Frank Greening Refuted Easily

[Horatius]

...let me ask you this, after the top section is crushed, where does the mass go? it certainly isnt gone

thats right, it continues down, continuing to destroy everything below it

That right there is the big problem. Ace-baby doesn't agree with this. He thinks all the mass goes "poof" and vanishes from the problem.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That right there is the big problem. Ace-baby doesn't agree with this. He thinks all the mass goes "poof" and vanishes from the problem.

ironically his antimatter capsules could do this, lol

or negative matter (which i think violates the laws of physics, but for TS1+2=4 it'd just be par for the course)

 

[tsig]

You guys can go look at the actual videos of WTC1. What you will discover is that the "collapse" begins like a standard controlled demolition of a 14 story building. It fails at floor 96. 97 and all above come down to 96. Then 98 comes down to 96. Then 99 comes down to 96. Then 100 comes down to 96.

During this time, the stucture below 96 does not move an inch. Only after the upper 14 floors are about half their original height does the next phase begin.

This is exactly the opposite of what Greening imagines.

Greenings language is clear. He means that the top block goes all the way down to the ground. He has to mean that. His theory requires that the mass is accumulating. Utterly divorced from reality.

Here, all three of these videos show it clearly.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-demolition-1.avi
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-demolition-2.avi
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-demolition-3.avi

looks nothing at all like a controlled demolition

 

[einsteen]

Isn't that what you guys call strawman ? Where did he say that mass is lost ?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

You guys can go look at the actual videos of WTC1. What you will discover is that the "collapse" begins like a standard controlled demolition of a 14 story building. It fails at floor 96. 97 and all above come down to 96. Then 98 comes down to 96. Then 99 comes down to 96. Then 100 comes down to 96.

During this time, the stucture below 96 does not move an inch. Only after the upper 14 floors are about half their original height does the next phase begin.

which, ironically, is exactly what youd expect the WTC to do

the impact floors were weakened (remember those huge planes that slammed into them?) so its perfectly reasonable that they would fail before the intact floor below them would

This is exactly the opposite of what Greening imagines.

greening wasnt accounting for existing damage, remember hes just describing a collapse mechanism for the lay person (although it seems you are even more lay that he anticipated)

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Isn't that what you guys call strawman ? Where did he say that mass is lost ?

hes said it in other threads, his stance is that the top of the towers "disintegrated" (check his sig) and therefore could not crush the rest of the building

 

[einsteen]

Maybe TS1234 wants to say the following (using classical mechanics):

In a closed system mass is conserved, lets call that domain D, then divide D in D1 and D2 and let D1 represent the domain of the original building, then we still have mass(D)=mass(D1)+mass(D2), but in general also
mass(D2)<mass(D)

Of course this is a kind of Jusy Wood notation but the idea should be clear

 

[tsig]

Maybe TS1234 wants to say the following (using classical mechanics):

In a closed system mass is conserved, lets call that domain D, then divide D in D1 and D2 and let D1 represent the domain of the original building, then we still have mass(D)=mass(D1)+mass(D2), but in general also
mass(D2)<mass(D)

Of course this is a kind of Jusy Wood notation but the idea should be clear

gibberish instead of math.

In a closed sysem E+gravity=fall

 

[Anti-sophist]

No, AS, I have explained why Greening's model fails. It fails because it requires accumulating mass, which is at odds with observed reality.

Show me how the difference from reality to the model changes his prediction. You have utterly failed to demonstrate this.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

gibberish instead of math.

In a closed sysem E+gravity=fall

i think what einsteen is saying is "im trying to sound smart" speak for "some of the mass was ejected from the towers"

however when you compare the amount of mass present vs the failure point of the floors the ejected mass becomes negligible

 

[einsteen]

Defaultdotxbe, how much mass is lost during the collapse process ?

1) in the beginning 100% is available (t=0)

2) now the collapse is over, what percentage of mass is still above the footprint ?

What is the official value ? Let's make it fair for you and you can take the value when the collapse wave hits the floor (t=T)

 

[Horatius]

His model requires the mass to accumulate, floor by floor. He does not allow for mass going outside the footprint. He does not allow for mass becoming pulverized. His model and his hypothesis are directly contradicted by observational data. Data beats imagination.

For his collapse model to be useful, it only requires some of the mass to accumulate. He assumes 100% accumulation as a simplifying assumption, but even with a lower, but non-zero accumulation, it can still be a valid model.

You need to remember that you are the only one who thinks 90%+ of the mass is ejected outside of the footprint. I'm not sure how much is accumulated over the footprint during the collapse, but I'm prtty sure it's more than that. If you want to refute his model, you need to show what percentage of ejection renders the collapse impossible, and then clearly show such an amount of ejection.

And, just to short circuit you: Posting your "High Res Hunt" photo doesn't count as "clearly showing".

 

[Belz...]

Then, says Greening, the top block, now sitting on top of the pile of rubble, collapses floor by floor from the bottom up. Stage B.

Clearly, as shown in the gif, the top block begins collapsing from the bottom up.

Huh ? It's a block. It's collapsing. What's your contention, here ?

The reason is that he needs the mass to accumulate on the way down in order to continue the collapse.

Are ALL CTers telepaths ?

What you will discover is that the "collapse" begins like a standard controlled demolition of a 14 story building. It fails at floor 96. 97 and all above come down to 96. Then 98 comes down to 96. Then 99 comes down to 96. Then 100 comes down to 96.

You've got good eyes.

Data beats imagination.

And reality beats idiots.

 

[Loss Leader]

What you will discover is that the "collapse" begins like a standard controlled demolition of a 14 story building. It fails at floor 96. 97 and all above come down to 96. Then 98 comes down to 96. Then 99 comes down to 96. Then 100 comes down to 96.

A standard demolition that begins 4/5 of the way up a building? What exactly is standard about destroying the top 14 floors of a building and then having it collapse top-down?

During this time, the stucture below 96 does not move an inch. Only after the upper 14 floors are about half their original height does the next phase begin.

Even if what you say is true, how does the compression of the top floors to half their height change their mass? I can make a little tinfoil hat and then compress it into a ball, but it will still have the same mass. Thus, the energy that it can generate will remain the same.

However, what you say about the top 14 floors being compressed to half their height and the rest of the building not moving an inch is false. It is false for the following reason:

YOU DO NOT HAVE X-RAY VISION.

You have no idea what is going on behind the skin of the building. In fact, the towers collapsed from the core outward. Instead of a steel skeleton, the towers had floors tethered to a central core. As the core collapsed, it pulled the building in on itself. It also damaged the steel skin of the building last.

This means two things: One, the floors were not "compressed" to half their height as you claim. They were pulled in and down so that they sagged well below the 96th floor line before they appeared to cross that line from the outside.

Two: Most of the mass of the building remained with the building. Drywall, dust, papers, some concrete and heaven knows what else produced huge dust clouds, but the mass of the building was preserved during most of the collapse.

Unless you can see through smoke, dust and steel, you cannot dispute this. I mean, you will dispute it but you'll be wrong.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Show me how the difference from reality to the model changes his prediction. You have utterly failed to demonstrate this.

For the third time, at least. Greening's model requires that the mass accumulates. 14 floors drops down one. Now 15 floors drop down one. Then 16 floors, etc.

We observe something totally different than that. We observe that, right from the beginning, very large quantities of matter are converted into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building. Once outside the footprint, this mass does not contribute to the "collapse". Even dust that remains above the footprint does not contribute much if anything, because its surface area-to-mass ratio becomes too large, and it is resisted by air to a significant degree.

 

[Pardalis]

Hi TS.

Please keep your hands out of your pants.

Thank you.

Carry on.

 

[uk_dave]

TS,

Don't pay no mind to Pardalis.....

Your hands in your pants is probably the safest position you could adopt.... for everyone's sake.

But then, you knew that already.

 

[Pardalis]

OK, just be sure to wash your hands after you're done, TS.

Let's keep this forum sanitary.

 

[Loss Leader]

We observe that, right from the beginning, very large quantities of matter are converted into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building.

No, we do not observe that. We observe that some quantity of matter was ejected outside the footprint. As regards the quantity of such matter, we cannot know.

Even dust that remains above the footprint does not contribute much if anything, because its surface area-to-mass ratio becomes too large, and it is resisted by air to a significant degree.

No, that makes no sense. If the top floors were compressed the thing that was most squeezed out was air. The dust, in the compressed top floors, would have exactly the same effect as if it were solid. There would be no air inside the colapsed floors to slow it down.

Demonstrate this by dropping a hundred pound sandbag on your head.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

A standard demolition that begins 4/5 of the way up a building? What exactly is standard about destroying the top 14 floors of a building and then having it collapse top-down?

If you imagine the ground is at the 96th floor of WTC1, The behavior of the top 14 floors during the first several seconds of "collapse" is very much like a standard demolition, yes, absolutey.

Even if what you say is true, how does the compression of the top floors to half their height change their mass?

For the forth time, at least. Most if not all of the mass appears to be pulverized and ejected outside the footprint, making it unavailable to push downwards on the structure.

Most of the mass of the building remained with the building. Drywall, dust, papers, some concrete and heaven knows what else produced huge dust clouds, but the mass of the building was preserved during most of the collapse.

Unless you can see through smoke, dust and steel, you cannot dispute this.

Listen carefully counselor. After the smoke and dust cleared, the mass was gone. It did not "remain with the building" as you imagine. If it remained with the building, we would be able to see it. Big piles of it. But we do not.

Instead, when the smoke and dust cleared, we had obliteration. We had perimeter columns shredded and thrown all over hell, almost no sign of the core structure of either tower, positively no sign of a floor assembly anywhere. There was, however, 1"-2" of dust covering a couple of square miles, at least. This amount of dust accounts for the missing mass at ground zero.