Kuttler's paper: Estimates for time to collapse of WTC1

[OneWhiteEye]

You are correct @Hitstirrer, however that's not really what is being claimed by @OneWhiteEye . The problem is that it crushes more concrete than exists, not that it crushes more than the weight of the building. @qed took issue with the increasing amount, presumably because he was thinking the ejected mass would only come from the newly crushed floor, but some of the falling mass would be crushed as well.

Oh, and use a mass of 1 (kg) per floor, as that's what Kuttler does.

Yes, thank you.

 

[Mick West]

I'm sorry I'm not going to let you off that easily. This is not that hard.

1) Kuttler states the mass of concrete in a tower
2) Kuttler states the relative amounts of mass ejected/retained in his calculations
3) Kuttler states that all mass ejected is assumed to be pulverized concrete
4) The fraction of mass he assumes ejected exceeds the mass of concrete he reports
=> His calculation crushes more concrete than even existed in a tower.

1, 2 & 3 involve no math or physics at all, where 4 only involves arithmetic. His calculation of the concrete mass errs on the high side because he takes floor slab area as equal to the entire footprint. Even so, he exceeds this amount. When a more accurate value is used, it is found that he crushes 2.5 - 4x the amount of concrete available.

But Kuttler says the mass of concrete is 88, and the mass of steel (the Correct Solid Mass) is 22. He assumes all the concrete is dustified before hitting the ground, and adjusts r to reach this value. So I don't think your basic criticism is correct. More relevant is that his estimate of concrete is way too high, and it was clearly not all turned to dust.

 

[OneWhiteEye]

But Kuttler says the mass of concrete is 88, and the mass of steel (the Correct Solid Mass) is 22. He assumes all the concrete is dustified before hitting the ground, and adjusts r to reach this value. So I don't think your basic criticism is correct.

Kuttler doesn't actually mention the figure of 88 mass units (kg), does he? You got that from me, I assume.

Right there, he's implying the mass of concrete - which is all he's trying to crush - should be 110 - 22 = 88 units. But he's already calculated it to be 19.

This is Kuttler's (over)estimate of the total mass of concrete per story leading to the value of 19:

I will assume the floor slab was composed entirely of light weight concrete for the sake of simplicity. In [17] it gives the figure for density of light weight concrete as 1750 kg=m3. Since the floor was about 207 feet by 207 feet and the slab of concrete was four inches thick, this works out to 707,786 kg for the mass of the concrete in the floor.

Total concrete mass is then:
110 x 707,786 = 77,856,460

Varying figures for total tower mass can be found; Kuttler references Greening who states (A) 510,000,000kg and another source saying (B) 450,000,000kg, which is also found here. Kuttler's own (overly large) estimate of concrete mass in each case is then:
(A) 77,856,460 / 510,000,000 = 15.2%
(B) 77,856,460 / 450,000,000 = 17.3%

For B, the greatest of values, 0.173 x 110 = 19 mass units. The 88 comes from the unaccounted mass (not steel or concrete), the difference total mass (110) between his goal (22 - steel only).

He never detected the disparity. Correct me if I'm wrong, given this clarification.

More relevant is that his estimate of concrete is way too high, and it was clearly not all turned to dust.

And the crushing consisting of comminution to 100 micron size. There are some good critiques of this in the JREF thread. Actual particle cross section distribution probably required far less energy.

 

[qed]

@Mick West

You are correct that Kuttler is ejecting the mass simply from falling and not collision with the next floor. So the r is simply the ratio lost from falling.

So I am wrong. It is simply how he is modelling it.

I am calculating approximately 40% concrete loss due to falling. Does that tally with you.

 

[Mick West]

Kuttler doesn't actually mention the figure of 88 mass units (kg), does he? You got that from me, I assume.

