9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[Slartibartfast]

Consider that each tower's GPE was about 115 tons of TNT, to try to figure out how much sound would they make if a significant part of that energy was converted into sound. Obviously it wasn't a significant part. For heat it's harder to estimate, but I'd say it was on par with sound.

If the sound of the collapse were as loud as a rocket engine (180dB) and lasted for a minute, it would take about 1/100,000^th of the energy stored as the gravitational potential of the building. Considering that this loud of a sound would have also caused permanent hearing damage in the vicinity of ground zero, I think that the energy that went into the sound of the collapse is orders of magnitude smaller and I would guess that frictional heat is even less significant.

 

[TruthersLie]

If the sound of the collapse were as loud as a rocket engine (180dB) and lasted for a minute, it would take about 1/100,000^th of the energy stored as the gravitational potential of the building. Considering that this loud of a sound would have also caused permanent hearing damage in the vicinity of ground zero, I think that the energy that went into the sound of the collapse is orders of magnitude smaller and I would guess that frictional heat is even less significant.

Did you actually expect Stundie ergo to actually read and understand your posts?

He can't even use a stopwatch...

 

[ergo]

First show me other highrise buildings built like the WTC that were hit by airliners or burned uncontrollably for 7 hours.

Um, WTC 1 and 2 burned for less than 90 minutes. WTC 7, which did burn for 6 or 7 hours, was not hit by a plane.

 

[ergo]

Did you actually expect Stundie ergo to actually read and understand your posts?

He can't even use a stopwatch...

If you read Slarti's post, you'll see he was responding to pgimeno, not to me. I have never tried to make any claim about energy loss into heat and sound in the WTC. It was a strawman put forward by the Almond in an effort to ignore the obvious and very significant energy sinks that were ignored in the Bazant model.

 

[uke2se]

Um, WTC 1 and 2 burned for less than 90 minutes. WTC 7, which did burn for 6 or 7 hours, was not hit by a plane.

Oh boy, you just made your task a lot harder. Now you need to find me another steel-tube framed building like the Twin Towers that was hit by an aircraft and didn't collapse PLUS a building built like WTC 7 that was hit by debris, burned for 7 hours and didn't collapse.

 

[uke2se]

If you read Slarti's post, you'll see he was responding to pgimeno, not to me. I have never tried to make any claim about energy loss into heat and sound in the WTC. It was a strawman put forward by the Almond in an effort to ignore the obvious and very significant energy sinks that were ignored in the Bazant model.

Please outline these energy sinks and explain why they are significant and exactly how significant they are. This will require math.

 

[ergo]

But I'm glad people didn't dogpile on my moon comment. I saw the moon tonight and thought, "Hmm, yeah, that's a pretty big body... I may have to retract my statement."

A moonful of rubble makes the medicine go down...medicine go down.. medicine go down....

 

[ergo]

steel "tubes"?

 

[uke2se]

steel "tubes"?

More posts avoiding the requested evidence, I see.

 

[ergo]

Please outline these energy sinks and explain why they are significant and exactly how significant they are. This will require math.

I've already outlined them two or three times in this thread. There are many papers on what is wrong with the Bazant model. I'm not going to continue to go in circles on this point.

 

[uke2se]

I've already outlined them two or three times in this thread. There are many papers on what is wrong with the Bazant model. I'm not going to continue to go in circles on this point.

No, you haven't. You haven't posted a single equation. Math is required to back up what you are asserting, and you steadfastly refuse to provide any, despite being asked to many times.

I also sincerely doubt there are "papers" - as in peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scientific journals - on what is wrong with the Bazant model. Please provide one example.

 

[ergo]

More posts avoiding the requested evidence, I see.

I haven't seen a shred of evidence from you uke, defending the official collapse theory. I've seen a lot of opinion and a lot of accusations. Not a single shred of evidence.

 

[uke2se]

I haven't seen a shred of evidence from you uke, defending the official collapse theory. I've seen a lot of opinion and a lot of accusations. Not a single shred of evidence.

If you look back to were we started our little exchange, you will note posts by me containing evidence. I gave that up upon realizing you clearly had no intention of even trying to understand said evidence. If I make the same journey into your earlier posts, I find absolutely no evidence what-so-ever.

As has become practice in my posts:

Evidence count for ergo: zilch.

 

[ergo]

No, you haven't.

I'm sorry that you're unwilling to read what I've already posted in this thread. As for the math, why would you need me to re-present math that has already been presented by qualified skeptics? You claim to know the "truther" arguments inside out. Apparently you don't. You have some reading to do.

 

[beachnut]

I haven't seen a shred of evidence from you uke, defending the official collapse theory. I've seen a lot of opinion and a lot of accusations. Not a single shred of evidence.

It is called reality, not the moronic lies you support with failed opinions; you can watch it on TV. Are you blind, or unable to use evidence to make rational conclusions?

 

[uke2se]

I'm sorry that you're unwilling to read what I've already posted in this thread.

I have read all the excrement you have poured into this thread, and you haven't outlined anything. As I said, math is required, and you haven't presented any, nor linked to any, nor even referenced any.

As for the math, why would you need me to re-present math that has already been presented by qualified skeptics?

1. Qualified skeptics haven't produced math that refute or challenge Bazant or NIST. If you are talking about fellow twoofers, they aren't qualified skeptics.
2. If you posted the math you claim support your argument, we could move this discussion away from an endless cavalcade of posts by you containing no shreds of evidence and instead focus on the grave errors in whatever math you get your stupid ideas from, or alternatively the misunderstandings you no doubt have made when interpreting said math.

You claim to know the "truther" arguments inside out. Apparently you don't. You have some reading to do.

I'd say I do. It's fun watching you squirm away from the burden of evidence, which after 9 years still lies firmly on your twoofer shoulders.

 

[ergo]

Other people have pointed out that the argument that most of the mass of debris is escaping over the sides of the building is not valid, so I'll just ask what velocity does rubble from the core of the building need to attain to escape the footprint of the building in the time it takes to fall 3.7m in free fall? An object that started at the center of the tower and escaped directly to one of the four sides would have had to move at an average of 36m/s (129 kph) beginning immediately upon collapse initiation in order to escape the footprint before the building had fallen a floor, and while that number decreases as we move further from the center of the building, the fact is that given the time between when a floor is 'rubblized' and when it slams into the next floor, not that much of it has time to escape. The result is a mass of debris that is growing larger and faster along the way.

Why are you talking about rubble from the core? Who said anything about rubble from the core being ejected horizontally in four directions? Although, while we're talking about it, there is obviously some matter being ejected upwards:

We group objects that have the same properties or are behaving the same way - a bowling ball is a group of atoms which we don't care to discuss individually. Similarly, if I want to compare a 5 kg bowling ball hitting someone in the head vs. 5 kg of sand, I couldn't just consider one of the grains of sand, I've got to consider them all at once.

You're applying unequal analogies, and mixing them, actually. I understand a handful of sand is a system, and acts as a system. We can also call pieces of a bowling ball a system. Pieces of a bowling ball cannot do the same work as a whole bowling ball. Do you agree?

I'll take a look at your other point a bit later.

 

[uke2se]

Why are you talking about rubble from the core? Who said anything about rubble from the core being ejected horizontally in four directions? Although, while we're talking about it, there is obviously some matter being ejected upwards:

Oh, Jesus Christ...

I hope that's a joke.



/Edit: Screw it! This is too much comedy gold to pass up. STUNDIED!

You're applying unequal analogies, and mixing them, actually. I understand a handful of sand is a system, and acts as a system. We can also call pieces of a bowling ball a system. Pieces of a bowling ball cannot do the same work as a whole bowling ball. Do you agree?

It can't run down a lane and knock ten pins over. However, it can fall down and enact the same force as a whole bowling ball can. This has been explained to you before. This is basic physics.

 

[ergo]

A fraction of a second. Good.

So the rubble of the upper section impacts the uppermost floor of the lower section over a fraction of a second. Let's take that as, oh, (off the top of my head) 0.10 seconds.

Let's assume the rate of impact is constant.
That is, over said fraction of a second, the rate at which the rubble is hitting the floor is constant.

Now, approximately how much does our impacting mass mass?
Let's just pull another number from thin air, say 100 kg.
...

I = F*dt = m*v_f - m*v_i

where
I = impulse (kg*m/s)
F = Force (kg*m/s²)
dt = change in time (s)
m = mass (kg)
v_f = final velocity (m/s)
v_i = initial velocity (m/s)

We have two scenarios:
a) upper block is intact
b) upper block is rubble

Let's assume an initial velocity (v_i) of 1 m/s
Let's assume a maximum impulse case. That is, the vinfal velocity (v_f) is zero.

For case a), we have the following:

I = 100 kg * (0 m/s - 1 m/s) = -100 kg*m/s

dt, if you'll recall, is known.

Thus, F = I/dt = (-100 kg*m/s) / (0.10 s) = -1,000 N

Remember that number.

For case b), we have to look at the rate of mass impact.

I believe you're looking at impact in both cases, are you not?

To do this, we'll need to adapt some terms into a time-based form. Sadly, I cannot recall the forum's equation writer coding, so I can't give you dots. So pay attention to the units!

m_rate = 100 kg / 0.1 s = 1,000 kg/s
Therefore, the rubble is coming down at a rate of 1,000 kg/s.

This makes no sense. "1,000 kg/s" does not describe a distance. It doesn't seem to describe anything.

I_rate = 1,000 kg/s * (0 m/s - 1 m/s) = -1,000 kg*m/s²
Guess what? kg*m/s² is a common unit of measure. It has another name. The Newton. It is a measure of force.

So, remember that number from a)?

Yah, they're equal.

Thus, your claim that rubble does not behave the same in an impact scenario as does a solid object of equal mass is wrong.

Thank you for the math and your explanation. I'm not sure if your math is completely correct. Perhaps someone else could evaluate it. What I notice though is that the math doesn't actually show that rubble will have the same impact force as an intact block because you're simply running equations based on the same number for the mass. Which is inaccurate for two reasons: 1) a significant quantity of mass is lost in the WTC, 2) mass changes when the density and quantity of something changes.

My argument is that a system of particles will not have the same impact force as an intact system 1) because the mass has changed due to loss and due to a radically changed form. And 2) relating to the radically changed form, rubble behaves differently than an intact block would. When rubble falls into a containment, such as a dumpster, it fills the container. In doing so, it pushes itself out from where it's falling onto until it hits the sides, and then piles up. Impact is being deferred laterally and in many other different directions, according to the variant sizes of chunks in the rubble. Force is being deflected in many different directions, not just down. Rubble simply isn't an efficient way to crush a large area. It's not even very good for crushing small things, as the force cannot be applied directly.

 

[ergo]

I hope that's a joke.

Are you claiming that you don't see something being ejected up out of the building in the picture I post above?

It can't run down a lane and knock ten pins over. However, it can fall down and enact the same force as a whole bowling ball can. This has been explained to you before. This is basic physics.

No, it cannot. This has already been explained to you.