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

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Can I throw this paper into the discussion please. Prof Kuttler was surprised to discover that even though he made every possible concession to enable a rapid fall rate, all his calculations came to a far longer time than that recorded. He even modelled all the floors 'floating' without any column support, or resistance, and it still worked out beyond the time seen by some margin. When he then introduced loss of energy used to reduce the concrete to dust, the fall time went well beyond even the most optimistic fall times admitted by various official estimates.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf
 

Attachments

  • ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf
    163.2 KB · Views: 480
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Can I throw this paper into the discussion please. Prof Kuttler was surprised to discover that even though he made every possible concession to enable a rapid fall rate, all his calculations came to a far longer time than that recorded. He even modelled all the floors 'floating' without any column support, or resistance, and it still worked out beyond the time seen by some margin. When he then introduced loss of energy used to reduce the concrete to dust, the fall time went well beyond even the most optimistic fall times admitted by various official estimates.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf

So what happened to the concrete then? Was it all mixed with nano-thermite when they built the place?

Kuttler's paper seems like just another abstraction that has little to do with reality. The building was not a series of slabs hovering in space, and nor was the concrete all reduced to dust as the building fell.
 

qed

Senior Member
@Hitstirrer

How does Kuttler calculate the "correct" time?

Can you briefly summarise his key results.
 
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
So what happened to the concrete then? Was it all mixed with nano-thermite when they built the place?

Kuttler's paper seems like just another abstraction that has little to do with reality. The building was not a series of slabs hovering in space, and nor was the concrete all reduced to dust as the building fell.

You seem to be mixing up your threads now. Nano-thermite is discussed elsewhere. And you also introduce a hint of absurdity. Both are not what I have come to expect from you.

However, that aside, as you say, his assumptions have little to do with reality. That is the entire point. Surely you saw that in his introduction to each stage of his calculations ?

Kuttler's various unrealistic assumptions were quite deliberate and fully explained at the outset. He was trying to introduce ridiculous concepts in an attempt to make the calculations agree with the official fall times.

And failed.

No matter how much he introduced unrealistic assumptions he was unable to make the calculations agree with official fall times. Even in extreme circumstances of ridiculousness, ( if thats a word) he couldn't make the maths accept such rapid fall times.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You seem to be mixing up your threads now. Nano-thermite is discussed elsewhere. And you also introduce a hint of absurdity. Both are not what I have come to expect from you.

However, that aside, as you say, his assumptions have little to do with reality. That is the entire point. Surely you saw that in his introduction to each stage of his calculations ?

Kuttler's various unrealistic assumptions were quite deliberate and fully explained at the outset. He was trying to introduce ridiculous concepts in an attempt to make the calculations agree with the official fall times.

And failed.

No matter how much he introduced unrealistic assumptions he was unable to make the calculations agree with official fall times. Even in extreme circumstances of ridiculousness, ( if thats a word) he couldn't make the maths accept such rapid fall times.

Well perhaps he should have tried realistic assumptions?

I introduce absurdity because it is absurd. He uses energy calculation for grinding concrete to dust that have nothing to do with reality. He models the towers as a series of thick slabs banging against each other, when that's about the furthest thing from what it was.

If his paper was actually relevant, then any high school math student (and millions of university students worldwide) would be able to repeat it, and the jig would be up. Why do you think that has not happened?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
@Hitstirrer

How does Kuttler calculate the "correct" time?

Can you briefly summarise his key results.

I think that he was really trying to find a way to confirm the official fall times rather than bring forward his own 'correct' solution. If you read his approach you will see that he failed to do that despite making quite ridiculous assumptions in an attempt to make the maths agree with the videos. His paper seems to indicate that whatever assumptions are made to enable the official times to work they aren't sufficient. And not just by small amounts either. Please take time to read the paper.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think that he was really trying to find a way to confirm the official fall times rather than bring forward his own 'correct' solution. If you read his approach you will see that he failed to do that despite making quite ridiculous assumptions in an attempt to make the maths agree with the videos. His paper seems to indicate that whatever assumptions are made to enable the official times to work they aren't sufficient. And not just by small amounts either. Please take time to read the paper.

So you think this proves it was controlled demolition then?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Well perhaps he should have tried realistic assumptions?

You really havn't grasped the concept have you.

If totally unrealistic assumptions are made to enable the fall to be as rapid as possible. And they still fail to produce calculations that agree with official times, then making realistic assumptions that would make a fall less rapid would only increase the calculated fall times.
 

qed

Senior Member
A brief overview of Kuttler.

Kuttler proposes three models for calculating the time it should take for WTC to collapse and contrasts these to the "official" estimates.

Various existing estimates are first recalled : for WTC1, these range from 9-17 seconds, 11 being from NIST.

In Kuttler's first model, "no matter lost to dust", he obtains an estimate of 11.6s, which is within 0.6s of the NIST value:oops:.

In the second, "progressive loss of mass to dust", he obtains 14.38-15.95, which while slightly higher than NIST, is still within the existing 9-17s estimates cited earlier:oops:.

The third model considers the time taken to smash through the concrete floors. With his model, 38s.

@Hitstirrer Can you explain to us how Kuttler models the crushing of concrete floors on page 6.

This is where I shall begin taking issue.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
So you think this proves it was controlled demolition then?

Its an indication that something isn't right.

If well know formulae are used, and at every stage assumptions are made to assist the concept of rapid collapse, and they still cannot come close to what was seen and recorded, then either the formulae are wrong, or something else was at play that the formulae havn't factored in.

What that 'something' is I don't know. But surely you would like to know where the error lies. Either the tried and tested calculations have been found to be totally inaccurate after all these years, or another unknown force was in play there.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You really havn't grasped the concept have you.

If totally unrealistic assumptions are made to enable the fall to be as rapid as possible. And they still fail to produce calculations that agree with official times, then making realistic assumptions that would make a fall less rapid would only increase the calculated fall times.

No, I understand your argument. You are saying it's the best case, and being "realistic" would necessarily be worse - i.e take more time.

I'm explicitly disagreeing with that. I'm saying that his modelling the towers as a series of thick slabs hovering in space is not necessarily going to result in a quicker collapse than reality. By "realistic" I don't mean tweaking his figures, I mean modelling what actually happened.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Its an indication that something isn't right.

If well know formulae are used, and at every stage assumptions are made to assist the concept of rapid collapse, and they still cannot come close to what was seen and recorded, then either the formulae are wrong, or something else was at play that the formulae havn't factored in.

What that 'something' is I don't know. But surely you would like to know where the error lies. Either the tried and tested calculations have been found to be totally inaccurate after all these years, or another unknown force was in play there.

You can't use the provenance of a formula to make an argument seem more valid.

It's like saying "Look everyone, I use conservation of momentum, so I must be correct, as that's been proved to be right for hundreds of years!!!"

You also have make sure your overall model is reflects reality, your figures are right, and you've not left anything out, and not made any false assumptions.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Can you explain to us how Kuttler models the crushing of concrete floors on page 6. This is where I shall begin taking issue.

Please take up any issues with Kuttler directly. If you can disprove his calculations, which seem to indicate that it would take even more extreme assumptions in order to agree with the official times, then please put forward your own 'assumptions' that would be required in order to really achieve the times reported.

Meanwhile, for the record, I didn't write that paper - nor do I comprehend the calculations - so please dont shoot the messenger.
 

qed

Senior Member
Please take up any issues with Kuttler directly. If you can disprove his calculations, which seem to indicate that it would take even more extreme assumptions in order to agree with the official times, then please put forward your own 'assumptions' that would be required in order to really achieve the times reported.

Meanwhile, for the record, I didn't write that paper - nor do I comprehend the calculations - so please dont shoot the messenger.

So you haven't/cannot read the paper you posted.

How would you like us to engage the messenger?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
You can't use the provenance of a formula to make an argument seem more valid.

It's like saying "Look everyone, I use conservation of momentum, so I must be correct, as that's been proved to be right for hundreds of years!!!"

You also have make sure your overall model is reflects reality, your figures are right, and you've not left anything out, and not made any false assumptions.

OK Mick. Show me where his figures of input are in error. And what he left out. As to assumptions, he was quite up-front about those. But if you think that making the fall 'easier' by such assumptions then it seems to me that making it 'harder' would be contrary to your wishes.
 

qed

Senior Member
OK Mick. Show me where his figures of input are in error. And what he left out. As to assumptions, he was quite up-front about those. But if you think that making the fall 'easier' by such assumptions then it seems to me that making it 'harder' would be contrary to your wishes.

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?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
So you haven't/cannot read the paper you posted.

How would you like us to engage the messenger?

What exactly was the purpose of your last message? Are you incapable of focussing on the point under discussion? I would prefer you NOT to engage the messenger at all but to engage the point under debate.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
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?

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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
OK Mick. Show me where his figures of input are in error. And what he left out. As to assumptions, he was quite up-front about those. But if you think that making the fall 'easier' by such assumptions then it seems to me that making it 'harder' would be contrary to your wishes.

His most obvious error is his use of "11 seconds" as the "official NIST" number with which he compares his results. But regarding the prior assumptions, he ignores the fact that it was not a series of blocks bashing against each other, but a heavy front of rubble stripping away much lighter floors. The time for the roof to hit the ground was much more than 11 seconds, and and at that point half the core was still standing.

There's a good overview of the problems of blocks here:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=279&MMN_position=557:557
 
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
With the messenger who is not capable of understanding the delivered message?

How is that possible?

You really havn't thought that through too well have you. A messenger is a messenger and isn't usually required to hold a masters degree in physics. Ask Mick to explain the concept of ad hominum attacks. And then address the message.
 

qed

Senior Member
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.

NO.

If I demonstrate Kuttler's errors, why do I need to "then show that making realistic assumptions would confirm a fall time in line with videos and official admissions".

The second demand is what, a strawperson?

So again, if I put in the effort and find such errors for you, will you cease to believe the controlled demolition conspiracy theory?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
You really havn't thought that through too well have you. A messenger is a messenger and isn't usually required to hold a masters degree in physics. Ask Mick to explain the concept of ad hominum attacks. And then address the message.
You *chose* the message, as having some relevance. You must have an understanding of the message to think that.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
NO.

If I demonstrate Kuttler's errors, why do I need to "then show that making realistic assumptions would confirm a fall time in line with videos and official admissions".

The second demand is what, a strawperson?

So again, if I put in the effort and find such errors for you, will you cease to believe the controlled demolition conspiracy theory?

I sincerely doubt that you personally would be capable of dismantling Kuttler's calculations without simply repeating others work. But of course those 'others' would then have to give you the ammunition to demonstrate that using realistic assumptions, the standard calculations would confirm the official fall times. You imagine a strawman that doesnt exist. Its a logic consequence of the first part. You can't just say something is wrong without proving that claim. But, again, I doubt that you are capable of that without help.

I would suggest that you don't waste all our time regurgitating JREF input in here - which is what I suspect your 'effort' would entail - but instead admit that you are no more capable of understanding the calculations in Kuttler's paper than I am - and cease the bluster.

And please stop accusing me of believing in CD. I would be perfectly willing to accept the findings of a totally independent investigation that showed without doubt that the events that day were exactly as we were told. At this stage I am not in that position.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
You *chose* the message, as having some relevance. You must have an understanding of the message to think that.

I found the paper interesting in that it seemed to indicate that despite leaning over backwards in every way to enable a rapid fall to be calculated, he failed. You don't need to be a physics professor to read a summary. So - yes- I did have an understanding of the message. Atfer all that was the purpose of the message - to pass on information.

At some stage someone in here will focus on that message, and information, rather than on myself.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I would suggest that you don't waste all our time regurgitating JREF input in here - which is what I suspect your 'effort' would entail - but instead admit that you are no more capable of understanding the calculations in Kuttler's paper than I am - and cease the bluster.

I'm quite capable of understanding them, I just don't want to invest a few hours checking them when he's obviously barking up the wrong tree with his simplified block physics, and his use of the wrong collapse time for WTC1.

 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
You *chose* the message, as having some relevance. You must have an understanding of the message to think that.

It's not that hard a concept to understand, is it? H quite clearly understands the abstract - the concept, you know - the idea; the bit written in words that explains the paper. It doesn't necessarily follow that he must understand all the physics. He says as much - an admirable quality, honesty. What's wrong with that? Do you understand it? No, you don't.
 

qed

Senior Member
I sincerely doubt that you personally would be capable of dismantling Kuttler's calculations without simply repeating others work. But of course those 'others' would then have to give you the ammunition to demonstrate that using realistic assumptions, the standard calculations would confirm the official fall times.

We can see. I will ask @OneWhiteEye for help.

You imagine a strawman that doesnt exist. Its a logic consequence of the first part. You can't just say something is wrong without proving that claim.

NO.

Your evidence that the building collapsed too quickly is the paper. If I demonstrate that the paper is in error, then the conclusion that the building collapsed too quickly no longer stands.

I would suggest that you don't waste all our time regurgitating JREF input in here - which is what I suspect your 'effort' would entail - but instead admit that you are no more capable of understanding the calculations in Kuttler's paper than I am - and cease the bluster.

You are wrong.

I haven't read JREF and have already spotted a severe error in the modelling on page 6. But need to check something with @OneWhiteEye.

But, by your very admission, putting in this effort and finding errors will not convert you, so is it really fair to ask us at Metabunk to debunk this for you if it will make no difference?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
.... is it really fair to ask us at Metabunk to debunk this for you if it will make no difference?

