Momentum Transfer in WTC

[Gravy]

I don't believe this is Gordon Ross. He is not sufficiently familiar with Ross's papers.

No, Ross has posted here under his own name.

 

[R.Mackey]

No, Ross has posted here under his own name.

Really? Strange that he would do so, and then not defend his own work. As user brumsen told me by PM, he specifically invited Ross here to do just that.

 

[Gravy]

Really? Strange that he would do so, and then not defend his own work. As user brumsen told me by PM, he specifically invited Ross here to do just that.

He only defended himself against the accusation that he was a "peer reviewer" of Greening's paper: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1839052&postcount=1511

 

[Kent1]

AFAIK, no analysis was done of how much concrete was reduced to what size. George Pataki, who works in Albany, did not spend significant time down in the rubble pile.

Now, there was about 60,000,000 pounds of gypsum drywall in the towers. (at 19% sulfur content, that's 11.4 million pounds of sulfur...something smells like rotten eggs, Steven Jones). What do you think happened to it? Which do you think pulverized faster and finer, the concrete or the drywall? How about the 6,000,000 pounds of ceiling tiles and the millions of pounds of fire insulation? Which pulverized faster and finer those or the concrete?

Please do some research on what a pyroclastic flow is. Hint: "Pyro."

No, it doesn't, and you'll learn that arguing from incredulity ("It couldn't happen because I don't believe it could happen") is dealt with swiftly and savagely by the JREF ninjas here.
Most went down, some went out. Here's a question: if most everything turned to dust, what comprised the 1.6 billion pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted on conveyor belts for evidence and remains at Fresh Kills landfill?

Here's a related post of mine, with a report from someone who did spend months in the pile, on what the rubble looked like to him: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1902661&postcount=20

I apologize for not having the link to this handy. Maybe someone can remember where it came from. IIRC, this museum display shows 8 tower floors compacted to four feet high.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87904503614d293a4.jpg[/qimg]

The PBS link has a guy talking about 14 floors compressed into 8 feet.
Under the demo dave link.
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/videostories/index.html

Here is some photos of basement pancaking that occured during the collapse.
This is in the bathtub. It can also be seen under the Slurry Wall Animation video on the PBS link.
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html

 

[Mercutio]

I apologize for not having the link to this handy. Maybe someone can remember where it came from. IIRC, this museum display shows 8 tower floors compacted to four feet high.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87904503614d293a4.jpg[/qimg]

NPR story on the proposed Ground Zero memorial site.

 

[T.A.M.]

Sorry I am nost posting anything relivant, but I am busy listening, and learning...not a bad debate so far. Hoping to get more into the finer points soon.

TAM

 

[pmurray]

Next, there was about 100,000 tons of concrete per tower, which is about equal to the mass of the steel. Regardless, It appears almost everything besides the steel was rendered into fine powder. Otherwise, where is it?

Why is this surprising? When something that heavy falls that far, it releases a hell of a lot of energy. Lets put it the other way - if someone thinks that explosives were used, how much explosive would it take to render that much concrete into powder?

Lets put it another way again - how much explosive would it take to lift all the material in the WTC towers up to the height that it was at prior to the collapse? Because that's how much gravitational potential energy was released when it fell. So, yes - a godawful load of concrete and steel falling from a godawful height is enough to powder concrete.

Look at it yet another way - If you took the elevator up to the roof of the WTC and dropped a cinderblock off the side, what would happen to that cinderblock when it hits the ground?

The problem with the WTC collapse is that it is outside our experience to see something that big fall. Our everyday intuitions about how objects behave under gravity are misleading.

 

[Loss Leader]

Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized.

Mackey, I will study your critique of Ross. On first read, I got to the false statement about the floor trusses and stopped.

I don't know what this proves, but here's a whole article on the entire debris-sorting process. They've found all sorts of things in the rubble at ground zero.

http://www.epa.gov/region02/demolition/casestud.htm

 

[Gravy]

I don't know what this proves, but here's a whole article on the entire debris-sorting process. They've found all sorts of things in the rubble at ground zero.

http://www.epa.gov/region02/demolition/casestud.htm

Yes, that's an excellent article. There's one glaring typo in it, though: "The debris recovery effort hit the 1.1 million-ton mark Friday - and there's 400,000 million tons of World Trade Center rubble to go until the job is finished in either April or May."

 

[Kent1]

I don't know what this proves, but here's a whole article on the entire debris-sorting process. They've found all sorts of things in the rubble at ground zero.

http://www.epa.gov/region02/demolition/casestud.htm

Ironicly enough it looks like Jones may have some large concrete (w/ other debris) sandwiched together in his paper. Here is a large photo.
Lets see if this link works.
http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/43ecf281m36083ba3/bc/My+Documents/concrete_.jpg?BCFH3AFBkieWF.6m

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Gravy has given us a picture of a chunk of something inside a room somewhere that appears to be concrete, and might weigh, oh, 1 ton. Assuming it is from WTC, this represents on the order of 1/100,000 of the concrete, and zero of anything else. Where is the rest of it?

Wong, if you wish to consider the energy imparted by a falling mass onto something else, you must consider surface area to mass ratio, and air resistance. A 10 pound brick falling 1000 feet will take a person's head off. 10 lbs of fine dust will not.

This is not particularly relevant to the present discussion. Observe any of the photos and videos of the twin towers. Huge amounts of very dense dust along with chunks of steel and aluminum is being projected sideways, even upwards, and is obviously does not "ricochet" off of anything.

Mackey, where is your evidence that concrete ricocheted?

Then observe this photo

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_aerialb.jpg

and tell me where all the macro concrete, or macro anything is

 

[steve s]

Truthseeker, are you suggesting that the concrete floor slabs were wired with explosives, in addition to the vertical steel columns? Don't you think the people who worked in the WTC would have noticed that they were tripping over thousands of pounds of explosives and miles of det cord?

And please answer Apathoid's question about how much explosives it would take to reduce 220 concrete floor slabs to dust.

And please name one other controlled demolition in which all the floor slabs were wired with charges.

Steve S.

 

[Gravy]

Ironicly enough it looks like Jones may have some large concrete (w/ other debris) sandwiched together in his paper. Here is a large photo.
Lets see if this link works.
http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/43ecf281m36083ba3/bc/My+Documents/concrete_.jpg?BCFH3AFBkieWF.6m

I've been meaning to look into that for ages. Jones claims it's solidified molten metal. It sure looks to me like a mass of concrete with rebar sticking out of it and some metal stuck to it. Does anyone know where it is, or was? Possibly in the same storage area as the 4-story section in the NPR link?

(And what's that cat toy doing hanging from it?)

 

[Gravy]

Gravy has given us a picture of a chunk of something inside a room somewhere that appears to be concrete, and might weigh, oh, 1 ton. Assuming it is from WTC, this represents on the order of 1/100,000 of the concrete, and zero of anything else. Where is the rest of it?

Did you check these links from Kent1 (whose posts are also must-reads):

The PBS link has a guy talking about 14 floors compressed into 8 feet.
Under the demo dave link.
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/videostories/index.html

Here is some photos of basement pancaking that occured during the collapse.
This is in the bathtub. It can also be seen under the Slurry Wall Animation video on the PBS link.
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html

 

[Gravy]

Then observe this photo

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_aerialb.jpg

and tell me where all the macro concrete, or macro anything is

Are you out of your freaking skull? That's a photo from an AIRCRAFT.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

steve s asked

And please answer Apathoid's question about how much explosives it would take to reduce 220 concrete floor slabs to dust.

Well, according to NIST logic, not very much. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.

I (and Gordon Ross) happen to think that is absurd. But if you agree with NIST's findings, then this it follows logically.

 

[R.Mackey]

Gravy has given us a picture of a chunk of something inside a room somewhere that appears to be concrete, and might weigh, oh, 1 ton. Assuming it is from WTC, this represents on the order of 1/100,000 of the concrete, and zero of anything else. Where is the rest of it?

That's an example, son. Check the other links for the debris piles.

Wong, if you wish to consider the energy imparted by a falling mass onto something else, you must consider surface area to mass ratio, and air resistance. A 10 pound brick falling 1000 feet will take a person's head off. 10 lbs of fine dust will not.

False analogy. The WTC debris was not released in a free-stream. Pulverization happened after grinding against each other, not before, as in your "brick on head" example.

This is not particularly relevant to the present discussion. Observe any of the photos and videos of the twin towers. Huge amounts of very dense dust along with chunks of steel and aluminum is being projected sideways, even upwards, and is obviously does not "ricochet" off of anything.

There's so much going on that you can't say one way or the other. This is not evidence.

Mackey, where is your evidence that concrete ricocheted?

If it didn't, then it would be contained in the footprint. How else is it supposed to get launched to the side?

Then observe this photo

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_aerialb.jpg

and tell me where all the macro concrete, or macro anything is

I don't think you know what that picture represents.

TruthSeeker, I'm about done with you. You haven't brought anything to the table. You have repeatedly refused to answer my questions. You manufactured this "50% of the mass into 100 micron dust" out of thin air. And then you aggressively, and prematurely, question my credibility.

Unless you decide to do as you claimed, and stick to the science and math, I don't believe I have anything else to say to you.

 

[steve s]

steve s asked

Well, according to NIST logic, not very much. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.

I (and Gordon Ross) happen to think that is absurd. But if you agree with NIST's findings, then this it follows logically.

So you're saying that the floor slabs were wired with explosives, yes or no. And if yes, please see my questions in my prior post.

Steve S.

 

[Gravy]

I (and Gordon Ross) happen to think that is absurd.

you'll learn that arguing from incredulity ("It couldn't happen because I don't believe it could happen") is dealt with swiftly and savagely by the JREF ninjas here.

Not a good start.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter.

I ask again: your source for that contention?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'll wait. Please, anyone, link us to photo or video evidence of macroscopic anything (besides metal) at ground zero. It appears that there was very very little.

murray suggested we

Look at it yet another way - If you took the elevator up to the roof of the WTC and dropped a cinderblock off the side, what would happen to that cinderblock when it hits the ground?

a) the cinder block would shatter, but not powderize.
b) this is not particularly relevant, because the twin towers turned to powder in mid air, not when stuff hit the ground. Please review the evidence.