• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 Physics from Non-Experts

I understand. I wasn't proposing the entire collapse - I imagine the variables in such a scenario would be literally billions, beyond the processing power of modern computers.

I'm simply talking the initial moment of impact, when the upper intact section of each tower came in contact with the first floor of the lower intact section of each tower.

Essentially, I suppose, what I'm referring to is the collapse of the first intact floor, rather than the collapse of the 92 (WTC1) or 76 (WTC2) floors below that.

-Gumboot

Bazant & Zhou (2002) and Bazant & Verdure (2006) examine the energy requirements for collapse progression. A summary from the 2006 paper:

The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4x larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing were taken into account (Bažant and Zhou 2002a). This fact, along with the fact that during the progressive collapse of underlying stories the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and Zhou (2002a) to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through the height of one story (or even 0.5 m). It was also observed that this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progressive collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part superfluous. The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the kinetic energy also sufficed to explain, without any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have been much longer (say, twice as long or more) than the duration of a free fall from the tower top.

Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that the WTC towers had to fall the way they did, due to gravity alone. However, a theory describing the progressive collapse dynamics beyond the initial trigger, with the WTC as a paradigm, could nevertheless be very useful for other purposes, especially for learning from demolitions. It could also help to clear up misunderstanding (and thus to dispel the myth of planted explosives).
(His progressive collapse theory follows that intro.)

Zdenek Bazant responds to G.P. Cherepanov's critique

Greening's paper on the Tower Collapses presents calculations that are mostly easy for a mathematical dummy like me to follow. (I do think he overestimates the mass of the upper portions of the buildings.)

On page 8 Greening calculates the kinetic energy of the upper portion of WTC 1 to be 23.4 x 10^8 Joules, with 3.3% of that lost to heat, and WTC 2 to be 48.4 x 10^8 Joules, with 6.7% lost to heat.
 
That's just it. These guys think they do have a good grasp of physics. They insist it's everybody else who has it wrong.

I have no idea how to fix this.

I don't know either. After all, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

When confronted with evidence that their understanding is flawed, they just get more shrill and defensive rather than examining the arguments. I have no idea how they function in real life, although a number of the more well-known truthers certainly have had difficulty. Steven Jones lost his job, as did Kevin Ryan and Judy Woods.
 
I notice that someone got a shot off- they asked him if he had shown this to his professor, he said that his high school teacher agreed with him...

The obvious counter-question to this would be, "What subject did this high school teacher teach?"
 
most high schools can't get qualified people to teach the higher level math and physics subjects. it simply falls on the most qualified. physics more so than math. my graduating class in physics was 8, i think there were 30 in math. i know of 2 math majors that went on to teach, none in physics.
 
It only takes a rational mind to discover the physics lesson from that truther is below the 1st grade level. I have seen ants capable of better understanding of physics in action then the rant of the video physics dolt.

Do you agree? What did the truther physics guy get right? What did he get wrong? Please explain why most have a problem with his WTC model and if you agree or disagree that most engineers would give him a poor grade for being wrong?

I'll return to your sandbox tomorrow beachnut.

MM
 
Bazant & Zhou (2002) and Bazant & Verdure (2006) examine the energy requirements for collapse progression. A summary from the 2006 paper:

(His progressive collapse theory follows that intro.)

Zdenek Bazant responds to G.P. Cherepanov's critique

Greening's paper on the Tower Collapses presents calculations that are mostly easy for a mathematical dummy like me to follow. (I do think he overestimates the mass of the upper portions of the buildings.)

On page 8 Greening calculates the kinetic energy of the upper portion of WTC 1 to be 23.4 x 10^8 Joules, with 3.3% of that lost to heat, and WTC 2 to be 48.4 x 10^8 Joules, with 6.7% lost to heat.

Too bad this post reveals an inability to explain the content. Cut and paste is easy, but explanations are obviously incredibly challenging when engineering is not the posters area of expertise.

MM


Edited to remove insult under the current more stringent interpretation of the membership agreement in this forum. Attack the argument, not the person.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
now MM, Mark is no dummy, even in math. He was obviously making a joke. You must have been as well, because I know you know the new moderating rules well, and we wouldn't want to have to report you for insinuating someone here was a "dummy". That is insulting.

TAM;)
 
most high schools can't get qualified people to teach the higher level math and physics subjects. it simply falls on the most qualified. physics more so than math. my graduating class in physics was 8, i think there were 30 in math. i know of 2 math majors that went on to teach, none in physics.



Depends on the country.

This guy sounds like he's a South African from Australia.

-Gumboot
 
The obvious counter-question to this would be, "What subject did this high school teacher teach?"

most high schools can't get qualified people to teach the higher level math and physics subjects. it simply falls on the most qualified. physics more so than math. my graduating class in physics was 8, i think there were 30 in math. i know of 2 math majors that went on to teach, none in physics.



This is very true, at least in my experience. I was lucky to have a highshool physics teacher who actually understood physics. Most of the people I've met later in life didn't. And he was the only one qualified to teach physics in the whole school. He was stuck doing it for years. I looked into teaching for a while after university, and they really wanted me, because there was no one to take over physics after he retired. Stupid union rules said they couldn't hire me though, as I didn't have a teacher's certificate, and my efforts to get one were thwarted :(



now MM, Mark is no dummy, even in math. He was obviously making a joke.



I'm beginning to notice a lot of twoofer types are seriously humour-impaired. They don't seem to recognize or understand jokes, and when they try to be funny, they fail utterly and completely.

Someone should do a paper on that :)
 
Hey

He's blocked everyone from posting who doesn't agree with him. I've had most of my comments removed even after I reposted them- and then he blocked me as well. All I did was ask for his calculations.

I notice that someone got a shot off- they asked him if he had shown this to his professor, he said that his high school teacher agreed with him...

...

I find it hard to believe that the kid explained it to his high school teacher like he did on YouTube- but even if he had, this just emphasizes my point: an incomplete education is a very dangerous thing. By shutting out any disagreement- by not even questioning your conclusions- and by looking for confirming evidence, even if it means bastardizing science itself- we arrive at the core of conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately- these types of conspiracy theory claims are going to be more popular: the kids with little or no education trying to prove "physics was violated" like their bigger- and just as ignorant- counter-parts are doing: Jones, et al. It appeals to people grasping at straws and in some of these cases it takes a greater education to defeat the argument.

Although- I always fall back on logic.

Hi guys, I'm new here and was referred to this forum. I'm already converted, I don't understand everything and it takes me more effort and time to work everything out, since I'm not an engineer by trade, but I have improved my understanding of the physics behind the WTC collapse in discussions with a forum member and study of published papers on the subject
:blush:.

I hope I can contribute to this forum and I am at this point still looking at all the posts. I was referred to this post on JREF by a debunker after having been banned from the video site like totovader. I understand that a reply video has offered to allow an objective, open and honest discussion. I hope this helps.
:)
 
Hi guys, I'm new here and was referred to this forum. I'm already converted, I don't understand everything and it takes me more effort and time to work everything out, since I'm not an engineer by trade, but I have improved my understanding of the physics behind the WTC collapse in discussions with a forum member and study of published papers on the subject
:blush:.

I hope I can contribute to this forum and I am at this point still looking at all the posts. I was referred to this post on JREF by a debunker after having been banned from the video site like totovader. I understand that a reply video has offered to allow an objective, open and honest discussion. I hope this helps.
:)



Hi there,

Welcome to the forums. :)

-Gumboot
 
Hi guys, I'm new here and was referred to this forum. I'm already converted, I don't understand everything and it takes me more effort and time to work everything out, since I'm not an engineer by trade, but I have improved my understanding of the physics behind the WTC collapse in discussions with a forum member and study of published papers on the subject
:blush:.

I hope I can contribute to this forum and I am at this point still looking at all the posts. I was referred to this post on JREF by a debunker after having been banned from the video site like totovader. I understand that a reply video has offered to allow an objective, open and honest discussion. I hope this helps.
:)

Argh, don't use that word! It makes me cringe. We're not dealing with religious affiliations here!
I suggest "disillusioned", instead. It's much more accurate, and it sounds better. ;)

Oh, and welcome! :)
 
Argh, don't use that word! It makes me cringe. We're not dealing with religious affiliations here!
I suggest "disillusioned", instead. It's much more accurate, and it sounds better. ;)

Oh, and welcome! :)


I'm sorry.
:o
Sometimes points of view are so rigorous and immune to reason that they seem more based on faith. I completely agree that faith has no place in a scientific forum. You're right, disillusioned or corrected sounds better.
:)
 
Gumboot, it is possible to answer your question in a simple way, using only F=ma, if you make lots of simplifying assumptions. Let's start with your already simplified case of simply dropping the upper 1/5 of the tower through 1 storey of open air onto the lower tower.

