Debunk Alert: New Ryan/Jones Article in Peer Reviewed Journal

[sdemetri]

So much for intuition. The important factor is the ratio of strength to the magnitude of the forces experienced. When the forces experienced derive from the object's own mass (e.g. gravitational forces and dynamic loads), the relevant comparison becomes the ratio of the strength to the mass. Even the most delicate wine glass can support many times its own weight. Even the strongest office buildings cannot support many times their own weight. The comparison isn't even close. The wine glass is far stronger.

The better comparison is to take a wine glass, sever off 1/10th of the top, and analyze under what conditions the mass of that top 1/10th will crush the rest of the glass. Or, make a wine glass out of brick, take the top 1/10th...

 

[Horatius]

And I have never seen anyone defending the official argument from an engineering pov account for the energy requirement for pulverization to the extent it took place. I realize it is extremely complicated, but I think you would agree it is an important component to the energy requirement calculation.

I might refer to Greening's own words when he was asked to present his calculations (although I don't think he was less justified in his response than myself):

"You want me to produce my calculations! Why? So you can scrutinize them and pick at them like a vulture attacking a carcass..."

I agree that such a calculation is an important component. Luckily for us, someone has done some work on that.

 

[WildCat]

Intuition is usually wrong when it comes to the effects of scaling.

Roll a Hot Wheels car off your kitchen table and note the results. Roll a real car off a 150 ft. cliff, compare/contrast.

 

[WildCat]

sdemetri, do you acknowledge that the fires in the WTC were not oxygen-starved and there was no "controlled environment" once the planes struck?

-cough-

 

[Myriad]

The better comparison is to take a wine glass, sever off 1/10th of the top, and analyze under what conditions the mass of that top 1/10th will crush the rest of the glass. Or, make a wine glass out of brick, take the top 1/10th...

No, that is not a better comparison, because a wine glass has an orders of magnitude higher ratio of strength to mass than a large building has, as I just pointed out. Your intuition is still giving you wrong answers about what is and is not a good comparison.

You aren't the first to fail at this. People have tried to make arguments of how the towers should have behaved based on small scale models made out of chicken wire, plastic trays, Lego, cardboard boxes, paper, building blocks, and pieces of pipe. All meaningless.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[uk_dave]

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

A big plane had just slammed through one side of the building, through the office partitioning and out the other side.

What makes you think they were oxygen starved?

 

[AZCat]

You aren't the first to fail at this. People have tried to make arguments of how the towers should have behaved based on small scale models made out of chicken wire, plastic trays, Lego, cardboard boxes, paper, building blocks, and pieces of pipe. All meaningless.

Meaningless, but amusing nonetheless.

 

[beachnut]

The better comparison is to take a wine glass, sever off 1/10th of the top, and analyze under what conditions the mass of that top 1/10th will crush the rest of the glass. Or, make a wine glass out of brick, take the top 1/10th...

That example sews up you problem! You have no clue what to use to understand 9/11. Try physics next time, not your, what did Einstein call it?

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein

That is another poor analogies in a long, long list of real bad analogies from 9/11 truth.

 

[The Big Dog]

A big plane had just slammed through one side of the building, through the office partitioning and out the other side.

What makes you think they were oxygen starved?

He appears to have read that on a Truther web site. So, you know, it is the "Truth," I guess. You can learn a lot on Truther web sites, like disregarding facts, ignoring questions, and fancy arguments like "hand waving."

 

[T.A.M.]

Guys;

sdemetri has already said he is "unconvinced" and is relying on his "intuition".

Is there any sense in debating or trying to convince someone who has been shown the science, shown the facts, but is still "unconvinced" based on his "intuition".

The poster is polite and civil, but is no better than the others, as he is not being logical, and is going forward based on his "intuition".

Waste of your time boys and girls.

TAM

 

[SDC]

Some enterprising creative soul should put together a video featuring all the objects referred to in 285 by Myriad.

 

[sdemetri]

I agree that such a calculation is an important component. Luckily for us, someone has done some work on that.

The first problem I see with this is what looks like an assumption that the mass of the upper 15 floor block strikes at freefall on the entire 627 tonnes of concrete in the impact with the 95th floor. The entire kinetic energy of the falling mass is at the moment of impact seems to be incorporated into his view of the impact. With the tilt of the upper mass, and with what might be considered a necessary relatively slow deformation of supporting columns and load shifting, I have to wonder if the full force implied by Greening actually impacted the 95th floor. A lot follows from his analysis of that here, and I don't see that full kinetic force happening in how the damage propagated. Maybe he discusses this in his earlier paper, I don't recall, but from this paper, that seems a problem.

Others have made the calculations that assume the full force did impact the 95th floor, in an attempt to favor progressive collapse, and that still didn't satisfy energy requirements for a continued collapse, let alone supply energy to complete pulverization. Obviously, some here have found those arguments faulty.

I had not seen the Risk Management Solutions study before. Interesting stuff.

 

[uk_dave]

sdemetri, why do you think the fires were oxygen starved?

 

[Newtons Bit]

I am afraid I have to point out, again, as much as that perturbs you, that engineering is not my specialty. Why should I presume to try to convince engineers in their own language (especially in as merciless a place as this forum) why they are incorrect in that calculation? I have read Ross, I have read Greening's replies to Ross, I have read Bazant... as, I hope, a relatively intelligent guy, I claim nothing more than perhaps the status of a jury member listening to expert witnesses debate highly technical points. And if called upon to vote which argument is more cohesive, more in line with many other articles of evidence, and observations I have made myself, I vote for Ross and Kuttler. I'm sure that doesn't satisfy you, but, again, sorry.