Not directly, but it's implied by his:

In [1] it says the steel for the floors was 44.5 kg/m2. Assuming the floors were 207 feet by 207 feet, this yields an estimate for the mass of steel per floor as about 177,146 kg. In [10]it states: “Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone; workers can’t even find concrete.” The NIST report [5] states that on every floor there were two types of concrete used, normal concrete in the core area and light weight concrete elsewhere. I will assume the floor slab was composed entirely of light weight concrete for the sake of simplicity. In [17] it gives the figure for density of light weight concrete as 1750 kg/m3. Since the floor was about 207 feet by 207 feet and the slab of concrete was four inches thick, this works out to 707,786 kg for the mass of the concrete in the floor. More generally, if the density is Den kg/m3 the mass of the concrete in the floor is

Content from External Source

177146/707786 = 22/88 (1/4)

So he's internally consistent.

 

[OneWhiteEye]

@Mick West

You are correct that Kuttler is ejecting the mass simply from falling and not collision with the next floor. So the r is simply the ratio lost from falling.

So I am wrong. It is simply how he is modelling it.

I am calculating a 40% concrete loss due to falling. Does that tally with you.

40% of total mass is lost and what he thinks is some fraction of concrete lost. If that's what you mean, yes.

 

[Mick West]

@Mick West

You are correct that Kuttler is ejecting the mass simply from falling and not collision with the next floor. So the r is simply the ratio lost from falling.

So I am wrong. It is simply how he is modelling it.

I am calculating approximately 40% concrete loss due to falling. Does that tally with you.

Yes, you can verify this with the Pen, above, just set ratio to 0.990, and you get:

(wtcA 1.4.2 Progressive loss of mass to dust) N = 94, r = 0.99, extra = 0
total time bottom floors = 11.762 vs. 8.526 for 1169.0 feet freefall
total mass remaining = 66.731
final speed = 44.365
total time whole tower = 12.904 vs. 9.223 for 1368 feet freefall
Correct solid mass = 22.020
Shed mass (out of 110) = 43.269

Content from External Source

However Kuttler uses 0.957 to "shed" all the concrete, giving a much longer fall time due to reduced momentum (ignoring crushing)

(wtcA 1.4.2 Progressive loss of mass to dust) N = 94, r = 0.957, extra = 0
total time bottom floors = 14.378 vs. 8.526 for 1169.0 feet freefall
total mass remaining = 22.155
final speed = 28.689
total time whole tower = 15.946 vs. 9.223 for 1368 feet freefall
Correct solid mass = 22.020
Shed mass (out of 110) = 87.845

Content from External Source

 

[OneWhiteEye]

Not directly, but it's implied by his:

In [1] it says the steel for the floors was 44.5 kg/m2. Assuming the floors were 207 feet by 207 feet, this yields an estimate for the mass of steel per floor as about 177,146 kg. In [10]it states: “Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone; workers can’t even find concrete.” The NIST report [5] states that on every floor there were two types of concrete used, normal concrete in the core area and light weight concrete elsewhere. I will assume the floor slab was composed entirely of light weight concrete for the sake of simplicity. In [17] it gives the figure for density of light weight concrete as 1750 kg/m3. Since the floor was about 207 feet by 207 feet and the slab of concrete was four inches thick, this works out to 707,786 kg for the mass of the concrete in the floor. More generally, if the density is Den kg/m3 the mass of the concrete in the floor is

Content from External Source

177146/707786 = 22/88 (1/4)

So he's internally consistent.

Yes, to the extent of mass of steel relative to mass of concrete on each floor. But, relative to total mass, he is not. Greening's calculation puts it at 9.4% of total, his own is a max is 17.3% as I show above. 88/110 = 80%. So, in that respect, it is not consistent. Moreover, the dynamics must be formulated with consideration of total mass, not simply done with the mass of concrete. If one were to consider only concrete as composing all the mass, a radically different solution is found compared to a case where the concrete constitutes (e.g.) 10% of the total mass.

 

[Mick West]

Yes, to the extent of mass of steel relative to mass of concrete on each floor. But, relative to total mass, he is not. Greening's calculation puts it at 9.4% of total, his own is a max is 17.3% as I show above. 88/110 = 80%. So, in that respect, it is not consistent. Moreover, the dynamics must be formulated with consideration of total mass, not simply done with the mass of concrete. If one were to consider only concrete as composing all the mass, a radically different solution is found compared to a case where the concrete constitutes (e.g.) 10% of the total mass.

I agree his figures have no relation to reality. This is because he's basically modelling the tower as just the floors with no core columns and no exterior columns. But you seemed to be saying he claimed one figure for the concrete then did something inconsistent with that figure. It seems like he's internally consistent with a meaningless model.

 

[OneWhiteEye]

I agree his figures have no relation to reality. This is because he's basically modelling the tower as just the floors with no core columns and no exterior columns. But you seemed to be saying he claimed on figure for the concrete then did something inconsistent with that figure. It seems like he's internally consistent with a meaningless model.

I suppose that argument can be made. It makes the mechanics bad, at the very least. Concrete was not 80% of the mass. Had he compared his value of total mass of concrete against tower mass estimates which he quoted, he would've arrived at the 17.3% value I showed. Then he would've been forced to resolve the discrepancy in his work - 80% or 17.3% or 9.4% as with his Greening citation. This would have also led him to realize his intended overestimate (17.3%) was in large part due to including the core area in the calculations. So, his overestimate almost doubles the energy, then the bad mechanics turns around and more than doubles it again.

This is mechanics he's trying to do, the original question concerned collapse time (the subject of his paper), and it matters whether or not concrete was 80% or 10% of the total if you're going to fracture some percentage of it. The problem as framed is invariant to overall mass scaling, which he was astute enough to observe. That's it for invariance, though, except if assuming constant demand-to-capacity ratio (helps with energy calculations involving dissipation due to residual capacity). He can't just twist the parameters willy-nilly and expect a meaningful result. Why are the collapse times so long? This is one reason, and it's huge because it inflates the already inflated energy lost to this sink by more than a factor of 2.

The energy due to pulverization, and therefore the resistive force derived from this sink, is dependent on the absolute mass of concrete pulverized. The mass on which this force is applied is scaled in a more complicated manner according to the mass accrued minus the mass shed. The solutions differ widely depending on the ratio of concrete mass to total mass. Got to decide whether it's 10 or 80% at some point.

I haven't bothered with detailed review of the rest of his paper, but if he adds resistance due to structural capacity, it's going to have a greatly disproportionate effect on collapse time because he's already gotten to the asymptotic phase with concrete crushing alone.

 

[Mick West]

Kuttler's reference for the amount of steel in a floor is Clifton.
http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/cache/clifton.pdf

The gravity and lateral load-resisting systems were designed to deliver the strength and stiffness required from a 110 storey building with minimum dead load. This was achieved very well, with a steelwork weight of only 44.5 kg/m2 floor area.
...
Each tower had an effective floor area of 319,000 m2 and used 87,000 tonnes of steelwork.

Content from External Source

So the first figure, 44.5 kg/m2, gets him his 177,146kg of steel per floor.

1 tonne = 1000 kg
87,000,000/110 = 790,09 kg.

So by using a figure for steel density only in the open floor areas, he's only using 177,146/790,909 = 22% on the actual steel in the building (by his own primary reference) - and more importantly in the falling structure.

 

[OneWhiteEye]

On reflection, I see what you're saying. His model assumes 80% of the tower mass is concrete, which contradicts his own calculations for mass of concrete versus cited values for total mass. He believes this simplified model accurately captures the dynamics of collapse, and is in fact greatly skewed toward short collapse times.

It's actually worse than I thought.

 

[Mick West]

On reflection, I see what you're saying. His model assumes 80% of the tower mass is concrete, which contradicts his own calculations for mass of concrete versus cited values for total mass. He believes this simplified model accurately captures the dynamics of collapse, and is in fact greatly skewed toward short collapse times.

It's actually worse than I thought.

Indeed. He's got an internally consistent model of something that has no connection to reality. What really happened was a huge mass of (mostly) steel fell, rapidly becoming offset with the core columns, stripping away the concrete floors which offered very little resistance. He's modelling basically a bunch of reinforced concrete blocks suspended in space that are somehow entirely reduced to dust on the way to the ground (leaving some rebar).

 

[OneWhiteEye]

So by using a figure for steel density only in the open floor areas, he's only using 177,146/790,909 = 22% on the actual steel in the building (by his own primary reference) - and more importantly in the falling structure.

Yes, I see.

My mistake was in assuming he knew that having concrete mass be 80% of the total was a complete no-go for modeling the mechanics if pulverization is included as a sink. When I saw his calculation (which you quoted) and others giving mass of steel (who cares with this? M is just mass for this) and mass of concrete (energy sink dependent on this value), and I saw him quote total tower mass, I assumed 110 represented total tower mass. It doesn't. It represents the sum of slab masses only.

I then concluded he failed to realize that his accumulation exceeded the allotted quantity while the program ran. And that he didn't connect his objective of "crushing all the concrete" with the fact that implied his building was 80% concrete.

You are correct. He's self-consistent, just totally cracked with no idea how to do the mechanics.

 

[OneWhiteEye]

Okay, Hitstirrer, the slightly revised answer is (in the case of section 1.4.3), he does crush more concrete than what was present in the towers, but the fatal error is that his model tower is almost all concrete and little else. His model is not at all representative of the towers because he attaches only a wee amount of other mass to these vast slabs of concrete which have to crush each other to 100 microns according to his decree.

The reality is, conservation of momentum in inelastic collision of the slabs (which he intentionally disregards) sets a theoretical maximum limit to the loss of kinetic energy due to fracture upon impact. He mistakenly believes that it is an additional and distinct energy sink and, by ignoring it, he is being conservative towards shorter collapse times. The opposite is true, by ignoring real physics and employing pseudophysics instead, he missed that physics dictates that energy for crushing concrete is capped in this fashion. Slabs alone suspended in space which undergo inelastic collision will converge on a constant acceleration of g/3, independent of material, and will hit bottom after 11.6 seconds (neglecting compacted height). That's correct physics.

If that means that X% of the concrete could not have been crushed to 100 microns in his slab model, it couldn't. Forcing it to happen is only going extend collapse times longer and longer into a meaningless range. Now, if you consider that the concrete was only 10% of the total mass, and the driving mass comes from the total, you can crush all the concrete to 100 microns no problem. Not saying that happened, and it almost certainly did not, but the energy balance would allow it. Collapse times would still be within reason.

 

[OneWhiteEye]

Ah, the synopsis of the prior post is he violates conservation of momentum. By ignoring it. Does the opposite of what he thought. Hugely.

 

[Mick West]

Ah, the synopsis of the prior post is he violates conservation of momentum. By ignoring it. Does the opposite of what he thought. Hugely.

Indeed, momentum must be conserved even if thermal energy (the dustification friction) increases. So you can only lose velocity in his model by shedding it to the sides (where it still continues to move down).

 

[Hitstirrer]

You see, I disagree with that. If your premise were true, then ANY subject of ANY depth or complexity could be adequately explained to any moron if only the explainer were "good enough." That simply isn't true. Most people could not complete an introductory course in quantum mechanics no matter how hard they tried and no matter who did the explaining.

I tried to make it as simple as possible.

It's not a matter of ejecting more mass than there is in total, that cannot happen because it's always a fraction less than one at each step. The problem is with the accumulated mass crushed exceeding the total mass of concrete available, by Kuttler's own reckoning, and by a huge margin.

I think that you are a bit too close to the problem over the issue of explaining technical details to non technical people. That is tackled daily by the smart use of visual aids and analagies to reach a target audience where support is required for a tech project. You say that you have tried to make it simple. But you have still failed to explain why you think that more concrete was crushed than existed.

Both myself and @qed read the Kuttler paper and concluded that in one scenario he made an assumption that the entire building was made of concrete and then by crushing and ejecting 1% of that concrete at each floors impact then an estimate could be made of the time required for the total collapse to occur.

You then began to make a claim that the scenario above meant that he was crushing more concrete than existed. That was clearly wrong and I saw that instantly. As you later said in a post -- " It's not a matter of ejecting more mass than there is in total, that cannot happen because it's always a fraction less than one at each step." That was the obvious fact that I saw from the start - and now don't need to justify my earlier post to @qed by an Excel spreadsheet. It was self justifying and I just stepped back for a second to consider.

That takes me back to the main issue. If ( in that ridiculous scenario ) 100% of a building is comprised entirely of concrete floors floating 13 feet apart and then that concrete is all assumed to have been crushed during a collapse in order to calculate the time it would take - then how can that possibly lead to you to conclude that more than the original total was crushed.

If you still can't explain that to me because I am incapable of understanding quantum physics so be it. But both myself and @qed seemed to still not understand your 'explanation'.

Of course I am just focussed on this single scenario here. Clearly, Kuttler introduced many varied alternative situations to examine and there is danger that assumptions made for one are mistakenly carried over to another where they will not be appropriate. On this single - all concrete - no steel - 1% ejection per floor, scenario, I still fail to see how your claim that he crushed more than exists is valid. And if you can't explain that then its fine. I will just move on.

 

[qed]

@Hitstirrer

The "confusion" arises from the last paragraph of 1.4.2 titled "Progressive loss of mass to dust".

Recall total mass = 110.

Thus letting r=.9 ... total remaining mass 9

Content from External Source

Just before this, but in 1.4.2, we learn

total mass steel = 22

Content from External Source

So more concrete is lost than exists. Contradiction.

Of course this is our mistake. Kuttler simply decides at the end of the section to lose steel, even though that is against the assumption of the section.

This will violate the above assumption...

Content from External Source

So Kuttler is mathematically correct in this one.
We were confused by the violation of the assumptions, but wrong nevertheless.

But don't worry, there is more to come.

• Remember, you promised that you would let go of all this 9-11 conspiracy nonsense if we could break this paper.

 

[Hitstirrer]

@ So Kuttler is [B]mathematically correct[/B] in this one.
We were confused by the violation of the assumptions, but wrong nevertheless.

[B]Remember, you promised that you would let go of all this 9-11 conspiracy nonsense if we could break this paper.[/B]

I did no such thing !

This was your statement/question :-

"If I put in the effort to deeply read the paper and demonstrate such an error, will you cease to believe in the WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theory?"

And this was my reply - #20 post in this thread :-

"The thread is a narrow focus on 'rate of fall/crush'. Find Kuttler's errors, and then show that making realistic assumptions would confirm a fall time in line with videos and official admissions, and we may make progress without impinging on other threads."

We are still at that point, as you have just confirmed.

 

[qed]

We are still at that point, as you have just confirmed.

No we are not. I still have my two cards on the table (and a third still to play*).

Your turn to jump through some hoops.

Do you recall my meta-argument?

I assume you find Kuttler's argument in 1.4.3 satisfactory.

• The building, as modelled, must take at least 38.53s to collapse (as opposed to the observed 11-18s).

So how did the building collapse in 11-18s?

• You may uses any explosives you like!

• Simply describe precisely what must been done to the columns in order for the building to collapse in 11-18s.

• But do not contradict what we see in the videos.

Hint: pre-weakening will not help, because Kuttler's model will not change: he only considers the momentum of the floors, dust loss (and collision energy loss*)

[* I am beginning to suspect the the mass lost by ejecting matter because of floor collision and energy lost to crushing concrete floor is the same thing, i.e., counted twice. Anyone, @Jazzy, can you think about this]

 

[Hitstirrer]

@qed.

It seems that I must once again remind people that I am not on trial here. I have absolutely no intention of 'jumping through hoops' for you. I do not, and never have, supported all of Kuttler's arguments. I do not have the expertise to take apart his maths, so cannot either confirm or refute his conclusions.

And please dont bombard me with questions and demands for me to - quote " Simply describe precisely what must been done to the columns in order for the building to collapse in 11-18s." Apart from that being off topic, I must politely decline to speculate in that way.

The point of me introducing this paper into the mix was intended to allow others, who claimed to have the expertise, to attempt to explain to me why I should discard his conclusions and move on to other topics that remain a mystery to me. We are still at that point.

 

[qed]

@Hitstirrer

I will walk you through it.

I assume you find Kuttler's argument in 1.4.3 satisfactory.

• The building, as modelled, must take at least 38.53s to collapse (as opposed to the observed 11-18s).

Do you understand how he gets to this figure? (not the math, simply the processes involved, momentum of floors, dust loss and energy loss due to smashing)

 

[Hitstirrer]

@Hitstirrer I will walk you through it. Do you understand how he gets to this figure? (not the math, simply the processes involved, momentum of floors, dust loss and energy loss due to smashing)

I always allow people three strikes before they are out. This is strike one. Please don't try to patronise me again. Please don't hold up any more 'hoops'.

Make your argument in your own words for me to consider.

 

[qed]

@Hitstirrer

• When we watch the video of the collapse, do you agree that we see the first falling floor c hit the next floor c+1?
• If yes, is floor c+1 already falling before floor c hits?

 

[qed]

@Hitstirrer

If the floor was not already falling, then Kuttler says the building should have collapsed in 38s, which it didn't.

 

[Hitstirrer]

@Hitstirrer

• When we watch the video of the collapse, do you agree that we see the first falling floor c hit the next floor c+1?
• If yes, is floor c+1 already falling before floor c hits?

Shouldn't this be in a different thread? Called (WTC Rate of Fall / Crush). And when you have posted there, please specify which tower you refer to. Because with WTC1 the first sign of any move is the antenna dropping - indicating that the hat truss and core columns under there dropped before any floor/floor impacts. Odd eh ?

But even there I will probably not jump through any hoops for you. Make your argument and cease faffing around.

 

[qed]

@Hitstirrer

Kuttler proudly acknowledges all the dust loss from collision (in the videos).

• But that means the floors were colliding, smashing and overcoming momentum.
• What we see in the video is what Kuttler is modelling.

Hence Kutler "proves" that the building we see collapsing in 11-18s is an space-time paradox, because such a collapse, as witnessed in the video, must take at least 38s to collapse.

 

[Mick West]

Hence Kutler "proves" that the building we see collapsing in 11-18s is an space-time paradox, because such a collapse, as witnessed in the video, must take at least 38s to collapse.

Unless that is, the entire tower was reduced to rubble, including the floors, one floor at a time.

The rather large amounts of energy that he posits work backwards for his argument, as they then require the same energy from thousands of tons of explosives, evenly distributed over the columns and the floor slabs.

But there are plenty of other objections besides this.

 

[Hitstirrer]

@Hitstirrer Hence Kutler "proves" that the building we see collapsing in 11-18s is an space-time paradox, because such a collapse, as witnessed in the video, must take at least 38s to collapse.

Exactly so.

A paradox.

You are capable of observing an event occur in some 18 seconds, and then when its pointed out to you, using maths and science, that 18 seconds could not happen, you conclude that its the maths that are wrong, and are then capable of discarding the science in favour of a belief in what you have been told by others. And don't forget that NIST did not actually explain that to you either. They simply stated 'Global collapse ensued' after initiation. Look up the term 'cognitive dissonance'. It describes what you have just done.

But you have also just very neatly summed up the reason for the other thread ( WTC Rate of Fall/ Crush ).

 

[qed]

Unless that is, the entire tower was reduced to rubble, including the floors, one floor at a time

Yes. Every floor must be moving before the one above it, so to avoid the need to overcome momentum, and minimize collisions. All floors would have to be column cut simultaneously.

• But, then there would have to be (by Kuttler's argument), much much less dust.
• But he acknowledges the significant dust.

What we see is what he models!

 

[Hitstirrer]

....... as they then require the same energy from thousands of tons of explosives, evenly distributed ......

This kind of comment always makes me smile. Thousands of tons of explosives would be required to achieve such a rapid collapse time and also pulverise all that concrete and also hurl many huge steel sections a hundred yards -- sideways --- and then next breath say that fire and gravity did that alone.

 

[Mick West]

This kind of comment always makes me smile. Thousands of tons of explosives would be required to achieve such a rapid collapse time and also pulverise all that concrete and also hurl many huge steel sections a hundred yards -- sideways --- and then next breath say that fire and gravity did that alone.

Nope, thousands of tons of explosives would be needed if Kuttler is correct. But he's not.

 

[Hitstirrer]

Nope, thousands of tons of explosives would be needed if Kuttler is correct. But he's not.

Let me understand that then. Without thousand of tons of explosives it would enable gravity alone to achieve an 18 second collapse time. But WITH explosives it would take 38 seconds ? Are you actually saying that ?

 

[qed]

Exactly so.

A paradox.

You are capable of observing an event occur in some 18 seconds, and then when its pointed out to you, using maths and science, that 18 seconds could not happen, you conclude that its the maths that are wrong, and are then capable of discarding the science in favour of a belief in what you have been told by others..

You don't get it do you?

Kutler "proves" that what we witness is impossible with or without thermite.

• He "proves" that if lots of dust is ejected (as witnessed) then it will take 38s (which it didn't).
• He also "proves" that if a building collapses in 11-18s, then there must be virtually no collisions, very little dust, and lots and lots of solid concrete left over (which there wasn't).

So Kuttler "proves" that what we witnessed is impossible FULLSTOP.

He "disproves" controlled demolition and progressive collapse in one "foul" swoop.

 

[Mick West]

Consider this little physics quandary, starting with four physical laws, which nobody disputes.

• Energy in a system is always conserved
• Momentum in a system is always conserved
• Kinetic Energy (e) = Mass * Speed^2
• Momentum (p) = Mass * Velocity

Consider a mass of 15kg (15 floors) travelling at 5m/s hitting a stationary mass of 1kg (a single) floor. They continue downwards as a single structure of 16kg. Now we can calculate the new velocity (v) (from the conservation of momentum, which must be unchanged.

15*5 = 16*v
v = 15*5/16 = 4.6875

Now can we do the same with energy? Energy is always conserved, so can we do:

15*(5^2) = 16*(v^2)
v = sqrt(15*(5^2)/16) = 4.8412

Hey, different answers! Why is this?

And extending this (and @OneWhiteEye's forey), does the following not apply to Kuttler's model:

• Momentum of a system is always conserved
• Crushing the concrete does not change the momentum of the system
• Hence crushing the concrete cannot affect the velocity of the system

I think an understanding of the two seeming paradoxes above is important in understanding what's going on here.

(Remember this is just in Kuttler's model, which, as we have seen, is far removed from reality).

 

[Mick West]

Let me understand that then. Without thousand of tons of explosives it would enable gravity alone to achieve an 18 second collapse time. But WITH explosives it would take 38 seconds ? Are you actually saying that ?

No.

I'm saying that Kuttler's model would require thousands of tons of explosives to match the observed collapse. But Kuttler's model is wrong and has no connection with reality.

The building collapsed without any need for explosives.

 

[qed]

@Hitstirrer

• Kuttler is internally inconsistent.

 

[Hitstirrer]

No.

I'm saying that Kuttler's model would require thousands of tons of explosives to match the observed collapse. But Kuttler's model is wrong and has no connection with reality.

The building collapsed without any need for explosives.

You have just done exactly what @qed did. You observe a collapse in 18 seconds then when the science shows that to be impossible you are able to discard the science in favour of a belief that gravity did it.

 

[Mick West]

You have just done exactly what @qed did. You observe a collapse in 18 seconds then when the science shows that to be impossible you are able to discard the science in favour of a belief that gravity did it.

But the science did not show it is impossible. See discussion above.