| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Henry" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2006 08:44:42 PM |
| Object: |
Is this paper accurate? |
I've alwys felt that the twin towers' steel frames were
far too strong to fall through themsleves with only gravity
as a force. This paper seems to confirm that theory.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He
holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984.
Summary:
"This paper examines the elastic loading and plastic shortening
phases of the columns of WTC 1 after impact of the upper 16 storeys of
the building upon the lower storeys and its effect on the momentum
transfer after the collision. An energy balance is derived showing
that there is an energy deficit before completion of the plastic
shortening phase that would not allow the collapse to continue
under the constraints of this paper."
.
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this paper accurate? |
27 Aug 2006 12:35:52 PM |
|
|
"Henry" <9-11@insidejob.gov> wrote in message
news:44EE560A.BA5AF64D@insidejob.gov...
I've alwys felt that the twin towers' steel frames were
far too strong to fall through themsleves with only gravity
as a force. This paper seems to confirm that theory.
The paper calculates the energy required ( per floor) as follows
Energy required;
Momentum losses 1389MJ
Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ
Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ
Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ
Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ
Total Energy required 2646MJ
but that appears to double count the energy required for the pulverisation
of the floors. To make the error clearer.. try summing over the total number
of floors - you would end up counting each floor twice.
If you subtract that error the difference is negligible.. and I'm sure there
are others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gordon ross" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this paper accurate? |
02 Sep 2006 10:49:25 AM |
|
|
CWatters wrote:
The paper calculates the energy required ( per floor) as follows
Energy required;
Momentum losses 1389MJ
Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ
Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ
Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ
Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ
Total Energy required 2646MJ
but that appears to double count the energy required for the
pulverisation
of the floors. To make the error clearer.. try summing over the total
number
of floors - you would end up counting each floor twice.
If you subtract that error the difference is negligible.. and I'm sure
there
are others. - End Message
My reply to this is to point out that the energy balance is calculated
at a point in time and does not relate to a requirement for each floor
as CWatters seems to believe. So when he says that I have counted the
pulverisation twice this is simply not true and derives from CWatters'
misunderstanding of both the article and the concept of an energy
balance. In essence I am saying that when he states, " The paper
calculates the energy required ( per floor) as follows", this is not
correct.
Cwatters also talks of the energy balance being negligible. If the
energy balance is zero or negative then the collapse is arrested since
there is no energy to continue the deformation. By stating that the
balance is negligible, ie close to zero, he has confirmed the findings
of the article that the arrest would have been arrested. If he had
further explored the situation he would have realised that the energy
balance would continue to run into an ever larger deficit as the
further energy demands of the lower section became apparent.
He further states that he is sure there are other "errors" but fails
to give any details or argument to back up his assertion. The
statement "that error ............... and I'm sure there are others."
has no basis.
My e-mail address was included in the article and it would have been a
very simple matter for CWatters to contact me and try to verify his
beliefs. He did not do this.
If two floors collide then the effect will be felt by both floors and
not simply one of them. Similarly the energy will dissipate and have
an effect on both the impacting and the impacted sections. This is in
contradiction to the articles by Dr. Bazant and Dr. Greening, who
assume that there will be no effect and no energy requirement in the
impacting mass. To demonstrate who is correct we need only look at a
vehicle collision. Is damage sustained only by one vehicle or both?
There is also an error in the post by hhc314 when he talks of
cantilevered floors. The floors were not cantilevered, but rather were
supported by both the perimeter columns and core/transfer truss.
Also note that the steel temperature did not reach 500 C except
possibly small and isolated sections of the steel structure and thus
the reduction in Youngs modulus associated with such a temperature
would not be witnessed.
I hope this clarifies the situation and if there are any other points
that you would like me to discuss please do not hesitate to call,
Gordon Ross.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this paper accurate? |
24 Aug 2006 10:16:49 PM |
|
|
Henry wrote:
I've alwys felt that the twin towers' steel frames were
far too strong to fall through themsleves with only gravity
as a force.
Feelings are often misleading. Hot steel gets soft!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this paper accurate? |
24 Aug 2006 10:43:16 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Henry wrote:
I've alwys felt that the twin towers' steel frames were
far too strong to fall through themsleves with only gravity
as a force.
Feelings are often misleading. Hot steel gets soft!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/
This is a new low for you Wormley. "Hot steel gets soft" sounds like
the observations of a retarded child. Why don't you refer readers to
the exact page discussing the physics of the fire 'softening' the steel
in those documents you referenced?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this paper accurate? |
24 Aug 2006 11:28:16 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1156477396.744136.84570
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Henry wrote:
I've alwys felt that the twin towers' steel frames were
far too strong to fall through themsleves with only gravity
as a force.