Let's see if we can get you to figure this out your own. Below is a puzzle of sorts, see if you can figure it out.

There are two cars, car A and car B. Car A is moving at 10 m/s. Car B is stationary. Both weigh 1000kg. Car A impacts car B (which was in neutral). The two objects stick together and start rolling together. I have video evidence of this. However car A and B were really dirty so right at the impact they both through up a big cloud of dirt obscuring what happened next. The evidence does show that the cars continue to roll for quite some distance.

Using some basic back of the envelope calculations, I calculate correctly that the strain energy damage to each car should be about 20KJ each.

Now then, the intial energy of the impact was 1/2 M * V^2 or

0.5*1000kg*(10^2) = 50,000J or 50KJ

Using conservation of momentum, I can calculate the velocity of the two cars after impact.

M1V1 = M2V2
1000kg * 10 m/s = 2000kg * V2
V2 = 5 m/s

The new energy is 1/2 M * V^2 or
0.5*1000kg*(5^2) = 12,500J or 12.5KJ

The loss of energy is thus 50KJ - 12.5KJ = 38.5KJ

Total Energy In
+50kj

Total Energy out
-38.5KJ
-20KJ
-20KJ

Leaving a deficit of -28.5KJ. I thus conclude that the dust flying during the impact was due to explosives.

What did I do wrong?

 

[rwguinn]

Let's see if we can get you to figure this out your own. Below is a puzzle of sorts, see if you can figure it out.

There are two cars, car A and car B. Car A is moving at 10 m/s. Car B is stationary. Both weigh 1000kg. Car A impacts car B (which was in neutral). The two objects stick together and start rolling together. I have video evidence of this. However car A and B were really dirty so right at the impact they both through up a big cloud of dirt obscuring what happened next. The evidence does show that the cars continue to roll for quite some distance.

Using some basic back of the envelope calculations, I calculate correctly that the strain energy damage to each car should be about 20KJ each.

Now then, the intial energy of the impact was 1/2 M * V^2 or

0.5*1000kg*(10^2) = 50,000J or 50KJ

Using conservation of momentum, I can calculate the velocity of the two cars after impact.

M1V1 = M2V2
1000kg * 10 m/s = 2000kg * V2
V2 = 5 m/s

The new energy is 1/2 M * V^2 or
0.5*1000kg*(5^2) = 12,500J or 12.5KJ

The loss of energy is thus 50KJ - 12.5KJ = 38.5KJ

Total Energy In
+50kj

Total Energy out
-38.5KJ
-20KJ
-20KJ

Leaving a deficit of -28.5KJ. I thus conclude that the dust flying during the impact was due to explosives.

What did I do wrong?

Snicker....

 

[Newtons Bit]

Snicker....

Quiet you. Don't give it away.

 

[sdemetri]

uk_dave

sdemetri, why do you think the fires were oxygen starved?

Arthur Cote, author of a well-respected fire safety manual, has talked about diffuse flames, where the ratio of fuel to oxygen is not optimized, resulting in lower than potentially achievable temperatures. When oxygen, in relation to the fuel source, is low... a fuel-rich fire... the resulting flame is not burning optimally, can be evidenced by black smoke, can be considered oxygen-starved. "Oxygen-starved" is a relative term as I have used it, as it is in relation to the fuel present.

In the towers, the intact building had mostly sealed windows and a controlled environment. Now that was obviously disrupted when the planes struck the buildings, but the sealed windows that remained sealed after the planes struck ensured there was not a free flow of air through the damaged parts of the building. Many were blown out, I dispute the claims of an earlier poster that said, thousands, but no doubt many were. And the openings from the aircraft obviously provided ventilation. At any rate, Cote stated, " It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke..." I take his words at face value. Now this was written in Jone's paper, which will throw some of you into apoplectic fits, no doubt, but it is a quote by MIT's Eagar. He is quoting Cote. I take both as credible sources of information.

Another salient point, the complete disintergration of the towers was unexpected. The years of experience of the fire chiefs led them to assess the risk of sending hundreds of their men and women into the towers are acceptable. If they had any inkling the towers were likely to fall, they would not have sent them. They were expecting a typical, large, but typical office building fire. Perhaps localized collapses on some floors, but not sudden, complete disintergration. There is an element here regarding the inability to effectively communicate and warn their men to evacuate, and I accept that. But they assessed the risk due to the damage and fire as within acceptable limits and sent their men and women in.

 

[Pardalis]

In the towers, the intact building had mostly sealed windows and a controlled environment.

The very same windows from which people jumped out?

 

[rwguinn]

wanna answer the question?
Newton';s Bit posed a good one for you, "Scientist"...

 

[Arus808]

In the towers, the intact building had mostly sealed windows and a controlled environment. Now that was obviously disrupted when the planes struck the buildings, but the sealed windows that remained sealed after the planes struck ensured there was not a free flow of air through the damaged parts of the building.

yet you are ignoring the nearly 5-10 stories of open air contributed by the plane impacts. the 5-10 floors where the FIRES were concentrated.

the "floors" with sealed windows, had smaller fires, or no fires at all. nearly all the floors affected by the planes impact, WERE ENTIRELY on fire.



You again, show that you dont know what you are talking about.