• 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.

Putting Gordon Ross to rest

Just a point of note here. Really there isn't a lot of point at looking at how the preimeter columns should have reacted when the upper ones hit them because that's not what happened anyway. The upper columns come down on the floor of the section below, hitting the connections of the truss and preimeter columns. This area was designed for lateral loading between the primeter and the core, not for vertical loading of the top of the building impacting onto it. The top of the building acted like an off center tube sliding down inside a second tube slicing the floors off of the columns and pushing the outer tube out into the "banana peel" we saw as the buildings collapsed.

Calculating how much energy the columns should have been able to withstand and speculating about the dynamic forces really is pointless when the video shows us that the part that took the hit was the part that didn't have any of these things there. As a result it was like hitting a tightly held piece of paper with a sledgehammer and expecting it to stop the blow.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Just a point of note here. Really there isn't a lot of point at looking at how the preimeter columns should have reacted when the upper ones hit them because that's not what happened anyway. The upper columns come down on the floor of the section below, hitting the connections of the truss and preimeter columns. This area was designed for lateral loading between the primeter and the core, not for vertical loading of the top of the building impacting onto it. The top of the building acted like an off center tube sliding down inside a second tube slicing the floors off of the columns and pushing the outer tube out into the "banana peel" we saw as the buildings collapsed.

Calculating how much energy the columns should have been able to withstand and speculating about the dynamic forces really is pointless when the video shows us that the part that took the hit was the part that didn't have any of these things there. As a result it was like hitting a tightly held piece of paper with a sledgehammer and expecting it to stop the blow.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to address what would actually need to be done to accomplish an analysis of the collapse. What I am saying is that Gordon Ross doesn't have a clue as far as structural engineering goes and shouldn't be claiming he does. What makes it worse, is that as a professional engineer, he is probably acting in an unethical manner. He is claiming to be an expert on a subject that he does not have legitimate experience in. This is bad enough, but he is publishing in a journal that claims to be "peer-reviewed" when he knows that it does not have the capacity to review structural concepts. He is not excersing a standard of care.

This is also one of the reasons why you'll never see me publishing my real name. I do not attach the credibility of my arguments/concepts/calculations on a stamp (a professional engineering liscense). They stand on their own and fall on their own.
 
So you're saying that he's so incompetent that he even gets wrong, what he got wrong in the first place, but doesn't know it. In other words, he not only gets his premise wrong, but even if he had actually gotten it right the calculations he does on that premise are wrong as well.
 
Phantwolf: Indeed. Though he is trying to answer something from Bazant and Zhou. Bazant and Zhou make many of the same assumptions for simplicity and to err on the side of collapse prevention. But he should know better than to look at calculations that he CANT get legitimately peer-reviewed, knows err on the side of collapse prevention, and say that the work of a huge body of engineers is some sort of great con. It discredits the whole profession.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The top of the building acted like an off center tube sliding down inside a second tube slicing the floors off of the columns and pushing the outer tube out into the "banana peel" we saw as the buildings collapsed.
Click to expand...

This was really made clear in one of the videos I saw where a section of the perimeter curtain about 6 or 7 stories tall breaks away in one piece. And the twoofers want us to believe that every floor was rigged with explosives. Funny how those explosives failed to sever all those beams.

Steve S.
 
lozenge124 said:
For example, Greening's 911myths paper "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE" compares the kinetic energy of the falling upper block to the energy "E1" required to "bring about the collapse of one floor". But he never proposes any mechanism or justification for assuming that the energy absorbed by the lower block upon collision with the falling upper block will be concentrated on the top floor - especially as the lower block consists of vertical perimeter and core columns which will react as a whole to the collision, not "floor by floor" as the floor concept has no meaning for a structure of continuous vertical columns.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that is one of the biggest questions even if you skip Gordon Ross out of your mind. As far as I remember from Neu-Fonze had it to do with the chaos in the situation and the tilt etc. But the collected floors below in fact are not tilted, they are just detached in less than 0.1 seconds and even have no time to turn, the theoretic avalanche is perfectly symmetrical. I'm not sure how Bazant does it but a global look at that paper shows that it is the continuous Greening-E1 model, correct me if I'm wrong but does that not mean that only energy is absorbed in the infinite thin layer at the top of the intact building and that there is no energy transfer 1 millimeter lower ? And so on. The average density of the wtc is about 300 kg/m^3. In a continous model that means you can replace the wtc by a 416x64x64 m^3 solid block with that average density. The statical strength of the material should be able to hold the building. But the model is then almost a tree-trunk model as far as I can see. And when the word tree trunk is mentioned things appear like, the building is not solid, 90% is air and all that bull.
 
Last edited:
Einsteen:

I don't think anyone's model requires "energy (to be) absorbed in the infinite thin layer at the top of the intact building and that there is no energy transfer 1 millimeter lower."

Where do you get this idea from?
 
Apollo20 said:
Einsteen:

I don't think anyone's model requires "energy (to be) absorbed in the infinite thin layer at the top of the intact building and that there is no energy transfer 1 millimeter lower."

Where do you get this idea from?
Click to expand...
And here you are a "scientist". Don't you realise energy transfer stops when anything gets in the way?:D


I swear, they have this bucket of "facts" that the twoofers all go to each week and pick up a quota. Kind of like the Red Beans and Rice on Mondays in New Orleans...
Either that, or they make it all up out of whole cloth.
I personally think they read too much EE "Doc" Smith, and not enough Asimov, Heinlein, and Dickson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom