OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Java Man]

You really ought to try using the search function. (The google-powered one is easiest in my opinion)

Gosh! Why have the forum at all then? Let's just google it! Why should truthers bring any models or theories in? Why not just let you google it too?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Maybe you can point to us the page where that is explained. More so I'd be interested at what stopped the rotation. As something that is rotating has a tendency to keep rotating. How was the tilt neutralized?

The section of the building building fell apart as it would be expected to do.

 

[alienentity]

Carlitos, we are measuring WTC1.

..

Yeah but you have to admit that by ignoring WTC 2 you're leaving out a tantalizing opportunity to compare the failure modes.

How could one possibly claim to be deeply studying the collapse data while ignoring 50% of it? I don't follow the logic.
Seems suspiciously as though you're avoiding WTC 2 because it's the more obvious example which more readily falsifies the controlled demolition hypothesis.

But that's just my skeptical side again I guess.

 

[alienentity]

Well I don't know if I would jump to the conclusion of "no tilt" just now. Any tilt measured would quickly disprove your argument. Maybe you can create a model that takes into consideration rotational momentum of such a big bloc, gravity and try to estimate the possible tilt scenarios.

It would also be interesting to see how much momentum the 8 degree tilt proposed by NIST would have imposed on the structure and from there try to explain why it fell directly downward and didn't keep tilting and fall over the side.

Don't you also find it interesting that WTC 2 fell in a significantly different way, at least in terms of initial conditions?

What do you think of Greening's paper?

 

[Java Man]

Don't you also find it interesting that WTC 2 fell in a significantly different way, at least in terms of initial conditions?

What do you think of Greening's paper?

Been out of town for the best part of last week so I'm just getting up to speed on past posts. Haven't read Greening's paper, hopefully I'll have some time later on.

I do find it odd that two different initial conditions lead to very similar collapses. It seems like CD induced falls are a very common phenomenon in nature. The seem to occur naturally. This could put some pressure on the French and their patent. It's hard to patent trivial things or of common knowledge.

 

[alienentity]

It seems like CD induced falls are a very common phenomenon in nature. The seem to occur naturally./QUOTE]

LOL. Love a good paradox.

 

[carlitos]

Gosh! Why have the forum at all then? Let's just google it! Why should truthers bring any models or theories in? Why not just let you google it too?

I was referring to the search function on this forum. When you click "Search" it presents the following window. I find the google option at the bottom to be easiest.


My bad on the wrong WTC tower tilt, but the question is a valid one. Why study one of the towers to the 100th degree of detail, and ignore the other one? This is where Tony Szamboti always amazes me with his missing jolt / missing tilt analysis.

 

[Java Man]

What do you think of Greening's paper?

I find Greening's paper to be very interesting and addresses quite a few points I've hadn't seen data for. Yet in the fall he doesn't take into consideration ever stronger structures as the debris get to lower levels. His energy loss is constant through the whole fall.

 

[TraneWreck]

I do find it odd that two different initial conditions lead to very similar collapses. It seems like CD induced falls are a very common phenomenon in nature. The seem to occur naturally. This could put some pressure on the French and their patent. It's hard to patent trivial things or of common knowledge.

Remember, Java Man isn't a truther, he just plays one on this website.

Very convincing. You have the silliness down pat.

 

[Java Man]

What do you think of Greening's paper?

What I find rather daunting and I'd like you hear your interpretation of it is the energy required to pulverize the concrete in one tower. According to the document that would be 3.2 E 11 J

or 2.9 E 9 J per floor.

Yet the energy available at the drop of the 14 floors down one floor is 23.4 E8 J or 2.34 E9 J Which is less than the required to pulverize one slab. So the energy required to pulverize one floor to 60um is less than that held in the top 14 floors that fell one floor on the initiation of the collapse.

How do you explain that?

 

[carlitos]

Source for the above numbers?

 

[dafydd]

Source for the above numbers?

A fundamental source.

 

[Java Man]

Source for the above numbers?

Although I'm sure you could google it, I'll post it for the benefit of the conversation.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Page 8

we have the kinetic energy before impact,
Ti (WTC 1) = 14 x 1.67 E8 J = 23.4 E 8 J

Page 24 Appendix B

One tower contains 48,000,000 kg of concrete, hence energy to crush all of this concrete
to 60 um particles:
= 48,000,000 x 6700 J = 3.2 E11 J

The last value divided by 110 gives the number I published in my post.

Note: 3.2E11 J is equivalent to the detonation of a W48 155mm nuclear shell (72 tons TNT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

 

[beachnut]

Which pretty much summarizes your modus-operandi. When you can't disprove a theory you base your discrediting tactic on loud talk.

You think all the concrete turned to dust? How much was wallboard and insulation?

Major Tom has nothing on 911 but nonsense, a good reason why he can't publish his findings. Why not publish his findings for him? Take action.

Publish your nonsense; make me eat my words and show me how scientific your ideas on 911 are.
Here is a list of some journals; go wild, publish your ideas on 911 and find out what the real world thinks about your nonsense.

Be loud! PUBLISH NOW! Doubt you will do more than fail and post more nonsense on dust.
http://www.911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html
You have no clue what you are talking about.

Can't wait for Major Tom to publish his outstanding work on 911.

 

[Myriad]

What I find rather daunting and I'd like you hear your interpretation of it is the energy required to pulverize the concrete in one tower. According to the document that would be 3.2 E 11 J

or 2.9 E 9 J per floor.

Yet the energy available at the drop of the 14 floors down one floor is 23.4 E8 J or 2.34 E9 J Which is less than the required to pulverize one slab. So the energy required to pulverize one floor to 60um is less than that held in the top 14 floors that fell one floor on the initiation of the collapse.

How do you explain that?

Drop a glass on a concrete floor.

You'll notice that almost all of the available potential energy of the glass (the mass of the glass * g * its height above the floor) is converted into kinetic energy on the way down. The small remainder is used up to overcome air friction.

So, when the glass reaches the floor, it has no energy left to fracture it. It therefore cannot break. Right?

If you can figure out why I'm wrong about the glass never breaking, you might be able to figure out where all the energy to fracture the concrete came from.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[carlitos]

Although I'm sure you could google it, I'll post it for the benefit of the conversation.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Page 8


Page 24 Appendix B



The last value divided by 110 gives the number I published in my post.

Note: 3.2E11 J is equivalent to the detonation of a W48 155mm nuclear shell (72 tons TNT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

Thank you. I don't have time to do the math right now, but you do realize that the concrete wasn't crushed to 60 um particles, right?

 

[Java Man]

You think all the concrete turned to dust and can't do physics to save you from the delusions of CD and other failed moronic ideas on 911. Over 8 years to solve 911, and you failed.

Major Tom has nothing on 911 and this is why he can't publish his findings. Why no publish his findings for him and find out his ideas are delusions, and nonsense.

Prove me wrong, publish your nonsense; make me eat my words and show me how scientific your ideas on 911 are.
Here is a list of some journals; go wild, publish your ideas on 911 and find out what the real world thinks about your nonsense.

Be loud! PUBLISH NOW! Doubt you will do more than fail and post more nonsense on dust.
http://www.911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html
You have no clue what you are talking about.

Can't wait for Major Tom to publish his outstanding work on 911.

I rest my case.

 

[Toke]

What I find rather daunting and I'd like you hear your interpretation of it is the energy required to pulverize the concrete in one tower. According to the document that would be 3.2 E 11 J

or 2.9 E 9 J per floor.

Yet the energy available at the drop of the 14 floors down one floor is 23.4 E8 J or 2.34 E9 J Which is less than the required to pulverize one slab. So the energy required to pulverize one floor to 60um is less than that held in the top 14 floors that fell one floor on the initiation of the collapse.

How do you explain that?

You mean you have number showing that there were not enough energy to pulverize all the concrete in the towers.
Ok.
There are plenty of picture of ground zero showing large chunks of concrete instead on a pile of dust with iron bits sticking out.

Now, where are you going with this?????

 

[beachnut]

I rest my case.

You will not publish your claims? Not a single 911 paper has been past the nonsense level, usually at the delusional level.

The dust claims are delusional too; you may want to avoid saying the concrete all turned to dust. Most the dust was wallboard and insulation. Why do you have the delusion of CD?

Will you help Major Tom publish his paper?

 

[Java Man]

Thank you. I don't have time to do the math right now, but you do realize that the concrete wasn't crushed to 60 um particles, right?

Right, obviously not. Some was smaller and some larger. Look at this for some info on that

http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/ojbs/ojbs9381-85.pdf

Page 4