In order for the lower portion of the tower to arrest the collapse, the upper portion of the tower, already in motion, now has to stop moving. (Even if it were possible for it to "topple to the side" at that point, its vertical motion still has to stop or else it will keep smashing downward through the lower tower instead.)

To go from falling to at-rest, the moving mass must accelerate upward. The structure it falls onto must provide sufficient force for a sufficient amount of time to accelerate the moving mass to zero downward velocity. A lot of force over a short time will do, or a lesser force over a longer time.

How much time does the lower structure have to decelerate the upper mass? Actually that's not quite the right question yet. Let's look at the moment the masses come in contact. The lower mass starts resisting, and the upper mass starts decelerating. But it can't decelerate instantly, that would take infinite force. So the upper mass is still moving after it comes in contact with the lower. The greater the resistive force, the faster the moving mass will accelerate (slow down), and the less distance it will therefore move before it comes to rest. If the resistive force is less, the moving mass will accelerate to zero over a greater distance. (If the resistive force is less than or equal to the gravitational force acting on the falling mass (that is to say, its weight), the moving mass won't slow down at all, it will keep going and possibly accelerating downward. But we expect the resistive force to be greater than the falling mass's weight, because the lower tower was designed to support that weight.)

But as long as the upper mass is still moving, the lower structure that's providing the force to slow it down is also being deformed by that movement. That deformation is going to weaken the lower structure, reducing the force with which it acts against the moving upper mass. So we can transform the question of how much time does it take for the lower structure to bring the upper portion to rest, into over what distance (amount of deformation) can the resistive force continue to act upon the upper mass? This is where it gets complicated, because different kinds of deformation (buckling, fracturing, etc.) will affect the resistance in different ways over different amounts of time and distances. But we can look at ultra-simplified models of this.
...

Minor point - it's possible for the decelleration to involve deformation in the falling mass as well. There's a famous picture of a jet fighter hitting a concrete wall. It gets decellerated, and the structure remains essentially intact.

In the case of the WTC, the two structures (top bit and bottom bit) are broadly similar, so one would expect both to be deformed by the decelleration in similar ways. However, it's a very complex issue, and I'm just trying to clarify. Though I may be unwittingly obfuscating.
 
Hi guys, I'm new here and was referred to this forum. I'm already converted, I don't understand everything and it takes me more effort and time to work everything out, since I'm not an engineer by trade, but I have improved my understanding of the physics behind the WTC collapse in discussions with a forum member and study of published papers on the subject
:blush:.

I hope I can contribute to this forum and I am at this point still looking at all the posts. I was referred to this post on JREF by a debunker after having been banned from the video site like totovader. I understand that a reply video has offered to allow an objective, open and honest discussion. I hope this helps.
:)

Welcome, Sylvester1592!
 
The whole thing in the videos seem to involve a lot of irrational nonsense, hand-waving and shouting. If he was doing this on a soapbox in a park, people would just laugh and walk on by. Why do we do any different on YouTube?
 
The whole thing in the videos seem to involve a lot of irrational nonsense, hand-waving and shouting. If he was doing this on a soapbox in a park, people would just laugh and walk on by. Why do we do any different on YouTube?

Because people in a park really don't give a crap- the majority of them don't believe that 9-11 was an inside job.

On YouTube, they're looking for it- and people like this give them the "scientific leverage" they know they need so badly.

Problem is- science is not at all in their favor. But it still takes a lot to point that out to them. When they see someone using big words and a pen and a drawing pad, they assume he's right because he's confirming their predetermined conclusion.
 
Is there a YouTube version of the WTC collapse that uses simple animation and simple physics explanations? Maybe something like that could go a LONG way to dispelling these raging nutters.

I'm sure there are some excellent JREFers who could construct such footage!
 

Back
Top Bottom