Frank Greening Refuted Easily

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by Roger_Harris

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by Roger_Harris

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

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by stateofgrace

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

...
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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

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]

Originally Posted by Roger_Harris

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.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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

Y'know, the sun in the sky "appears" to be about the size of a 50-cent piece.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

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]

Originally Posted by Trigood

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

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

Greening :

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Horatius

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

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]

Originally Posted by Horatius

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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

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

He won't understand.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Originally Posted by Trigood

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!!

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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 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]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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/b1...G/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]

Originally Posted by Horatius

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 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?

[Roger_Harris]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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

Freudian slip?

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?