Frank Greening Refuted Easily

[TruthSeeker1234]

Frank Greening is divorced from reality. He imagines a scenario that is easily, thoroughly refuted by the the video evidence. Greening says:

We now apply this simple model to the WTC collapse. We assume that both
WTC building collapses began with an upper block of nfloors collapsing onto a series of
lower floors as in the “domino effect”. We shall refer to this process as the first stage of
collapse. For this stage, (see equation 1), we have an initial mass nmf falling onto the
floor below and becoming mass (n+1)mf. This new, enlarged, block of floors descends
with velocity v2= {n/(n+1)}v1through a distance hfat which point itstrikes the floor
below and becomes mass (n+2)mf moving at velocity {n/(n+2)}v2, and so on. This
implies a first stage collapse sequence for WTC 1: all floors from 110 to 96 (= 14 floors)
collapse onto floor 95; all these floors collapse onto 94 93 92 and so on to 32 
1; for WTC 2 all floors from 110 to 81 (= 29 floors) follow the same sequential process.
At the end of each of these collapse events we envision a second stage of collapse
involving the destruction of the upper block of the WTC buildings: for WTC 1 the 97th
floor, plus all floors above, collapse onto the pile of rubble topped by floor 96; this is
followed by floor 98 (plus all floors above) collapsing onto floor 97 and so on. The 2nd
stage sequence for WTC 1 ends with floor 110 collapsing on to all lower floors. For
WTC 2 the 2ndstage involves floor 82 collapsing onto floor 81, followed by 83, 84, etc,
collapsing on to the pile of rubble until floor 110 collapses onto all lower floors.

Yo, Frank. Look at this. Your "Stage 2" begins before "Stage 1".

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/WTC1_redLines.gif

[Garb]

Point being?

[Mancman]

Yo, Frank. Look at this. Your "Stage 2" begins before "Stage 1".

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/WTC1_redLines.gif

Therefore, the collapse will be even faster than he calculates.

[Gravy]

Frank Greening is divorced from reality.When you choose to back up your argument, TS, keep in mind that at least Greening has lived with reality. You haven't even been asked to the dance.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Frank Greening is divorced from reality. He imagines a scenario that is easily, thoroughly refuted by the the video evidence. Greening says:



Yo, Frank. Look at this. Your "Stage 2" begins before "Stage 1".

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/WTC1_redLines.gif

What does a B-list television music composer know about physics and engineering?

[Pardalis]

Truthseeker, seriously, do you get a boner everytime you watch these people being crushed?

[Garb]

Truthseeker, seriously, do you get a boner everytime you watch these people being crushed?

Wow, I couldn't help but laugh at that.

[Triterope]

Truthseeker, seriously, do you get a boner everytime you watch these people being crushed?

Well, he certainly doesn't get a raging clue.

[Pardalis]

It wasn't a typo.

I'm really sick of these Troofers posting these images over and over again.

[Garb]

It wasn't a typo.

I'm really sick of these Troofers posting these images over and over again.

I know it wasn't. It was funny.

[stateofgrace]

TS.

Maybe you should get in touch with Dr Greening and offer up your point by point rebuttal.

BTW, your smugness and mockery of this event is clear for all to see and has been for some time.

Try acting with a degree of respect for this event and you may get some level of civility. At this moment you deserve complete contempt for your treatment of this event and those involved in it.

[twinstead]

TS.

Try acting with a degree of respect for this event and you may get some level of civility. At this moment you deserve complete contempt for your treatment of this event and those involved in it.

LOL nice try stateofgrace. If TS was actually concerned about the ramafications of his accusations, he would have manifested some respect long ago.

The fact remains that for TS and those like him, this is simply an intellectual excorcise, some kind of sick game, and not some true investigation.

What is sad is that TS mentions that he has kids.

I don't know about YOU, TS, but I teach my kids rational and critical thinking.

[T.A.M.]

Yes, TS, why dont you contact Mr. Greening with your counter theory, or even with your "correction" of his. I am sure he can set you straight on the whole thing.

TAM

[The_Fire]

So when are these idiots going to realise that a heavily edited videoclip with more missing frames than Bush is missing braincells doesn't constitute legal evidence?

[beachnut]

Frank Greening is divorced from reality. He imagines a scenario that is easily, thoroughly refuted by the the video evidence. Greening says:



Yo, Frank. Look at this. Your "Stage 2" begins before "Stage 1".



WOW,

now we know the video evidence debunks all CT truth movement liars.

Thanks for proving all CT experts wrong in one simple post.

u b done - simple use a CTer to debunk all of CT crazy land, good job TS

[Roger_Harris]

Yo, Frank. Look at this. Your "Stage 2" begins before "Stage 1".


Huh? Please explain why you believe that video supports that assertion. It just looks like stage 1, as Greening described it, with the air being compressed and blowing smoke and dust out. The corner, which is the only part seen clearly, is still intact. Do you have xray vision?

[Horatius]

So, which floor is represented by the lower line in that animation? Wouldn't that matter for an assertion that his analysis is "refuted easily"?

[Jedi_Master]

Frank Greening is divorced from reality. He imagines a scenario that is easily, thoroughly refuted by the the video evidence. Greening says:



Yo, Frank. Look at this. Your "Stage 2" begins before "Stage 1".



Hmmm...

Perhaps you can explain what you see, I see it as Mr Greening is trying to explain it...

I see nothing refuting it in the animated .gif you posted...

[TruthSeeker1234]

OK. I'll explain. Greening says that the top block of floors fell down through the intact structure below. Stage A.

Then, says Greening, the top block, now sitting on top of the pile of rubble, collapses floor by floor from the bottom up. Stage B.

Clearly, as shown in the gif, the top block begins collapsing from the bottom up. This is what Greening says happens, only he says this process begins after it pummeled all the way down though the intact structure to the ground.

How could he be so obviously wrong?

The reason is that he needs the mass to accumulate on the way down in order to continue the collapse. Once you admit the obvious, it becomes clear that the mass is not accumulating, it is disintegrating. By the time the "collapse" is half-over, the top block is obliterated.

This is true of both towers. Greening's notion that the top block remained intact until it hit the bottom is utterly and completely divorced from reality.

[Garb]

So this proves there is a conspiracy?

[CurtC]

This is true of both towers. Greening's notion that the top block remained intact until it hit the bottom is utterly and completely divorced from reality.
Yes, if he actually believed that the top section stayed intact until it hit the ground, he would be insane.

Can you show me exactly where he says that?

[defaultdotxbe]

Frank Greening is divorced from reality. He imagines a scenario that is easily, thoroughly refuted by the the video evidence. Greening says:



Yo, Frank. Look at this. Your "Stage 2" begins before "Stage 1".

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/WTC1_redLines.gif
what floor is your lower red line on?

[Roger_Harris]

OK. I'll explain. Greening says that the top block of floors fell down through the intact structure below. Stage A.

Then, says Greening, the top block, now sitting on top of the pile of rubble, collapses floor by floor from the bottom up. Stage B.

You're not reading carefully. He says that it's a "simple model" which he is only using in this section to estimate the total collapse time. He separates the destruction of the lower floors from the upper floors so that he can analyze them separately. When he says we "envision" the collapse in two separate stages for the purposes of this calculation, I don't believe he is implying that he believes they actually happened is two separate stages; I believe he is simply implying that that's a valid way to calculate the total collapse time. If you disagree, you'll need a better reason than just saying it didn't happen in two separate stages.

Clearly, as shown in the gif, the top block begins collapsing from the bottom up.

Well, no, I don't "clearly" see any such thing. All I see is that you've arbitrarily drawn a red line several floors below where the collapse starts, and then show another frame where the collapse is at that line. How exactly did you determine that the block is collapsing from the bottom up through that cloud of smoke and dust? Anyway, the most reasonable thing to expect is that both are being destroyed more or less equally in the collapse. But again, in the section you quoted, Greening is only trying to estimate the collapse time.

The reason is that he needs the mass to accumulate on the way down in order to continue the collapse. Once you admit the obvious, it becomes clear that the mass is not accumulating, it is disintegrating.

Baloney! First, he demonstrated why the collapse continued elsewhere -- again, here he's calculating the total time -- and your belief that the "mass is not accumulating, it is disintegrating" is absurd. Except for a small percentage that's being ejected, the falling mass is staying about the same and adding each floor as it falls, whether or not the top block is disintegrating.

[Anti-sophist]

He says that it's a "simple model" which he is only using in this section to estimate the total collapse time. He separates the destruction of the lower floors from the upper floors so that he can analyze them separately. When he says we "envision" the collapse in two separate stages for the purposes of this calculation, I don't believe he is implying that he believes they actually happened is two separate stages; I believe he is simply implying that that's a valid way to calculate the total collapse time.
Truthseeker doesn't understand this scientific concept of a "model". That's a sciency word for "useful approximation". Useful in the sense that it makes good predictions, and approximation in the sense that it makes the math easier. We remove some of the complexity of reality in ways that will not effect the quantity we wish to estimate (in this case, the collapse time).

Truthseeker, we understand that when you make a model, you simplify reality. Showing that the model isn't perfect is insufficient to showing the results are incorrect. You need to explain why the simplification from reality to the model effects the quality of the prediction. You've ignored the critical last step.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Yes, if he actually believed that the top section stayed intact until it hit the ground, he would be insane.

Can you show me exactly where he says that?

I already did. Here, I'll bold some parts to make it easy for you.

Greening: We now apply this simple model to the WTC collapse. We assume that both
WTC building collapses began with an upper block of nfloors collapsing onto a series of
lower floors as in the “domino effect”. We shall refer to this process as the first stage of
collapse. For this stage, (see equation 1), we have an initial mass nmf falling onto the
floor below and becoming mass (n+1)mf. This new, enlarged, block of floors descends
with velocity v2= {n/(n+1)}v1through a distance hfat which point itstrikes the floor
below and becomes mass (n+2)mf moving at velocity {n/(n+2)}v2, and so on. This
implies a first stage collapse sequence for WTC 1: all floors from 110 to 96 (= 14 floors)
collapse onto floor 95; all these floors collapse onto 94 93 92 and so on to 32 
1; for WTC 2 all floors from 110 to 81 (= 29 floors) follow the same sequential process.
At the end of each of these collapse events we envision a second stage of collapse
involving the destruction of the upper block of the WTC buildings: for WTC 1 the 97th
floor, plus all floors above, collapse onto the pile of rubble topped by floor 96; this is
followed by floor 98 (plus all floors above) collapsing onto floor 97 and so on. The 2nd
stage sequence for WTC 1 ends with floor 110 collapsing on to all lower floors. For
WTC 2 the 2ndstage involves floor 82 collapsing onto floor 81, followed by 83, 84, etc,
collapsing on to the pile of rubble until floor 110 collapses onto all lower floors.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You guys can go look at the actual videos of WTC1. What you will discover is that the "collapse" begins like a standard controlled demolition of a 14 story building. It fails at floor 96. 97 and all above come down to 96. Then 98 comes down to 96. Then 99 comes down to 96. Then 100 comes down to 96.

During this time, the stucture below 96 does not move an inch. Only after the upper 14 floors are about half their original height does the next phase begin.

This is exactly the opposite of what Greening imagines.

Greenings language is clear. He means that the top block goes all the way down to the ground. He has to mean that. His theory requires that the mass is accumulating. Utterly divorced from reality.

Here, all three of these videos show it clearly.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-demolition-1.avi
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-demolition-2.avi
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-demolition-3.avi

[Gravy]

I already did. Here, I'll bold some parts to make it easy for you.

Greening:What part of "simplified model" don't you understand, LieMaker?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Truthseeker doesn't understand this scientific concept of a "model". That's a sciency word for "useful approximation". Useful in the sense that it makes good predictions, and approximation in the sense that it makes the math easier. We remove some of the complexity of reality in ways that will not effect the quantity we wish to estimate (in this case, the collapse time).

Truthseeker, we understand that when you make a model, you simplify reality. Showing that the model isn't perfect is insufficient to showing the results are incorrect. You need to explain why the simplification from reality to the model effects the quality of the prediction. You've ignored the critical last step.

No, AS, I have explained why Greening's model fails. It fails because it requires accumulating mass, which is at odds with observed reality.

[Gravy]

You guys can go look at the actual videos of WTC1. What you will discover is that the "collapse" begins like a standard controlled demolition of a 14 story building. It does?

Please show us your evidence of the use of explosives.

Please show us a CD of a building in which the explosive charges were placed on floors that were fully involved with fire.

Please show us a CD in which the explosives make no sound and leave no seismic signal on monitors in the area.

Please show us a CD of a building that, according to people inside it, showed "obvious signs of movement," making it too dangerous to occupy.

Please show us a CD of a building that, to people outside and to photographs and videos, was bowing inwards at the area that was on fire, indicating imminent collapse.

Do these things, TruthSeeker, and them proceed with your analysis of the rest of the collapse.

[TruthSeeker1234]

No, on this thread I think we'll stick to Greening. Simple models are fine. Or not. Depending on the assumptions and the reasoning.

Greening assumes a top block pounding down through the intact building, floor by floor, with mass accumulating. Once the block finally hits bottom, he assumes that the top block collapses bottom up. This may be a valid model for some event somewhere, but clearly it is not a valid model for this event.

His phase 2 happens at the beginning. This invalidates his notion of accumulating mass. The evidence is against him, and he is divorced from reality.

Curt C is showing signs of rationality. Curt, go look at the videos I linked. Report what you see.

[Roger_Harris]

You guys can go look at the actual videos of WTC1. What you will discover is that the "collapse" begins like a standard controlled demolition of a 14 story building.

You're simply misinterpreting where the collapse starts. As I said, you've got your red line several floors below where the collapse starts.

[Roger_Harris]

Simple models are fine. Or not. Depending on the assumptions and the reasoning.

Greening assumes a top block pounding down through the intact building, floor by floor, with mass accumulating. Once the block finally hits bottom, he assumes that the top block collapses bottom up. This may be a valid model for some event somewhere, but clearly it is not a valid model for this event.


Apparently, you still don't get what this particular "simple model" is intending to do: it's just to estimate the collapse time. Nowhere is this section is Greening using this "simple model" to explain why the tower collapsed! He introduces it by saying, "We now present a simple momentum transfer theory that may be used to calculate values of t_c [collapse time] for each of the WTC towers."

[TruthSeeker1234]

Apparently, you still don't get what this particular "simple model" is intending to do: it's just to estimate the collapse time. Nowhere is this section is Greening using this "simple model" to explain why the tower collapsed! He introduces it by saying, "We now present a simple momentum transfer theory that may be used to calculate values of t_c [collapse time] for each of the WTC towers."

Roger, are you denying that Greening's model is exactly as I characterize it? Greening has written in plain English, and I've quoted it twice. Yes, he is trying to get at the collapse times, but to get there, he imagines a particular sequence of events. I have shown that the sequence of events is something profoundly different than what he imagines, and it directly impacts his entire model. His model requires the mass to accumulate, floor by floor. He does not allow for mass going outside the footprint. He does not allow for mass becoming pulverized. His model and his hypothesis are directly contradicted by observational data. Data beats imagination.

[einsteen]

Truthseeker, I also used that animated gif once but it is a little bit a wrong image I have to admit, because that fire at the lower floors is not a point of impact that is somewhere in the middle. But indeed it disintegrates at an early stage, this in fact means that the upper N floors disintegrate when they hit the next N floors, that picture is more a 2N example. But Greening's model indeed requires a block that falls through the building, he should indeed take into account that after a few storeys it disintegrates. A better model would be that the point masses are connected by strings that each can absorb an amount of energy E_i before they break. The only thing that I don't get is that if the initial kinetic energy is about 4 times the energy needed to break a floor it's only assumed to be absorbed by the upper floor of the intact building and so on. If the block has the speed of a plane then this would be the case but for a slow initial velocity the whole frame should still be able to absorb energy, the same for the building of course. This is one of the points I have difficulties with. Energy can be absorbed quickly and transferred through the frame. An other thing to take into account is the mass lost of course.

[Harlequin]

Uuuhhhmmm. OK, how about this:

The top floors collapse in exactly the way he described them in "Stage 2", only now they do it at the top of the building before it all collapses. Assume approximately half of the mass is lost into a huge cloud of debris.

This huge mass is now accelerating at a higher velocity into the top of the remaining building, which begins to collapse in exactly the way he described as "Stage 1". The difference is that it starts falling at a much faster initial speed, because (even though half of the top mass is gone), it is already moving instead of accelerating from zero.

This should result in an even shorter total collapse time.

Thanks for pointing out this (perhaps more realistic) model for calculating collapse time.:rolleyes:

[einsteen]

You forgot one fine detail Harlequin, at the second stage of collapse the block has an end velocity of over 50m/s, it hits the ground with that speed, if you let it start at the top the speed is zero. I admit the point mass model has more kinetic energy and momentum when it starts at the top than a block falling as a whole.

[MikeW]

Too busy right now to add much here, but there are a couple of points worth making.

First, if you think you've refuted Greening, then you could always email him and point this out. He's happy to reply to anyone with constructive criticisms.

And second, Frank's sent me his first significant new piece for a while, a 22-page analysis titled "The Pulverization of Concrete in WTC 1 During the Collapse Events of 9-11". I'm not going to summarise it here, but let's just say people whose say nothing more than "there aren't enough big lumps of concretre in these pictures therefore it was controlled demolition" might need to find a new & rather more convincing argument. That should be online by Wednesday/ Thursday.

[eeyore1954]

Truthseeker is correct don't any of you know that once something breaks into smaller pieces all of its mass is gone. all of the smaller pieces have no mass or velocity. I believe the missing mass then passes into the ether. or maybe into another dimension.

[defaultdotxbe]

I already did. Here, I'll bold some parts to make it easy for you.

Greening:
We now apply this simple model to the WTC collapse. We assume that both
WTC building collapses began with an upper block of nfloors collapsing onto a series of
lower floors as in the “domino effect”. We shall refer to this process as the first stage of
collapse. For this stage, (see equation 1), we have an initial mass nmf falling onto the
floor below and becoming mass (n+1)mf. This new, enlarged, block of floors descends
with velocity v2= {n/(n+1)}v1through a distance hfat which point itstrikes the floor
below and becomes mass (n+2)mf moving at velocity {n/(n+2)}v2, and so on. This
implies a first stage collapse sequence for WTC 1: all floors from 110 to 96 (= 14 floors)
collapse onto floor 95; all these floors collapse onto 94 93 92 and so on to 32 
1; for WTC 2 all floors from 110 to 81 (= 29 floors) follow the same sequential process.
At the end of each of these collapse events we envision a second stage of collapse
involving the destruction of the upper block of the WTC buildings: for WTC 1 the 97th
floor, plus all floors above, collapse onto the pile of rubble topped by floor 96; this is
followed by floor 98 (plus all floors above) collapsing onto floor 97 and so on. The 2nd
stage sequence for WTC 1 ends with floor 110 collapsing on to all lower floors. For
WTC 2 the 2ndstage involves floor 82 collapsing onto floor 81, followed by 83, 84, etc,
collapsing on to the pile of rubble until floor 110 collapses onto all lower floors.
hes not envisioning the top crushing the bottom, then the top collapsing, as i pointed out in a previous thread, real life is not turn-based

it seems to me that hes saying the top section crushes a floor below it, then collapses a bit on itself, then crushes the next floor, then itself some more and so on and so forth

i feel this is a bit of an over simplification, as stage 1 and stage 2 would be happening simultaneously, but this is written for the lay person

and before you point out that "this model shoudl only account for the destruction of the top 40-50 floors, the the top is destroyed and gone" let me ask you this, after the top section is crushed, where does the mass go? it certainly isnt gone

thats right, it continues down, continuing to destroy everything below it

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by CurtC:
Yes, if he actually believed that the top section stayed intact until it hit the ground, he would be insane.

Can you show me exactly where he says that?


I already did. Here, I'll bold some parts to make it easy for you.

Greening:



We now apply this simple model to the WTC collapse. We assume that both WTC building collapses began with an upper block of nfloors collapsing onto a series of lower floors as in the “domino effect”. We shall refer to this process as the first stage of collapse. For this stage, (see equation 1), we have an initial mass nmf falling onto the floor below and becoming mass (n+1)mf. This new, enlarged, block of floors descends with velocity v2= {n/(n+1)}v1through a distance hfat which point itstrikes the floor below and becomes mass (n+2)mf moving at velocity {n/(n+2)}v2, and so on. This implies a first stage collapse sequence for WTC 1: all floors from 110 to 96 (= 14 floors) collapse onto floor 95; all these floors collapse onto 94 93 92 and so on to 32  1; for WTC 2 all floors from 110 to 81 (= 29 floors) follow the same sequential process.

At the end of each of these collapse events we envision a second stage of collapse involving the destruction of the upper block of the WTC buildings: for WTC 1 the 97th floor, plus all floors above, collapse onto the pile of rubble topped by floor 96; this is followed by floor 98 (plus all floors above) collapsing onto floor 97 and so on. The 2nd stage sequence for WTC 1 ends with floor 110 collapsing on to all lower floors. For WTC 2 the 2ndstage involves floor 82 collapsing onto floor 81, followed by 83, 84, etc, collapsing on to the pile of rubble until floor 110 collapses onto all lower floors.

I've re-bolded this quote for you. Curt was asking for evidence that Greening actually believes his model corresponds to reality. It's quite clear that Greening knows this is a "simple model" that he's "making assumptions" about, that allows him to "envision" a collapse process. No where does he say that this is how it must have happened. Show me anywhere where he unambiguously says that he believes the collapse progressed in this exact manner.

[Horatius]

...let me ask you this, after the top section is crushed, where does the mass go? it certainly isnt gone

thats right, it continues down, continuing to destroy everything below it

That right there is the big problem. Ace-baby doesn't agree with this. He thinks all the mass goes "poof" and vanishes from the problem.

[defaultdotxbe]

That right there is the big problem. Ace-baby doesn't agree with this. He thinks all the mass goes "poof" and vanishes from the problem.
ironically his antimatter capsules could do this, lol

or negative matter (which i think violates the laws of physics, but for TS1+2=4 it'd just be par for the course)

[tsig]

You guys can go look at the actual videos of WTC1. What you will discover is that the "collapse" begins like a standard controlled demolition of a 14 story building. It fails at floor 96. 97 and all above come down to 96. Then 98 comes down to 96. Then 99 comes down to 96. Then 100 comes down to 96.

During this time, the stucture below 96 does not move an inch. Only after the upper 14 floors are about half their original height does the next phase begin.

This is exactly the opposite of what Greening imagines.

Greenings language is clear. He means that the top block goes all the way down to the ground. He has to mean that. His theory requires that the mass is accumulating. Utterly divorced from reality.

Here, all three of these videos show it clearly.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-demolition-1.avi
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-demolition-2.avi
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc1-demolition-3.avi

looks nothing at all like a controlled demolition

[einsteen]

Isn't that what you guys call strawman ? Where did he say that mass is lost ?

[defaultdotxbe]

You guys can go look at the actual videos of WTC1. What you will discover is that the "collapse" begins like a standard controlled demolition of a 14 story building. It fails at floor 96. 97 and all above come down to 96. Then 98 comes down to 96. Then 99 comes down to 96. Then 100 comes down to 96.

During this time, the stucture below 96 does not move an inch. Only after the upper 14 floors are about half their original height does the next phase begin.
which, ironically, is exactly what youd expect the WTC to do

the impact floors were weakened (remember those huge planes that slammed into them?) so its perfectly reasonable that they would fail before the intact floor below them would

This is exactly the opposite of what Greening imagines.
greening wasnt accounting for existing damage, remember hes just describing a collapse mechanism for the lay person (although it seems you are even more lay that he anticipated)

[defaultdotxbe]

Isn't that what you guys call strawman ? Where did he say that mass is lost ?
hes said it in other threads, his stance is that the top of the towers "disintegrated" (check his sig) and therefore could not crush the rest of the building

[einsteen]

Maybe TS1234 wants to say the following (using classical mechanics):

In a closed system mass is conserved, lets call that domain D, then divide D in D1 and D2 and let D1 represent the domain of the original building, then we still have mass(D)=mass(D1)+mass(D2), but in general also
mass(D2)<mass(D)

Of course this is a kind of Jusy Wood notation but the idea should be clear

[tsig]

Maybe TS1234 wants to say the following (using classical mechanics):

In a closed system mass is conserved, lets call that domain D, then divide D in D1 and D2 and let D1 represent the domain of the original building, then we still have mass(D)=mass(D1)+mass(D2), but in general also
mass(D2)<mass(D)

Of course this is a kind of Jusy Wood notation but the idea should be clear

gibberish instead of math.

In a closed sysem E+gravity=fall

[Anti-sophist]

No, AS, I have explained why Greening's model fails. It fails because it requires accumulating mass, which is at odds with observed reality.

Show me how the difference from reality to the model changes his prediction. You have utterly failed to demonstrate this.

[defaultdotxbe]

gibberish instead of math.

In a closed sysem E+gravity=fall
i think what einsteen is saying is "im trying to sound smart" speak for "some of the mass was ejected from the towers"

however when you compare the amount of mass present vs the failure point of the floors the ejected mass becomes negligible

[einsteen]

Defaultdotxbe, how much mass is lost during the collapse process ?

1) in the beginning 100% is available (t=0)

2) now the collapse is over, what percentage of mass is still above the footprint ?

What is the official value ? Let's make it fair for you and you can take the value when the collapse wave hits the floor (t=T)

[Horatius]

His model requires the mass to accumulate, floor by floor. He does not allow for mass going outside the footprint. He does not allow for mass becoming pulverized. His model and his hypothesis are directly contradicted by observational data. Data beats imagination.

For his collapse model to be useful, it only requires some of the mass to accumulate. He assumes 100% accumulation as a simplifying assumption, but even with a lower, but non-zero accumulation, it can still be a valid model.

You need to remember that you are the only one who thinks 90%+ of the mass is ejected outside of the footprint. I'm not sure how much is accumulated over the footprint during the collapse, but I'm prtty sure it's more than that. If you want to refute his model, you need to show what percentage of ejection renders the collapse impossible, and then clearly show such an amount of ejection.

And, just to short circuit you: Posting your "High Res Hunt" photo doesn't count as "clearly showing".

[Belz...]

Then, says Greening, the top block, now sitting on top of the pile of rubble, collapses floor by floor from the bottom up. Stage B.

Clearly, as shown in the gif, the top block begins collapsing from the bottom up.

Huh ? It's a block. It's collapsing. What's your contention, here ?

The reason is that he needs the mass to accumulate on the way down in order to continue the collapse.

Are ALL CTers telepaths ?

What you will discover is that the "collapse" begins like a standard controlled demolition of a 14 story building. It fails at floor 96. 97 and all above come down to 96. Then 98 comes down to 96. Then 99 comes down to 96. Then 100 comes down to 96.

You've got good eyes.

Data beats imagination.

And reality beats idiots.

[Loss Leader]

What you will discover is that the "collapse" begins like a standard controlled demolition of a 14 story building. It fails at floor 96. 97 and all above come down to 96. Then 98 comes down to 96. Then 99 comes down to 96. Then 100 comes down to 96.

A standard demolition that begins 4/5 of the way up a building? What exactly is standard about destroying the top 14 floors of a building and then having it collapse top-down?

During this time, the stucture below 96 does not move an inch. Only after the upper 14 floors are about half their original height does the next phase begin.

Even if what you say is true, how does the compression of the top floors to half their height change their mass? I can make a little tinfoil hat and then compress it into a ball, but it will still have the same mass. Thus, the energy that it can generate will remain the same.

However, what you say about the top 14 floors being compressed to half their height and the rest of the building not moving an inch is false. It is false for the following reason:

YOU DO NOT HAVE X-RAY VISION.

You have no idea what is going on behind the skin of the building. In fact, the towers collapsed from the core outward. Instead of a steel skeleton, the towers had floors tethered to a central core. As the core collapsed, it pulled the building in on itself. It also damaged the steel skin of the building last.

This means two things: One, the floors were not "compressed" to half their height as you claim. They were pulled in and down so that they sagged well below the 96th floor line before they appeared to cross that line from the outside.

Two: Most of the mass of the building remained with the building. Drywall, dust, papers, some concrete and heaven knows what else produced huge dust clouds, but the mass of the building was preserved during most of the collapse.

Unless you can see through smoke, dust and steel, you cannot dispute this. I mean, you will dispute it but you'll be wrong.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Show me how the difference from reality to the model changes his prediction. You have utterly failed to demonstrate this.

For the third time, at least. Greening's model requires that the mass accumulates. 14 floors drops down one. Now 15 floors drop down one. Then 16 floors, etc.

We observe something totally different than that. We observe that, right from the beginning, very large quantities of matter are converted into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building. Once outside the footprint, this mass does not contribute to the "collapse". Even dust that remains above the footprint does not contribute much if anything, because its surface area-to-mass ratio becomes too large, and it is resisted by air to a significant degree.

[Pardalis]

Hi TS.

Please keep your hands out of your pants.

Thank you.

Carry on.

[uk_dave]

TS,

Don't pay no mind to Pardalis.....

Your hands in your pants is probably the safest position you could adopt.... for everyone's sake.

But then, you knew that already.

[Pardalis]

OK, just be sure to wash your hands after you're done, TS.

Let's keep this forum sanitary.

[Loss Leader]

We observe that, right from the beginning, very large quantities of matter are converted into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building.

No, we do not observe that. We observe that some quantity of matter was ejected outside the footprint. As regards the quantity of such matter, we cannot know.

Even dust that remains above the footprint does not contribute much if anything, because its surface area-to-mass ratio becomes too large, and it is resisted by air to a significant degree.

No, that makes no sense. If the top floors were compressed the thing that was most squeezed out was air. The dust, in the compressed top floors, would have exactly the same effect as if it were solid. There would be no air inside the colapsed floors to slow it down.

Demonstrate this by dropping a hundred pound sandbag on your head.

[TruthSeeker1234]

A standard demolition that begins 4/5 of the way up a building? What exactly is standard about destroying the top 14 floors of a building and then having it collapse top-down?



If you imagine the ground is at the 96th floor of WTC1, The behavior of the top 14 floors during the first several seconds of "collapse" is very much like a standard demolition, yes, absolutey.



Even if what you say is true, how does the compression of the top floors to half their height change their mass?

For the forth time, at least. Most if not all of the mass appears to be pulverized and ejected outside the footprint, making it unavailable to push downwards on the structure.


Most of the mass of the building remained with the building. Drywall, dust, papers, some concrete and heaven knows what else produced huge dust clouds, but the mass of the building was preserved during most of the collapse.

Unless you can see through smoke, dust and steel, you cannot dispute this.

Listen carefully counselor. After the smoke and dust cleared, the mass was gone. It did not "remain with the building" as you imagine. If it remained with the building, we would be able to see it. Big piles of it. But we do not.

Instead, when the smoke and dust cleared, we had obliteration. We had perimeter columns shredded and thrown all over hell, almost no sign of the core structure of either tower, positively no sign of a floor assembly anywhere. There was, however, 1"-2" of dust covering a couple of square miles, at least. This amount of dust accounts for the missing mass at ground zero.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image141.jpg

[TruthSeeker1234]

I swear, you could drop the twin towers from twice their height and they would leave far more and far bigger rubble than what we observe here. Imagine seven of those black banker's trust buildings being dropped out of the sky onto ground zero. How big would the pile be?http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image141.jpg

[Pardalis]

If you imagine the ground is at the 96th floor of WTC1, The behavior of the top 14 floors during the first several seconds of "collapse" is very much like a standard demolition, yes, absolutey.

How are you able to ascertain this? Source?

For the forth time, at least. Most if not all of the mass appears to be pulverized and ejected outside the footprint, making it unavailable to push downwards on the structure.

How are you able to ascertain this? Source?

If it remained with the building, we would be able to see it. Big piles of it. But we do not.

How are you able to ascertain this? Source?

Instead, when the smoke and dust cleared, we had obliteration.

How are you able to ascertain this? Source?

We had perimeter columns shredded and thrown all over hell, almost no sign of the core structure of either tower, positively no sign of a floor assembly anywhere. There was, however, 1"-2" of dust covering a couple of square miles, at least. This amount of dust accounts for the missing mass at ground zero.

How are you able to ascertain this? Source?

Do you have any sources besides your ass?

[pgwenthold]

First, if you think you've refuted Greening, then you could always email him and point this out. He's happy to reply to anyone with constructive criticisms.


Can I just re-iterate this?

Why is it that CTists "are just asking questions" but never really ask those questions of those who are in the best position to answer them? Given today's information resources, you can without too much trouble find contact information for pretty much anyone you want (heck, when I was in college (pre-WWW), I found the phone numbers for Mr. Wizard and Buzz Aldrin. I went to the library and looked up them up in the phone book - talked to Mr Wizard directly, but only got Buzz's answering machine)

I agree, folks like Greening will gladly talk to people who have _constructive_ criticism. Granted, it won't take him about a minute to realize that this guy is a loon, but really, truthseeker, if you are serious about any of this, contact Greening and show him your analysis, and explain what he got wrong.

I always thought the same thing about Silverstein's "pull it" comment. Why in the world is anyone speculating about what he meant? Why doesn't someone go up and ask, "there has been a lot of speculation about your comment to "pull" WTC 7. What did you mean by "they decided to pull it"?" It's not like these guys are dead, or anything.

I've done stuff like this all the time in various arenas (nothing 9/11 related). For example, I have had plenty of interaction with Jeff Sagarin, the guy that does computer rankings for sports (pretty much everything) listed in the USA Today. The key to these things are to engage them in a reasonable discussion, and not to get accusatory or insulting. They will answer questions, if you have them, and will consider criticism (I pointed out to Sagarin that he was incorrectly treating overtime games in basketball - he acknowledged that I was right, but that he didn't have sufficiently consistent access to the necessary information to make the change worthwhile)

If you have something useful to say, serious people will listen. If you want to make a difference, you have to talk to them, and not hide behind internet discussion groups.

[uk_dave]

Truthseeker,

How many forum have you posted this same old stuff on time and time again and had all the answers given to you before you move on to the next forum to start all over again?

And where did you get the pictures you posted on the clemson university forum site showing (you claimed) the undamaged station below the wtc towers when in fact that station was over the river in NJ?

Were you lied to about those pictures, or did you choose to lie about them yourself?

Just asking questions here

[Loss Leader]

Listen carefully counselor. After the smoke and dust cleared, the mass was gone. It did not "remain with the building" as you imagine. If it remained with the building, we would be able to see it. Big piles of it. But we do not.

Ah, but there is a difference, an equivocation to your statements.

For argument's sake, let us say that after the smoke and dust cleared, much of the mass may well have been gone. This does not tell us anything about how much mass stayed with the building on the way down or during the initial phase of the collapse.

I personally remember the south tower falling in a cloud of dust but only after it had mostly fallen did a huge wave of dust billow out to cover streets in all directions.

Even if you could determine what percentage of the mass of the tower eventually turned to dust, there is absolutely no possible way to determine what part of the mass of the tower survived as part of the tower at any given point in the collapse.

[maccy]

I swear, you could drop the twin towers from twice their height and they would leave far more and far bigger rubble than what we observe here. Imagine seven of those black banker's trust buildings being dropped out of the sky onto ground zero. How big would the pile be?http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image141.jpg

An argument from incredulity. Also, your argument doesn't take into acount:

1. the basement levels of the towers, into which much of the rubble will have fallen

2. that the photograph you have used is from directly above, giving us no idea of how tall the pile of rubble is

3. it does, however, show that as the tower hit the ground it did, indeed, spread out beyonf its own footprint.

[Alt+F4]

And where did you get the pictures you posted on the clemson university forum site showing (you claimed) the undamaged station below the wtc towers when in fact that station was over the river in NJ?

That's what I've been telling TS...undated, uncredited photos prove nothing. He says, "look at the lack of debris in this photo!" but we don't know if that photo was taken right after the smoke from the fires cleared or sometime in 2002.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This tread is one of the most hilarious ones I have read in a long time, just think of all that mass being funneled down on the core inside the building on top of the head truss, disappearing all at once.

Dr. Greening has it right, and TruthSeeker1234 gos and proves it.

[Belz...]

If you imagine the ground is at the 96th floor of WTC1, The behavior of the top 14 floors during the first several seconds of "collapse" is very much like a standard demolition, yes, absolutey.

Key word : IF.

For the forth time, at least. Most if not all of the mass appears to be pulverized and ejected outside the footprint, making it unavailable to push downwards on the structure.

Key word: Appears.

Listen carefully counselor. After the smoke and dust cleared, the mass was gone. It did not "remain with the building" as you imagine. If it remained with the building, we would be able to see it. Big piles of it. But we do not.

What, exactly, is a "big" pile to you ?

I swear, you could drop the twin towers from twice their height and they would leave far more and far bigger rubble than what we observe here.

Ah! Excellent. Actual numbers. Could you show your calculation and reasoning for that conclusion ?

[Horatius]

Ah! Excellent. Actual numbers. Could you show your calculation and reasoning for that conclusion ?


I sense the future...it comes on me like a wave...The Answer is....NO!


So where's my million?


What, judgement from experience isn't paranormal? Drat!

[mortimer]

For the third time, at least. Greening's model requires that the mass accumulates. 14 floors drops down one. Now 15 floors drop down one. Then 16 floors, etc.

We observe something totally different than that. We observe that, right from the beginning, very large quantities of matter are converted into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building. Once outside the footprint, this mass does not contribute to the "collapse". Even dust that remains above the footprint does not contribute much if anything, because its surface area-to-mass ratio becomes too large, and it is resisted by air to a significant degree.

What exactly do you think that fine powder consists of?

[rwguinn]

What exactly do you think that fine powder consists of?
Steel
Invisicrete
Plastic
glass
what else can there be?
[/stupidity mode]

[mortimer]

Steel
Invisicrete
Plastic
glass
what else can there be?
[/stupidity mode]

Well it certainly couldn't be drywall, right? Someone claimed it was the third most prevalent building material (by mass? by volume? dunno) in the WTC behind steel and concrete. If it were drywall, it would certainly make sense that it didn't take much energy to "pulverize" and make thick gray/white clouds of dust. That doesn't fit in to what we observe at all! The concrete was pulverized into a fine dust (and thus not available to contribute to the progressive collapse), while the drywall went somewhere else...magically transported to Fresh Kills perhaps?

[Trigood]

That's what I've been telling TS...undated, uncredited photos prove nothing. He says, "look at the lack of debris in this photo!" but we don't know if that photo was taken right after the smoke from the fires cleared or sometime in 2002.
Or last week?

[Trifikas]

Isn't Greening just seperating the two stages out as a mathmatical shortcut to calculate an estimated time of collapse? I don't think he's actually saying they fell that way.

Free tip:
The Physics behind putting the towers up isn't easy. The Physics behind their collapse isn't, either. If you think your argument "Easily" defeats the Greening / NIST model of the events, or if you think you can explain it away with "Simple" Physics, you've probably overlooked something.

[pomeroo]

Next!

Dear Mr. Fetzer,

I assume that your silence communicates your refusal to debate Mark Roberts.

Ronald Wieck

[Regnad Kcin]

I swear, you could drop the twin towers from twice their height and they would leave far more and far bigger rubble than what we observe here. Imagine seven of those black banker's trust buildings being dropped out of the sky onto ground zero. How big would the pile be?Sigh.

You know, I hope, that a human being's physical state is approx. 60% water? Take the H2O out of the boy and you'll be left with something noticeably smaller.

A building is not a solid block of matter. It "contains" a great deal of air/empty space. Remove much of the space (as with WTC collapes) and the remaining material will seem (to some) an abnormally small amount.

I don't expect you to acknowledge this, but oh well.

[Pardalis]

Welcom to the forum M. Wieck. :)

[Anti-sophist]

For the third time, at least. Greening's model requires that the mass accumulates. 14 floors drops down one. Now 15 floors drop down one. Then 16 floors, etc.

For the fourth time, you fail to demonstrate how the simplification from reality to the model effects the prediction. Demonstrating that the model is simpler isn't a significant accomplishment. Showing how the simplification adversely effected the predicted outcome is.

[rwguinn]

If you imagine the ground is at the 96th floor of WTC1, The behavior of the top 14 floors during the first several seconds of "collapse" is very much like a standard demolition, yes, absolutey.





For the forth time, at least. Most if not all of the mass appears to be pulverized and ejected outside the footprint, making it unavailable to push downwards on the structure.




Listen carefully counselor. After the smoke and dust cleared, the mass was gone. It did not "remain with the building" as you imagine. If it remained with the building, we would be able to see it. Big piles of it. But we do not.

Instead, when the smoke and dust cleared, we had obliteration. We had perimeter columns shredded and thrown all over hell, almost no sign of the core structure of either tower, positively no sign of a floor assembly anywhere. There was, however, 1"-2" of dust covering a couple of square miles, at least. This amount of dust accounts for the missing mass at ground zero.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image141.jpg
That's an awfully big pile for only being "20%" (or whatever your latest analy-extracted number is)
look at the scale, ijit!
I swear, I have a yellow-handled screwdriver with more intellegence than you...

[Alt+F4]

Steel
Invisicrete
Plastic
glass
what else can there be?


Add to that list lots and lots of fiberglass and asbestos.

[stateofgrace]

This from F.R.Greening via Ronald Wieck has just been posted.

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/11/pulverization-of-concrete-in-wtc-1.html

Any comment BS1234?

[Anti-sophist]

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/11/pulverization-of-concrete-in-wtc-1.html


I can debunk it using my second favorite CT line of all time (stolen from my sig)....
As for the math you don't need it as the graphical evidence is really good.

[TruthSeeker1234]

This from F.R.Greening via Ronald Wieck has just been posted.

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/11/pulverization-of-concrete-in-wtc-1.html

Any comment BS1234?

Greening has now changed his story, this is progress, as Greening now evidently admits that a very large percentage of the concrete was rendered into fine powder. Perhaps he now got around to actually watching the videos, for his new theory is a step toward describing what we actually observe, though it's not there yet. He used to say that the top block went all the way down first, then the top block collaped. Now he says that the top block and the intact structure mutually anihilate, one floor at a time.

There are serious problems here. GreeningOld will refer to his first theory, GreeningNew will refer to the new one.

1. In WTC1, the top 14 floors "fell". According to GreeningNew, floor 97 falls onto 96, and both of them pulverize. Then 98 falls onto 95, and both of them are gone. Then 99 onto 94, which mutually anihilate, and so on. What happens after floor 110 and floor 83 mutually self-destruct? There is no floor 111 to be "the self destructing sledgehammger" anymore. What mass would be present below floor 83 to wipe out the remainder of the structure, the strongest, heaviest part? Everything above has already been pulverized, according to GreeningNew.

2. Now that he has abandoned the notion of accumulating mass required in GreeningOld, we have lost the mechanism used to explain the sensational speed of collapse. GreeningNew is thus mutually exclusive with GreeningOld, they can't both be true.

I can study this more, its just my intitial reaction. The fact that he seems to be finally admitting the obvious, that is the floor assemblies were rendered into fine powder. Perhaps you JREFs could apologize for being so adamant and rude to me, and claiming that they weren't pulverized. Of course they were, and this settles it.

[Bell]

<snip>
I can study ...
<snap>

Proof?

[Loss Leader]

Greening has now changed his story, this is progress, as Greening now evidently admits that a very large percentage of the concrete was rendered into fine powder.

Yeah, no he doesn't. He says Vast quantities of dust and debris were dispersed and he says "much" of the material in the Twin Towers was completely pulverized. At no point does he state what percentage of the concrete was pulverized let alone state that such a percentage was "very large."

Now he says that the top block and the intact structure mutually anihilate, one floor at a time.

He does not appear to state this. He nowhere states that the first two floors anihilated each other, leaving the next two floors to meet. It's just not in the paper that you are citing.


In WTC1, the top 14 floors "fell". According to GreeningNew, floor 97 falls onto 96, and both of them pulverize. Then 98 falls onto 95, and both of them are gone. Then 99 onto 94, which mutually anihilate, and so on. What happens after floor 110 and floor 83 mutually self-destruct? There is no floor 111 to be "the self destructing sledgehammger" anymore.

He does not state that this is what happened. Moreover, even to the extent that he does state that concrete was particlized, nowhere does he state that it disappears. Even if 100% of floors 96 and 97 were turned to dust (which Greening does not claim), the dust does not evaporate. It does not wink out of existence. It (or much of it) remains right there, trapped between floors 95 and 98. It continues to have mass and it continues to exert force.

After the towers collapse, this dust is available to spread out over New York which is, according to your beloved video evidence, when most of it does so.

Seriously, you should buy a pair of glasses or something because I don't think you can read. Or maybe you just can't read things that prove you wrong.

[TellyKNeasuss]

There are serious problems here. GreeningOld will refer to his first theory, GreeningNew will refer to the new one.

1. In WTC1, the top 14 floors "fell". According to GreeningNew, floor 97 falls onto 96, and both of them pulverize. Then 98 falls onto 95, and both of them are gone. Then 99 onto 94, which mutually anihilate, and so on. What happens after floor 110 and floor 83 mutually self-destruct? There is no floor 111 to be "the self destructing sledgehammger" anymore. What mass would be present below floor 83 to wipe out the remainder of the structure, the strongest, heaviest part? Everything above has already been pulverized, according to GreeningNew.

I can study this more, its just my intitial reaction.

It probably would be a good idea for you to study the paper a little more. You have totally misunderstood his point "energy sinks should be summed over two WTC floors per impact ...". All Greening is doing here is accounting for the energy used in the pulverization of the floors above the collapse initiation. This is simple bookeeping, and Greening is doing it very conservatively. He is most definitely not claiming that each floor above the collapse initiation level individually collapsed a single floor below the collapse initiation level.

[stateofgrace]

Didn't read it all did you BS?


A study of the growth of the kinetic energy of the upper section of WTC 1 as the Tower collapsed shows that the mass specific impact energy of the first four collisions increased from 3.4 J/g (1st impact), to 6.4 J/g (2nd impact), to 8.7 J/g (3rd impact), to 11.7 J/g (4th impact) - See Greening’s “Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse Events of September 11th 2001” and subsequent Addendum. Hence, by the 4th impact, the energy supplied to the concrete was sufficient to cause it to fragment to the limiting size distribution noted above. At this point, and for all subsequent impacts, the energy consumed in pulverizing the WTC 1 concrete was essentially constant and progressively less than 15 % of the available impact kinetic energy as illustrated in Figure 2.

Thus we conclude that:

1.50 % of the WTC 1 concrete was pulverized to particles less than 1 mm in diameter, (and 30 % was smaller than 100 microns).
2.For all impacts of the upper section of WTC 1, less than 15 % of the available impact kinetic energy was dissipated in pulverizing the concrete.

For the all-important first impact of the upper section of WTC 1 on the floor below (i.e. the upper section impacting the 95th floor), the data in Table 1, (combined with the known 627 tonne mass of impacted material), indicate that 234 MJ of kinetic energy would have been consumed in pulverizing the concrete on the first impacted floor. In the Addendum to Greening’s WTC Report the energy consumed in crushing the concrete on the first impacted floor of WTC 1 was estimated by an entirely different method to be 213 MJ in reasonable agreement with the present calculation.


I have just received the entire document it is word format and is too big to upload as an attachment; it is 144k in size. I really don't want to do a copy and paste job. It is 21 pages long.

Any advice?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Didn't read it all did you BS?



I have just received the entire document it is word format and is too big to upload as an attachment; it is 144k in size. I really don't want to do a copy and paste job. It is 21 pages long.

Any advice?

Put the word "Fnord" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord#The_Illuminatus.21_Trilogy) at the top of the first page and again at the bottom of the last page so that TS$1.98 won't be able to read it. :D

[stateofgrace]

Put the word "Fnord" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord#The_Illuminatus.21_Trilogy) at the top of the first page and again at the bottom of the last page so that TS$1.98 won't be able to read it. :D

Ha-ha, I'm led to believe it'll be available on 911 myths shortly. All 21 pages of it. I’m sure BS 4-5=9 will give us all his full rebuttal of it soon afterwards
:jaw-dropp

[Trigood]

Perhaps you JREFs could apologize for being so adamant and rude to me, and claiming that they weren't pulverized.
Perhaps you could apologize for claiming any validity whatsoever to Reynolds's "no-plane" paper, and then when it was thoroughly debunked, just slinking off without admitting your error.

[LashL]

Edit to delete double post.

[LashL]

Didn't read it all did you BS?


He seems to only "read" what he wants to see. And then gets even the parts he chooses to see dead wrong. It's a very common trait among tinhatters.

TS1+2=4:

Dr. Greening lives not far from where I live. His contact information is readily available, and he seems like a pretty approachable sort of man.

It is apparent that you are not willing to approach him yourself with your accusations and your purported "refutation" of his work, so here is my proposal to you:

Send me your specific refutation of his work (be sure to show your own work and be specific about what it is you think he got wrong so that the dialogue has some meaning), and I will contact him, arrange a meeting with him, and ask for his specific response to your specific "refutation". I'll even spring for lunch.

What have you got to lose?

It's time to put up or shut up.

[CurtC]

He used to say that the top block went all the way down first, then the top block collaped.
You lie again. BS1234, everyone reading this knows that you're lying in this statement - why even bother writing it?

2. Now that he has abandoned the notion of accumulating mass required in GreeningOld, we have lost the mechanism used to explain the sensational speed of collapse.
He's abandoned the notion of accumulating mass in the collapse? Can you point me to exactly where he says this?

'Cause the mass of that stuff still accumulates, that's why.

[pomeroo]

A new paper by Dr. Frank Greening on the pulverization of concrete at the WTC appears on 9/11 Conspiracy Smasher.

[MikeW]

I can't sleep for some reason, so that means you're getting the full version of Greening's paper a little early. The pages aren't updated yet, but you'll find the file at http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

[Horatius]

2. Now that he has abandoned the notion of accumulating mass required in GreeningOld, we have lost the mechanism used to explain the sensational speed of collapse. GreeningNew is thus mutually exclusive with GreeningOld, they can't both be true.

Did you miss this little bit?


However, regardless of the details of the concrete particle size and contribution to the WTC dust, it is concluded that 2/3rds of the concrete debris fell within the approximate footprint of the two towers.

I guess so.....

[LashL]

I can't sleep for some reason, so that means you're getting the full version of Greening's paper a little early. The pages aren't updated yet, but you'll find the file at http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

Thanks, Mike.

(and good luck with the insomnia - I can relate and, thus, feel for you)

[Horatius]

I've just read through the pdf version of the paper. He does a much better job than I in figuring out the mass of the dust layer. I guess I can just post a link to his paper now.

We have previously shown that the WTC dust was made up of concrete, gypsum, manmade vitreous fiber and cellulose-based material of which only about 40 % was concrete. Thus we estimate that the collapse of WTC 1& 2 deposited about 50,000 tonnes of concrete outside the footprint of the towers. If we consider that the total mass of concrete in the two towers was about 150,000 tonnes we conclude that 100,000 tonnes of concrete fell within the footprint of the towers. This has important implications for the issue of mass-shedding during the tower’s collapse. It suggests that more than 90 % of the mass, (concrete and steel), in the damage zone created at each impacted floor was retained by the descending “hammer” thereby sustaining the progressive collapse of WTC 1

So he has it as about 33% of the concrete as dust outside the footprint area of the towers, which is more than what I came up with, but not unreasonably so.

It's also nice to see how he connects his work to various different, but related subjects - concrete fracturing, mining of rock, and collisions of astronomical bodies - to show the mechanisms are pretty much universal. That's how real science works - if it works here, it'll work anywhere, and we don't need to make up all sorts of fairy-land stuff about death rays or hushaboom nukes. Nice to see after weeks of CT nonsense.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Perhaps you JREFs could apologize for being so adamant and rude to me, and claiming that they weren't pulverized. Of course they were, and this settles it.

You just lied to the readers of this forum about the content of Greenings paper and you have the gall to ask us for an apology?

Your social grace is as lacking as your scientific & technical literacy.

[beachnut]

Perhaps you JREFs could apologize for being so adamant and rude to me, and claiming that they weren't pulverized. Of course they were, and this settles it.

Are those rocks pulverized at ground zero, big pieces of dust?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/124474551a1838e01c.jpg

Texas dust, yes sir, we have big pieces of dust.


What are you talking about. Seems like there are big pieces of dust at ground zero. Oops there is some floor parts there also!

[einsteen]

A quick look to the pdf, do I read it good that another amount of 0.6GJ is required to crush concrete of one floor. He then concludes it is a symmetric effect and thefore 1.2GJ is needed. The impact kinetic energy is still about 2.4GJ, still assumed to be a free fall (that can only be the case of the building is 'pulled' at that moment, but allright then). What I don't understand is if his original value to break the storey (0.6GJ) is also taken into account, I don't think so at a first look, because in his first article he also distinguishes that from the energy to crush concrete. We are almost at the critical energy level...

[MRC_Hans]

TS, do you smoke?

If you do, I advice you to be very careful, lest your strawmen catch fire.


1. In WTC1, the top 14 floors "fell". According to GreeningNew, floor 97 falls onto 96, and both of them pulverize. Then 98 falls onto 95, and both of them are gone. Then 99 onto 94, which mutually anihilate, and so on. .... etc.

Who says so? Does Greening say they "anihilate"? Of course they don't. Nothing is anihilated. Part of the material is ejected from the collapse zone, in the form of dust and larger debris, which rains down on the surroundings. Obviously, this material is out of the collapse energy quotation. However, if all, or even the larger part, of the material went that way, what we would observe after the collapse would be a crater with a crater wall around the original footprint of the building. Did we observe that? Not at all! While the surroundings were littered with debris, and a veritable layer of dust, the original position of the buildings were marked by high piles of wreckage. Piles that were much higher than they looked, because they filled up several underground levels as well.


2. Now that he has abandoned the notion of accumulating mass required in GreeningOld, we have lost the mechanism used to explain the sensational speed of collapse. GreeningNew is thus mutually exclusive with GreeningOld, they can't both be true.


Only according to your misrepresentation.

Perhaps you JREFs could apologize for being so adamant and rude to me, and claiming that they weren't pulverized. Of course they were, and this settles it.

Then, where did all the wreckage come from?

Hans

[Brainache]

I asked this question of our good mate Ace in a different thread, but I didn't see a reply so I will ask it again:

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN?

[Moving On]

Truthseeker,

Great thread!

I love watching the tizzy fits and insults thrown around when these people are confronted with evidence they can't handle.

I noticed they even tried to make you look bad for posting the video as if they don't post the same when it is in their favor.

I am glad to see they use the same MO on you. It's almost like they have an organized strategy!

Keep up the good work.

Russell

[Oliver]

Genlemen...

It does not help if we fight each other instead finding out
what exactly was wrong or false this tragic day.

Russel doesn´t have it easy in here with all people who
disagree. Making his live even harder by personal attacks
seems to be unfair in terms of what JREF is about.

Thank you,
- Oliver

[Ratatoskr]

"Evidence they can't handle" <-- Love that one...

It's amazing to me that some people who are capable of writing apparently can't read.

Skeptic: "Here! Evidence!" [shows calculations and facts to troofer]
Troofer: "Nope, didn't see anything. Now debunk my google videos!"

[Horatius]

In thinking about this overnight, I'd also like to point out that Greening's new paper is still a model. It's not reality, and not intended to be. He has deliberately chosen conditions so as to make a progressive collapse least likely, so that the final numbers he gets in terms of the energy budget to destroy the floors while still collapsing are almost certainly higher than what actually happened. He was trying to get a reasonable upper bound for the energy needed, so as to have a position that would be very defensible against the inevitable CTist counterattack.

He's assumed the most efficient concrete breaking model, even though he knows such breaking isn't very efficient at the best of times. He also assumes that each floor was impacted symmetrically and simultaneously, which is also unlikely. There was almost certainly some portion of the floor that would have been impacted first, leading to an assymetrical fracture of the concrete, which would tend to leave larger pieces, IMO.

Just read his reasoning for only modelling WTC 1:

In this report we will focus on the collapse of WTC 1 since the upper section of this Tower had much less kinetic energy available to pulverize concrete than the energy available from the collapse of WTC 2. It follows that the energy budget for the collapse of WTC 1, compared to WTC 2, represents the more stringent test of the “natural collapse” hypothesis. In other words, if the available evidence demonstrates that the collapse of WTC 1 released sufficient energy to account for the observed pulverization of the concrete in the building, the collapse of WTC 2 would have been even more energetically favorable to the pulverization of concrete.

There's a few other similar assumptions, made to favour the CT side, so as to have a value that's an upper bound. I think if you were to ask Greening about it, he'd concur. He's set himself the hardest task, so that any errors or omissions will tend to make the collapse senario more likely, not less.

As I said before, that how real science is done. Honest science. Not biased cherry-picking CTist "science".

[defaultdotxbe]

Skeptic: "Here! Evidence!" [shows calculations and facts to troofer]
Troofer: "Nope, didn't see anything. Now debunk my google videos!"
Skeptic: Ok
*debunked*
Truther: No one cares about that, strawman, stop ignoring the real issues

[Harlequin]

You forgot one fine detail Harlequin, at the second stage of collapse the block has an end velocity of over 50m/s, it hits the ground with that speed, if you let it start at the top the speed is zero. I admit the point mass model has more kinetic energy and momentum when it starts at the top than a block falling as a whole.

The point is that this model of collapse (now the "old" model) basically separates the collapse of the top section from the collapse of the bottom section. Obviously there's no real reason to think this is what really happened, but it does provide a simple model for calculation.

Assuming only one floor ever collapses at a time, but that the floors are crushed faster and faster as the building mass accelerates, it shouldn't matter which stage happens first. Whichever floor collapses first will collapse in time "x" and the next will collapse in some fraction of this time due to the faster moving and heavier mass that hits it. This same process repeats for each floor, with x getting smaller and smaller.

Whether the floor collapsing is part of the top or the bottom doesn't matter., because it will join with the accelerating mass in the same way, regardless. Why would it matter if the last floor to be crushed is at the bottom of the larger piece or the top of the smaller piece?

Although I have not read the "new theory" *Gasp* it seems to me that it is only making more explicit the concept that the two sections are collapsing simultaneously and that some mass is lost to a debris cloud and so does not form a part of the accelerating mass.

I say "lost", not because it disappears, but because (as is obvious in the exhaustive video evidence) some of it falls outside of the footprint. I mentioned 50% earlier because it really doesn't matter. The mass that is falling on the bottom section is huge. You could probably lose 90% of it and the collapse would still proceed (although perhaps a small amount slower at first).

When you gather your "evidence" from video, you have to realize that a significant amount of collapse will have happened before you are able to see it. Firstly because acceleration from zero is not immediately obvious and secondly because most of the collapse occurs in the building interior and so it cannot be seen.

[twinstead]

So not only is the very definition of compelling evidence in the way of troothers and skeptics coming together, we can't even agree on the definition of debunked.

IMO, TS1234 hasn't a leg to stand on, is completely misinterpreting Greening AND his paper, and has been soundly debunked on numerous topics on numerous threads.

According to Russell and him, TS1234 is kicking our collective butts with the truth and undeniable logic, which are unable to handle.

Sigh. It's as if we are speaking two different languages.

[Gravy]

Genlemen...

It does not help if we fight each other instead finding out
what exactly was wrong or false this tragic day.

Russel doesn´t have it easy in here with all people who
disagree. Making his live even harder by personal attacks
seems to be unfair in terms of what JREF is about.

Thank you,
- OliverEr, Oliver, Russell just encouraged the no-planer who thinks "high-energy" space weapons were used on 9/11, and who's starting a "Hunt the rubble" website, to "Keep up the good work."

If we have the evidence, is it a "personal attack" to call Russell an ignorant intellectual coward?

[stateofgrace]

Truthseeker,

Keep up the good work.

Russell

Yes keep up the good work BS 4-5=9

Keep ignoring all the posts that correct your claims, keep ignoring all the evidence that is presented to you. Keep ignoring common sense and logic and above all keep having a laugh. Sidestep every fact that makes you look silly and on no account offer up an alternative thesis.

Oh wait, you have been doing, so yes good job, keep it up.

[rwguinn]

Truthseeker,

Great thread!

I love watching the tizzy fits and insults thrown around when these people are confronted with evidence they can't handle.

I noticed they even tried to make you look bad for posting the video as if they don't post the same when it is in their favor.

I am glad to see they use the same MO on you. It's almost like they have an organized strategy!

Keep up the good work.

Russell

Yep--we have an "Organized Strategy"
It's called the Scientific Method
If you fail to use it, we go after you. Wishful thinking absolutely will not cut it here.

[Moving On]

Er, Oliver, Russell just encouraged the no-planer who thinks "high-energy" space weapons were used on 9/11, and who's starting a "Hunt the rubble" website, to "Keep up the good work."

If we have the evidence, is it a "personal attack" to call Russell an ignorant intellectual coward?

I commented on this thread only!!

Should ignorant and intellectual be used back to back like that?

[Moving On]

Yep--we have an "Organized Strategy"
It's called the Scientific Method
If you fail to use it, we go after you. Wishful thinking absolutely will not cut it here.

Try again.

Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading7

[Pardalis]

Russell, care to explain how the WTC were "unconventional" CDs?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Try again.

Try not cherry-picking.

Full quote
While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

[Pardalis]

Truthseeker,

Great thread!

I love watching the tizzy fits and insults thrown around when these people are confronted with evidence they can't handle.

I noticed they even tried to make you look bad for posting the video as if they don't post the same when it is in their favor.

I am glad to see they use the same MO on you. It's almost like they have an organized strategy!

Keep up the good work.

Russell

Qui se ressemble s'assemble.

Here is a thread started by Truthseeker, just so you know what kind of person you are complimenting:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64540

[Loss Leader]

Should ignorant and intellectual be used back to back like that?

I doubt that Gravy called you ignorant, an intellectual, and a coward.

I believe he stated that if he had the evidence, it would not be a personal attack to call you ignorant. It would also not be a personal attack to call you an intellectual coward - one whose cowardice is confined to matters of the intellect.

If you cannot read the phrase "ignorant intellectual coward" correctly, it only strengthens the evidence that you are, in fact, ignorant and an intellectual coward.

[Kent1]

Try again.
Russell, "Truthseeker1234" is a very dishonest person who has no problem lieing. You can ask him yourself. He certainlly lied to me on e-mail. I also believe there's a strong possible chance of mental illness.

As a side note, I do NOT agree with all of Greenings papers. I'll have to look through this new paper and ask him some questions to better clairify. I believe others should do the same.

[Gravy]

I commented on this thread only!!My point exactly. TS1234 started a thread titled "Frank Greening Refuted Easily" in which he didn't refute Greening at all.

Should ignorant and intellectual be used back to back like that?If you have to ask....

[Regnad Kcin]

Truthseeker,

Great thread!

I love watching the tizzy fits and insults thrown around when these people are confronted with evidence they can't handle.

I noticed they even tried to make you look bad for posting the video as if they don't post the same when it is in their favor.

I am glad to see they use the same MO on you. It's almost like they have an organized strategy!

Keep up the good work.

RussellYawn.

[Bell]

Yawn.

Hey! I was supposed to say that...
So much for our organised strategy...

[David Wong]

Truthseeker,

Great thread!


Carrot Top,

Great movie!

[Horatius]

Carrot Top,

Great movie!

Now that's just cruel.





But accurate.

[David Wong]

David Hasselhoff,

Great Song!

[Regnad Kcin]

Sylvia Brown,

Great accuracy!

[Regnad Kcin]

Dick Cheney,

Great accuracy!

[CurtC]

Rumsfeld,

Great war!

[TruthSeeker1234]

Russell, "Truthseeker1234" is a very dishonest person who has no problem lieing. You can ask him yourself. He certainlly lied to me on e-mail. I also believe there's a strong possible chance of mental illness.



A tiny good natured spoofing in my first email to Kent. I used my real name, but I claimed to believe in the official story. I said it was my cousin who was the truther, and could I please have some help debunking.

I was just afraid that if I let on which side I was really on, he wouldn't talk to me. I "confessed" to Kent shortly thereafter. That's what I "lied" about.

The other "huge lie" told by me is "the Engineer Ed Hoax", modeled after the Sokal Affair, where I gave empirical proof that an editorial bias existed at Wikipedia. I also "confessed" to that "lie" as soon as I had made my point. I am proud of the Engineer Ed Hoax.

[CurtC]

What about all the other lies? Like the recent one that I called you on, where you said that Greening believes that WTC1's top section didn't disintegrate until it hit the ground?

[TruthSeeker1234]

What about all the other lies? Like the recent one that I called you on, where you said that Greening believes that WTC1's top section didn't disintegrate until it hit the ground?

THat is exactly what Greening's paper says. It's quoted in the OP.

[Anti-sophist]

THat is exactly what Greening's paper says. It's quoted in the OP.

You are, again, confusing a model for the sake of calculations and an actual belief of the reality of the event.

[Kent1]

A tiny good natured spoofing in my first email to Kent. I used my real name, but I claimed to believe in the official story. I said it was my cousin who was the truther, and could I please have some help debunking.

I was just afraid that if I let on which side I was really on, he wouldn't talk to me. I "confessed" to Kent shortly thereafter. That's what I "lied" about.

The other "huge lie" told by me is "the Engineer Ed Hoax", modeled after the Sokal Affair, where I gave empirical proof that an editorial bias existed at Wikipedia. I also "confessed" to that "lie" as soon as I had made my point. I am proud of the Engineer Ed Hoax.

You didn't "confess" until I confronted you with it,.... after I said "blown to kingdom come"
I deal with dozens upon dozens of e-mails who have no problem telling me the truth.

[CurtC]

You are, again, confusing a model for the sake of calculations and an actual belief of the reality of the event.
He's not passively "confusing" it, he's actively lying about it.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Greenings language is clear. He means that the top block goes all the way down to the ground. He has to mean that. His theory requires that the mass is accumulating. Utterly divorced from reality.


say what? Are you trying to suggest that mass was being destroyed? That would be a first and would involve thermonuclear processes. Are you advancing yet another dumb theory that this is the case?

Intact or not the mass is going to get bigger as each floor adds to the one below it.

It's pretty simple - almost as simple as you appear to be.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Let's back up. Yes or no, did Frank Greening say this:

We now apply this simple model to the WTC collapse. We assume that both
WTC building collapses began with an upper block of nfloors collapsing onto a series of
lower floors as in the “domino effect”. We shall refer to this process as the first stage of
collapse. For this stage, (see equation 1), we have an initial mass nmf falling onto the
floor below and becoming mass (n+1)mf. This new, enlarged, block of floors descends
with velocity v2= {n/(n+1)}v1through a distance hfat which point itstrikes the floor
below and becomes mass (n+2)mf moving at velocity {n/(n+2)}v2, and so on. This
implies a first stage collapse sequence for WTC 1: all floors from 110 to 96 (= 14 floors)
collapse onto floor 95; all these floors collapse onto 94 93 92 and so on to 32 
1; for WTC 2 all floors from 110 to 81 (= 29 floors) follow the same sequential process.
At the end of each of these collapse events we envision a second stage of collapse
involving the destruction of the upper block of the WTC buildings: for WTC 1 the 97th
floor, plus all floors above, collapse onto the pile of rubble topped by floor 96; this is
followed by floor 98 (plus all floors above) collapsing onto floor 97 and so on. The 2nd
stage sequence for WTC 1 ends with floor 110 collapsing on to all lower floors. For
WTC 2 the 2ndstage involves floor 82 collapsing onto floor 81, followed by 83, 84, etc,
collapsing on to the pile of rubble until floor 110 collapses onto all lower floors.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You didn't "confess" until I confronted you with it,.... after I said "blown to kingdom come"
I deal with dozens upon dozens of e-mails who have no problem telling me the truth.

Let's see. I have a song linked from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth homepage, with my real name. I email you with my real name. Does it really sound like I'm trying to "pull one over on you" for all time? No.

I have emailed dozens of people who refuse to talk to me, yet will gladly talk to (equally insignificant) people who are "on their side". It's just how it goes. Like Jonathan Barnett, for instance. And Bazant. And Jim Glanz.

All I have ever "lied" about is my identity. Even so, I am the one who currently is "out of the closet". You all know exactly who I am. Strip away the ad hominem attacks on my character, and we can see how shallow the "argument" for the official story really is.

Honestly guys, the ad hominems only embolden us.

[TruthSeeker1234]

say what? Are you trying to suggest that mass was being destroyed?
Intact or not the mass is going to get bigger as each floor adds to the one below it.

Mass was not destroyed. It was, however, rendered into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building. It is the official story which must believe that the mass of the towers somehow disappeared, because when the "collapse" is over, there is no pile.

[beachnut]

Truthseeker,

Great thread!

I love watching the tizzy fits and insults thrown around when these people are confronted with evidence they can't handle.

I noticed they even tried to make you look bad for posting the video as if they don't post the same when it is in their favor.

I am glad to see they use the same MO on you. It's almost like they have an organized strategy!

Keep up the good work.

Russell

Hello, Russell

What evidence are you talking about?

Russell explain why TS's evidence is faulty or a real attempt at anything?

Russell are you serious?

TS's stuff is not evidence, it is a faulty comparison. Almost proves Greening's work.

What do you think Russell? Are you really interested in truth, or are you just another CT guy with no evidence?

[Regnad Kcin]

...Strip away the ad hominem attacks on my character, and we can see how shallow the "argument" for the official story really is.

Honestly guys, the ad hominems only embolden us.Yawn.

Mass was not destroyed. It was, however, rendered into a fine powder...Except it all wasn't.

...and ejected outside the footprint of the building.Except it all wasn't.

It is the official story which must believe that the mass of the towers somehow disappeared, because when the "collapse" is over, there is no pile.Except there is.

[beachnut]

Mass was not destroyed. It was, however, rendered into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building. It is the official story which must believe that the mass of the towers somehow disappeared, because when the "collapse" is over, there is no pile.

One day you will have to show us why the tons of debris sitting on 19 acres of land, some 3 or 4 to 5 stories high is not really the WTC towers.

Sorry, but here are 5 stories of rubble in a street next to the WTC!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244745537374135a5.jpg
5 plus stories of rubble, large chunks, big pieces, large rock size, car size, people size, elephant size rubble, steel, concrete, etc

So despite the fact the towers were 95 percent air, leaving only 5 stories of junk to spread over 19 acres and the tower being what? 2 acres.

Who else shares your ideas on this minority position?

Can you point to scientific papers that support your position?

Are there any experts that support your position?

Darn seems like you are mising the ability to see from photos that you are wrong.

Looks like the missing mass was right there in the street.

[stateofgrace]

Mass was not destroyed. It was, however, rendered into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building. It is the official story which must believe that the mass of the towers somehow disappeared, because when the "collapse" is over, there is no pile.

Really BS?

Everything from inside the Towers was simply blown outside the footprint in a fine powder?

All the steel floor trusses, all the heavy duty machinery that was sat on the floors simply rendered naturally along with concrete floor covering into fine dust and blown out of the side of the Towers.

Is this what you are saying BS?

[Roger_Harris]

Let's back up. Yes or no, did Frank Greening say this:

Jeez, this is getting ridiculous. I believe at least 6 people tried to explain to you that you weren't even understanding what that "simple model" was and wasn't intended to be, yet you keep flogging the same dead "I don't get it, so Greening must be wrong" horse. But despite your unsubstantiated objections to Greening's method in that paper, that "simple model" seems to come up with a pretty accurate time for the collapse, doesn't it.

Then, you demonstrate that you don't understand another Greening paper -- on a completely different subject! -- you try to claim that Greening has "changed his mind," but he's still wrong because his calculations don't jive with your imaginary description of what happened. And to prove your "argument," you point us to a video and demonstrate that you can't even accurately describe what's clearly shown, yet claim to somehow know what's going on inside the building.

Then, Russell comes along and puts a huge dent in his own credibility by patting you on the head and telling you what a good job you're doing!

I'll tell you what's starting to annoy me: your handle. Surely, you can come up with something that more accurately describes your objectives here.

[Kent1]

Let's see. I have a song linked from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth homepage, with my real name. I email you with my real name. Does it really sound like I'm trying to "pull one over on you" for all time? No.

I have emailed dozens of people who refuse to talk to me, yet will gladly talk to (equally insignificant) people who are "on their side". It's just how it goes. Like Jonathan Barnett, for instance. And Bazant. And Jim Glanz.

All I have ever "lied" about is my identity. Even so, I am the one who currently is "out of the closet". You all know exactly who I am. Strip away the ad hominem attacks on my character, and we can see how shallow the "argument" for the official story really is.

Honestly guys, the ad hominems only embolden us.
If you weren't trying to pull one over then you should of simply told the truth. Its as easy as that. It's part of your MO. Your last line is just more in a disingenuous pattern of attack.

[R.Mackey]

I have emailed dozens of people who refuse to talk to me, yet will gladly talk to (equally insignificant) people who are "on their side". It's just how it goes. Like Jonathan Barnett, for instance. And Bazant. And Jim Glanz.

All I have ever "lied" about is my identity. Even so, I am the one who currently is "out of the closet". You all know exactly who I am. Strip away the ad hominem attacks on my character, and we can see how shallow the "argument" for the official story really is.

Honestly guys, the ad hominems only embolden us.
You were "emboldened (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64164)" before you ever even registered here, so don't try to pin this on us.

Perhaps they won't talk to you because they see there's no point? You've been carping about "99% of the WTC towers was crushed to dust" since your very first post here, and thousands of corrections later, you still don't get it.

The world and its experts do not owe you an education. You need to participate.

[Kent1]

Ace I'll do you a favor.....post your objections to Greening at the link below and he will more than likely see them.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=7635

[Horatius]

Ace I'll do you a favor.....post your objections to Greening at the link below and he will more than likely see them.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=7635

I find it very interesting that some CTists accuse us of having an organized strategy:

I am glad to see they use the same MO on you. It's almost like they have an organized strategy!

...but whenever I follow any of these links to discussions on other boards, it's always the CTists who are spouting the same old arguments, worded in almost exactly the same way, using all the same numbers. It seems like the only ones who can actually come up with a new idea on their own are the outright crazy ones like Christophera.

So who is it that has the organized strategy? Should we start accusing them of being paid shills for Alex Jones and Dylan Avery?

[einsteen]

But despite your unsubstantiated objections to Greening's method in that paper, that "simple model" seems to come up with a pretty accurate time for the collapse, doesn't it.


That is the best argument I've heard in years. It doesn't matter whether the models are realistic or not as long as the collapse time is the same order. Old TV programs are black and white, Zebra's are black and white hence zebra's are old tv programs.

Do you realize that a controlled demolition model also leads to the same collapse time, i.e. if it is pulled at some strategic parts of the building (not a complete wiring of the damned thing) it will also collapse with that collapse time. Create a model in which only the upper block is pulled and probablly a few below to give it sufficient fall speed and it will go throught the whole building, theoretically. You even don't need a plane in that case.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Of course we'll be accused of having an "organized strategy". They're coming to the proverbial gunfight with a knife. Their world is full of differing theories and logical fallacies. When they face us and our use of scientific methodology, logical consistency, and a single "theory" to defend it is going to appear that we're all working out of the same playbook; because we are. That playbook is called the Evidence Based Conclusion.

[Kent1]

Of course we'll be accused of having an "organized strategy". They're coming to the proverbial gunfight with a knife. Their world is full of differing theories and logical fallacies. When they face us and our use of scientific methodology, logical consistency, and a single "theory" to defend it is going to appear that we're all working out of the same playbook; because we are. That playbook is called the Evidence Based Conclusion.

Honestly I wish we were better organized. The CT'ers are far more organized than us.

[Roger_Harris]

That is the best argument I've heard in years. It doesn't matter whether the models are realistic or not as long as the collapse time is the same order. Old TV programs are black and white, Zebra's are black and white hence zebra's are old tv programs.

Total baloney. TS claims that Greening's analysis (which only estimates a collapse time) can't be accurate because the method Greening used (separating the collapse into two phases that can be calculated separately and then added together) doesn't match what really happened. Yet, the calculation is in good agreement with the observation, which lends support to thinking that the method is basically sound. That was the only "argument" I presented there, which doesn't remotely resemble your black-and-white nonsense. I couldn't even figure out what you were getting at until I read this:

Do you realize that a controlled demolition model also leads to the same collapse time, i.e. if it is pulled at some strategic parts of the building (not a complete wiring of the damned thing) it will also collapse with that collapse time. Create a model in which only the upper block is pulled and probablly a few below to give it sufficient fall speed and it will go throught the whole building, theoretically. You even don't need a plane in that case.

Why, yes, I do realize that Greening's analysis in that particular paper doesn't consider what initiated the collapse; it only estimates the collapse time. It would appear that you have lost the plot: TS is the one who is trying to read more into the analysis than was intended, and apparentlly basing his objections merely on his own misunderstanding of the purpose of that analysis.

[defaultdotxbe]

That is the best argument I've heard in years. It doesn't matter whether the models are realistic or not as long as the collapse time is the same order. Old TV programs are black and white, Zebra's are black and white hence zebra's are old tv programs.
isnt that more a CT argument? its fell as fast as demolition so it was one?

Do you realize that a controlled demolition model also leads to the same collapse time, i.e. if it is pulled at some strategic parts of the building (not a complete wiring of the damned thing) it will also collapse with that collapse time. Create a model in which only the upper block is pulled and probablly a few below to give it sufficient fall speed and it will go throught the whole building, theoretically. You even don't need a plane in that case.
this is where ockhams razor comes in handy




BTW on old TV shows zebras appeared a uniform gray color (mr ed)

[Horatius]

Do you realize that a controlled demolition model also leads to the same collapse time, i.e. if it is pulled at some strategic parts of the building (not a complete wiring of the damned thing) it will also collapse with that collapse time. Create a model in which only the upper block is pulled and probablly a few below to give it sufficient fall speed and it will go throught the whole building, theoretically. You even don't need a plane in that case.

