Momentum Transfer in WTC

TruthSeeker1234

Banned
T
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
1,756
Consider Gordon Ross' paper:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
(remove space after h)

Frank Greening's attempted criticism:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_2_Greening.pdf
(remove space after h)
and Ross' reply to Greening:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_3_RossReply.pdf
(remove space after h)

NIST, of course, did not attempt to do any calculations showing the possibility that the upper part of a damaged tower could cause the phenomenon we observe in the videos (i.e. the shredding of the steel and near total-pulverization of all other matter into fine powder).

Thus it appears that, at present, Ross is the last word on the subject.

Can anyone provide a refutation of Ross? I am not interested in the planes, or the fires. I am only interested in seeing calculations that show the possibility that the upper part of a skyscraper can crush the lower part, and itself, under the force of gravity.

In fact, let's not limit it to skyscrapers. I'd like to see any example of any object or structure, made of any material(s), of any average density, of any size (say between 1 inch to 100 miles) which meets the following two critera:

1. The object or structure is able to stand up against the force of gravity and retain its shape (i.e. generally behaves as a solid, not a liquid or a gas) for at least a year.

2. As a result of damage, an upper part of the object falls down into the lower part, and using no other source of energy apart from gravity, at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Momentum transfer

I do not know why this was moved to "conspiracy theories" from "science and mathematics". I am not interested in any conspiracy theories on this thread. I am only interested in the science and math.

Thanks
 
I moved it. You can still discuss the science here. But it belongs in this sub-forum.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
a little disingenuous coming in here and complaining about where a post is moved, when your selected username clearly indicates that you are a "Truth" seeker (9/11 "Truth" movement). But if I am wrong, than please tell me that you believe the official story about 9/11 and i will apologize. Otherwise, your post belongs right where it still sits.

Don't worry, if it is debate over the "Ross" paper you want, i am sure you will get it here.

TAM
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I do not know why this was moved to "conspiracy theories" from "science and mathematics". I am not interested in any conspiracy theories on this thread. I am only interested in the science and math.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Yeah right, not with that screenname. Give me a break... :rolleyes:
 
Beat me to it.

What do you mean by "attempted" refutation? Greening is correct. Unless you're referring to how Ross, being on the board of editors of that "journal," is guaranteed the last word.
 
Momentum transfer

Mackey states
The floor trusses are either failed or intact -- if failed, the top of the column is no longer constrained, and is free to deflect to the sides;
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The 47 core columns were massively cross-braced, and not dependent on floor-trusses to constrain them.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
In fact, let's not limit it to skyscrapers. I'd like to see any example of any object or structure, made of any material(s), of any average density, of any size (say between 1 inch to 100 miles) which meets the following two critera:

1. The object or structure is able to stand up against the force of gravity and retain its shape (i.e. generally behaves as a solid, not a liquid or a gas) for at least a year.

2. As a result of damage, an upper part of the object falls down into the lower part, and using no other source of energy apart from gravity, at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter.
Click to expand...
On further inspection, it looks like you're not talking about Ross at all. All Ross's flawed whitepaper concerns is whether progressive collapse could initiate with a single floor. He deals only peripherally with the crumbling energy of other WTC materials.

I reject your challenge. Where do you get the idea that 50% of the mass of the WTC towers was "rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter?" This does not describe the debris seen after the collapses. What you've got here is a strawman.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Mackey states

Nonsense. The 47 core columns were massively cross-braced, and not dependent on floor-trusses to constrain them.
Click to expand...
Cross-braced, by the floor trusses. I thought that was obvious.

Please read completely before criticizing. I also had a follow-up addressing Ross's "rebuttal" to Greening, found here. Happy reading.
 
R.Mackey said:
Where do you get the idea that 50% of the mass of the WTC towers was "rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter?" This does not describe the debris seen after the collapses. What you've got here is a strawman.
Click to expand...

What weighs more 100lb of concrete or 100lb of concrete power 100 micron average diameter?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Consider Gordon Ross' paper:
at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter.
Click to expand...


Could anything short of a nuclear device do that?

No controlled demolition has ever turned half a building into powder, as far as I know.
 
kevin said:
What weighs more 100lb of concrete or 100lb of concrete power 100 micron average diameter?
Click to expand...
The latter weighs more... on the mind of a 9/11 denier. :D

TruthSeeker, if you really wish to have an intelligent, abuse-free scientific discussion here, I'm game. Just say the word.
 
You're correct that Ross does not get into the dissociation of the non-metallic mass of the towers. He has calculated that global collapse is not possible under the circumstance. Figuring in the other observaions, such as the pulverization, only makes the "gravity did it" explanation more absurd. I will make that a sepearate thread, and name it the "TruthSeeker Challenge". Perhaps there will be a reward.

Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river". I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"?

Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors?
 
Didn't NIST just clarify this?

NIST Smacking The Truthers Silly said:
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom