Steven Jones debates Leslie Robertson

Gravy said:
Of course. Thank you. I was looking at the first URL, which said MIT.
Click to expand...

Laith said:
Could you give me a calculation showing this? I can't find one.

I would suspect the collapse would dissipate in the sense of lateral loss of debris so when the thicker core columns were reched the collapse would stop.
Click to expand...
This is referenced in the NIST report and in Bazant's paper

pg 323 Northerwestern University
Roughly NIST agrees with the assessment of the tower's required structural capacity to absorb the released energy of the upper building section as it began to fall as an approximate lower bound. The likelihood of the falling building section aligning vertically with the column below was small, given the observed tilting, so that the required capacity would be greater if interaction with the floors was also considered, as pointed out in the study.

Bazant's 2006 version is located here.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/
ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

The subsequent progressive collapse was not simulated at NIST because its inevitability, once triggered by column buckling, had already been proven by Bazant and Zhou's (2002) comparison of kinetic energy to energy absorption capability.
 
Gravy said:
Piggy, the conclusions in that JOM article were superseded by those of the NIST study. NIST did not support the "pancake" collapse theory, which begins with the separation of floor trusses from walls. Instead, NIST concluded that the floors sagged, pulling the outer columns inward, which led to buckling and collapse. This is borne out by photos of the exterior walls bowing in, and by reports from helicopter pilots who reported the same.

NIST's FAQ page is handy to have when the CTs come knocking.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'd actually referred to the FAQ page in another thread, but didn't bookmark it. I'll do so now. The "pancake" language did bother me a bit, because I knew it was not the currently credited model and because on site film shows exterior walls bowing inward, but since the argument at hand concerned specifically whether lower structures could be "assumed" to be capable of arresting the momentum of the collapse, I figured that the distinction was irrelevant for the moment, since pancaking or no did not significantly affect the energy that would be impacting the lower floors.

My point was that total collapse was accepted by knowledgable people literally from day-one, and no subsequent analysis differed as far as whether the collapse could have been stopped by lower structures. But I do appreciate your point, that CTers will grasp at any inconsistency they can find, whether relevant or not.
 
All i can say is if that debate doesn't convince people that Dr Jones is a nutjob then nothing will. How far out of touch with reality are these people

:boggled:
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
My point was that total collapse was accepted by knowledgable people literally from day-one, and no subsequent analysis differed as far as whether the collapse could have been stopped by lower structures. But I do appreciate your point, that CTers will grasp at any inconsistency they can find, whether relevant or not.
Click to expand...

Well, there is one, but it's by Troother Gordon Ross, and his math is incorrect. Here again is Dr. Greening's work showing, not only does it collapse, but the timing is even about as expected. Ross and Greening trade shots at the (ahem) Journal of 911 Studies here. Ross gets the last word, unsurprising since he's on the editorial staff...

I have twice pointed out Ross's mistakes, both his original paper and his rebuttal to Greening, here and here in my conversations with Michiel Brumsen, a former Troother, and reasonable fellow.

So there you go. Besides the excellent work of Bazant and Zhou, some of us have done the math, and it's utterly credible that WTC 1 and 2 would have fallen precisely as they did. And, for the record, I have a Physics degree too. I'll see Steven Jones's credentials and raise him some actual work.

As I've always said, debates are not the best forums for discussion. The science is solid. It doesn't matter whether every single person on the side of logic knows every single detail. It can all be independently verified. There's nothing that has to happen in front of a live microphone.
 
delphi_ote said:
Can anyone imagine a scenario where the building would've stopped collapsing when it started? How would a structure designed to hold a certain stationary mass somehow stop a falling and undistributed mass (i.e. all the falling floors from above)? Unless the building fell in such a way that the top stories didn't collapse onto the bottom stories (which obviously isn't what we saw in the World Trade Center terrorist attack), sorry. Kinetic energy is clearly going to bring the whole damn thing down.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that if the collapse had started much much lower on the building then it is more likely that the collapse could stop due to the lessening of loading from above as the building is effectively 'shortened' by the partial collapse at low level, whereas a collapse which starts at the top can only gain momentum as the amount of falling material increases with each floor that fails.

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1070/

How embarassing! :D

There are some examples of demolition which haven't quite gone to plan.
 
uk_dave said:
I would suggest that if the collapse had started much much lower on the building then it is more likely that the collapse could stop due to the lessening of loading from above as the building is effectively 'shortened' by the partial collapse at low level, whereas a collapse which starts at the top can only gain momentum as the amount of falling material increases with each floor that fails.

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1070/

How embarassing! :D

There are some examples of demolition which haven't quite gone to plan.
Click to expand...
Wow. That was one seriously over-designed building! Thanks for sharing the link and the information. I asked if anyone could imagine a scenario, and clearly you could. :D
 
delphi_ote said:
Wow. That was one seriously over-designed building! Thanks for sharing the link and the information. I asked if anyone could imagine a scenario, and clearly you could. :D
Click to expand...

Not really, though. The collapse didn't stop below the fracture point there. A large chunk of the top (well, ok, all of it) remained intact, but nothing below the break point stopped its fall.
 
Piggy said:
Not really, though. The collapse didn't stop below the fracture point there. A large chunk of the top (well, ok, all of it) remained intact, but nothing below the break point stopped its fall.
Click to expand...
It's a different type of collapse, but it is a scenario which fits the description of a building which "stopped collapsing when it started." I just needed to be a bit more specific in my question. :D
 
I highly endorse this debate. Steven Jones mopped the floor with Les Robertson. Please everyone listen to how silly and indefensible the official story is. Please listen to this.
 
uk_dave said:
I would suggest that if the collapse had started much much lower on the building then it is more likely that the collapse could stop due to the lessening of loading from above as the building is effectively 'shortened' by the partial collapse at low level, whereas a collapse which starts at the top can only gain momentum as the amount of falling material increases with each floor that fails.

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1070/

How embarassing! :D

There are some examples of demolition which haven't quite gone to plan.
Click to expand...

Ah, but did you spot the nice little pyroclastic flow ? :D
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I highly endorse this debate. Steven Jones mopped the floor with Les Robertson. Please everyone listen to how silly and indefensible the official story is. Please listen to this.
Click to expand...

Les Robertson wasn't part of the investigation...

Is this how desperate the 9/11 Deniers have go to? They attack people NOT EVEN RELATED to the investigation?
 
What I don't get and didn't get when I saw this being bandied around some CT boards..... What would possess Robertson to go on radio in Colorado with Doctor Thermate?

I think he once answered a Gravy enquiry with a two line email; seemed rather distant from the discussion, if not just displeased (but he was good enough to respond). Has he been seen anywhere else taking up the anti-CT torch?
 
Laith said:
He had to leave because of people objecting. Academic freedom is dead.

What is academic freedom? Paying out the nose just to have some professor present unfounded theories, junk science and nonsense--then have the nerve to GRADE you on his "facts"?

It appears to me that academic *accountability* is alive and well, at least in one university.
Click to expand...
 
Foolmewunz said:
What I don't get and didn't get when I saw this being bandied around some CT boards..... What would possess Robertson to go on radio in Colorado with Doctor Thermate?
Click to expand...
No idea. He may not have known Jones' premise, or may have thought that a common sense approach would be sufficient.

I think he once answered a Gravy enquiry with a two line email; seemed rather distant from the discussion, if not just displeased (but he was good enough to respond). Has he been seen anywhere else taking up the anti-CT torch?
Click to expand...
I haven't had any contact with him. He seems to have been pretty busy designing tall buildings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom