9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[DGM]

"Limited applicability" is an understatement. Moreover, it's scientifically invalid to claim that a model "shows" that there is enough energy for a complete collapse, even though the model doesn't apply to what actually happened.

And why are you making distinction between Bazant and NIST here? How do they differ significantly?

What does Bazant get wrong?



Show your work.

 

[ergo]

I love the bad reading...

I didn't say a kilo did I?

You didn't? The etymology (or is it pathology?) of this question suggests otherwise.

Which weighs more, a kilogram of bricks, or a kilogram of feathers?

...

Which falls to the ground faster, Mr. Civil Engineer?

...

Which one would you stand under? Hmmm?

Obviously, I would stand under a kilogram of feathers. Which one would you stand under? However, pgimeno had this to say:

I don't think that's relevant. Let me show you why with another example: what would you rather stand under, a kilo of nails or a 1-kilo pillow?

To which I replied, a pillow, obviously. How about you, Truther?

 

[TruthersLie]

You didn't? The etymology (or is it pathology?) of this question suggests otherwise.

Obviously, I would stand under a kilogram of feathers. Which one would you stand under? However, pgimeno had this to say:

To which I replied, a pillow, obviously. How about you, Truther?

See... now here is what happens in the real world.

oops. I made a mistake. I had thought I wrote that under a TON. So my own reading comprehension there failed and boy is my face red.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that car was crushed by the "loose" particles of water... and your dodges have been duly noted.

 

[pgimeno]

What Greening paper are you referring to ? If "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE", then, no, it doesn't take account of any mass exiting the system.

It helps to read the thread See post #433.

If it's the above paper, then it uses simple 1D point-masses. No treatment of rubble is performed. If not that paper, could you post a link ?

Ditto.

The Bazant model cannot, and was never intended to, match real world behaviour. As highlighted on t'other thread, even the terms *crush-up* and *crush-down* can only be loosely applied to the towers...

Ditto.

My original post to you on this point seems to have been moved out of that thread for some bizarre reason, but it's here for reference...
Post #2

I know. I almost reported it for having been moved for no good reason I could see, but then I realized that the reporting system was probably not intended for that purpose.

 

[uke2se]

Has ergo presented any math yet? Has he kept asking that everyone else show theirs?

 

[excaza]

Has ergo presented any math yet? Has he kept asking that everyone else show theirs?

building collapse - physics + incredulity = CD

 

[pgimeno]

So you are agreeing that the Bazant/NIST model of progressive collapse (aka "official collapse theory") is not tenable. If the model is not correct, how is it that the calculations for the energy required for a complete collapse nevertheless remain correct?

FYI, Bazant's model is not an "official collapse theory" and is not a "Bazant/NIST model".

Bazant conclusively proved that once started, the collapse was unstoppable, because even in his "best case scenario" the towers would collapse. His paper is not "official" in any way I can think.

NIST used that conclusion to stop right after collapse initiation, because it was already conclusively proved (by Bazant) in a reputable journal that once the collapse started, there was no stopping until the total destruction. NIST didn't give a model of progressive collapse at all.

The only official organization I know that gave an explanation of the actual collapse sequence is FEMA. Note that NIST contended their collapse initiation mechanism, not their collapse sequence.

If I understand it correctly, there are at least two truthers here that agree with a good part of FEMA's sequence. You can read about it here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6133565#post6133565

Well, I was going to say because, as you said: "Greening's paper is an energetic analysis which takes into account the energy loss due to the dust mass exiting the system," which obviously is not an explanation of the energy required for rubble to crush through a building. But I think femr2's reply is better.

How is it "obviously not an explanation" of the energy required for rubble to crush through a building? What is obvious about that, given that it is an energetic analysis?

femr2's reply was based on believing it was a different paper.

I can't give you a quantification. Why do you ask about the "combined" two halves? They are moving independently. I have no idea if I would survive an impact by two bowling ball halves. I would guess that yes, I would, because if I can survive one, then I can survive two.

Why can't you give a quantification? It must be in so many physics books, for what you've said. What factors does it depend? I can give you more data if you need it. The ball weights 7.0 kg and is 0.2 m in diameter. It is a perfect sphere. It is perfectly cut in half by a plane. It is released from a height of 2.0 m in a gravity field of 9.81 m/s² starting with zero velocity. That should be enough data for you to quantify its energy and compare it to that of a non-cut ball, though I thought you could give a comparative measurement, e.g. 1/2 of that of the whole ball. An approximate solution is enough; e.g. if the actual answer is 0.498 of the whole ball, 0.5 will do as an answer.

Combined, because both pieces are assumed to be thrown together.

I don't think there's any need of using you as a target Let's just put a thick glass below the ball. The glass will break if the impact energy is 0.95 times the energy of a whole ball thrown from that height. It won't break under that, and it will surely break over that.

You hold both halves of the ball at the specified height keeping the plane of the cut horizontally. Now, when you release both halves at the same time, will they break the glass?

I've already explained it at least once here. . The energy losses have also been explained ad nauseum by real scientists. If your eyes are glossing over whenever you come to those descriptions, I can't help that.

I suppose you're referring to this paragraph:

It has been explained ad nauseum what happens to the energy in the crush-down, crush-up model. It is referred both through the upper and lower blocks. It is expended in crushing and pulverizing. It is expended in ejecting matter upwards and laterally. It is mitigated through the alleged layers of rubble.

Ok for the crushing and pulverizing (accounted by Greening and Bazant). Ok for the ejecting (accounted by Greening and Bazant). But what do you mean by "mitigated through the alleged layers of rubble"? You're not making that stuff up, are you? Where can I find a reference on that?

His math may apply to verinage. It does not apply to the WTC.

Absolutely wrong. It applies to the WTC for the purpose he intended: to prove even in his best case scenario, the collapse was unstoppable once started, thus proving that in any other scenario, including the real one, it was also unstoppable. It doesn't apply to what actually happened to the WTC, which is beside the point. The vérinage demolitions match very closely his setup, which is why we see the crush-down/crush-up.

No, I've given you other arguments about the rubble. Not just how it spills but how it will respond differentially to a force from above and to gravity.

Well, you've declined to give any reference when asked, and you've also declined to make a quantitative evaluation when asked, so I can't take that argument seriously. Now provide a justification because that argument, as thing stand now, isn't valid.

But, regarding your mountains, "pulverized" concrete would spill, because pulverization implies reducing to a fine consistency. If you're referring to concrete chunks, how does a "mountain" form in a process that is as dynamic as we see in the videos? And, while we're on the videos, can you show us where these are in the visual evidence? Thanks.

I don't need to support your claims. You do. You say that most of the rubble would spill, contradicting most of the world, and basically all of the academic world. I've provided evidence that if rubble behaves as concrete dust, then the whole tower top would still fit in the mountain that would be formed, thus remaining enough mass as to crush the tower.

Again, please provide visual evidence of these mountains. And, as I've already stated, the mass of a collection of chunks and particles will not have the same kinetic energy as the mass of an intact block.

You've stated this again and again without providing any justification. Care to provide at least one reference?

 

[X]

Ergo:

Over what time frame do you think the agglomeration of rubble from the top section hit the uppermost remaining floor of the lower section?

 

[ergo]

FYI, Bazant's model is not an "official collapse theory" and is not a "Bazant/NIST model".

Bazant conclusively proved that once started, the collapse was unstoppable, because even in his "best case scenario" the towers would collapse... ....NIST used that conclusion

Can you see how those two statements contradict each other? If you're claiming that Bazant's model is not an official collapse model, you would have to show that NIST does not use it. Since NIST does use it, you are incorrect.

...because it was already conclusively proved (by Bazant) in a reputable journal that once the collapse started, there was no stopping until the total destruction.

Merely repeating this doesn't make it true.

NIST didn't give a model of progressive collapse at all.

I think we all know this. This has nothing to do with explaining how Bazant/NIST is not the model for the official collapse theory. Please explain this.

The only official organization I know that gave an explanation of the actual collapse sequence is FEMA. Note that NIST contended their collapse initiation mechanism, not their collapse sequence.

FEMA's explanation was deemed to be incorrect by NIST, and also is easily debunked. The FEMA pancake model ignores the core structure. And, oh yeah, no pancaked floors at ground Zero. Go figger.

How is it "obviously not an explanation" of the energy required for rubble to crush through a building? What is obvious about that, given that it is an energetic analysis?

It is obvious by reading the words you use to describe it: "an energetic analysis which takes into account the energy loss due to the dust mass exiting the system." Where in that sentence does it say "an analysis of the energy required by the rubble to crush the building" ?

Why can't you give a quantification? It must be in so many physics books, for what you've said. What factors does it depend? I can give you more data if you need it. The ball weights 7.0 kg and is 0.2 m in diameter. It is a perfect sphere. It is perfectly cut in half by a plane. It is released from a height of 2.0 m in a gravity field of 9.81 m/s² starting with zero velocity. That should be enough data for you to quantify its energy and compare it to that of a non-cut ball, though I thought you could give a comparative measurement, e.g. 1/2 of that of the whole ball. An approximate solution is enough; e.g. if the actual answer is 0.498 of the whole ball, 0.5 will do as an answer.

Why would I need to do this?

Combined, because both pieces are assumed to be thrown together.

One hits me on the head, or shoulder, or arm. The other hits me on the shoulder, or back, or foot. Ouch.

I don't think there's any need of using you as a target. Let's just put a thick glass below the ball. The glass will break if the impact energy is 0.95 times the energy of a whole ball thrown from that height. It won't break under that, and it will surely break over that.

You hold both halves of the ball at the specified height keeping the plane of the cut horizontally. Now, when you release both halves at the same time, will they break the glass?

I suspect one half alone would break the glass. You don't specify the thickness of the glass, though.

It has been explained ad nauseum what happens to the energy in the crush-down, crush-up model. It is referred both through the upper and lower blocks. It is expended in crushing and pulverizing. It is expended in ejecting matter upwards and laterally. It is mitigated through the alleged layers of rubble.

Ok for the crushing and pulverizing (accounted by Greening and Bazant). Ok for the ejecting (accounted by Greening and Bazant). But what do you mean by "mitigated through the alleged layers of rubble"? You're not making that stuff up, are you? Where can I find a reference on that?

You forgot the significant energy loss in the absorption of the "impact" by both the upper and lower blocks. Gordon Ross pointed out that Bazant seems to ignore this. Of course Bazant has revised his hypothesis so many times, I don't whether this is still true or not. If Bazant has now provided for this equal but opposing impact absorption, in accordance with Newton's Third Law, someone can please corrrect me, citing the appropriate reference.

As for how rubble will transfer energy from a crushing force above, and its own pull down by gravity, my explanation is based on how we know rubble and other particulate matter to behave. I have not yet seen any explanation showing that rubble will reliably transfer force from above to an intact structure below.

Absolutely wrong. It applies to the WTC for the purpose he intended: to prove even in his best case scenario, the collapse was unstoppable once started, thus proving that in any other scenario, including the real one, it was also unstoppable. It doesn't apply to what actually happened to the WTC, which is beside the point. The vérinage demolitions match very closely his setup, which is why we see the crush-down/crush-up.

The situations shown in the verinage technique are vastly different from what we see happening to the Twin Towers. The two are not comparable.

I don't need to support your claims. You do. You say that most of the rubble would spill, contradicting most of the world, and basically all of the academic world. I've provided evidence that if rubble behaves as concrete dust, then the whole tower top would still fit in the mountain that would be formed, thus remaining enough mass as to crush the tower.

Do you believe a mountain of dust would crush through 90 storeys of an intact building? Do you believe a mountain of dust would crush through even one story? Please show or describe how this would occur.

Again, please provide visual evidence of these mountains. And, as I've already stated, the mass of a collection of chunks and particles will not have the same kinetic energy as the mass of an intact block.

You've stated this again and again without providing any justification. Care to provide at least one reference?

If I could find one, I would. I base this on how we know rubble and other particulate matter to behave. Could you please provide evidence of this mountain of rubble? Thank you.

 

[beachnut]

... as I've already stated, the mass of a collection of chunks and particles will not have the same kinetic energy as the mass of an intact block.
...

lol (I actually know what you mean, but when you are throwing rocks and not flour dust... in air... etc... When I throw a 10 pound rock at a buck, it has the same kinetic energy as the 10 1 pound rocks I throw at the same velocity; and I will get beat up when he sees I am out of Rocks.)

Do you need help figuring this out?

E=1/2mv²
20 10-ton pieces of the WTC have the same kinetic energy as 1 200-ton piece of the WTC. 911 truth delusion pushers have special delusion math? Balsamo math?

 

[femr2]

See post #433.

Ah. Okay. Missed the link. Thought you were referring to Greenings original paper. My bad.

 

[ergo]

20 10-ton pieces of the WTC have the same kinetic energy as 1 200-ton piece of the WTC. 911 truth delusion pushers have special delusion math? Balsamo math?

This cannot be true for the simple reason that a larger piece or structure has a different mass than the 10-ton pieces.

 

[AZCat]

This cannot be true for the simple reason that a larger piece or structure has a different mass than the 10-ton pieces.

What?!

KE is proportional to mass. 20 x 10 = 200, 1 x 200 = 200.

 

[ergo]

What?!
KE is proportional to mass. 20 x 10 = 200, 1 x 200 = 200.

1 x 200 = 200
1 x 10 = 10
1 x 10 = 10
1 x 10 = 10

etc...

 

[AZCat]

1 x 200 = 200
1 x 10 = 10
1 x 10 = 10
1 x 10 = 10

etc...

Nope. You need to look at the KE for the systems Beachnut is describing. KE for system 1 ( 1 200 ton piece) is the same as the KE for system 2 (20 10 ton pieces).

 

[X]

Dude.

Sums.

Ergo:

Over what time frame do you think the agglomeration of rubble from the top section hit the uppermost remaining floor of the lower section?

 

[A W Smith]

Oh, then please provide a workable analogy in which a disintegrated structure can crush through an intact structure.

Are you that stupid? of course you are

 

[TruthersLie]

Hey AW.

This is the 3rd time this video has been handed to p'doh/stundie, and dont' worry he will ignore it like before.

Oh wait... he makes a statement about a "nice edit." too bad he doesn't realize it is from a German TV show and it is UNEDITED... but no hu hu...

 

[ergo]

 

[TruthersLie]

[qimg]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/10/nyregion/33302049.JPG[/qimg]

Nice photo.

And?

or more importantly
So what?

How does "loose" particles like WATER crush a car? Hmmm? IN your world apparently "loose particles" can't damage an intact structure.

How does "rubble" like an avalanche destroy houses? it is just loose snow...