9/11 Physics from Non-Experts

I see that Gregoryulrich has given up any pretense at trying to get his assumptions correct, and has devolved into a full-blown troofer...
 
Mr. Urich

I've been watching this discussion but avoided posting.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there.
Click to expand...

This doesn't say that the effects of the fire on the steel were modelled, and given the complexity of such a model and the limited software at the time I'd be very surprised if it were.

Before any weight could be attached to this speculation, we would actually need much more information on the modelling undertaken regarding a potential aircraft impact. For example to what extent did it take account of damage to fireproofing? (And if it did consider such issues, why was a more robust and impact resistant fire proofing not used)

Therefore founding upon one passing comment can be no more than speculation.
 
Architect said:
Mr. Urich

I've been watching this discussion but avoided posting.



This doesn't say that the effects of the fire on the steel were modelled, and given the complexity of such a model and the limited software at the time I'd be very surprised if it were.

Before any weight could be attached to this speculation, we would actually need much more information on the modelling undertaken regarding a potential aircraft impact. For example to what extent did it take account of damage to fireproofing? (And if it did consider such issues, why was a more robust and impact resistant fire proofing not used)

Therefore founding upon one passing comment can be no more than speculation.
Click to expand...

The man says he did the analysis and the Port Authority confirms it.

Again, I am not arguing that the analysis was correct or that the building should have withstood the impact and ensuing fires. I am doing related research on the total mass and potential energy of the buildings.
 
On the topic of "missing mass" for the WTC:

Perhaps it's the concrete...

But here is some babble from David Ray Griffin's new book on this topic I have a problem with:

See Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Chapter 3, page 188:

"Only because of this pulverization of virtually everything except the steel could the towers have ended up as piles of rubble only a few stories high. Otherwise each pile of rubble would have contained close to 400,000 tons of concrete stacked up."

What does this mean?
 
GregoryUrich said:
The man says he did the analysis and the Port Authority confirms it.

Again, I am not arguing that the analysis was correct or that the building should have withstood the impact and ensuing fires. I am doing related research on the total mass and potential energy of the buildings.
Click to expand...

The man says an analysis was done but gives no details as to the extent or nature; there seems to be consensus that it included for the aircraft inmpact, but nothing to substantiate claims that the effect of fire was modelled.

Just as an aside, if one had fully modelled the impact of an aircaft impact (ie beyond immediately impact on structure) then one would have expected to see (for example) more robust emergency escape enclosures and sprinkler systems. But there you go.

As for mass and potential energy, these are not of huge personal interest to me and hence I shall observe rather than participate in such debates saving for where it lapses into structural issues such as the performance of the the structure under the dynamic load of the collapsing building.
 
Does anyone here have a link to the "How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center" paper by Wierzbicki?
 
GregoryUrich said:
The man says he did the analysis and the Port Authority confirms it.
Click to expand...

And I'm asking for a source where he confirms that the analysis being referenced included the effects of the fire after the crash. The quote you provided is at best ambiguously worded on that topic.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Actually, I was just just pointing out that there is evidence that contradicts Mr. Mackey's claim:

The evidence being:

And:

I have no way of showing that Skilling was correct. But, I haven't asserted that he was. I am doing research to find out.
Click to expand...

You're using Skilling's analysis as evidence. You claimed:

"This contradicts Robertsons claims of no consideration of jet fuel."

You even claim Skilling's conclusion is supported by the fact that no other steel structure had previously collapsed due to fire.

Again, can you describe the analysis that Skilling performed to reach his conclusion? Does it in fact consider the effect of fire on the structure. If so, how was it modeled? Has the validity of it been tested? If you can't answer these questions, then your use of his analysis as evidence that Robertson's claims are unfounded is itself unfounded.
 
3bodyproblem said:
I never liked the structural steel mass calculation by NIST. It always seemed low in relation to the overall mass. 1/5 of a steel structure was steel? Does this number make sense to you? It doesn't to me. So yes, there are lots and lots of numbers, don't ask me what they mean because they don't make sense.
Click to expand...

they make sense to me
 
GregoryUrich said:
Just stopping by to hurl insults I see.
Click to expand...

If you were to actually calculate all of the mass, instead of saying "oh well this is really small, and my lack of this cancels out overestimating this" then he might be more amiable to what you're trying to prove. Remember, rwguinn does this for a living. Though he's probably at that point of his career where he has his underlings figure out the loads and he just does the fun stuff.
 
3bodyproblem said:
I'm not sure what you are implying, would you care to expand on this? Again, you lack content.
Click to expand...

I am not implying it I am saying it.

GU has cooked the books.

He has decided the outcome and then figured the input.
 
tsig said:
I am not implying it I am saying it.

GU has cooked the books.

He has decided the outcome and then figured the input.
Click to expand...

Well possibly, but shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt first? Find the lies, find the liar.
 
GregoryUrich said:
I make no bones about that I believe CD is a possibility. But, I don't make numbers to support a hypothesis. I do research to prove or disprove a hypothesis.
Click to expand...


Clarify something for me if you would please, Gregory. Is your research limited to determining the possibility of CD in the towers, or does it also include the plausibility of such a plan being undertaken and successfully accomplished with a limited number of people under the noses of everyone and successfully kept secret all this time?

I would hate to be left at the altar again as the 9/11 Truth Movement leaves us every time it makes declarations that CD is either possible, the most likely, or definite, and then announce it isn't going through with the wedding since it has no responsibility, capability, or possesses any knowledge that such a plot is plausible, much less how such a plot could possibly be carried out without ever being found out.

Claiming, of course, as it skips its way out of the church, that is why we are supposed to need another investigation.
 
GregoryUrich said:
The man says he did the analysis and the Port Authority confirms it.

Again, I am not arguing that the analysis was correct or that the building should have withstood the impact and ensuing fires. I am doing related research on the total mass and potential energy of the buildings.
Click to expand...

You wrong they fell.

Gravity!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom