OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Java Man]

You mean you have number showing that there were not enough energy to pulverize all the concrete in the towers.
Ok.
There are plenty of picture of ground zero showing large chunks of concrete instead on a pile of dust with iron bits sticking out.

Now, where are you going with this?????

I'm just commenting on the report alienentity inquired me about. I found this part a bit confusing. What's your take? Have you read the report I'm taking this info from?

 

[beachnut]

Right, obviously not. Some was smaller and some larger. Look at this for some info on that

http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/ojbs/ojbs9381-85.pdf

Page 4

Oops, household dust was smaller. CD in my house. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....


They are talking about dust, not about all the concrete in the WTC. This does not mean anything. Wait, you have not claimed anything. But help me out. How does this paper you posted, "Indications of Potential Toxic/Mutagenic Effects of World Trade Center
Dust on Human Lung Cell Cultures", tie into Major Tom's paper?

How does this help Major Tom's work on OOS?

 

[alienentity]

How does this help Major Tom's work on OOS?

That's our fault. Carlitos referenced the Greening paper, which does bring up the issue as to why the Kings of Trutherdom are ignoring 50% of the tower collapse data, namely WTC 2.

 

[pgimeno]

One tower contains 48,000,000 kg of concrete, hence energy to crush all of this concrete
to 60 um particles:
= 48,000,000 x 6700 J = 3.2 E11 J

The last value divided by 110 gives the number I published in my post.

There's a problem with that.

These fragments don't look like 60 μm at all:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=3945

Neither does this slab:
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2485

So, regardless of whether that energy estimation is right or wrong, is there any basis to claim the concrete was reduced to 60 μm particles?

The article where you get that quote from does not claim that all concrete was pulverized to that size. Instead, there's this other article on that respect, by the same author:

"The Pulverization of Concrete in WTC 1 During the Collapse Events of 9-11"
http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

Right, obviously not. Some was smaller and some larger. Look at this for some info on that

http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/ojbs/ojbs9381-85.pdf

Page 4

That proves that the dust contains particles of that size, not that all of the concrete was reduced to dust of that size.

Now, should we get back to the topic?

 

[Java Man]

There's a problem with that.

These fragments don't look like 60 μm at all:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=3945

Neither does this slab:
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2485

So, regardless of whether that energy estimation is right or wrong, is there any basis to claim the concrete was reduced to 60 μm particles?

Apparently none at all, nor 170um or any other value. He doesn't seem to consider a distribution curve in size, nor how much remains as slabs and how much doesn't. He also doesn't contemplate that the metal needs to be bent. One thing is for it to have a structural collapse and another is for it to remain untouched during the fall. So energy is spent there.

As far as I understand it he says the collapse is possible because there is enough energy to grind everything to a small size: 170um I believe. But apparently there isn't if you consider that to achieve 170um would require 3 times less energy per floor, but which is still 1/3 of available energy in the top collapsing floors.

He also says that there is enough energy to crush this and collapse that and what not, but he disregards speed. If so much energy is being assigned to so many duties, what energy is being assigned to falling speed (mv^2/2)??

 

[beachnut]

Apparently none at all, nor 170um or any other value. He doesn't seem to consider a distribution curve in size, nor how much remains as slabs and how much doesn't. He also doesn't contemplate that the metal needs to be bent. One thing is for it to have a structural collapse and another is for it to remain untouched during the fall. So energy is spent there.

As far as I understand it he says the collapse is possible because there is enough energy to grind everything to a small size: 170um I believe. But apparently there isn't if you consider that to achieve 170um would require 3 times less energy per floor, but which is still 1/3 of available energy in the top collapsing floors.

He also says that there is enough energy to crush this and collapse that and what not, but he disregards speed. If so much energy is being assigned to so many duties, what energy is being assigned to falling speed (mv^2/2)??

My goodness, get some help with your physics.!

The dust is also wallboard, and insulation. 911 truth out of ignorance is making up the dust scenario to fool people who don't do physics or understand building collapsing.

There is too much energy in the WTC collapse to stop. Due to the unique structure of the WTC, one floor can only hold up the mass of 11 floors. Floors, not core. When the top fell to the next lower floor if more than 11 to 12 floors of debris in any kind, came to rest on that floor it fails. And there is no stopping it. The floors are key to holding the core to the shell; without each part, the WTC collapses.

If you place 12 floor of WTC on a lower floor it fails. No speed required.

You don't understand because you are trying to say the energy is gone.

Most the energy was not used for crushing concrete; the concrete was light weight, 4 inches thick. 34 feet high mass of concrete is all we are talking about. Not very much. You can't rent concrete as office space.

E=mgh E=1/2mv²

 

[Java Man]

My goodness, get some help with your physics.!

The dust is also wallboard, and insulation. 911 truth out of ignorance is making up the dust scenario to fool people who don't do physics or understand building collapsing.
....
Most the energy was not used for crushing concrete; the concrete was light weight, 4 inches thick. 34 feet high mass of concrete is all we are talking about. Not very much. You can't rent concrete as office space.

According to the document (which seems to support the self sustain collapse) there was a large amount of energy consumed in the crushing. Regarding the 34 feet of concrete I'd like to remind you that it also had a width and a length the size of one WTC floor (considerably more than 34ft). BTW the lightweight nature of the concrete was considered into the energy equation.

 

[Java Man]

You don't understand because you are trying to say the energy is gone.

...
E=mgh E=1/2mv²

You mean to say it isn't gone? Then where is it?

 

[beachnut]

You mean to say it isn't gone? Then where is it?

everywhere

At the top of the mountain.

In the bottom of the SubWoofer.

Is energy ever gone?

 

[Java Man]

Is energy ever gone?

Yes it is. If I make a radio wave transmission I need to provide energy to the circuit and said energy propagates outward in the form of a radio wave. If the energy is traveling into outer space then it's gone. It isn't destroyed, but it isn't here with me inside the batteries that power the transmitter.

Now I infer that you might have meant to ask is energy ever destroyed. The answer to that would be no.

 

[Toke]

He also says that there is enough energy to crush this and collapse that and what not, but he disregards speed. If so much energy is being assigned to so many duties, what energy is being assigned to falling speed (mv^2/2)??

Since the rubble ended up stationary, the kinetic energy in downward velocity were released again on deceleration against the ground.

 

[beachnut]

Yes it is. If I make a radio wave transmission I need to provide energy to the circuit and said energy propagates outward in the form of a radio wave. If the energy is traveling into outer space then it's gone. It isn't destroyed, but it isn't here with me inside the batteries that power the transmitter.

Now I infer that you might have meant to ask is energy ever destroyed. The answer to that would be no.

Gone? You did not mean lost, you meant on a trip, gone? lol, this is why you can't understand 911.

You mean to say it isn't gone? Then where is it?

So you are saying it is in outer space now? Not here, it is gone; gone over there...
You protect your gone statement but retract it in the same post.

Did you look up conservation of energy? lol

The dust is not all concrete, it is a product of the destruction of the WTC by Gravity, because impacts and fires caused a collapse.

If you want to have CD, you have to have evidence. There was not evidence of CD, no explosives and no thermite. The OOS is an attempt my Major Tom to say, "hey look, it only take a little energy to collapse the WTC", so he can back in CD. Tiny explosives; silent invisible, super-nano-thermite ones. The CD theory is a delusion. Why do you support delusions on 911 based on ignorance?

 

[Java Man]

You protect your gone statement but retract it in the same post.

Please show me where I did this?

 

[Newtons Bit]

One of the most common and ludicrous abortions of physics that "Truthers" use it to point to the "pulverized" concrete and try to infer it's some sort of impossible energy sink. It's not. It's not even an energy sink.

When the towers are fully erected, the mass has potential energy. As it falls, the mass is converted into kinetic energy. When bits of mass collide with other bits of mass, some of the kinetic energy is converted into strain energy (i.e. breaking the mass up into smaller bits) and a much much smaller amount into heat and sound. When the mass collides with the ground below all of the energy is converted into strain energy, heat and sound.

This topic is old and dead and so 2007.

 

[Java Man]

... infer it's some sort of impossible energy sink. It's not. It's not even an energy sink.
...

When bits of mass collide with other bits of mass, some of the kinetic energy is converted into strain energy (i.e. breaking the mass up into smaller bits) and a much much smaller amount into heat and sound.

That's a good example of an energy sink provided in the same post in which you claim it isn't. Issue to define here is not a black or white is it or not, but rather a gray scale "how much?".

I expect debunkers here to come up with the typical answer of "enough" to disprove any CD without any real numerical data.

 

[Newtons Bit]

That's a good example of an energy sink provided in the same post in which you claim it isn't. Issue to define here is not a black or white is it or not, but rather a gray scale "how much?".

It's not an energy sink. It's a byproduct of the thing falling down. It's not something that has to be met before the building can collapse, it's a function of the collapse. You're looking at it backwards.

I expect debunkers here to come up with the typical answer of "enough" to disprove any CD without any real numerical data.

As opposed to truthers who invented "it was all turned into 60um particles!!@!!!!!!@!eleventy" without a shred of evidence, and even a mountain of evidence showing otherwise, to prove their point?

 

[carlitos]

the typical answer of "enough" to disprove any CD without any real numerical data.

Why should someone "disprove CD?" No one has offered any evidence for such a thing. You have the burden of proof reversed here.

 

[beachnut]

That's a good example of an energy sink provided in the same post in which you claim it isn't. Issue to define here is not a black or white is it or not, but rather a gray scale "how much?".

I expect debunkers here to come up with the typical answer of "enough" to disprove any CD without any real numerical data.

You have no support for CD. Which part of no evidence for CD are you unable to grasp? You quibble about energy, and dust, but fail to present facts and evidence. The dust from the collapse is a small part of the energy "sink". It is not a gray area, except for those who want their delusional CD fantasy to come true.

With the energy of over 130 tons of TNT in each tower, I expect the dust could fool the gullible into the delusion of CD by making up lies about dust. 130 tons of TNT kinetic energy is not enough to collapse the WTC and cause the dust. There was too much energy available, it was overkill.

You took a study of dust which has nothing to do with energy! Why do you bring up dust studies which have nothing to do with your point? What is your point? Prove your CD with evidence. No evidence; then you fail.

Like Major Tom, you fail to take evidence to form a rational conclusion? Major Tom will be trying for years to back in CD without evidence.

 

[Java Man]

You have no support for CD. Which part of no evidence for CD are you unable to grasp? You quibble about energy, and dust, but fail to present facts and evidence. The dust from the collapse is a small part of the energy "sink". It is not a gray area, except for those who want their delusional CD fantasy to come true.

Small part of the energy sink? Are you kidding me? It would take more than the energy stored in the upper floors to crush ONE single floor to 60um. That means that if only 1/10 (one tenth) of the floor was crushed to 60um and the rest of the floor was left intact it would still require more energy than that provided by the fall of one floor. Thus making it very hard to keep a sustained reaction. Not to mention the fact that under the concrete there was a sheet of steel that also required energy to be bent just like every other piece of bent steel found in the site.

 

[pgimeno]

Apparently none at all, nor 170um or any other value. He doesn't seem to consider a distribution curve in size, nor how much remains as slabs and how much doesn't.

Hm, you left out the interesting half of my message:

The article where you get that quote from does not claim that all concrete was pulverized to that size. Instead, there's this other article on that respect, by the same author:

"The Pulverization of Concrete in WTC 1 During the Collapse Events of 9-11"
http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

Here's an excerpt:

At this point, and for all subsequent impacts [between floors], the energy consumed in pulverizing the WTC 1 concrete was essentially constant and progressively less than 15 % of the available impact kinetic energy as illustrated in Figure 2.
​