in April? (Rhetorical question really, I know he didn't and it says everything about the value of his paper).
 
with a name like truth, it has to be good

Laith said:
Will you please stop derailing my thread with nonsense?

Could someone please give me the calculation showing complete collapse is inevitable after the failure conditions were reached?
Click to expand...

the top floors began to fall, the structure below could not stop it

the new combined mass move along destroying the whole building as seen on 9/11

no one can quickly calculate the chaos of the collapse, but you can break it down to floor by floor

The PE of a tower was 1,000,000,000,000 joules

That is a fact you can calculate PE=MASS x Gravity x Height

Does the WTC look like 1000 500 pound bombs hit the area twice???

That is the PE released on 9/11, just from falling buildings.

Since you seem to have CT tendencies you are a student of CD, and the major tenant of CD is you use the building to destroy itself! Not explosives, this is the real sad part of meeting CT people, they have not clue on CD or energy and structures.

Anyone meet any CTers with an understanding of CD or physics? Present numbers? Proof? Evidence?

After failure conditions are met and the building begins to move at the impact area the KE of the moving mass is greater than resistance of the building below, and each section that fails below start falling with the force of gravity acting and the mass grows in a chain reaction, gee there was an 80 story of so spire that stood for almost 30 seconds, not quite free fall speed and the acre foot print building x 2 trashed 19 acres as it fell in its "own footprint"!!! funny 19 acres are not a 2 acre foot print!!

those ct guy always ironic and disrespectful all at once, with a name like truth it has to be good
 
I think Leslie Robertson really is baffled by the insanity of Jones. As an aside, I've met Leslie Robertson, attended a few seminars where he presented, very nice man.
 
milesalpha said:
Arus I think you were mixing up that Barret character with Jones.

Just curious did Jones ever get around to publishing his paper in an appropriate academic journal as he promised he would back in April? (Rhetorical question really, I know he didn't and it says everything about the value of his paper).
Click to expand...

yes, that is why he was put on leave and retired

the journal was the now famous, started by DR Jones

his own online journal for 9/11 studies as someone already posted
 
Laith said:
Why is everyone attacking me?

If anyone can give me the calculation I have asked for please do.
Click to expand...

I have a friendly suggestion for you. Stop posting. Just for an hour. Really - take your hands off the keyboard and stop sending in a post once a minute.

Use that time to THINK about what people have said to you and, in particular, about what it might be like and what kinds of things could happen if an airliner, fully loaded with fuel, hits a building at 500 miles an hour or so.

You might find it useful. And you might realize why you are getting attacked.
 
Okay everyone well done. The UK pubs close a little later tomorrow so expect the next incursion to be a couple of hours later and a little more vigorous. Spelling will probably be worse too.
 
milesalpha said:
Arus I think you were mixing up that Barret character with Jones.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I knew it was a professor, but didn't realize it was Barret. Seeing as they are all quacks, they begin to sound alike.

Just curious did Jones ever get around to publishing his paper in an appropriate academic journal as he promised he would back in April? (Rhetorical question really, I know he didn't and it says everything about the value of his paper).
Click to expand...

The answer: No
 
beachnut said:
yes, that is why he was put on leave and retired

the journal was the now famous, started by DR Jones

his own online journal for 9/11 studies as someone already posted
Click to expand...


Cough, as the forum's resident old stoner, I can unequivocally state that even I couldn't get stoned enough to consider the "Journal for 911 Studies" a journal, let alone appropriate.
 
Laith said:
So you have done no calculations but you confidently assert it had to be total collapse??

I am just saying that non total collapse would be the assumed thing and even Robertson got on the backfoot when that was put to him.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are just saying, but you happen to be just wrong.

There is no justification for "assuming" that the lower floors would stop the momentum.

Here's what some qualified people have to say....

A very early analysis from The University of Sydney:

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.

<snip>

The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
Click to expand...

There's no great mystery here at all. The laws of physics, of mass and energy, together with the realities of economics going into building design and construction, make it implausible that a structure such as the WTC could somehow arrest the collapse of so many upper floors.

An article in JOM:

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
Click to expand...

Subsequent analysis by qualified persons and organizations has never come to any significantly different conclusions.

Therefore, if you want to argue a case which proposes that the collapse could have been somehow arrested by lower structures which were never designed to carry anywhere near an equivalent load, you're going to have to present some evidence.
 
milesalpha said:
Cough, as the forum's resident old stoner, I can unequivocally state that even I couldn't get stoned enough to consider the "Journal for 911 Studies" a journal, let alone appropriate.
Click to expand...

oh, it is the most respected tin foil hat journal in the world of truth on 9/11

now I must say, I am going to post my next nut case paper as soon as i get out of my room and white jacket
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom