Putting Gordon Ross to rest

[Newtons Bit]

Also posted at SLC:

After my little talk with Stundie in which Gordon Ross made an appearance in form of email (at the end of this thread (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1728), I've put my thoughts on the subject into a slightly more coherent form. The article is here: http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/05/failure-of-truth-movements-engineer.html It's kind of dry, but it's one of many important concepts Ross does not understand.

I was going to wait until I got a response from Stundie or Ross, but it seems that may be a lot longer in the offing. I think this conclusively puts to rest any doubt anyone had that Ross was qualified to do structural engineering. Big question, should I send this off to the Journal of 9/11 Studies as criticism and see if they take it?

[WildCat]

Big question, should I send this off to the Journal of 9/11 Studies as criticism and see if they take it?
Might as well, it can't hurt. Fat chance any of their "peer reviewers" will understand any of it anyway.

[Newtons Bit]

I suppose I'd have to give my real name and qualifications, etc. I'm really not prepared to do that.

[Mr.D]

I suppose I'd have to give my real name and qualifications, etc. I'm really not prepared to do that.

Is that one of their submissions rules?

Can you send it in as a letter rather than an article submission?

[3bodyproblem]

Very nice, and thanks for your help earlier.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm sure that eminence grise of Legoland engineering, Ace Baker, will be along to refute you shortly, Newtons Bit.

Ace: "Oh, yeah!"

[Newtons Bit]

Foolmewunz: I'm fairly certain that this isn't refutable. It's a concept, not an opinion, which I've shown that Ross doesn't understand. What else is there to do?

[nicepants]

If you don't want to give your name....apparently signing your letter "Mike, 30, NJ" lends just as much credibility as anything else...in twoofland

[LashL]

I suppose I'd have to give my real name and qualifications, etc. I'm really not prepared to do that.

They have published "Letters" by someone named "Arabesque" so it appears that identifying yourself by your real name should not be a requirement.

[Apollo20]

The real problem with Gordon Ross' work is his failure to consider the propagation of compression waves in a column according to the EXACT equations of Pochhammer and Chree as published in the Proceedings of the Cambridge Phil. Soc. Vol 14, page 250. According to simple theory the velocity of a compression wave is independent of its wavelength and equal to the phase group velocity, which is constant. The exact theory shows that the wave speed depends on Poisson's ratio of the column material. The simple theory is valid for a totally axial symmetric impact. Real impacts are invariably unsymmetrical with respect to the column axis. Dispersion will therefore occur and lead to the creation of FLEXURAL vibrations.

This is well described in A.E.H. Love's seminal "Mathematical Theory of Elasticity" published in 1934.....

[AZCat]

The real problem with Gordon Ross' work is his failure to consider the propagation of compression waves in a column according to the EXACT equations of Pochhammer and Chree as published in the Proceedings of the Cambridge Phil. Soc. Vol 14, page 250. According to simple theory the velocity of a compression wave is independent of its wavelength and equal to the phase group velocity, which is constant. The exact theory shows that the wave speed depends on Poisson's ratio of the column material. The simple theory is valid for a totally axial symmetric impact. Real impacts are invariably unsymmetrical with respect to the column axis. Dispersion will therefore occur and lead to the creation of FLEXURAL vibrations.

This is well described in A.E.H. Love's seminal "Mathematical Theory of Elasticity" published in 1934.....

This is pretty typical. Transverse loading (whether impact or otherwise) gets pretty weird compared to axial, hence the difficulty in modelling any structure that undergoes deformation.

[Apollo20]

Yes! And the other thing GR ignores is the fact that dynamic buckling is quite different to "static" buckling. See for example: W. Anwen et al. in "Twin-characteristic-parameter solution for dynamic buckling of columns under elastic compression wave." International Journal of Solids and Structures 39, 861, (2002).

[AZCat]

Yes! And the other thing GR ignores is the fact that dynamic buckling is quite different to "static" buckling. See for example: W. Anwen et al. in "Twin-characteristic-parameter solution for dynamic buckling of columns under elastic compression wave." International Journal of Solids and Structures 39, 861, (2002).

An article I read a couple of years ago (I don't remember where - I'm sorry) discussed the pressure vessels used to contain nuclear weapon core detonations during testing. The length of the impulse was very short (on the order of milliseconds IIRC) but if it could be dampened before a certain amount of deformation occurred in the containment vessel then the vessel could survive, even though the amplitude of the impulse load was very high (several times the yield strength of the materials). This article for me drove home the very un-intuitive nature of dynamic loading.

[Newtons Bit]

This is more than just saying he doesn't understand how to do a complicated dynamic analysis. I'm saying he doesn't even understand the CONCEPTS involved with a simple analysis.

I sent a slightly modified verison of my article to the editors of the "journal of 9/11 studies", haven't heard back from them yet. We'll see. I'm thinking of posting this on the loose change forums just to see what happens

[Apollo20]

Newton's Bit:

I submitted a rebuttal of Ross' first paper to the "Scholar's Journal" a while back. They published it all right, but only AFTER they gave Ross the opportunity to prepare a rebuttal to my rebuttal. Of course I didn't know this was going on or get to see the rebuttal to my rebuttal until it all appeared on the Scholar's site. At that point I couldn't be bothered doing a rebuttal to Ross' rebuttal of my rebuttal......

[beachnut]

Newton's Bit:

I submitted a rebuttal of Ross' first paper to the "Scholar's Journal" a while back. They published it all right, but only AFTER they gave Ross the opportunity to prepare a rebuttal to my rebuttal. Of course I didn't know this was going on or get to see the rebuttal to my rebuttal until it all appeared on the Scholar's site. At that point I couldn't be bothered doing a rebuttal to Ross' rebuttal of my rebuttal......
After reading Ross's paper, I was thinking if we were in the WTC, he would announce, we are safe here! After I looked at the small amount of energy he said was lacking to sustain global collapse, I would be running.

[T.A.M.]

Newton's Bit:

I submitted a rebuttal of Ross' first paper to the "Scholar's Journal" a while back. They published it all right, but only AFTER they gave Ross the opportunity to prepare a rebuttal to my rebuttal. Of course I didn't know this was going on or get to see the rebuttal to my rebuttal until it all appeared on the Scholar's site. At that point I couldn't be bothered doing a rebuttal to Ross' rebuttal of my rebuttal......

Unfortunately, as you are a LEGITIMATE Scientist, I know for certain your rebuttal could not have been PEER Reviewed by that journal's review committee.

TAM;)

[Apollo20]

TAM:

Exactly!

One more paper for GR to consider is by J. R. Gladden et al:

"Dynamic Buckling and Fragmentation in Brittle Rods".

Physical Review Letters 94, 035503, (2005)

This paper shows what flexural vibrations are capable of doing....

[lozenge124]

TAM:

Exactly!

One more paper for GR to consider is by J. R. Gladden et al:

"Dynamic Buckling and Fragmentation in Brittle Rods".

Physical Review Letters 94, 035503, (2005)

This paper shows what flexural vibrations are capable of doing....

Well it's all very well to criticize Mr. Ross for not considering the complexities of column fragmentation/buckling and the exact nature of the compression waves in the collapse etc..., but the papers he is critiquing - Bazant & Zhou in his latest, and Greening/Apollo20 in his earlier paper - do not do so either, and I would argue that the burden of proof should be on them as they are attempting to prove that the WTC collapse was inevitable once initiated. (and NIST cites B&Z presumably to justify their "global collapse ensues" statement without further proof)

For example, Greening's 911myths paper "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE" compares the kinetic energy of the falling upper block to the energy "E1" required to "bring about the collapse of one floor". But he never proposes any mechanism or justification for assuming that the energy absorbed by the lower block upon collision with the falling upper block will be concentrated on the top floor - especially as the lower block consists of vertical perimeter and core columns which will react as a whole to the collision, not "floor by floor" as the floor concept has no meaning for a structure of continuous vertical columns.

Similarly, B&Z simply state that It further follows that the brunt of vertical impact must have gone directly into the columns of the framed tube and the core, and that the front of collapse of the floors could not have advanced substantially ahead of the front of collapse of the framed tube, since otherwise the collapse of the framed tube would have had to take significantly longer than 9s. This is simply an observation after the fact, not the prediction based on a model/theory that one would expect to be given.
In the Bazant/Verdure subsequent 2006 paper they take an approach similar to Greening's energy considerationsIt is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story)exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story.
But still no justification for this bizarre "floor by floor" progressive collapse with the perimeter columns failing 1-3 floors underneath the collapse zone with little to no damage at any point further down.

So where is the paper that proves that total collapse was inevitable after initiation that takes into consideration all the "flexural vibrations", "Pochhammer and Chree" equations, Rayleigh waves, etc?
AFAIK no paper has done so, and Ross is critiquing B&Z and Greening within their frame of reference and assumptions.

[T.A.M.]

Well I am not sure that Apollo20, in suggesting that GR consider the paper cited, was suggesting that the theories in that paper MUST be considered when reviewing/critiquing Bazant or Greenings own paper. Rather, I think it may have been cited merely as something else TO CONSIDER, when reviewing the collapse...IMO

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

Just a point of note here. Really there isn't a lot of point at looking at how the preimeter columns should have reacted when the upper ones hit them because that's not what happened anyway. The upper columns come down on the floor of the section below, hitting the connections of the truss and preimeter columns. This area was designed for lateral loading between the primeter and the core, not for vertical loading of the top of the building impacting onto it. The top of the building acted like an off center tube sliding down inside a second tube slicing the floors off of the columns and pushing the outer tube out into the "banana peel" we saw as the buildings collapsed.

Calculating how much energy the columns should have been able to withstand and speculating about the dynamic forces really is pointless when the video shows us that the part that took the hit was the part that didn't have any of these things there. As a result it was like hitting a tightly held piece of paper with a sledgehammer and expecting it to stop the blow.

[Newtons Bit]

Just a point of note here. Really there isn't a lot of point at looking at how the preimeter columns should have reacted when the upper ones hit them because that's not what happened anyway. The upper columns come down on the floor of the section below, hitting the connections of the truss and preimeter columns. This area was designed for lateral loading between the primeter and the core, not for vertical loading of the top of the building impacting onto it. The top of the building acted like an off center tube sliding down inside a second tube slicing the floors off of the columns and pushing the outer tube out into the "banana peel" we saw as the buildings collapsed.

Calculating how much energy the columns should have been able to withstand and speculating about the dynamic forces really is pointless when the video shows us that the part that took the hit was the part that didn't have any of these things there. As a result it was like hitting a tightly held piece of paper with a sledgehammer and expecting it to stop the blow.

I'm not trying to address what would actually need to be done to accomplish an analysis of the collapse. What I am saying is that Gordon Ross doesn't have a clue as far as structural engineering goes and shouldn't be claiming he does. What makes it worse, is that as a professional engineer, he is probably acting in an unethical manner. He is claiming to be an expert on a subject that he does not have legitimate experience in. This is bad enough, but he is publishing in a journal that claims to be "peer-reviewed" when he knows that it does not have the capacity to review structural concepts. He is not excersing a standard of care.

This is also one of the reasons why you'll never see me publishing my real name. I do not attach the credibility of my arguments/concepts/calculations on a stamp (a professional engineering liscense). They stand on their own and fall on their own.

[PhantomWolf]

So you're saying that he's so incompetent that he even gets wrong, what he got wrong in the first place, but doesn't know it. In other words, he not only gets his premise wrong, but even if he had actually gotten it right the calculations he does on that premise are wrong as well.

[Newtons Bit]

Phantwolf: Indeed. Though he is trying to answer something from Bazant and Zhou. Bazant and Zhou make many of the same assumptions for simplicity and to err on the side of collapse prevention. But he should know better than to look at calculations that he CANT get legitimately peer-reviewed, knows err on the side of collapse prevention, and say that the work of a huge body of engineers is some sort of great con. It discredits the whole profession.

[steve s]

The top of the building acted like an off center tube sliding down inside a second tube slicing the floors off of the columns and pushing the outer tube out into the "banana peel" we saw as the buildings collapsed.


This was really made clear in one of the videos I saw where a section of the perimeter curtain about 6 or 7 stories tall breaks away in one piece. And the twoofers want us to believe that every floor was rigged with explosives. Funny how those explosives failed to sever all those beams.

Steve S.

[einsteen]

For example, Greening's 911myths paper "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE" compares the kinetic energy of the falling upper block to the energy "E1" required to "bring about the collapse of one floor". But he never proposes any mechanism or justification for assuming that the energy absorbed by the lower block upon collision with the falling upper block will be concentrated on the top floor - especially as the lower block consists of vertical perimeter and core columns which will react as a whole to the collision, not "floor by floor" as the floor concept has no meaning for a structure of continuous vertical columns.


Exactly, that is one of the biggest questions even if you skip Gordon Ross out of your mind. As far as I remember from Neu-Fonze had it to do with the chaos in the situation and the tilt etc. But the collected floors below in fact are not tilted, they are just detached in less than 0.1 seconds and even have no time to turn, the theoretic avalanche is perfectly symmetrical. I'm not sure how Bazant does it but a global look at that paper shows that it is the continuous Greening-E1 model, correct me if I'm wrong but does that not mean that only energy is absorbed in the infinite thin layer at the top of the intact building and that there is no energy transfer 1 millimeter lower ? And so on. The average density of the wtc is about 300 kg/m^3. In a continous model that means you can replace the wtc by a 416x64x64 m^3 solid block with that average density. The statical strength of the material should be able to hold the building. But the model is then almost a tree-trunk model as far as I can see. And when the word tree trunk is mentioned things appear like, the building is not solid, 90% is air and all that bull.

[Apollo20]

Einsteen:

I don't think anyone's model requires "energy (to be) absorbed in the infinite thin layer at the top of the intact building and that there is no energy transfer 1 millimeter lower."

Where do you get this idea from?

[rwguinn]

Einsteen:

I don't think anyone's model requires "energy (to be) absorbed in the infinite thin layer at the top of the intact building and that there is no energy transfer 1 millimeter lower."

Where do you get this idea from?
And here you are a "scientist". Don't you realise energy transfer stops when anything gets in the way?:D


I swear, they have this bucket of "facts" that the twoofers all go to each week and pick up a quota. Kind of like the Red Beans and Rice on Mondays in New Orleans...
Either that, or they make it all up out of whole cloth.
I personally think they read too much EE "Doc" Smith, and not enough Asimov, Heinlein, and Dickson.

[Newtons Bit]

I've gotten a few respones from the folks at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The dialoge can be found here: http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/05/response.html