Feelings are often misleading. Hot steel gets soft!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/
This is a new low for you Wormley. "Hot steel gets soft" sounds like
the observations of a retarded child. Why don't you refer readers to
the exact page discussing the physics of the fire 'softening' the steel
in those documents you referenced?
Some info here:
http://www.ae.msstate.edu/vlsm/materials/
Have a look at temperature effect on steel. Even at 500 C, there is notable
loss of strength.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this paper accurate? |
24 Aug 2006 11:31:07 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote in news:1156477396.744136.84570
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Henry wrote:
I've alwys felt that the twin towers' steel frames were
far too strong to fall through themsleves with only gravity
as a force.
Feelings are often misleading. Hot steel gets soft!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/
This is a new low for you Wormley. "Hot steel gets soft" sounds like
the observations of a retarded child. Why don't you refer readers to
the exact page discussing the physics of the fire 'softening' the steel
in those documents you referenced?
Some info here:
http://www.ae.msstate.edu/vlsm/materials/
Have a look at temperature effect on steel. Even at 500 C, there is notable
loss of strength.
What page of the 9/11 Omission report, NIST report or FEMA findings is
that on?
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "noshellswill" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this paper accurate? |
25 Aug 2006 12:22:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:43:16 -0700, schoenfeld.one wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Henry wrote:
I've alwys felt that the twin towers' steel frames were
far too strong to fall through themsleves with only gravity
as a force.
Feelings are often misleading. Hot steel gets soft!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/
This is a new low for you Wormley. "Hot steel gets soft" sounds like
the observations of a retarded child. Why don't you refer readers to
the exact page discussing the physics of the fire 'softening' the steel
in those documents you referenced?
Little-s:
Why not ? Cause your agenda-driven carping is not worth the effort.
nss
**********
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this paper accurate? |
25 Aug 2006 12:55:55 AM |
|
|
Sam, you pretty much hit it on the head. I would have added that hot
steel supporting cantalevered floors leads to structural failure and
consequently the domino effect observed. Heck, the walls could have
remained standing, while the rest of the building collapsed into the
debris pile that it did.
Floor A impacting Floor B multiplies the momentum, impulse, and force
applied to the catalevered lower floors, and the entire structure
collapses floor by floor.
Doesn't take a degree in physics or structural engineering to figure
this one out. The only thing that puzzles me is why the structural
engineering that signed the plans for the two towers are still licensed
engineers?
Were it Germany, idiots like these would have been left alone in a room
with a pistol and allowed to take the honorable way out!
Harry C.
Sam Wormley wrote:
Henry wrote:
I've alwys felt that the twin towers' steel frames were
far too strong to fall through themsleves with only gravity
as a force.
Feelings are often misleading. Hot steel gets soft!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this paper accurate? |
24 Aug 2006 09:23:49 PM |
|
|
Henry wrote:
I've alwys felt that the twin towers' steel frames were
far too strong to fall through themsleves with only gravity
as a force. This paper seems to confirm that theory.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
Yes.
Check out:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He
holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984.
Summary:
"This paper examines the elastic loading and plastic shortening
phases of the columns of WTC 1 after impact of the upper 16 storeys of
the building upon the lower storeys and its effect on the momentum
transfer after the collision. An energy balance is derived showing
that there is an energy deficit before completion of the plastic
shortening phase that would not allow the collapse to continue
under the constraints of this paper."
You need only look at collapse times to deduce the simple truth that
the buildings were demolished. Freefalling buildings are the providence
of controlled demolition and only controlled demolition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this paper accurate? |
24 Aug 2006 11:29:45 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1156472629.061180.163950@
75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Henry wrote:
I've alwys felt that the twin towers' steel frames were
far too strong to fall through themsleves with only gravity
as a force. This paper seems to confirm that theory.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
Yes.
Check out:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He
holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984.
Summary:
"This paper examines the elastic loading and plastic shortening
phases of the columns of WTC 1 after impact of the upper 16 storeys of
the building upon the lower storeys and its effect on the momentum
transfer after the collision. An energy balance is derived showing
that there is an energy deficit before completion of the plastic
shortening phase that would not allow the collapse to continue
under the constraints of this paper."
You need only look at collapse times to deduce the simple truth that
the buildings were demolished. Freefalling buildings are the providence
of controlled demolition and only controlled demolition.
Hello Mr Pot. You appear to have a few cracks in need of repair.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
