9/11 Physics from Non-Experts

GregoryUrich:

Have you looked at papers on pile-driving, rock drilling and the Hopkinson's Bar?

The theory is very relevant to the WTC collapse.
 
twinstead said:
Quit being coy. I'm a layman, so your figures have no effect. You may very well be totally right. My question is why on God's Green Earth do so many experts disagree with you?
Click to expand...

I believe I have reached agreement on a number of issues with the experts here. I assume it is those experts you mean.

1. I don't think anyone who has been following this discussion will still suggest that the actual weight of one wtc was 500,000 tons. They may not agree with my value but we know it is substancially less than 500,000 tons.

2. I believe I have convinced most people that my linear scaling of steel mass is reasonable, although slightly in favor of a higher PE.

3. I think most people agree that the live loads are closer to an empty building than the full design capacity. We don't know how much closer but I will look into it. I did get some good references.

4. I think anyone who has looked at the actual blueprints and done some calculations will agree that the amount of empty space (not even a floor) in the core is around 30% average for the entire building. This I will also be calculated more carefully in the next version of my paper.

There are a number of valid issues raised by the experts here which I have acknowledged. These I will also take into account in the next version of my paper.
 
GregoryUrich said:
I believe I have reached agreement on a number of issues with the experts here. I assume it is those experts you mean.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I don't mean the experts here. I mean the experts involved in the NIST report.

Here's a couple of them:
  1. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.
  2. Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E.
  3. Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E.
  4. Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E.
  5. Anamaria Bonilla, S.E.
  6. Andrew McConnell, S.E.
  7. Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E.
  8. Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E.
  9. Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist
  10. Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E.
  11. Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D.
  12. Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E.
  13. August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
  14. Bernie Denke US&R Structural Specialist
  15. Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E.
  16. Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E.
  17. Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E.
  18. Brian McElhatten, S.E.
  19. Charles J. Carter, S.E., AISC
  20. Charles Thornton, P.E.
  21. Christopher E. Marrion, P.E.
  22. Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC
  23. Chuck Guardia, S.E.
  24. D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E.
  25. Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E.
  26. Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E
  27. Daniele Veneziano, P.E.
  28. David Hoy, S.E.
  29. David Leach, USACE
  30. David M. Parks, P.E.
  31. David Peraza, P.E., S.E.
  32. David Sharp, S.E.
  33. David T. Biggs, P.E.
  34. Dean Koutsoubis, S.E.
  35. Dean Tills, P.E.
  36. Delbert Boring, P.E.
  37. Dick Posthauer, S.E.
  38. Donald Friedman, P.E.
  39. Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
  40. Ed McGinley, P.E.
  41. Edward Depaola, S.E.
  42. Edward M. DePaola, P.E.
  43. Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E.
  44. Francis J. Lombardi, P.E.
  45. Frank Gayle, Sc.D
  46. Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA
  47. Gary Steficek, S.E.
  48. Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA
  49. George Tamaro, P.E., S.E.
  50. Gerald Haynes, P.E.
  51. Gerald Wellman US&R Structural Specialist
  52. Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA
  53. H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E.)
  54. Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E.
  55. Harry Martin, AISC
  56. J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E.
  57. James A. Rossberg, P.E.
  58. James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist
  59. James H. Fahey, S.E.
  60. James Lord, FSFP.E.
  61. James Milke, Ph.D., P.E.
  62. Jason Averill, FSFP.E.
  63. Jeffrey Hartman, S.E.
  64. John Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
  65. John J. Zils, P.E., S.E.
  66. John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
  67. John Lekstutis, P.E.
  68. John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E.
  69. John Ruddy, P.E., S.E.
  70. John W. Fisher, P.E.
  71. Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E.
  72. Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E.
  73. Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E.
  74. Jozef Van Dyck, P.E.
  75. Juan Paulo Morla, S.E.
  76. Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E.
  77. Kevin Terry, S.E.
  78. Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E.
  79. Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
  80. Lawrence Griffis, P.E.
  81. Leo J. Titus, P.E.
  82. Leonard M. Joseph, P.E.
  83. Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E.
  84. Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
  85. Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E.
  86. Louis Errichiello, S.E.
  87. Manny Velivasakis, P.E.
  88. Mark Kucera, USACE
  89. Mark Tamaro, P.E
  90. Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E.
  91. Merle E. Brander, P.E.
  92. Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
  93. Michael Burton, P.E.
  94. Michael Hessheimer, S.E.
  95. Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E.
  96. Mike Marscio, P.E.
  97. Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E.
  98. Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E.
  99. Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.
  100. Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E.
  101. Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E.
  102. Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.k
  103. Paul Tertell, P.E.
  104. Peter Chipchase, S.E.
  105. Peter Rinaldi, P.E.
  106. Rajani Nair, S.E.
  107. Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E
  108. Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E.
  109. Raymond F. Messer, P.E.
  110. Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E
  111. Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E.
  112. Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E..
  113. Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E.
  114. Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist
  115. Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E.
  116. Robert F. Duval (NFPA)
  117. Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist
  118. Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E.
  119. Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
  120. Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E
  121. Robert Solomon, P.E.
  122. Robert Wills, AISC
  123. Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E.
  124. Ronald J. LaMere, P.E.
  125. Ruben M. Zallen, P.E.
  126. S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E.
  127. Saw-Teen See, P.E.
  128. Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E.
  129. Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E.
  130. Stan Murphy, P.E.
  131. Stuart Foltz, P.E.
  132. Theodore Galambos, P.E.
  133. Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E.
  134. Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.
  135. Thomas Schlafly, AISC
  136. Todd Ude, P.E., S.E.
  137. Tom Scarangello, P.E.
  138. Tony Beale, P.E.
  139. Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E.
  140. Victor Hare, P.E.
  141. W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
  142. William Baker, P.E., S.E
  143. William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME
  144. William McGuire, P.E.
  145. Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E.
Click to expand...
These folks disagree with you. Why is that?
 
3bodyproblem said:
Yes poor example, but the principle still holds. You still have a spring with kinetic energy colliding with a stationary spring.
Click to expand...

Kinetic energy like velocity is relative. That was the point of the boxcar example. The relative velocity is what effects both objects in the collision. You don't have to be Einstein to get this one.
 
twinstead said:
Wrong. I don't mean the experts here. I mean the experts involved in the NIST report.

Here's a couple of them:[/LIST]These folks disagree with you. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I didn't think you were clear about which case we are talking about.

I have given the total mass and PE (above ground) for one wtc tower. My PE is the same as FEMAs. NIST never gives a total mass for the WTC or the total PE. I haven't argued that NIST is wrong about anything other than the maximum core column dimension, which, is clear from the architectural drawings and photograpical evidence that I am correct.

I have issues with one of Bazant's papers and Augustine asked me to expand on that. I obliged. If you want to argue that Bazant is correct because he is an expert. I have no interest in discussing it with you. If you have real arguments against my claims regarding Bazant's article. I would love to hear them.
 
Call me stupid, but what's the point of this discussion?

Why is it even relevant?

The top of the towers twisted as they fell. That means the columns didn't line up. That means there was virtually no resistance to the collapse.

Endgame.

-Gumboot
 
GregoryUrich said:
I didn't think you were clear about which case we are talking about.

I have given the total mass and PE (above ground) for one wtc tower. My PE is the same as FEMAs. NIST never gives a total mass for the WTC or the total PE. I haven't argued that NIST is wrong about anything other than the maximum core column dimension, which, is clear from the architectural drawings and photograpical evidence that I am correct.

I have issues with one of Bazant's papers and Augustine asked me to expand on that. I obliged. If you want to argue that Bazant is correct because he is an expert. I have no interest in discussing it with you. If you have real arguments against my claims regarding Bazant's article. I would love to hear them.
Click to expand...

Granted my question is off topic. You are, however, pointedly refusing to answer my question as to why your opinion is in the abject minority among relevant experts.

Good luck with that.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Kinetic energy like velocity is relative. That was the point of the boxcar example. The relative velocity is what effects both objects in the collision. You don't have to be Einstein to get this one.
Click to expand...

Hey Einstein, do you know what determines the velocity of separation during restitution in this case? hmmm....do yah? Time to squirm.
 
Apollo20 said:
GregoryUrich:

Have you looked at papers on pile-driving, rock drilling and the Hopkinson's Bar?

The theory is very relevant to the WTC collapse.
Click to expand...

The first two do not involve equivalent objects impacting each other. Try driving a wooden pile with an equivalent wooden pile or try drilling steel with a bit of the same grade. I'm sorry but I have never heard of Hopkinson's bar.
 
twinstead said:
Granted my question is off topic. You are, however, pointedly refusing to answer my question as to why your opinion is in the abject minority among relevant experts.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Which opinion do you mean?
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
Hey Einstein, do you know what determines the velocity of separation during restitution in this case? hmmm....do yah? Time to squirm.
Click to expand...

The relative velocity and the COR assuming like objects. This is independent of which object is assumed to be moving relative to an arbitrary fixed point.
 
GregoryUrich said:
The relative velocity and the COR assuming like objects. This is independent of which object is assumed to be moving relative to an arbitrary fixed point.
Click to expand...
lol, you haven't answered my question. Do you understand it? I asked you what determines the velocity of separation during restitution in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom