WTC Concrete pulverization

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I thought that the claim was that it was all pulverized concrete, “blowin in the wind?”

Which is it?

It was all of it being sent outwards. This isn't a difficult concept. You're thinking too hard.

You only have to look at satellite pics of Ground Zero to realize steel and aluminum and concrete and most of EVERYTHING was sent outwards together.

There are the tower footprints. Notice that the pile of debris doesn't extend beyond the lobby level.


You know, HowardRoark, two very massive skyscrapers used to stand in those footprints. Obviously, they have been moved outside of their footprints. Nearly ALL OF THEIR MASSES.


What does this mean? It means that a very small fraction of the masses of each building ultimately fell straight down.

So what was causing the collapse to continue without slowing down?





Also, in case you missed this from FEMA:




That's not just concrete. In fact, no concrete at all is shown there, as it went MUCH farther, carried in massive dust clouds by the wind.

In fact, that's just where most of the STEEL and aluminum cladding landed. And we've already seen in actual images of Ground Zero that all of this debris was flung all over the complex and beyond, not just sitting in a big pile at the bases as you're trying to suggest. It was the steel and aluminum and concrete (turned to dust) and ALL that was sent outwards in so many directions.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Wrong. He started out by calculating the maximum total energy available, then he calculated the amount of energy required to achieve the specified degree of pulverization, then he compared the two.

If you go about something ass-backwards, it's still wrong because the process is flawed, all other problems with what he did aside. Without even reading through the full document we've already found plenty.

By what? Buckling columns? Plastic hinges?

Provide some data that shows just how much this resistance energy was.

No, it's not my job. Burden of proof is on Greening, or through Greening, you.

But you missed the point. It doesn’t matter.

The energy required to break up the concrete to the percentages found was readily available within the dynamics of the collapse.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Prove that the falling masses would have free-fell 3.7 meters with NO resistance from the below structure, as Greening assumes.

Who cares. Even if the resistance that you claimed existed ate up half the available kinetic energy, there still would have been enough left over to break up the concrete.

Originally posted by bsbray11

No, it has been shown that the critiques of his earlier paper were wrong in the way that they “double dipped” into the energy expenditures.

You're talking about Greening, right? That's pretty much what he did. It wouldn't make any sense for anyone from the conspiracy side to argue that, as they would be trying to emphasize less energy.

Nope, that is what Gordon Ross did when he mixed up his equations and terms.

The resistance was increasing while the falling mass was decreasing. Put one and one together, HowardRoark. I know you're not that stupid.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The falling mass did not get lighter as it fell.

Yes, it did, as there was LESS MASS.

Otherwise, you would have a HUGE PILE of debris in the footprints of the towers. Make sense?

You mean like the one that was there?

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

Let’s see. 4 inches of concrete slab, maybe another inch or two for the contents of the floor, let’s say 8 inches total per floor to give you the benefit of the doubt. That makes a total af about 57 feet. Now did the pile start at the street/plaza level, or did it punch down through the basement levels?

Let’s subtract about 35 feet for the basements.

That leaves about 40 feet or so.

Comparing the debris height in that lidar image to the adjacent buildings, the piles are higher than that.




[edit on 9-11-2006 by HowardRoark]


[edit on 9-11-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by bsbray11

There are the tower footprints. Notice that the pile of debris doesn't extend beyond the lobby level.

That appears to have been takes well after the recovery operations were underway.

How much had been removed by then?

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
But you missed the point. It doesn’t matter.

[...]

Who cares.

These are pretty important issues considering Greening is neglecting all of them to "prove" something.

And I didn't miss the point: Greening doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

Nope, that is what Gordon Ross did when he mixed up his equations and terms.

One thing to say it, another to show it.

Otherwise, you would have a HUGE PILE of debris in the footprints of the towers. Make sense?

You mean like the one that was there?

No, I said huge piles, not small piles that did not extend beyond the lobby floors (see above images).

Let’s see. 4 inches of concrete slab, maybe another inch or two for the contents of the floor, let’s say 8 inches total per floor to give you the benefit of the doubt. That makes a total af about 57 feet. Now did the pile start at the street/plaza level, or did it punch down through the basement levels?

You're making the same kinds of assumptions as Greening was now.

All of that material wasn't condensed into a single, solid mass where you simply add the heights of the slabs and etc.

In fact, you can't SHOW a single intact slab, or anything remotely resembling an intact slab, so wtf are you talking about?

All of the steel was dissociated and in a mangled pile with lots of volume occupied by air, because, again, the mass was not condensed down into a solid block. If it were, the debris pile would be much smaller.

You can gauge the height of the pile by the tree columns. They did not extend beyond the lobby area, even with all the volume occupied by air and etc.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That appears to have been takes well after the recovery operations were underway.

How much had been removed by then?

Lol, not much, because you can see the clean-up equipment, and it's just working its way in from the street level!


Or were those cranes driving around on top of all those beams you can CLEARLY see in that image, surrounding the footprints?

I want you to show me ANY image of clean-up equipment being driven over all of that crap in the larger red circle to clean it up.


It's obvious that they haven't gotten that far yet. They're still back at what looks to be West Street.


In fact, show me any image of the footprints where the debris stack rises above the lobby level. That shouldn't too hard, right? Considering the clean-up was not immediately underway, and yet there ARE photos from just after the collapses.

I've seen tons of images of Ground Zero, HowardRoark, and never have I seen massive piles of debris in the footprints. You're grasping, and it's pathetic.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
All of that material wasn't condensed into a single, solid mass where you simply add the heights of the slabs and etc.

In fact, you can't SHOW a single intact slab, or anything remotely resembling an intact slab, so wtf are you talking about?

You are right. The fact that it was crushed adds some degree of fluff.

That would add up nicely to the debris pile hights shown on the lidar images.

Thanks.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You are right. The fact that it was crushed adds some degree of fluff.

That would add up nicely to the debris pile hights shown on the lidar images.

Why do you keep avoiding what I'm saying with crap like this? You've avoided addressing so many things I've just posted by responding with irrelevant crap.






And all of that pulverized concrete sure increased the debris height in the footprints anyway, huh?

[edit on 9-11-2006 by bsbray11]

ok, an interesting paper.

And I want to compare that with my model: www.abovetopsecret.com...

A fast read showed me that he has two key things different then I have in my model:

1) the total concrete mass is factors less than mine.
I know I started with too much concrete but hes model has less concrete than steel(90'000ton) in the building.
(Thank's to NIST's awesome report no one knows the right numbers.congrat nist. I till today never could figure out a certain value for the total concrete mass, including the one in the core of course!, but many sides indicates to 400'000 ton)

2) his required energy to crash concrete is big factor less then the value of 1'500kwh/ton I extracted from the web as a normal value. Also this one is a very unsecured value 'play' value and a main reason why I calculated my model with this as variable.

With the required energy to crash concrete and the total mass of concrete in the tower the amount of concret left after the collaps of each of the tower is to the most part given.

Without checking/simulating it with my model again I am sure with his numbers you will most probabily get into to possible range. (check my graphics)

But also when he's 2 numbers had been right (and I honsetly question this,) it then break the tower falling time that increases drastical! We speak about 20 second in that range for the north tower!

Originally posted by Valhall
Okay, I'm going to read through this, but I already have a question concerning a statement in it.

He says

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.

That is a wrong statement. Check the red and the green circles in my first graphic.
You can not tell in advanced which will generate more powder. It swapped in my simulation.

Originally posted by Valhall
And then he explains why he's making this statement:

As described in some detail in Greening’s “Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse” the concrete on the 95th floor of WTC 1 was impacted by the mass of the 15-storey block of floors above the aircraft impact zone.

Uhhhhh...why is he saying that? Not even NIST claims the entire weight above the collapsing floor was falling on a given floor. NIST claims that a given floor collapsed on to the floor below it. Even you have taken that yourself and stated basically that individual floors were collapsing on to the one below them until there was insufficient support for the core to remain standing. But no one floor is theorized to have been smacked by a big block of floors above it.

Right?

Maybe that is what NIST wrote. But that is totaly BS because it contradicts every observation. The 15 stores above all started to move at the same time. The whole block crahsed into the standing one.(and based on that is my model/simulation)

In NIST's fary tale (I can't tell that a serious theorie) you had seen a nice spectacle of the 15 floors falling off one after the other, started from the lowest one and this with an intact standing core. Next to that the collapsing time of the whole tower had increased very extrem if it even had collapsed and not just stacked some floors below the impact zone.


[edit on 9-11-2006 by g210b]

[edit on 9-11-2006 by g210b]

Very nice work Bsbray,I too enjoy your posts.BTW you got my vote for way above,keep it up!

www.youtube.com...

Is it possilbe the top part of the south tower coming down together are pushing the objects out (bottom part of the building)? Causing the chain reaction?

And not to mention about this squibs thing, is it showing before the tower is collapsing or after?

www.youtube.com...


This video is about the inside job of demolition by showing other examples. I love it when the narrator puts out the event on 9/11 by describing an explosion instead of implosion since the WTC towers collapsing is different from the other demolitions so they can't explain it. First time they seen it as she says.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 9-11-2006 by deltaboy]

Again, to reiterate, once more:

The above paper clearly shows that the energy required to pulverize the concrete floor was on the order of 0.05 j/gram. This is approximately two orders of magnitude less then the available kinetic energy.

No matter how you try to obfusticate and change the subject here, you can not escape the conclusion that not only was it possible for the concrete to pulverize, but it would have been impossible for it not to.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Otherwise, you would have a HUGE PILE of debris in the footprints of the towers. Make sense?

It was all sent outwards, which means it wasn't falling straight down.

Apparently you did not visit the WTC site within the days after the collapsed.

MOST of the debris did in fact fall straight down. 6 levels of basement were full of the debris. At approximately 10 feet per level that is 60 feet of debris.

Looking at the pictures you posted, comparing the size of the piles to the size of the cranes (about 12 feet tall) the piles I see are about 30-40 feet high. The piles I saw in person were about 30-40 feet high.

I cannot comprehend how you could say that most of the debris was sent outward, that statement is simply not true.

I have to find the CDs somewhere in my piles of junk in my house, but I will post pictures taken from ground level within 1-5 days after Sept. 11.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by craig732]

[edit on 9-11-2006 by craig732]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Again, to reiterate, once more:

The above paper clearly shows that the energy required to pulverize the concrete floor was on the order of 0.05 j/gram. This is approximately two orders of magnitude less then the available kinetic energy.

No matter how you try to obfusticate and change the subject here, you can not escape the conclusion that not only was it possible for the concrete to pulverize, but it would have been impossible for it not to.

no, not just right.
Read the paper again, I stepped into the same trap!

whereas he states you can crash concrete with 0.05j/gram he also states that after collision nr 4 the kinetic energie is enough and the crushing from then on happens with approximatley 1.6j/gram. So the value we have to take is 1.6j/gram (the first 4 floors is an exception)

I triggered my simulation (1.6j/gram =0.4167 kwh/ton black line on hte right graphic)

left graphics Y-axis show total collaps time in seconds
the right graphicy Y-axis shows required energie to crush concrete in kwh/ton
X-axis in left and right graphics is the uncrushed concrete (not powdered) left in [%]

full line = physical minimum, not to break.
dashed line =minimum in consideration of the WTC structure (steel distribution)

top graphic =
greenings 96kton steel and 69kton concrete = 165'000 ton tower total mass!!! ( )


middle graphic =
greenings 96kton steel and 69kton concrete + steel buckling energy lose (thanks greening!)


lowergraphic =
96kton steel and 400kton concrete + steel buckling energy lose (thanks greening!)

now judge self, and check about the nice north tower collapse time!




edit:
mm have to add to clairify one point that you might be confuesing:
with 0.05j/gram you can crush concrete but you only get a very smale amount of powder. If you would craush the whole tower with 0.05j/gram you do not have the powder but a lot of big sized concrete brocks.
check his r.Schuhman curve. k is 0.9

edit2: info on my simulation: www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 9-11-2006 by g210b]

This fails to address the effects of the reinforced floors for the elevator interchanges or the so called sky levels.

It seems clear to me that WTC 7 was brought down due to its being nestled between two buildings across the street.. they knew the demo wouldn't cause enough damage to have it declared 'condemned.'

The nuke charges lifted the entire building off its foundation so that gravity plus opposite downward force caused the building to collapse into its own footprint. The steel beams at ground level were cut so that the weight was forced into the centre from the outside at the ground level.

The true test of the concrete dust would have been in the cleanup afterwards since it is easy to test whether the dust is in fact concrete. Don't know if that was done or not.

Great stuff bs & howard.

Most of the hardcore calculations are way above my head so I will ask a sidenote question.

If you believe that something other than the kinetic energy of one of the worlds tallest skyscrapers collapsing caused the massive clouds of pulverized concrete would you mind telling me what you think did cause it?

How would explosives of any type manage to pulverise virtually all concrete yet remain "discrete"?

Originally posted by myowncrusade
How would explosives of any type manage to pulverise virtually all concrete yet remain "discrete"?

Who is saying they were discrete? The government? Howard? There are plenty of reports of explosions. Yes, I know that is not proof of explosives, but it sure does answer your question.

This is quite comical. A few months ago, BSbray was posting all these posts on "how come the buildings collapsed on their own footprint then?" Now he is trying to justify his position on the fact that the buildings DID NOT collapse onto their own footprint, even posting photos that prove material was ejected outward which proves my point I was making against him a while back.

And your understanding of this situation bsbray is a joke. You keep contradiciting yourself time and time again. How many different scenarios are you going to enbrace until you decide on a definitive cause? At least pick one collapse theory and stick to it, it will make you seem at least more respectable, but as far as im concerned, you have no moral ground to stand on.

BSB flipflops more than Kerry.

Train

BTW, I contacted Greening via his e-mail from that paper. We'll see what he has to say if he responds to me. I used my work e-mail, so hopefully he won't just think of me as some Joe Schmoe CTer. Sorry BSBray....I kinda like CTer.