Fair? What a strange concept. I'm being unfair in posting a link to a paper ? Look qed, if you don't want to feel that you are being unfairly asked to type in here, then please desist, or go and find a more deserving recipient of your valuable time, who isnt being unfair to you.

Or here is another thought. Why not contribute to the discussion rather than spend time typing entries such as that.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
It's not that hard a concept to understand, is it? H quite clearly understands the abstract - the concept, you know - the idea; the bit written in words that explains the paper. It doesn't necessarily follow that he must understand all the physics. He says as much - an admirable quality, honesty. What's wrong with that? Do you understand it? No, you don't.
And I never claimed to. So what?
 

qed

Senior Member
Fair? What a strange concept. I'm being unfair in posting a link to a paper ? Look qed, if you don't want to feel that you are being unfairly asked to type in here, then please desist, or go and find a more deserving recipient of your valuable time, who isnt being unfair to you.

Is it fair to ask us to put in the effort to read the paper, do the math, follow the argument, if finding an error makes no difference to you?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
@Hitstirrer Qed wants to know the level of your understanding, so if he finds a nit to pick you can follow his method - it's not an attack on the messenger, it's an attempt to establish on what level of common understanding the debate can proceed.

You *seemed* to say you're just an innocent messenger that has no knowledge of the message, but I may have read that wrong.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Out of interest I converted the first Maple program into Javascript, you can edit and run it here:

http://jsfiddle.net/s64uE/

Just click on Run at the top. You can edit the code and tweak the figures to see what effect different assumptions have

Unfortunately I have to run, I'll be travelling for a few days, so won't be able to do much.

Here's the code if jsfiddle isn't working:

Code:
    Digits=38;
    r=1;
    q=16.0;
    Den=1750;
  
    CM=110*(177145.6/(404.45*Den+177145.6));
    M=q;
    g=9.8;
    h=11.69*.3048;
    u=Math.sqrt(2*g*h);
    N=94;
    sm=2*h/Math.sqrt(2*g*h);
    n=1;
    while (n<N+1)
    {
    L=u*M/(1+M);
     u=Math.sqrt(2*g*h+L*L);
    sm=(2*h/(u+L))+sm;
    M=r*(M+1);
    n=n+1;
    }
  
    document.writeln(n);
    document.writeln("<br>total time bottom floors = "+ sm);
    document.writeln("<br>total mass = " + M);
    document.writeln("<br>speed = " + u);
    document.writeln("<br>total time whole tower = "+ (sm+(2*h*q/(Math.sqrt(u*u+2*g*q*h)+u))));
    document.writeln("<br>Correct solid mass = " + CM);

Trivial to convert to other languages if anyone wants to play with it.
 
Last edited:

qed

Senior Member
@Hitstirrer

Ok. Lets try a meta-argument for starters.

Suppose that the results of the paper are correct.

Note that this model does not include columns, merely concrete floors overcoming momentum of other floors (and smashing them in the third model).

For each model a time t for total collapse is calculated.

  • How does introducing columns and then "thermating" them reduce time t?
Surely you would you have to thermate every floor?
 
Last edited:

qed

Senior Member
Ok.

The first two models in the paper fall within the quoted estimates, so they agree with progressive collapse.

So that leaves only the third model which includes the energy required to smash through the floors.

From my reading of page 6, this energy is calculated as the energy required to pulverize a slab of concrete lying on an immovable surface.

The value that should be used is the value required to crack a slab of concrete lying on the metal floor linkage. This is the value E1 in the NIST report.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
@Hitstirrer Qed wants to know the level of your understanding, so if he finds a nit to pick you can follow his method - it's not an attack on the messenger, it's an attempt to establish on what level of common understanding the debate can proceed.

You *seemed* to say you're just an innocent messenger that has no knowledge of the message, but I may have read that wrong.

I suspect that qed's 'level of understanding' of the higher physics in that paper is no higher than my own. If thats incorrect and he is indeed a professor of peer status with Kuttler then I would of course apologise. If not, then its likely that I can hold my own on his 'level of understanding' of the paper. But if its only 'nits' that can be rooted out, rather than fundamental errors in application of the formula or in actual calculations, then that would be simply a 'strawman' attempt, and I would have to point that out.

Actually, lee, in post #979, stated my position well. You did read it wrong. What I was saying was that many in here refuse to address the topic and continue to just 'attack' anyone submitting a new element into a debate - as if that person was in some way ultimately responsible for the new information, and must understand it intimately, and then be prepared to defend it to the death.

Its a forum guys.

You can debate new information amongst yourselves without involving the one introducing information.
 

Related Articles

Top