Yes, I think it's safe to say we all realize using explosives to collapse the building at the same point would likely produce the same effect.

The point is, the Troothers are the ones claiming that a pure gravity collapse must take far longer than was observed. This calculation is intended to show that this argument is without merit. The troothers would have us believe that CD is the only possible way the towers could have fallen as they did, but Greening's paper shows that there is more than just that one possibility. It is all the other evidence that leads us to accept the gravity collapse due to impact and fires, rather than CD, not just this one argument. It's just one piece of the puzzle, not the whole thing.

[Horatius]

Of course we'll be accused of having an "organized strategy". They're coming to the proverbial gunfight with a knife. Their world is full of differing theories and logical fallacies. When they face us and our use of scientific methodology, logical consistency, and a single "theory" to defend it is going to appear that we're all working out of the same playbook; because we are. That playbook is called the Evidence Based Conclusion.

Yes, but they seem to think it's more like we all get our instructions from one central source, without regard to our own analysis or knowledge. How many times have they accused us of having Gravy as Our Leader?

My point is that their paranoid Borg-like image of us is actually a far beter description of them. Seriously, when was the last time you saw one of them bring up a new argument? Or any argument that isn't in a paper or video of one of the big guns of the CT movement?

And as a counter example, when was the last time you saw a big crowd of debunkers wearing the same shirts, being lead by Gravy with a bullhorn, shouting down Alex Jones? Although that might be fun, come to think of it :)

[TruthSeeker1234]

Really BS?

Everything from inside the Towers was simply blown outside the footprint in a fine powder?

All the steel floor trusses, all the heavy duty machinery that was sat on the floors simply rendered naturally along with concrete floor covering into fine dust and blown out of the side of the Towers.

Is this what you are saying BS?

It sure looks that way, yes.

The above picture of WFC 2 and 3 is already in HUNT THE RUBBLE, but thank you. I think it is safe to say that this rubble landed outside the footprint. Way outside the footprint.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Total baloney. TS claims that Greening's analysis (which only estimates a collapse time) can't be accurate because the method Greening used (separating the collapse into two phases that can be calculated separately and then added together) doesn't match what really happened. Yet, the calculation is in good agreement with the observation, . . .



No, it isn't. For the fifth time, at least. Maybe 6th. Greening's calculations are to be ignored because his assumptions, as he explains them, are totally at odds with observed reality. The top block does not stay intact as it "falls" down through the structure. This is Greening's assumption, and I reject it. Next.

[stateofgrace]

It sure looks that way, yes.

The above picture of WFC 2 and 3 is already in HUNT THE RUBBLE, but thank you. I think it is safe to say that this rubble landed outside the footprint. Way outside the footprint.

Read the question again BS, I am not talking about just the concrete.

Read the question again, please before you make yourself look even sillier.

[Loss Leader]

I'm so lost. I thought the CTers argued the towers fell inside their own foortprints because it is somehow reminiscent of a controlled demolition. Now Troofseeker451 says that the fact that they didn't proves a controlled demolition.

Have they given up the inside the footprint thing? Are they split on this point? What's the deal over there in cuckooland?

[beachnut]

It sure looks that way, yes.

The above picture of WFC 2 and 3 is already in HUNT THE RUBBLE, but thank you. I think it is safe to say that this rubble landed outside the footprint. Way outside the footprint.

You must be a bad music writer, cause any high school grad could follow the studies and figure this out. You should have listened in physics class.

[Roger_Harris]

No, it isn't. For the fifth time, at least. Maybe 6th. Greening's calculations are to be ignored because his assumptions, as he explains them, are totally at odds with observed reality. The top block does not stay intact as it "falls" down through the structure. This is Greening's assumption, and I reject it.

Ignore and reject? That's quite a let-down after you said you were going to "refute" them, but oh well...

Thought of a new handle yet? If not, I have some suggestions.

[Roger_Harris]

It sure looks that way, yes.

Go back to the animation you posted. Several storeys have collapsed between those two frames, so even Gordon Ross would have to agree that the collapse is going to continue under its own momentum at that point.

Now, does it really look to you like several floors worth of debris have been ejected at that point?

You have argued yourself into a corner here, where I suspect you'll feel forced to answer "yes" despite the obvious answer. But if that's your answer, the only thing you're proving here is that you are certainly no "truth seeker."

"Hunt the rubble"? Got any explanation yet for the 1.7 million tons of debris they trucked out of Ground Zero? Seems like a "truth seeker" wouldn't have so much trouble finding the rubble.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Go back to the animation you posted. Several storeys have collapsed between those two frames, so even Gordon Ross would have to agree that the collapse is going to continue under its own momentum at that point.

Now, does it really look to you like several floors worth of debris have been ejected at that point?



The videos I posted are to be looked at again. Yes, several stories have collapsed. Pay careful attention to the sequence.


First, the break is between 97 and 96.
The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
Then 97 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
98 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
99 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
100 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.

At this point, the top 14 floors are behaving like a standard controled demolition of a 14 story building. It is bottom-up collapse, with floor 96 representing the "ground". Only after the top block has become about half its original height does the next phase begin, where 96 finally breaks and the top-down destruction proceeds.

This is the precise opposite of the Greening assumption upon which his paper is predicated.

[einsteen]

Another thing that strikes me is tat Greening does not explicitly tell how he computes the collapse time, if you assume free fall between two floors (not taking into account the merging of mass that looses energy a factor n/[1+n] each time, this gives a time difference of 0 in a valid theoretical model) but the fact that the energy to break a floor takes time. In general energy conservation equations say nothing about the time, it's like a ball that you drop, if you know an amount of energy E is lost then you can calculate the speed after that, that is simply

v -> sqrt(v^2+2(gh-E/m))

but what is the time it takes ? If you assume the force working on it is constant than it is different then only a force that is in fact a kind of delta function (working at one moment in time but infinitely strong, sounds absurd but is valid in physics and even in mathematics), in the last case you lose some energy and the time is in fact the same time as in free fall, and that is what the guy (forgot his name) used in his script and probably Greening in his excel sheet, if you use a more realistic model, maybe a force that goes with F=kx (like a spring) it will influence the collapse time.

[defaultdotxbe]

The videos I posted are to be looked at again. Yes, several stories have collapsed. Pay careful attention to the sequence.


First, the break is between 97 and 96.
The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
Then 97 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
98 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
99 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
100 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.

At this point, the top 14 floors are behaving like a standard controled demolition of a 14 story building. It is bottom-up collapse, with floor 96 representing the "ground". Only after the top block has become about half its original height does the next phase begin, where 96 finally breaks and the top-down destruction proceeds.

This is the precise opposite of the Greening assumption upon which his paper is predicated.
and what about AFTER this? then does it behave as greening predicts? if that is the case, which mechanism would make up the vast majority of the collapse sequence, adn thus be preffered for a implistic model?

[stateofgrace]

The videos I posted are to be looked at again. Yes, several stories have collapsed. Pay careful attention to the sequence.


First, the break is between 97 and 96.
The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
Then 97 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
98 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
99 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
100 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.

At this point, the top 14 floors are behaving like a standard controled demolition of a 14 story building. It is bottom-up collapse, with floor 96 representing the "ground". Only after the top block has become about half its original height does the next phase begin, where 96 finally breaks and the top-down destruction proceeds.

This is the precise opposite of the Greening assumption upon which his paper is predicated.

BS. I will make this simple for you.

The video you posted does not show the floors it shows the external superstructure.

The floors and the external steel superstructure are not the same.

Unless you have developed X ray vision and can see what is going on inside the external steel super structure to the floors, please stop posting you tube videos to prove your point.

If you don't understand Greenings work, get in touch with him.

[Horatius]

Now, does it really look to you like several floors worth of debris have been ejected at that point?



First, the break is between 97 and 96.
The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
Then 97 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
98 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
99 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
100 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.

At this point, the top 14 floors are behaving like a standard controled demolition of a 14 story building. It is bottom-up collapse, with floor 96 representing the "ground". Only after the top block has become about half its original height does the next phase begin, where 96 finally breaks and the top-down destruction proceeds.

This is the precise opposite of the Greening assumption upon which his paper is predicated.

Why is it surprising to you that the floors that were most damaged in the impact, and most weaked by the fires, would fail before the relatively undamaged floors just below?

And in any case, it doesn't matter, because as pointed out above, at this point very little of the mass of the upper floors had been ejected, and so would have been available to help crush the lower floors. The upper floors may have collapsed onto the lower floors until so much mass was acculated that the lower floors started to fail. Once that happened, all the floors below this level are pretty much doomed.

Mathematically, it doesn't really make that much difference. Quibbling over which particular floors failed in what order still dosn't change anything.

Oh, and while I'm at it, how does the Death Ray O' Doom hypothesis explain a collapse that starts at the 97th floor? If it had been hit by a space-based weapon of some sort, shouldn't the "disintegration" have started at the roof level? Or was it a bank shot off the glass front of another building?

[Loss Leader]

BS. I will make this simple for you.

The video you posted does not show the floors it shows the external superstructure.

The floors and the external steel superstructure are not the same.

Unless you have developed X ray vision and can see what is going on inside the external steel super structure to the floors, please stop posting you tube videos to prove your point.

If you don't understand Greenings work, get in touch with him.


Thank you, SoG. This same point has been made numerous times by me and BS1+1=3 just goes on ignoring it.

The towers were not traditional skelatal steel buildings. They were built on a central core with the floors tethered to the core. As the core failed, it pulled the floors in and down. This has the effect of making the external steel facing the last thing affected.

ParanoiaSeeker2468 never appears to understand this no matter how many times it's explained.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
First, the break is between 97 and 96.
The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
Then 97 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
98 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
99 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
100 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. [B]96 holds.
...

You are assuming too much. All that you could say is that the facade at 96 does not show failure. You have no way of knowing what is going on inside the building itself.

[Roger_Harris]

The videos I posted are to be looked at again. Yes, several stories have collapsed. Pay careful attention to the sequence.


First, the break is between 97 and 96.
The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
Then 97 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
98 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
99 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.
100 fails. The whole top block falls down one floor, to 96. 96 holds.

At this point, the top 14 floors are behaving like a standard controled demolition of a 14 story building. It is bottom-up collapse, with floor 96 representing the "ground". Only after the top block has become about half its original height does the next phase begin, where 96 finally breaks and the top-down destruction proceeds.

This is the precise opposite of the Greening assumption upon which his paper is predicated.

We've already been through that: You're simply misinterpreting where the collapse starts. It starts almost half-way between where you drew the red line and the roof. As I said before, you seem to be unable to even accurately describe what the video shows, yet you claim to somehow know what's going on inside the building.

So let me ask again the question that you quoted and then ignored: Does that second image appear to you to show several floors worth of debris being ejected from the building?

[TruthSeeker1234]

and what about AFTER this? then does it behave as greening predicts?

No. Greening says the top block stays intact until it has powered its way down through the entire intact structure, all the way to floor 1. Then, and only then, does the top block begin to "collapse".

In reality, the top block is gone by the time the "collapse" reaches about floor 70.

[TruthSeeker1234]

So let me ask again the question that you quoted and then ignored: Does that second image appear to you to show several floors worth of debris being ejected from the building?

Yes. Here is a picture of a collapse about 1/3rd over. Yes, it appears that about 1/3rd of a tower's worth of material has been rendered into fine powder and ejected.

http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/mushroom.jpg

[rwguinn]

Another thing that strikes me is tat Greening does not explicitly tell how he computes the collapse time, if you assume free fall between two floors (not taking into account the merging of mass that looses energy a factor n/[1+n] each time, this gives a time difference of 0 in a valid theoretical model) but the fact that the energy to break a floor takes time. In general energy conservation equations say nothing about the time, it's like a ball that you drop, if you know an amount of energy E is lost then you can calculate the speed after that, that is simply

v -> sqrt(v^2+2(gh-E/m))

but what is the time it takes ? If you assume the force working on it is constant than it is different then only a force that is in fact a kind of delta function (working at one moment in time but infinitely strong, sounds absurd but is valid in physics and even in mathematics), in the last case you lose some energy and the time is in fact the same time as in free fall, and that is what the guy (forgot his name) used in his script and probably Greening in his excel sheet, if you use a more realistic model, maybe a force that goes with F=kx (like a spring) it will influence the collapse time.

You and BSer1...n are as qualified to refute Greening as I am to do the same to Steven Hawking...
Neither of you has shown any grasp of the concepts of physics, structural analysis, video analysis, or even life.
Kinda like Russell P.--once you run out of arguments, you get defensive and post like crazy. Is that Argumentum ad infinitem?

welcome back to ignore...

[Horatius]

Yes. Here is a picture of a collapse about 1/3rd over. Yes, it appears that about 1/3rd of a tower's worth of material has been rendered into fine powder and ejected.

http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/mushroom.jpg


That's not the second image he's talking about.

Out of a 110-story building, how many stories constitutes 1/3? Hint: it's more than 14.

Once the collapse gets going there's no reason it will stop. We're talking about the first second of the collapse, the first few floors, not 1/3 of the way down. Please try to stay focused. How much mass was ejected in the first second of the collapse?

And once again, your "about 1/3rd of a tower's worth of material" is just pulled out of the air, with no justification other than it supports your delusions.

[R.Mackey]

Another thing that strikes me is tat Greening does not explicitly tell how he computes the collapse time, if you assume free fall between two floors (not taking into account the merging of mass that looses energy a factor n/[1+n] each time, this gives a time difference of 0 in a valid theoretical model) but the fact that the energy to break a floor takes time. In general energy conservation equations say nothing about the time, it's like a ball that you drop, if you know an amount of energy E is lost then you can calculate the speed after that, that is simply

v -> sqrt(v^2+2(gh-E/m))

but what is the time it takes ?

There is almost no time lost to breaking structures. On contact, the floors hit accelerate to match the impacting floors almost instantaneously, according to conservation of momentum. The actual fracture is transmitted at the sound speed of the materials, once the lower floor hits its plastic limit.

There is an energy cost, and this is reflected in the kinetic energy of the moving, combined mass after the new floor fails, as a reduction. There is no additional timing correction necessary or missed by Greening.

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes. Here is a picture of a collapse about 1/3rd over. Yes, it appears that about 1/3rd of a tower's worth of material has been rendered into fine powder and ejected.

http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/mushroom.jpgY'know, the sun in the sky "appears" to be about the size of a 50-cent piece.

[defaultdotxbe]

No. Greening says the top block stays intact until it has powered its way down through the entire intact structure, all the way to floor 1. Then, and only then, does the top block begin to "collapse".

In reality, the top block is gone by the time the "collapse" reaches about floor 70.

no, thats not what he says, as i have already pointed out to you

[Trigood]

No. Greening says the top block stays intact until it has powered its way down through the entire intact structure, all the way to floor 1. Then, and only then, does the top block begin to "collapse".

In reality, the top block is gone by the time the "collapse" reaches about floor 70.
I haven't read Greening's paper and so cannot defend it, but you do realize that for a top-powered collapse it matters not at all at what time "the top block is gone."

The mass will still be almost all there. The crushed rubble falling down on the lower floors still constitutes enough mass to ensure continued collapse.

What don't you understand about the reality that breaking up floors does not make all the mass go "poof"?

[Trigood]

Y'know, the sun in the sky "appears" to be about the size of a 50-cent piece.
Hey sometimes when the moon is rising, it looks like it's about the size of a bowling ball. Does that mean the moon is about 50 times the size of the sun? Kool....

[Horatius]

Hey sometimes when the moon is rising, it looks like it's about the size of a bowling ball. Does that mean the moon is about 50 times the size of the sun? Kool....

Why yes, yes it does. Which proves we never landed on the Moon, because how coud they have walked on something 50 times the size of the Sun? The gravity alone would have crushed them.


So, once you refute that, please assume I then turned around and said, "Okay then, how could a full-grown man* walk on something the size of a bowling ball?" It'll just save time.





*And don't give me any guff about how short test pilots are!

[Roger_Harris]

Another thing that strikes me is tat Greening does not explicitly tell how he computes the collapse time, if you assume free fall between two floors (not taking into account the merging of mass that looses energy a factor n/[1+n] each time, this gives a time difference of 0 in a valid theoretical model) but the fact that the energy to break a floor takes time. In general energy conservation equations say nothing about the time, it's like a ball that you drop, if you know an amount of energy E is lost then you can calculate the speed after that, that is simply

v -> sqrt(v^2+2(gh-E/m))

but what is the time it takes ? If you assume the force working on it is constant than it is different then only a force that is in fact a kind of delta function (working at one moment in time but infinitely strong, sounds absurd but is valid in physics and even in mathematics), in the last case you lose some energy and the time is in fact the same time as in free fall, and that is what the guy (forgot his name) used in his script and probably Greening in his excel sheet, if you use a more realistic model, maybe a force that goes with F=kx (like a spring) it will influence the collapse time.

Here is the last paragraph of Greening's "simple model" section:

We note in concluding this Section that the values for t_c given above represent the calculated values for the time of collapse of the WTC towers neglecting the energy required to crush or otherwise destroy the support structure of each floor. This energy, which we will call E_1, is considered in detail in Section 4.2. For now it is sufficient to note that the collapse times calculated without allowing for E_1 are already in reasonable agreement with the observed collapse times. This suggests that E_1 is relatively small
compared to the kinetic energy associated with the falling blocks of floors; let us now place this qualitative prediction on a quantitative basis. To do this we must calculate the energies involved in each stage of the WTC collapse and then correct for the resistance offered by each floor. [Italics in original.]

So, in 4.2 Greening estimates the energy used to crush concrete and destroy columns. Then in the final Discussion, Section 6, Greening estimates the resulting contribution to the collapse time. ("This has been done by subtracting an assumed value for the collapse energy, E_1, from the input kinetic energy, T_i, and re-calculating the post-impact velocity...")

[Loss Leader]

Yes. Here is a picture of a collapse about 1/3rd over. Yes, it appears that about 1/3rd of a tower's worth of material has been rendered into fine powder and ejected.

Please explain why the way this picture appears to you should be considered by anyone as evidence of anything.

Please show any calculation of the mass of the dust cloud.

Hint: You can't. It's a 2-dimensional picture of a 3D event. You can't even estimate the volume of the cloud. because you can't see all sides of it. Even if you knew it, you can't extimate the density of the cloud because you can't get a sample of it or even view a cross-section of it. And even then the density would not be uniform.

Hint about the hint: If you reach behind you and jam your entire fist up into your colon, you may be able to wrench some numbers out of there.

[Roger_Harris]

Yes. Here is a picture of a collapse about 1/3rd over. Yes, it appears that about 1/3rd of a tower's worth of material has been rendered into fine powder and ejected.

Okay, before we get into what that photo "appears" to show, does that first "yes" mean that you are indeed saying that in the animation you posted, it "appears" to you that several floors worth of debris have been ejected and are no longer involved in collapsing the floors immediately below that?

If that's the case, then my prediction was accurate: You've argued yourself into a corner from which you are now forced to make obviously ridiculous claims, which can be refuted by simply looking at the picture. Not that I expect you to take my advice, but perhaps you should stop and consider why that happened before posting again.

[einsteen]

There is almost no time lost to breaking structures. On contact, the floors hit accelerate to match the impacting floors almost instantaneously, according to conservation of momentum. The actual fracture is transmitted at the sound speed of the materials, once the lower floor hits its plastic limit.

There is an energy cost, and this is reflected in the kinetic energy of the moving, combined mass after the new floor fails, as a reduction. There is no additional timing correction necessary or missed by Greening.

Thanks R. Yes, I know what you mean, but I was wondering, there are two kinds of supports, if the floor collapses on the other it needs to unrip that floor from the building, but there is also steel between the floors and that needs to be pressed.

ps. the stuff I've written so far does of course only confirms what his model predicts, I want to put it online within some time..RW doesn't believe it I assume

[TruthSeeker1234]

no, thats not what [Greening] says, as i have already pointed out to you

Greening :

We now apply this simple model to the WTC collapse. We assume that both
WTC building collapses began with an upper block of nfloors collapsing onto a series of
lower floors as in the “domino effect”. We shall refer to this process as the first stage of
collapse. For this stage, (see equation 1), we have an initial mass nmf falling onto the
floor below and becoming mass (n+1)mf. This new, enlarged, block of floors descends
with velocity v2= {n/(n+1)}v1through a distance hfat which point itstrikes the floor
below and becomes mass (n+2)mf moving at velocity {n/(n+2)}v2, and so on. This
implies a first stage collapse sequence for WTC 1: all floors from 110 to 96 (= 14 floors)
collapse onto floor 95; all these floors collapse onto 94 93 92 and so on to 32 
1; for WTC 2 all floors from 110 to 81 (= 29 floors) follow the same sequential process.
At the end of each of these collapse events we envision a second stage of collapse
involving the destruction of the upper block of the WTC buildings: for WTC 1 the 97th
floor, plus all floors above, collapse onto the pile of rubble topped by floor 96; this is
followed by floor 98 (plus all floors above) collapsing onto floor 97 and so on. The 2nd
stage sequence for WTC 1 ends with floor 110 collapsing on to all lower floors. For
WTC 2 the 2ndstage involves floor 82 collapsing onto floor 81, followed by 83, 84, etc,
collapsing on to the pile of rubble until floor 110 collapses onto all lower floors.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Why is it surprising to you that the floors that were most damaged in the impact, and most weaked by the fires, would fail before the relatively undamaged floors just below?



It isn't surprising to me, it's surprising to Greening, evidently. He's the one who says the top block stays intact, not me.

[Anti-sophist]

It isn't surprising to me, it's surprising to Greening, evidently. He's the one who says the top block stays intact, not me.

I jump into this thread periodically to remind you that Greening uses that for his MODEL. He doesn't claim that's what actually happened.

You'd think you'd have figured it out by now.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I jump into this thread periodically to remind you that Greening uses that for his MODEL. He doesn't claim that's what actually happened.


LOL

[Trigood]

Why yes, yes it does. Which proves we never landed on the Moon, because how coud they have walked on something 50 times the size of the Sun? The gravity alone would have crushed them.


So, once you refute that, please assume I then turned around and said, "Okay then, how could a full-grown man* walk on something the size of a bowling ball?" It'll just save time.





*And don't give me any guff about how short test pilots are!
Horatius, I hope they pay you well for your gubmint shillery!!!

Zwounds, you lie. You lie and lie and lie.

I know that all astronauts are put thru the Death-Beam Shrinking Ray and are therefore only 1/16 centimeter tall once they come out. Of course they can walk on a bowling ball. Sheesh....

[TruthSeeker1234]

Tell you what guys. I'll rework my position statement.

Greening's model is easily refuted. Greening's model is divorced from reality.

[Anti-sophist]

Tell you what guys. I'll rework my position statement.

Greening's model is easily refuted. Greening's model is divorced from reality.

Progress!

All models are divorced from reality. That's why we call them models! When I model the earth has a point mass traveling around the sun as a point mass.. It's a model! It's divorced from reality! It's a complete and utter simplification of reality!

Claiming that models aren't equal to reality isn't a significant claim. Finding how a model is simplified isn't significant.

Significance comes from explaining why the model's predictions would be wrong for reality, not explaining why the model, itself, differs from reality.


You are essentially telling me that I can't calculate the orbit of the earth because my "model" assumes they are point-masses, and the earth is obviously NOT a point! Yes, the earth isn't a point.. but the PREDICTION OF THE ORBIT doesn't suffer, at all, by assuming it is. So to recap, my model is completely divorced from reality, but the predicition it provides is perfectly accurate.

So, again, you need to show that his PREDICTION is adversely effected by the model's simplificaiton. It's uninteresting to explain how the model is just a simplification.

I've explained this every way I know how. I hope you understand.

[WildCat]

I've explained this every way I know how. I hope you understand.
He won't understand.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I haven't read Greening's paper and so cannot defend it, but you do realize that for a top-powered collapse it matters not at all at what time "the top block is gone."

The mass will still be almost all there. The crushed rubble falling down on the lower floors still constitutes enough mass to ensure continued collapse.

What don't you understand about the reality that breaking up floors does not make all the mass go "poof"?

I am not the one who says it goes poof, Greening is. And by extension, you Jrefs. You say most of the mass stays within the footprint, pushing down, accumulating, pulverizing, and then . . .when its all over . . .it's gone!!



http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image129.jpg

[Horatius]

Tell you what guys. I'll rework my position statement.

Greening's model is easily refuted. Greening's model is divorced from reality.

And this could be applied to any model, including your precious Wood's Death Ray O' Doom models. So by your addmission, we're now allowed to completely ignore it, right? Right?

Or would you prefer to admit Anti-sophist (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2086876#post2086876) has a point, and actually try to move your understanding forward a bit?

[TruthSeeker1234]

In reality, most of the mass of the towers was turned into power, and ejected outside the footprint, making it unavailable to push down, which renders Greening's paper moot. This is consistent with the 1" to 2" blanket of dust which covered lower Manhattan.

[Horatius]

I am not the one who says it goes poof, Greening is. And by extension, you Jrefs. You say most of the mass stays within the footprint, pushing down, accumulating, pulverizing, and then . . .when its all over . . .it's gone!!



http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image129.jpg

When will you admit that the pile of debris in your Mostest Absolutely Favouritist Picture is actually really fracking huge?

Do you realize how big those pieces have to be to be seen on that scale? You're always going on about how big that black building in the foreground is. Those pieces are on almost the same scale as that building!

Get you head out of you a$$ for once in you life, and actually look at it, will you?

[TruthSeeker1234]

And this could be applied to any model, including your precious Wood's Death Ray O' Doom models. So by your addmission, we're now allowed to completely ignore it, right? Right?

Or would you prefer to admit Anti-sophist (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2086876#post2086876) has a point, and actually try to move your understanding forward a bit?

Models attempt to describe reality. They must be simpler than reality, but to be valid must capture some essential aspect of reality. Greening's model requires the mass to accumulate as the "collapse" proceeds. All of the evidence, I repeat, all of it indicates that this is not the case. We observe mass quantities of very dense stuff outside the footprint. When it's over, there is no pile. There is a smoldering crater.

Why don't you guys get to the part where you explain how all of the accumulating mass which stays inside the footprint, suddenly turns into a smoldering crater, as clearly shown in this picture?

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image129.jpg

[Roger_Harris]

In reality, most of the mass of the towers was turned into power...

Freudian slip?

[stateofgrace]

In reality, most of the mass of the towers was turned into power, and ejected outside the footprint, making it unavailable to push down, which renders Greening's paper moot. This is consistent with the 1" to 2" blanket of dust which covered lower Manhattan.

Really BS?

So what happened to it all?

Please tell us what happened to all the steel and heavy machinery inside the Towers.

Where did it go?

[beachnut]

Models attempt to describe reality. They must be simpler than reality, but to be valid must capture some essential aspect of reality. Greening's model requires the mass to accumulate as the "collapse" proceeds. All of the evidence, I repeat, all of it indicates that this is not the case. We observe mass quantities of very dense stuff outside the footprint. When it's over, there is no pile. There is a smoldering crater.

Why don't you guys get to the part where you explain how all of the accumulating mass which stays inside the footprint, suddenly turns into a smoldering crater, as clearly shown in this picture?



What are you talking about?

Are you are incapable of doing the math to critique Greening, or Ross, or anyone?

You first post proved you wrong on visual evidence.

So when are you going to finish a physics course?

[TruthSeeker1234]

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image129.jpgWhen will you admit that the pile of debris in your Mostest Absolutely Favouritist Picture is actually really fracking huge?

Do you realize how big those pieces have to be to be seen on that scale? You're always going on about how big that black building in the foreground is. Those pieces are on almost the same scale as that building!

Get you head out of you a$$ for once in you life, and actually look at it, will you?

The Banker's Trust building is in the foreground. Each twin tower is about 3 1/2 times the size. So 7 times the BT building "falls down", and we get a crater? Look at the dark round crater where WTC1 stood. See it?

There are lots of pictures of GZ. I've done the hi-res hunt. No floor assemblies. No piles. Buildings gone.

[Horatius]

In reality, most of the mass of the towers was turned into power, and ejected outside the footprint, making it unavailable to push down, which renders Greening's paper moot. This is consistent with the 1" to 2" blanket of dust which covered lower Manhattan.

And once again I must point out that you're completely wrong about this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2077999#post2077999).

[maccy]

Why don't you guys get to the part where you explain how all of the accumulating mass which stays inside the footprint, suddenly turns into a smoldering crater, as clearly shown in this picture?

As the mass is falling it mainly stays within its own footprint. Lightwieght dust from wallboard and similar matrials is ejected during the fall - but this is a small proportion of the total mass.

The ground onto which the tower falls is effectively several stories below the surrounding ground level as there basement levels to the towers.

Once the debris has filled up the basement to the level of the surrounding ground, the ruble pile will spread out as each successive story hits it.

If you drop an egg, it doesn't spread out as its falling, but it does when it hits the ground.

[stateofgrace]

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image129.jpg

The Banker's Trust building is in the foreground. Each twin tower is about 3 1/2 times the size. So 7 times the BT building "falls down", and we get a crater? Look at the dark round crater where WTC1 stood. See it?

There are lots of pictures of GZ. I've done the hi-res hunt. No floor assemblies. No piles. Buildings gone.

So where did it go?

Did it just explode like a volcano?

[TruthSeeker1234]

So where did it go?

Did it just explode like a volcano?


Pretty much.

[Horatius]

When it's over, there is no pile. There is a smoldering crater.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image129.jpg

Oh Jeebus H. Flying Ramen Pink Unicorn!!!! That's not a crater!!!!!

That's a Pile, you ignorant putz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[twinstead]

truthydude I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand Greening's paper and what it means

[Horatius]

I think my brane has finally broke.

[beachnut]

beam weapon proof, join the nuts in the state hospital where you can learn physics from Dr Jones, and Judy Wood

[WildCat]

Why don't you guys get to the part where you explain how all of the accumulating mass which stays inside the footprint, suddenly turns into a smoldering crater, as clearly shown in this picture?
Take a look at your "crater" from a side angle. You clearly don't know what a crater is.
http://www.fema.gov/kids/images/911heroes/usr0287.jpg

[maccy]

Pretty much.

And what hypothesis do you have to support this? I notice you haven't posted in ther beam weapons thread recently...

(NB there isn't a hypothesis needed to support something that clearly didn't happen)

[TruthSeeker1234]

As the mass is falling it mainly stays within its own footprint. Lightwieght dust from wallboard and similar matrials is ejected during the fall - but this is a small proportion of the total mass.

The ground onto which the tower falls is effectively several stories below the surrounding ground level as there basement levels to the towers.



We have many pictures of huge amounts of material outside the footprint. We have inches of dust over square miles, enough to account for almost the entire towers.

Where is your evidence of this accumulating mass in the basements? Do you imagine a 110 story sandwich all compressed into the basements? Can you show any pictures, or any corroboration of this?

[beachnut]

We have many pictures of huge amounts of material outside the footprint. We have inches of dust over square miles, enough to account for almost the entire towers.

Where is your evidence of this accumulating mass in the basements? Do you imagine a 110 story sandwich all compressed into the basements? Can you show any pictures, or any corroboration of this?

there are so many post of photos showing you the pile you must be blind and dumb

show us your math

[Horatius]

Okay, I'm officially calling shenanigans on TS!@#$. No one could be this completely oblivious to reality, it's got to be a put on.

There's no way anyone with a working brain could possibly believe these photos show what he says they do.




At least, that's what I'll be telling myself so I can get to sleep tonight.

[WildCat]

There are lots of pictures of GZ. I've done the hi-res hunt. No floor assemblies. No piles. Buildings gone.
http://dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployments/NYC-WTC2001/images/LER050.jpg

Note the man in the pic for scale. No pile huh?

[beachnut]

TS could be Judy Wood, she escape from the hospital last week

[stateofgrace]

Pretty much.

You are beyond salvage pal, seriously, go get help.

You have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the mechanics, the physics or the ramifications of your ridiculous beliefs.

Please BS, I say this in all seriousness, lay off whatever you are on, take a few basic science lessons and lighten up.

Please, for your own sake.

[beachnut]

Take a look at your "crater" from a side angle. You clearly don't know what a crater is.
http://www.fema.gov/kids/images/911heroes/usr0287.jpg

that is not a pile it is a big hole, like the hole in TS math and arguement

you mean this 5 story pile of WTC tower? Where they are pulling out some guys from the 4th floor stairwell

[Horatius]

http://dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployments/NYC-WTC2001/images/LER050.jpg

Note the man in the pic for scale. No pile huh?

Now that's good. It actually took me a minute to find the guy in this photo. BIG pile!

[maccy]

We have many pictures of huge amounts of material outside the footprint.

If you hadn't quoted only half of my reply, you'd have got the explanation for this. In the 2nd half I said:

Once the debris has filled up the basement to the level of the surrounding ground, the rubble pile will spread out as each successive story hits it.

If you drop an egg, it doesn't spread out as its falling, but it does when it hits the ground.

Anyway, carry on:

We have inches of dust over square miles, enough to account for almost the entire towers.

No we don't. The pile of rubble indicates that there was plenty that didn't turn into dust. As does the record of all the debris transported off the site.

Where is your evidence of this accumulating mass in the basements? Do you imagine a 110 story sandwich all compressed into the basements? Can you show any pictures, or any corroboration of this?

The towers had basements, the towers fell straight down therefore some of the towers fell into the basement. The very fact that there is a pile on top of the basement indicates that the basement is full.

No I don't imagine there is a 110 storey sandwich in the basement, once the basement was full, the remaining stories formed a pretty big pile.

Note the stories are damaged in two ways:

1. as the stories above dislodged them from the core; and

2. as they hit the ground.

The evidence is all the photos already shown in this thread.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Take a look at your "crater" from a side angle. You clearly don't know what a crater is.
http://www.fema.gov/kids/images/911heroes/usr0287.jpg

Any idea where this picture was taken, and looking which way? I'd like to try and match it up with the arial shots.

[Arus808]

why dont you provide us with the dates and times of the arial shots you have?

[Kent1]

I would suggest checking out the LIDAR. Have fun.....
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s798b.htm

[Horatius]

Any idea where this picture was taken, and looking which way? I'd like to try and match it up with the arial shots.

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5433.jpg
New York, NY, October 4, 2001 -- Relief efforts continued day and night at the site of the World Trade Center. Photo by Andrea Booher/ FEMA News Photo

Note debris larger than machines used to move debris.

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5407.jpg

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5396.jpg

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5679.jpg
New York, NY, September 27, 2001 -- Rescue and recovery operations continue at the site of the collapsed World Trade Center. Photo by Bri Rodriguez/ FEMA News Photo

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5677.jpg
New York, NY, September 27, 2001 -- Over one million tons of rubble are yet to be cleared from the site of the collapsed World Trade Center. Photo by Bri Rodriguez/ FEMA News Photo

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5684.jpg
New York, NY, September 27, 2001 -- Rescue crews work to clear debris from the site of the World Trade Center. Photo by Bri Rodriguez/ FEMA News Photo

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5639.jpg

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5652.jpg

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4145.jpg

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4159.jpg
New York, NY, September 24, 2001 -- These rescue workers are dwarfed by the enormous pile of rubble at the site of the World Trade Center. Photo by Michael Riger/ FEMA News Photo

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4154.jpg

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4167.jpg
Notice the buckled steel?

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4139.jpg

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4128.jpg
New York, NY, September 22, 2001 -- ATF personnel traverse the mountain of rubble at Ground Zero. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo

So is that enough, TS, or do you need more to finally admit that it was a pile, a stack, a mountain of rubble, and not a crater?

Twit.

[Horatius]

Just to lighten the mood after all that, here's a cute picture of my cat, Hector.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9490455532504ce19.jpg

[Loss Leader]

When will you admit that the pile of debris in your Mostest Absolutely Favouritist Picture is actually really fracking huge?


10 points of using Galactica slang. If you'd said frelling instead of fracking, I'd have given you 50.

[Arus808]

Just to lighten the mood after all that, here's a cute picture of my cat, Hector.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9490455532504ce19.jpg

<threadjack>
is he completely a black cat? its rumored there is no such thing as a completely black cat. that all current black cats have at least one "spot" that is white.
</threadjack>

[stateofgrace]

Just to lighten the mood after all that, here's a cute picture of my cat, Hector.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9490455532504ce19.jpg

Here is a picture of my cat also, Tom.

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p178/stateofgrace_photos/100_1217.jpg

[Loss Leader]

The Banker's Trust building is in the foreground. Each twin tower is about 3 1/2 times the size. So 7 times the BT building "falls down", and we get a crater? Look at the dark round crater where WTC1 stood. See it?

Considering all the pictures (http://imagesource.art.com/images/products/large/10283000/10283709.jpg) of the huge (http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-09/661747.jpg) mountain (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/images/engineering_img_debris_1.jpg) of debris (http://www32.thny.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1560000/images/_1562872_towers_ap300.jpg), I find your claim that there is a crater in your picture particularly insane.

And even if there were, the towers extended something like seven stories into the ground, creating quite the large hole that had to be filled even before the mountains of rubble could form.

[Horatius]

<threadjack>
is he completely a black cat? its rumored there is no such thing as a completely black cat. that all current black cats have at least one "spot" that is white.
</threadjack>

Nope, two small white spots, one on his chest and one in his nether regions, and a few scattered white hairs throughout. Sorry!

[Horatius]

Here is a picture of my cat also, Tom.

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p178/stateofgrace_photos/100_1217.jpg

I like how they do the eye-slit "Stop with the pictures already!" thing.

Here's one where he seems to be saying "Stay away from my hard drive!"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/94904555496e8385d.jpg

[stateofgrace]

You’re right, TS I hope you are taking note.

Tomorrow when I come back I trust you will have posted a picture of your cat.

Jesus, I bet TS hasn't even got a cat!!

[Horatius]

You’re right, TS I hope you are taking note.

Tomorrow when I come back I trust you will have posted a picture of your cat.

Jesus, I bet TS hasn't even got a cat!!

I don't this any cat would condescend to owning someone like TS. They have standards.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Significance comes from explaining why the model's predictions would be wrong for reality, not explaining why the model, itself, differs from reality.

So, again, you need to show that his PREDICTION is adversely effected by the model's simplificaiton. It's uninteresting to explain how the model is just a simplification.


Greening's predictions would be wrong because his math assumes accumulating mass. If his assumption about the accumulating mass is wrong, there is no basis to keep adding the mass of every floor to the equation as he does.

Is this clear?

I am not explaining why his model is a simplification. I am explaining why it is wrong. THis is the 6th or 7th time I have done so.

[Gravy]

Yesterday my cat Tablet, AKA Globalina the Dangerously Crabby Tabby, was renamed Winston Hitler by a vote of JREF community subforum members. Here she is planning the world domination of English bulldogs.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045538dc787f99.jpg

[Gravy]

Greening's predictions would be wrong because his math assumes accumulating mass. If his assumption about the accumulating mass is wrong, there is no basis to keep adding the mass of every floor to the equation as he does.

Is this clear?

I am not explaining why his model is a simplification. I am explaining why it is wrong. THis is the 6th or 7th time I have done so.You keep saying there was inches of dust spread over square miles. There wasn't inches of dust spread over square blocks. Your assumptions are all wrong, hence your conclusions are all wrong.

Think of your childrens' education, little Chris.

[Horatius]

If his assumption about the accumulating mass is wrong, there is no basis to keep adding the mass of every floor to the equation as he does.

"If (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic)"

[rwguinn]

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image129.jpg

The Banker's Trust building is in the foreground. Each twin tower is about 3 1/2 times the size. So 7 times the BT building "falls down", and we get a crater? Look at the dark round crater where WTC1 stood. See it?

There are lots of pictures of GZ. I've done the hi-res hunt. No floor assemblies. No piles. Buildings gone.

Let's see, now.
Each floor's concrete was about 4 inches thick. Let's be kind, and call it 6.
That means that 110 floors would stack up to 55 feet, plus a bit for the steel that didn'tcrus.
The building root extended 70 or so feet below ground (basements, parking garages, etc.
That would still leave a hole 10-20 feet deep. Yet the stuff piles up some distance above ground. What gives?

that hole (pun intended) idea was conceived by an intellegence with an IQ of a box of rocks.

[Alt+F4]

Just to lighten the mood after all that, here's a cute picture of my cat, Hector.

That cat is obviously in a crator.

[Horatius]

That cat is obviously in a crator.

Oh, please, everyone knows "crators" are square, and that thing is rectangular. But at least it's concave, which we have over TS's ideas.

[TruthSeeker1234]

If you weren't trying to pull one over then you should of simply told the truth. Its as easy as that. It's part of your MO. Your last line is just more in a disingenuous pattern of attack.

OK Kent. Stop pulling one over on us. Who are you, what is your real name, and who is behind the "Debunking" site?

You see? There can be good reasons to remain anonymous. My decision to come out of the closet was a gradual one. I hope I don't live to regret it.

[WildCat]

I hope I don't live to regret it.
I doubt it. You appear to completely lack the ability to be embarrassed by your extreme foolishness.

You can't even admit there was a mountain of debris composed of absolutely mammoth pieces of the WTC - it wasn't "blown to kingdom come" and "turned into dust".

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace I'll do you a favor.....post your objections to Greening at the link below and he will more than likely see them.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=7635

Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have. Here's Newton:
greening's energy transfers leave one hundred percent of the mass in the footprint, as he never allows for the fact that 90% of the debris was outside the footprint.

greening's initial impact focuses one hundred percent of the energy of the upper mass onto the 'floor', completely ignoring the vertical columns, and the impossible geometry of fitting something of a given size into something else of an equal size.

greening still uses the 3.7 (near) freefall initial drop.

greening ignores gordon ross' FAR more realistic momentum transfers.

greening doesn't mention the fact that more than concrete was instantly turned into dust IN HIS MATH. he allows only for the comminution of concrete, while ignoring the other 60% of the fine dust. okay, gypsum is not that hard to pulverize, but wood and paper and PEOPLE(also not mentioned in the dust anaylsis from greening, but WAS in the actual study) sure as hell are.

greening ignores the fact that the falling part is the first to be destroyed, prefering to use one floor up, one floor down.

greening admits, that even in his totally unrealistic model, the velocity should have been halved after the first impact(while of course, ignoring that the core is 'unhingeable' with it's continuously welded box columns, and never could have 'snapped' and gone into near freefall), and yet, that is not what is observed on video.


it's a losing battle. i don't know why greening wants to dig himself in deeper. he should just admit he's using unreal assumptions not grounded in reality. he contradicts himself by using all the falling masses' energy for crushing and bending and breaking(while using an unreal safety factor of 2), and then goes on to admit openly that most of the mass was not within the footprint. i think you see this, neu-fonze, and that is why you brought 'bouncing' into the fray.

gordon ross has a FAR superiour model, ie. a realistic one.

[ranson]

Wow, all that proof of a mountain of debris instead of a crater and suddenly we're back to discussing the mathematical model.

Weird that TS doesn't want to discuss evidence to the contrary of his basic claim.

No, wait . . . never mind.

[maccy]

Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have.

Yes and the people who understand physics on that board are handing him his a*** in much the same way as you've had yours delivered to you in this thread.

[stateofgrace]

Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have. Here's Newton:

Yes indeed TS and of course you totally agree with right?

Had you even bothered to read the replies you would have seen the counter arguments are far better and well constructed
Sorry Newton, Ross' model is the one that is wrong. He "double dips" on his energy deficit for sure. His "momentum loss" term is specious because he adds it to the energy input and output terms when in reality it is already part of those terms. The energy deficits are elastic and plastic strain energies or fracture energies (plus a bit of friction and acoustic energy). These lead to momentum losses. Momentum loss means WORK was done. How does Ross say his "momentum loss" term was created. Did it just come out of nothing, out of nowhere? "Momentum loss" was created by bending, stretching, squashing, fracturing, crushing, pulverizing material in the Towers because the collapse involved completely inelastic collisions. These terms are all covered by the energy transfer equations! Can't you see that? It's the energy that must be conserved, and that includes the energy of motion which is covered by the kinetic energy terms, NOT by the momentum terms AS WELL! Ross' way is simply NOT the way to do a collapse calculation as you can see from Greening's energy balance equation. You could use momentum equations to calculate initial and final velocities if you want to (and as Ross does), but he "pulls a fast-one" when he adds the momentum loss to the energy loss! As for the energy to crush all the non-concrete items in the Twin Towers, you can include them if you want to, right down to the last friggin' styrofoam cup! But compared to the concrete and steel they are trivial. There is a reason they don't build skyscrapers out of plastics and cellulosics you know! I can crush and shred plastics with my bare hands, but steel and concrete are another story - they require lots of energy to deform and fracture. Gypsum offers some resistance, true, but its fracture energy is approximately ten times less than that of concrete and there was ten times MORE concrete that gypsum in the Towers. So do the math! It really sounds like you're desperate to criticize Greening and praise Ross. I think I know why.... but I still don't see anything quantitative coming from your diatribes...........

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=7650

If you want to quote the work of others you would do well to remember there is always a counter argument. This is why; unlike this post I rarely do it. I try to think for myself rather than simply copy and pasting the work of others from other web sites.

You should try it TS, its called thinking, making your own mind up and formulising your own opinions.

[Horatius]

This is a good example of what I mean about how the CTist are the ones with the "Organized Strategy" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2083283#post2083283). We have someone posting almost the exact same arguments as TS here, but the counter-arguments are unique to the particular poster. For instance, this argument:

As for the energy to crush all the non-concrete items in the Twin Towers, you can include them if you want to, right down to the last friggin' styrofoam cup! But compared to the concrete and steel they are trivial. There is a reason they don't build skyscrapers out of plastics and cellulosics you know! I can crush and shred plastics with my bare hands, but steel and concrete are another story - they require lots of energy to deform and fracture. Gypsum offers some resistance, true, but its fracture energy is approximately ten times less than that of concrete and there was ten times MORE concrete that gypsum in the Towers.

...is one I haven't seen before, but it is a pretty good one. This fellow clearly sat down and thought about it for a bit, which is something the CTists never seem to do, they just regurgitate the same old stuff. Never any original thought, never any updating due to new information, or anything.

[Pipirr]

Okay, I'm officially calling shenanigans on TS!@#$.

Excellent! I'll get a broom.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I doubt it. You appear to completely lack the ability to be embarrassed by your extreme foolishness.

You can't even admit there was a mountain of debris composed of absolutely mammoth pieces of the WTC - it wasn't "blown to kingdom come" and "turned into dust".

This picture shows WTC1 and WTC2, and WTC6. WTC6 is 9 stories. It looks about 9 stories taller than WTC1. http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image118.jpg