• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC Collapse Simulator - DEMOLITION PROOF.....

Baylor

Philosopher
B
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
8,394
Says the title of these videos that claim to debunk Dr. Greening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI540LMFj2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt0G4iOPkC8

(Embedding is a pain in the #@$.)

These videos were hot among the YouTube Truthers, (YouTruthers) for a while, until the videos' author got suspended. She (yes it is a she) had her fellow YouTruthers upload her videos, and is currently available on different channels. The original author is back, posting under a sock puppet.

I am not trained in energetics, so I don't know exactly what she is trying to say (besides, of course, "proof" of explosives.) One of the now defunct videos was titled "Proof of no resistance" and yet you could clearly see the debris outpacing the rest of the structure.

If someone can explain how she has "debunked" Dr. Greening, it would be greatly appreciated. She posted her calculations here.

I am also about to release a paper detailing specifically why the paper released by Greening is a total distortion of the truth. The simulator allows the usage of values calculated by Greening, but rather than state a value, and then NOT use it, as Greening does, the simulator includes ALL the identified energy sinks.

The paper will include a full rebuttal and a calculation of the true values involved. To illustrate, here are a few values which will be addressed:

“As we have noted before, the energy required to crush all of the concrete in one tower to 60 (pm) particles = 3.2 * 10^11 J which is only slightly less than the 5 * 10^11 J of kinetic energy available”

PE (FEMA) = 4 * 10^11 = 400000000000
PE (greening) = 5 * 10^11 = 500000000000

PE (greening) = 10 ^ 12 = 1000000000000 (HE STATES THE AVAILABLE IN THE QUOTE ABOVE, THEN DOUBLES IT !!!)

Energy to break supports (greening) = 6.29 * 10 ^ 8 * 94 = 59126000000 (ignoring stage 2)
Energy to break supports (greening) = 1 * 10 ^ 11 = 100000000000

Energy to crush concrete (greening 60) = 2.9 * 1000000000 * 110 = 319000000000
Energy to crush concrete (greening 60) = 3.2 * 10^11 = 320000000000
Energy to crush concrete (greening 100) = 1.9 * 10^11 = 190000000000

These values are pointer for reference, but the value I want to highlight specifically here is this, from quoted values in the paper:

Greening states the AVAILABLE energy to crush concrete on first floor impact = 2.4 * 10^9

In subsequent statements he IGNORES the FACT that the 2.4 is the INITIAL value and decreases on each floor, even though he shows a calculation showing the decreased value for the next floor impact. (2.3)

Simply multiplying the value 2.4 for each floor = 2.4 * 10^9 * 94 = 225600000000

Assuming proportional reduction (1st floor = 2.4, 2nd floor = 2.3, we have…factor 0.958333… per floor) These are not the exact values, but I’m simply highlighting the fact that the available energy decreases and that it is not constant…the sim and paper include full and precise values, but are computationally expensive to show here in isolation.

94 2.4, 93 2.3, 92 2.2, 91 2.1, 90 2.0, 89 1.9, 88 1.86, 87 1.78, 86 1.71, 85 1.64, 84 1.57, 83 …., 80 1.21, 70 0.79, 60 0.52, 50 0.34, 40 0.22, 30 0.14, 20 0.095, 10 0.062, 5 0.05, 4 0.048, 3 0.046, 2 0.044, 1 0.042

total = 56.6 * 10^9 = 56600000000 J

To summarise:

320000000000 J (Energy used to crush concrete)
225600000000 J (Energy available if we IGNORE the FACT that the available energy decreases)
56600000000 J (Energy available by the method above)

By EITHER method, the energy required to crush the concrete is more than the available energy.

An over simplification, but I don’t want to spam this comment section. I’ll ensure the paper is made available to you when I complete it.

Look at Greenings paper in the meantime, and note the assumptions made, and also that values which have already been quantified are then not included in subsequent calculations.
Click to expand...

Greenings Paper on WTC Energetics

Page 15

* The value E1 stated is Greenings calculation for the energy required to break the support structures, per floor = 0.6GJ

* The value stated for the energy to crush concrete to 60micron avg. per floor = 2.9GJ

* Elsewhere in the paper Greening cites a value for crushing concrete to a lesser extent, 100micron avg. per floor = 1.9GJ

Page 16

Greening shows a graph of Collapse Time against the value of E1, but IGNORES the value cited for crushing concrete, which OBVIOUSLY should be included.

Q: What is the collapse time from Greenings graph, if even the lower value for crushing concrete is included, as it should be ?

This means adding the concrete sink to E1…

E1 = 0.6 + 1.9 = 2.5

A: The value is off the scale of the graph.

The graph only goes up to 2.4 for very good reason.
If the value is 2.5, then by Greenings own calculation methods, collapse would fail at initiation due to insufficient energy being available.

Now I wonder WHY Greening decided to IGNORE the concrete crush energy sink in the value used to plot the graph ?

Make up your own mind.
Click to expand...

You can find the rest of her arguments here.
 
Is she assuming that all of the concrete on every floor had to be crushed in order for the collapse to continue? That seems clearly wrong, as the concrete wasn't doing much if anything to hold the building together - it was just there to give a flat floor surface for the building contents.
 
So, by analogy, if my house is to collapse every single piece of lumber needs to be reduced to sawdust?

Somehow I don't think my house is that resilient.
 
Quite interesting - assuming of course that the upper, red part, with its superstrong bottom floor is rigid and undestructible all the time and that perfect alignment between upper part and lower structure columns is maintained at every impact and that upper part lands on rubble (not included) afterwards.

Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.

And the upper part bottom floor is not superstrong. It fails to destroy the 'spire' of core columns that is seen.

In my world the upper part should just bounce once against the lower structure while local parts in contact fail and the the upper part would then get stuck up top.
 
Heiwa said:
In my world the upper part should just bounce once against the lower structure while local parts in contact fail and the the upper part would then get stuck up top.
Click to expand...

I suggest you start charging admission to "your" world because it sounds most entertaining in comparison to the "real" world.
 
Heiwa said:
Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.
Click to expand...

Drop a pencil - inclined at some angle to the horizontal - onto the edge of your kitchen table. It will be "ejected sideways" with absolutely no energy being "applied horizontally" in any active sense.

A snowplough pushing snow off the road whilst driving straight along the road would be another example.

I think the concept is known as "vectors".
 
Heiwa said:
Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.
Click to expand...



The first ever physics class I had, at the tender age of 10, was on levers. I guess you missed that basic class.
 
Travis said:
I suggest you start charging admission to "your" world because it sounds most entertaining in comparison to the "real" world.
Click to expand...

Well in fantasy world three strong steel structures (office towers) suddenly collapsed due to gravity only after being initiated by fire, which has never happened before and will never happen again. Luckily. So welcome to the real world. Admission is free. Tough times are comig up fast though, so be prepared. Soon many office towers will be empty as companies cannot afford to rent offices there and there will be no power to run the elevators and nobody wants to scale 50 floors in a stair case to go to the office. So what to do? Just start a fire up top and the whole tower collapses? Sorry, it does not work. But you can always try.
 
GlennB said:
Drop a pencil - inclined at some angle to the horizontal - onto the edge of your kitchen table. It will be "ejected sideways" with absolutely no energy being "applied horizontally" in any active sense.

A snowplough pushing snow off the road whilst driving straight along the road would be another example.

I think the concept is known as "vectors".
Click to expand...

Yes, yes - that's the real world (the pencil bounces off the kitchen table! If the kitchen table is horizontal is remains on the table).


In fantasy world the pencil either destroys the kitchen table or punches a hole in it due to gravity only.
 
Heiwa, boil some almonds and then squese them between your fingers.

Report back on wether they fly acros the room.
 
Toke said:
Heiwa, boil some almonds and then squese them between your fingers.

Report back on wether they fly acros the room.
Click to expand...

I didn't boil the almonds but applied a horizontal force on them as instructed and they moved (actually accelerated) sideways and I haven't seen them since. Yes, windows were open and there they went. Gravity could not do that. Boil the almonds, etc.
 
Heiwa said:
I didn't boil the almonds but applied a horizontal force on them as instructed and they moved (actually accelerated) sideways and I haven't seen them since. Yes, windows were open and there they went. Gravity could not do that. Boil the almonds, etc.
Click to expand...
What were the force vectors involved?

Come on, you're an engineer or something, this should be child's play for you.
 
PixyMisa said:
What were the force vectors involved?

Come on, you're an engineer or something, this should be child's play for you.
Click to expand...

The resulting force vector was horizontal = no gravity. I (or something) applied the force. Controlled Force Application; CFA (similar to CD).

It is amazing that some 911-liers suggest that gravity force vector works horizontally and pushes the walls of WTC1 sideways outwards 100+ meters!!

That only happens in fantasy world. In the real world gravity acts only vertically. Even Bazant agrees with that, but his world is just 1-D - a line down - crush down - and up - crush up. Nothing is ejected sideways. Actually Bazant suggests that the upper part and the ground are suddenly rigid and that the WTC1 structure between is just squeeezed like an almond that does not slip away (not possible in 1-D) but is chrushed down. By gravity alone. And when this crush down is terminated, the rigid ground rubble heap crush up the rigid upper part - by gravity. We are back into fantasyland.

Or did the WTC1 walls bounce on something - a slooping kitchen table? - and was ejected sideways. Or was it another force pushing sideways?

BTW - my lunch was pretty good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom