GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Debunking "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking"
- Thread starter GregoryUrich
- Start date
-
- Tags
- debunking 911
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
No doubt Ryan will welcome your critique. I do hope you read the rest of his paper, despite your disappointment with its first section.
Let us know if in the end you're more disappointed with Ryan Mackey or with David Ray Griffin, won't you?
Let us know if in the end you're more disappointed with Ryan Mackey or with David Ray Griffin, won't you?
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
My guess is I'll be more dissappointed with DRG.
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,542
Please tell me that this isn't a "debunking". I'm not sure that space and time are physically capable of holding a debunking of debunking "on Debunking of 9/11 Debunking".
BTW, in my non-legal opinion, I view that as perfectly fair use.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
Time for me to debunk "Debunking 'On Debunking 9/11 Debunking'"... what?
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 3,510
Mackey, WHY didn't you name your paper "Debunking Debunking 9/11 Debunking"? It would've been so cool!
You disrupted the pattern! Darn you!
Reality Believer
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 716
That is the debunkity-debunk theory. Say that 110 times as fast as you can.
debunk attempt has failed to debunk the debunking of the debunker dolt drg
FAILURE! REDO - Robertson said slow speed lost in the fog. Robertson is the man, he is the final WORD. Slow speed, try using 180 mph and low fuel. WHY?
Because only a lost plane in the fog would be the accident threat! Why low fuel. If you had lots of fuel you would not be lost in the fog in NYC, you would be flying to Miami to land in the clear weather! (or any where else!!!!!!!!!!!) You should have become a pilot and be a EE! You need to redo your research. This one error makes your work a big failure, besides the rest of the errors!
The speed for impact is 180 mph, slow speed! You are wrong! Try harder next time.
Your numbers are wrong on the energy. Your paper is peer reviewed as being overwhelmed with errors! REDO
FAILURE! REDO - Robertson said slow speed lost in the fog. Robertson is the man, he is the final WORD. Slow speed, try using 180 mph and low fuel. WHY?
Because only a lost plane in the fog would be the accident threat! Why low fuel. If you had lots of fuel you would not be lost in the fog in NYC, you would be flying to Miami to land in the clear weather! (or any where else!!!!!!!!!!!) You should have become a pilot and be a EE! You need to redo your research. This one error makes your work a big failure, besides the rest of the errors!
The speed for impact is 180 mph, slow speed! You are wrong! Try harder next time.
Last edited:
I have another thread already open on this subject, but we can discuss it here if you prefer. Also, indeed I don't think your approach is in conflict with "Fair Use," besides which I have already granted you a license to reproduce the text, so please continue.
Anyway, most of your comments I find rather uninteresting, save one. The comments on the alleged 1964 impact study are, really, a non-issue. You write the following:
Gregory Urich said:
Yes, well. There are numerous problems with the alleged 1964 study. Mind you, I don't doubt that a study was performed, nor do I doubt that they considered a high-speed case. But we can't use this study in support of anything for the following reasons:
1. The study does not exist. Perhaps it did at one time, but it doesn't now. We have no means to evaluate the three-page whitepaper, not for accuracy nor for context.
2. Nobody has been able to reproduce this study's findings, either. If it was correct, or even approximately accurate, this should be a straightforward task.
3. Leslie Robertson, aging or not, retired or not (he is not), was nonetheless the engineer of record for the Towers. If he disputes the accuracy of this study, and gives his reasons, we cannot simply dismiss him.
Regardless, even if we had this study, the only real use it would serve would be to find out why it was wrong. Assuming its conclusion was reflected accurately above, clearly it was totally unrealistic. The study results are also in complete disagreement with the NIST study, the Purdue study, the MIT study, the Exponent Failure Analysis study, and the Weidlinger Associates study.
So, to sum up, we don't have it, and it was wrong to begin with. This document cannot prove a conspiracy. At most, it would be evidence of an error made by designers, but I think a pass is warranted given the incredible complexity of the scenario under study.
Nearly all of your comments are such examples of special pleading. I'll just pick one more out for context:
Gregory Urich said:
This is totally false, obviously. NIST gives a stupendous volume of calculations in support of its conclusions, and its results have been largely corroborated by other studies. No other study has found a significant difference, excepting only Arup with respect to fire vulnerability.
Your last concern, regarding the rough kinetic energy argument, is actually more subtle than either you or I realized at first:
Gregory Urich said:
I did not, of course, originally cite Dr. Wierzbicki. I cited Dr. Greening, who on pp.9-10 gives an estimate for the total destruction energy of all columns on one floor as roughly 5.0 x 108 J, borrowing this number from Dr. Bazant and finding it at least comparable to other studies.
Dr. Wierzbicki does not explicitly calculate such a number in his paper, but it is easy to compute this from his single column estimates, and we find a total of 26 x 108 J, or about five times as much. That is quite a discrepancy.
So, who is correct? Dr. Greening and his sources are all not terribly thorough in their calculations, but arrive at estimates of about 1.1 MJ per perimeter column, and a number 6.7 times larger for the core columns. Dr. Wierzbicki argues from first principles and computes a similar 0.9 MJ for the perimeter columns, but 51 MJ for the core -- about eight times as much!!
Despite the more careful analysis, the error is Dr. Wierzbicki's. His equations are correct, but not his input values. He estimates the size of the core columns, based on a photograph of debris (figure 13 on page 17 of his paper), as box columns approximately 950 mm x 312 mm with 67 mm thick walls. This is simply not correct for the impact floors. NIST NCSTAR1-1 figure 2-11 displays the actual cross-sections of typical columns, and the very largest is about 559 mm square with 33 mm walls, or there is a somewhat larger wide-flange column -- this gives us roughly 73,000 mm2 and 155,000 mm2 respectively, compared to roughly 169,000 mm2 in Dr. Wierzbicki's estimate. And these are only the largest columns. The vast majority are considerably smaller.
As a result, we find that Dr. Wierzbicki has overestimated the destruction energy of the core columns by, say, a factor of five. That term also dominates his calculation of the total floor energy. With this error corrected, we actually come into close agreement with Dr. Greening -- and with my "idiot check."
Thus, I stand by my estimate. However, I had not looked so closely at Dr. Wierzbicki's paper before, and your question was certainly justified, so thank you for that. As always, I am committed to accuracy, so please don't hesitate to raise such concerns.
Given the inanity of saying "Debunking" 110 times fast, or of being able to separate one work from the other, I believe you can all now clearly see why I chose not to extend the daisy chain any further.
"Cool" is a Lamborghini Miura alone on a mountain road. Not the title of a whitepaper exposing pseudoscience. No point in pretending otherwise.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
"Cool" is a Lamborghini Miura alone on a mountain road. Not the title of a whitepaper exposing pseudoscience. No point in pretending otherwise.
Well, I suppose Eva Longoria and a Lamborghini Miura alone on a mountain road would be cooler, but I get your point.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Give me Eva Longoria, and you can have the Lamborghini and the mountain road. *receives wife-slap*
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
For WTC1, it will be quite easy to show that the energy was split over at least two floors and that less than 5% was applied to the core. Essentially only 4% of the debris wave had an orientation and trajectory to enable a free shot at the core columns after passing through the external shell. The rest of the debris was hindered by the floor slab, the truss matix, and 67 tons of office contents.
Also, the energy was not applied as a single impulse but rather spread out over time (~0.5 seconds). This further reduces the potential damage. For example: two simultaneous impacts with a combined energy equivalent to the failure energy will fail the column. However, the same two impacts a second apart will not fail the column. The question remains how close together the impacts need to be to fail the column. Nonetheless, a continuous wave of debris over 0.5 seconds is much different than a single impact with equivalent energy.
A significant portion of the energy available to be applied to the core was the impacting fuel mass. Liquid is much less effective at momentum or energy transfer. In fact NIST concluded that the fuel could not fail core columns.
In favor of your argument, the average core column cross-sectional area was around 0.48 m^2 in WTC1.
I'll work a little on these issues with the actual core size data and get back to you.
SpaceMonkeyZero
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,284
A Republican, who are known for their fast talking, couldn't do it in 3 minutes!