Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[Christopher7]

47+ story building falling down tend to break and pulverize concrete. Just FYI.....

Concrete will be broken up into varying sized chunks but not turned almost entirely in to a fine powder.

 

[TSR]

.
C7, you seem to have missed this:

At 2:15 "The concrete was pulverized"

.
About half way down the page: "All That Dust."

So, want photographic proof that the concrete wasn't all pulverized to microscopic fragments? Here it is. Not only are there chunks, but the rest looks more like sand than fine dust. Note the absence of suspended dust in the air.

.

 

[Christopher7]

.
C7, you seem to have missed this:.

It wasn't all reduced to powder - most of the concrete was reduced to powder and it blanketed lower Manhattan.

 

[TSR]

It wasn't all reduced to powder - most of the concrete was reduced to powder and it blanketed lower Manhattan.

.
The article I cited puts the lie to this -- did you bother to read it, or did you just look at the pretty pictures?
.

 

[Christopher7]

.
The article I cited puts the lie to this -- did you bother to read it, or did you just look at the pretty pictures?.

There is something missing in the math. Concrete powder cannot turn concrete into powder.

The formula does not allow for the fact that the concrete was turned to powder right from the get go.

ETA: Most of the debris was ejected outside the footprint and could not crush anything. There is no allowance for this in the calculation.

 

[TSR]

There is something missing in the math. Concrete powder cannot turn concrete into powder.

.
Nor does the article say that it does.

Try reading for comprehension this time.
.

The formula does not allow for the fact that the concrete was turned to powder right from the get go.

.
Mostly because most of it was not, which is why most of it survived as sand-or-larger chunks.
.

ETA: Most of the debris was ejected outside the footprint and could not crush anything. There is no allowance for this in the calculation.

.
Then do show us what the calculation should be.

Surely with your training and expertise, this would be easy (especially since you've already spotted the error.)

You *do* have relevant training and expertise, right?
.

 

[triforcharity]

Concrete will be broken up into varying sized chunks but not turned almost entirely in to a fine powder.

I can do that with a hammer. Why couldn't it turn some of the concrete into a "powder"?

And, I've already shown you large chunks of varying size.

 

[triforcharity]

It wasn't all reduced to powder - most of the concrete was reduced to powder and it blanketed lower Manhattan.

Lie. See my post above. I have more if you would like.

 

[Christopher7]

.
Nor does the article say that it does.

Try reading for comprehension this time.

OK
"One of the more scientifically respectable arguments against the conventional view of 9-11 is that it would take more energy to crush the concrete than was available. One site uses a figure 0f 1.5 kilowatt hour per ton to crush concrete to 60-micron (.06 mm) powder. One kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 joules, so it takes 5,400,000 joules to crush a ton of concrete to 60 micron powder. Crush the 390,000 tons of concrete in a tower to powder and it takes 2.1 x 1012 joules to do the job. That's twice the gravitational potential energy of a tower. In other words, crushing the concrete should have absorbed so much energy that the collapse would have been halted.

To counter this: "If we assume 50,000 tons of fine dust per tower . . . . yada, yada

The conclusion is based on an assumption. Un less they can justify this assumption, it's just speculation.
.

.

 

[Christopher7]

Lie.

 

[TSR]

The conclusion is based on an assumption. Un less they can justify this assumption, it's just speculation.

.
Not what you started out claiming, but okay: the article *does* justify the assumption.

Why don't you show us a reason to reject this assumption by posting a better one, along with your justification?

C'mon, show us what the calculation should be.

Surely with your training and expertise, this would be easy (especially since you've already spotted the error.)

You *do* have relevant training and expertise, right?

You keep skipping that part of my posts with out even acknowledging that I've asked several times now. You were all over Mackey when you were whining about zir credentials -- why does that only apply to him?

Or could it be that you *have* no relevant credentials, and are too ashamed to just say so?

Your inability to give us a proper equation strongly suggests this is the case.

Which would make you .. what's the word?

Starts Hippo and rhymes with "you're it."
.

 

[triforcharity]

OK
"One of the more scientifically respectable arguments against the conventional view of 9-11 is that it would take more energy to crush the concrete than was available. One site uses a figure 0f 1.5 kilowatt hour per ton to crush concrete to 60-micron (.06 mm) powder. One kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 joules, so it takes 5,400,000 joules to crush a ton of concrete to 60 micron powder. Crush the 390,000 tons of concrete in a tower to powder and it takes 2.1 x 1012 joules to do the job. That's twice the gravitational potential energy of a tower. In other words, crushing the concrete should have absorbed so much energy that the collapse would have been halted.

To counter this: "If we assume 50,000 tons of fine dust per tower . . . . yada, yada

The conclusion is based on an assumption. Un less they can justify this assumption, it's just speculation.
.

.

And were there 50,000 tons of fine powder from the concrete scattered over lower manhattan? Nope, not likely. That is 100,000,000 pounds of concrete dust. That is 2.5 of these.

 

[Christopher7]

Why don't you show us a reason to reject this assumption by posting a better one, along with your justification?
<childish drivel deleted>
.

First: A reasonable estimate of how much concrete was turned to powder must be established using a scientific method that can be verified.

Second: The amount of debris ejected outside the footprint must be determined using a scientific method that can be verified.

Third: Since powder cannot turn concrete into powder, the amount of powdered concrete and drywall, and when it was powdered must be calculated using a scientific method that can be verified.

In other words. It would take a super computer to do the calculations and even then it would be based on a series of educated guesses.

 

[Christopher7]

And were there 50,000 tons of fine powder from the concrete scattered over lower manhattan? Nope, not likely. That is 100,000,000 pounds of concrete dust. That is 2.5 of these.
http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/5/5f/Uss_ronald_reagan_cvn-76.jpg

LIAR!!!

Aircraft carriers are NOT made of concrete dust!

 

[TSR]

First: A reasonable estimate of how much concrete was turned to powder must be established using a scientific method that can be verified.

.
Which the article does.

But go ahead and show us what your estimate is.
.

Second: The amount of debris ejected outside the footprint must be determined using a scientific method that can be verified.

.
Which the article does.

But go ahead and show us what your determination is.
.

Third: Since powder cannot turn concrete into powder, the amount of powdered concrete and drywall, and when it was powdered must be calculated using a scientific method that can be verified.

.
Which the article does.

But go ahead and show us what your calculation is.
.

In other words. It would take a super computer to do the calculations and even then it would be based on a series of educated guesses.

.
That does not follow. Why would it need a supercomputer?

And why are you so reluctant to show specifically where the educated guesses in the article are invalid, and give us some better ones?
.

 

[Christopher7]

Which the article does.
But go ahead and show us what your estimate is..

There are a lot of assumptions. This is not science, it's supposition.

So the density is probably not the 2.4 grams per cubic centimeter of bulk concrete but much less.
Second, the dust wasn't an inch thick over a square mile. Photos show dust an inch or so deep in the immediate vicinity of the towers,
Between the low density of the dust, the fact that most of the dust landed close to the towers, and the fact that half of the dust was materials other than concrete, the volume of concrete represented in the airborne dust is maybe 10% of the volume of the settled dust itself. This is the dust off site. Of course, the dust on the collapse site itself is from the building collapse.
So, in place of estimating that the towers could make a disk an inch thick and a mile in diameter, we have to reduce the volume of the dust by a factor of 3 to model the dust pile as a cone. We reduce that by a factor of at least 2 and probably a lot more to account for the porous nature of dust, and by another factor of 2 to account for the fact that half the dust is not concrete. So we have to reduce the estimates of the concrete dust volume by at least a factor of 12. So instead of a million tons of concrete dust we have 80,000 or less.

 

[TSR]

There are a lot of assumptions.

.
... all of which are explained. Is there a reason you do not quote those explanations here?

Perhaps, with your training and expertise, you have better assumptions and explanations?

You *do* have relevant training and expertise, don't you?
.

So the density is probably not the 2.4 grams per cubic centimeter of bulk concrete but much less.

.
You can show otherwise?
.

Second, the dust wasn't an inch thick over a square mile. Photos show dust an inch or so deep in the immediate vicinity of the towers,

.
You can show otherwise?
.

Between the low density of the dust, the fact that most of the dust landed close to the towers, and the fact that half of the dust was materials other than concrete, the volume of concrete represented in the airborne dust is maybe 10% of the volume of the settled dust itself. This is the dust off site. Of course, the dust on the collapse site itself is from the building collapse.

.
You can show otherwise?
.

So, in place of estimating that the towers could make a disk an inch thick and a mile in diameter, we have to reduce the volume of the dust by a factor of 3 to model the dust pile as a cone. We reduce that by a factor of at least 2 and probably a lot more to account for the porous nature of dust, and by another factor of 2 to account for the fact that half the dust is not concrete. So we have to reduce the estimates of the concrete dust volume by at least a factor of 12. So instead of a million tons of concrete dust we have 80,000 or less.

.
Once again, if you have better assumptions or more facts, please post them and show your work.

Surely with your training and expertise this shouldn't be hard.

You *do* have relevant training and expertise, right?
.

 

[BigAl]

So we have to reduce the estimates of the concrete dust volume by at least a factor of 12. So instead of a million tons of concrete dust we have 80,000 or less.

How much concrete was in each tower to start with? It's not hard to calculate if you know how the towers were designed.

 

[Christopher7]

.
... all of which are explained. Is there a reason you do not quote those explanations here?

The explanations are suppositions. This is not credible.

Perhaps, with your training and expertise, you have better assumptions and explanations?

I have enough common sense not to try.

 

[triforcharity]

LIAR!!!

Aircraft carriers are NOT made of concrete dust!

Wow, got that one correct! Now, where do you get this 50,000 TONS of concrete dust from? Which, btw, is the same as 2.5 USS Ronald Reagans.