Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[GStan]

You ignored the point which is:

There were numerous 4 ton framing sections ejected up to 600 feet along with a great deal of other debris.

Bazant and Greening did not calculate the energy necessary to eject all this material.

Furthermore, they both failed to subtract the ejected material in their calculations.

Their theories are just that, theories. they did not take all the facts into consideration and therefore their theories don't prove anything.

<pics snipped>

Do you know how many 4 ton sections traveled that far?

Have you contacted Bazant and Greening why they did not make this calculation? Perhaps with them being scientists and you being not a scientist, they might be able to share with you a scientific explanation why they didn't. Bob forbid, you might even point out an error that they were not aware of, and they might revise their findings.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Isn't it funny when so-called debunkers point to their own low-budget nonsense as proof of something?

It always gives me a tickle.

 

[GStan]

Isn't it funny when so-called debunkers point to their own low-budget nonsense as proof of something?

It always gives me a tickle.

I think its just a proportional response to the claims being made.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

I think its just a proportional response to the claims being made.

No. It's just an assertion that something is debunked "just because I say so" and nothing else.

 

[GStan]

No. It's just an assertion that something is debunked "just because I say so" and nothing else.

Exactly. When all of the truther claims are supported only by "just because I say so", it hardly takes little more than that to debunk it. Do you think people are going to produce white papers for every idiot who says "clunkety clunk"?

 

[Christopher7]

Exactly. When all of the truther claims are supported only by "just because I say so", it hardly takes little more than that to debunk it.

Bazant and Greening did not allow for the energy to eject the debris.

They failed to subtract the weight of all the ejected debris in their calculations.

These are facts.

 

[GStan]

Bazant and Greening did not allow for the energy to eject the debris.

They failed to subtract the weight of all the ejected debris in their calculations.

These are facts.

Hasn't someone already mentioned that one of the papers accounted for 'shedding'? I don't know what that means but it sounds suspiciously like subtracting the weight.

But since I'm not smart enough to dispute that, I'll just play along and say that they are facts. What I am smart enough to know is that you have not shown why they are important to the topic at hand, or why they might cast some kind of doubt about the prevailing explanation of the collapses. You can find out if it is important by doing the calculations yourself. If there is not enough energy available to distribute the debris field in the observed manner, you might have something.

(But that of course would bring in the anomaly that no CD in history ever propelled the columns 600 feet away from the footprint. Or the fact that the perps had the choice between subtly rigging the columns to drop within a non-suspicious radius with the rest of the debris or conspicuously ejecting them 600ft away where everyone could discover their conspiracy and they chose to eject. And did it with silent explosives no less.)

You could also find out the degree to which it is important by asking the authors of the paper why they did not account for this. As has been mentioned several times, they might explain to you scientifically why it was not important to include such a calculation in the paper, or they might thank you for pointing out their error. Why do you always want to stop investigating short of the finish line? Been through this with the firefighters in another thread, and Dr. Shyam-Sunder/NIST in another thread. When are you going to go to the sources that actually have the explanations to the questions you have?

 

[Heiwa]

Have you contacted Bazant and Greening why they did not make this calculation? Perhaps with them being scientists and you being not a scientist, they might be able to share with you a scientific explanation why they didn't. Bob forbid, you might even point out an error that they were not aware of, and they might revise their findings.

According retired professor Bazant and scientist (!) Greening in the BLGB paper 2008 each storey is compressed to a 0.9 m thick layer of rubble with density 1025 kgs/m3 at the crush front. Only air (and smoke where it was burning) is ejected sideways. So lower down only air is ejected.
When, e.g. 10 storeys have been crushed the layer of rubble is thus 9 meters thick! When 90 storeys have been crushed the rubble is 81 meters thick.
On the other hand Bazant and Greening also suggest that "Air jets displace broken material 200 metres sideways in all directions", so you wonder what really happens to the rubble.
The 53 meters tall upper part of WTC 1 - intact all the time - seems to act as a rubble plough pushing more and more rubble in front during crush down.

Actually, the BLGB paper is complete nonsense.

 

[GStan]

According retired professor Bazant and scientist (!) Greening in the BLGB paper 2008 each storey is compressed to a 0.9 m thick layer of rubble with density 1025 kgs/m3 at the crush front. Only air (and smoke where it was burning) is ejected sideways. So lower down only air is ejected.
When, e.g. 10 storeys have been crushed the layer of rubble is thus 9 meters thick! When 90 storeys have been crushed the rubble is 81 meters thick.
On the other hand Bazant and Greening also suggest that "Air jets displace broken material 200 metres sideways in all directions", so you wonder what really happens to the rubble.
The 53 meters tall upper part of WTC 1 - intact all the time - seems to act as a rubble plough pushing more and more rubble in front during crush down.

Actually, the BLGB paper is complete nonsense.

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but truthfully I stopped reading your posts for anything other than humor about 3 bathroom scales ago.

 

[Heiwa]

Latest GIST news

According the Government Institute of Suspicious Technology, GIST, and its leading scientist Dr. James Blunder that spent 100 trillion dollars investigating the matter (report still not completed), the vertical rubble plough model suggested by Prof. Blamage and Dr. Red Herring does not really explain everything. It is clear that no Americans would be stupid enough to drive such a plough vertically on Manhattan, while the mountains of Afghanistan are more suitable training grounds for such rubble plowing. American peace troops have just found a video in a cave at Hindukushi, where a malignant and turbaned suspicious figure with a long beard is seen demonstrating such vehicle. The investigation continues.

 

[bje]

How's that scaling up of your pizza box coming, Heiwa? Is mass and gravity getting in the way?

 

[GStan]

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but truthfully I stopped reading your posts for anything other than humor about 3 bathroom scales ago.

According the Government Institute of Suspicious Technology, GIST, and its leading scientist Dr. James Blunder that spent 100 trillion dollars investigating the matter (report still not completed), the vertical rubble plough model suggested by Prof. Blamage and Dr. Red Herring does not really explain everything. It is clear that no Americans would be stupid enough to drive such a plough vertically on Manhattan, while the mountains of Afghanistan are more suitable training grounds for such rubble plowing. American peace troops have just found a video in a cave at Hindukushi, where a malignant and turbaned suspicious figure with a long beard is seen demonstrating such vehicle. The investigation continues.

While I'm a fan of neither your theories nor your support for them, I sincerely appreciate (as I'm sure do many others here) that you faithfully adhere to the "friendly and lively" mission of the JREF. And probably better than I do.

 

[e^n]

Bazant and Greening did not allow for the energy to eject the debris.

They failed to subtract the weight of all the ejected debris in their calculations.

These are facts.

No, this is conjecture. I already pointed out exactly the equation they used to subtract the energy. You saw fit not to even provide a single example of numbers you feel to be suitable, it took another poster to even show you how minimal the forces are compared to the upper section of the towers.

Gregory Urich, a truther and a former member of a 'Scholars for truth' group calculates the mass of a tower as 288,100,000kg with a PE above the first floor of over 480MJ. This is well above the value used before and reduces even further the fraction of energy consumed. Even if we assume half of the mass of the tower was accelerated to 10m/s, that is only 15GJ, a fraction above 3% of the total energy available.

I have not checked into your other criticism, but you have not demonstrated any understanding of the methodology or mathematics of the paper, so I do not expect it is accurate. I will be more than happy to discuss it with you after you take even the most minimal of investigative steps.

edit: It's worthy of note that 15GJ is approaching 4 tons of TNT equivalent

 

[Heiwa]

No, this is conjecture. I already pointed out exactly the equation they used to subtract the energy. You saw fit not to even provide a single example of numbers you feel to be suitable, it took another poster to even show you how minimal the forces are compared to the upper section of the towers.

Gregory Urich, a truther and a former member of a 'Scholars for truth' group calculates the mass of a tower as 288,100,000kg with a PE above the first floor of over 480MJ. This is well above the value used before and reduces even further the fraction of energy consumed. Even if we assume half of the mass of the tower was accelerated to 10m/s, that is only 15GJ, a fraction above 3% of the total energy available.

I have not checked into your other criticism, but you have not demonstrated any understanding of the methodology or mathematics of the paper, so I do not expect it is accurate. I will be more than happy to discuss it with you after you take even the most minimal of investigative steps.

edit: It's worthy of note that 15GJ is approaching 4 tons of TNT equivalent

According Bazant the top part C (54 000 tons) needs only to drop 0.5 m (see BLGBG paper) and then storey below is crushed (into a layer of 0.9 m rubble) and crush down of complete WTC 1 structure, part A, below starts. So how much energy is that? Right. 0.27 GJ! And TNT equivalent? Aha, 72 kg!

But, there is a problem. If upper part C tries to destroy lower part A, part A will also destroy part C. You agree? So 36 kg of TNT is wasted on the upper part!

Question 1 - how much TNT is required to blow up the upper part C?

Question 2 - what happens to lower part A, when upper part C is 100% blown up?

Question 3 - if you drop a 0.1 kg lemon from 100 meters in vaccum on a solid ground, how many equivalent kg TNT is applied at contact with ground?

Question 4 - does the lemon explode at contact with ground or does it make a big crater in the ground?

Question 5 - what has a dropping lemon to do with TNT?

 

[alexi_drago]

each storey is compressed to a 0.9 m thick layer of rubble

You're right, there does seem to be something wrong there, that's almost 1m of debris per floor after compression which would suggest that around 1/4 to 1/3 of the intact (pre 9/11) structure volume was solid.

 

[alexi_drago]

On another note, just sort of thinking out loud here.

For every force there's an equal and opposite force so the force the upper block exerted on the lower block were equal, for this reason Heiwa argues that the upper block should be destroyed at the same rate as the lower block.

The reply to that is that while the structure has been destroyed the material is still there, falling.

But, when you apply a force to an object several things can happen, the object can be deformed/broken and/or it can accelerate.

It's been shown that the acceleration of the upper block is around 64% of g.

If you take Fd as the force requred to destroy a floor and the fact that the lower block does not accelerate downward then you can assume that the total force acting on each block is Fd and that as far as the lower block is concerned it's all destructive.

But that force acting on the upper block is also accelerating it upward (it's downward acceleration is less than g) so the destructive forces acting on the upper block are less than the destructive forces acting on the lower block.

Would Newton agree with that?

 

[e^n]

But, there is a problem. If upper part C tries to destroy lower part A, part A will also destroy part C. You agree? So 36 kg of TNT is wasted on the upper part!

Sure, it would seem intuitive that there would be some reciprocal damage. The actual amount is beyond my ability to calculate.

Question 1 - how much TNT is required to blow up the upper part C?

It depends on your definition of 'blow up'. A very small amount of TNT or other HE combined with a shaped copper section is enough to demolish any load carrying ability of the upper section. On the other hand, several tons must be used if you intend to propel the upper section a significant distance (22m/s being quoted before)

Question 2 - what happens to lower part A, when upper part C is 100% blown up?

This would depend on the mass shedding fraction. If (ignoring the initial rubble layer formation) the mass shed is under the relative difference in resistive capacity between two floors, then the collapse will continue to progress. If it is greater, then the collapse should lose energy and slow down.

Question 3 - if you drop a 0.1 kg lemon from 100 meters in vaccum on a solid ground, how many equivalent kg TNT is applied at contact with ground?

That depends on the density, cross sectional surface area, and Young's modulus of lemon. I am not a qualified lemonologist.

Question 4 - does the lemon explode at contact with ground or does it make a big crater in the ground?

It probably bounces slightly, but it depends what the ground is. Lemons are likely much better in compression than a thin layer of concrete is in tension. So balancing it right you can destroy the lemon, neither, or the ground. It is a hypothetical question without sufficient depth

Question 5 - what has a dropping lemon to do with TNT?

They both sting if you apply them to an open wound?

 

[e^n]

Would Newton agree with that?

I do not believe so. It is the formation of a compacted rubble layer which prevents further damage to the upper section, not a disparity in impact force.

Like I say though I am no engineer.

 

[alexi_drago]

I do not believe so. It is the formation of a compacted rubble layer which prevents further damage to the upper section, not a disparity in impact force.

Like I say though I am no engineer.

I'm not convinced but I don't really know, I was thinking if there's equal forces applied in opposite directions at the point of contact to the upper and lower blocks but some of the force applied to the upper block goes into accelerating it upwards then there would be less destructive force applied to it than to the lower block.

Take 2 pizza boxes, place 1 on the ground and push down on it with your hand, it squashes. Put your hand out palm up, place the 2nd pizza box on top and push up, the pizza box may deform slightly but some of the force will cause it to accelerate upwards resulting in less destruction to the pizza box.

 

[Heiwa]

The reply to that is that while the structure has been destroyed the material is still there, falling.

Would Newton agree with that?

Or can you compress something that is falling?

Or was it compressed first and then started to fall?

According NIST & Bazant you can compress something that is falling = NWO physics.

According Newton, my hero, you cannot = the old physics.