OneWhiteEye
Senior Member
That's it for me on this thread.
This presentation (attached) has a discussion of Verinage issues. But it also has some good illustrations of the "Zipper" analogy I brought up earlier, described here as a Wedge:
Again though, this is a simplification. Two dimensional. However it illustrates the direction in which we need to go if we are to arrive at an accurate and realistic model.
![]()
...
[...]. People use vérinage to prove that buildings can come down using its own mass as motive force. Agreed. It can do that. Apart from the fact thats its irelevent in connection with steelframe buildings. But whats amusing is that vérinage is a form of CD. That means that they offer a CD initiation to prove that it wasn't CD. Geddit ?
(Incidentally, Kevin Ryan says that they only sagged 4" in tests, where a double load was imposed, double temperature and for double the time. And the truss ends not restrained at either end, allowing a maximum sagging possible. 4" was the result. He was concerned at seeing the report prepared to go to NIST saying the sag was 43", and was fired when he went directly to NIST to tell them that. )
After all, that is where most of such modelling errors are made. I suspect that a lot of energy was required to pulverise and eject material - and also heat it to very high temperatures as reported by ones engulfed in it. Then there are huge and rapid ejections of large steel sections to be catered for. Your 'majority' word doesnt seem right to me.
We should be going by the math ............
You can't. Despite all your "research" into this area.I prefer not to.
No. They offer it as an analogy to one aspect progressive collapse. There is no amusing contradiction here. If there was, believe me I would be the first to shove it in "their" faces.[...] But whats amusing is that vérinage is a form of CD. That means that they offer a CD initiation to prove that it wasn't CD. Geddit ?
@Hitstirrer
I don't believe that you really believe what you say, any more.
A commercial jet crashes into it.
Answer honestly.
- Would you stay because it is virtually impossible for such a building to collapse?
I resent your insinuation that I lied in my post #178 about my peer review research. Mick thinks thats its OK to allow members to be so impolite to me but deletes any much milder infringments from me. He asked me to explain in here why I said - "I prefer not to" - but frankly its none of your business. I have told Mick in confidence but he still asked me to make it public.
[1] I apologise unconditionally.
[2] You are saying that you have uncovered evidence of fraud in the peer review process of a reputable (ISI rated) journal?
for personal reasons, then please do not use that as evidence.He asked me to explain in here why I said - "I prefer not to" - but frankly its none of your business.
@Hitstirrer
If you cannot back something up, for personal reasons, then please do not use that as evidence.
I have always known how the buildings were constructed. I have always been astonished at the way that massively strong core system fell through itself. The stack of two dimentional bridges in your drawing doesn't really show that they were in fact three dimensional. There were dozens of such bridges ( trusses ) spaced evenly all around the inner core system. Sure -- a single truss can sag and allow concrete to fall. Quite a few trusses could sag. If so, than quite a fair section of floor would fall. But the entire three dimensional floor area fell all at once.
There was a truss spanning from every outer column to the core all around the building. Dozens of them. All of them would have had to break away from their individual column connections simultaneously to allow the entire concrete floor at any one level to fall at the same instant. How can that happen ?
But of course what you are really describing is the long discredited 'pancake' theory. You imagine floors piling onto floors onto floors and ignore the immensly strong core system not involved in any floor to floor action. How did the core columns - all braced to each other to form an intense steel grid with huge redundancy built in - also manage to fall through the line of most resistance ?
But this is going off topic.
And as @OneWhiteEye says, I am not sure that Kuttler has any real clue about engineering in order to fully model the building so that realistic parameters can be set for calculations. He simplified input as if the building was simple. It wasn't. But, and its a big but, even treating it as a simple stack of hovering concrete floors he found it hard to justify fall times observed when other energy requirements are factored in.
If Kuttler fully understood the interdependancy of the core/bridging truss system/outer columns and was able to model and calculate accordingly, surely it would result in a slower fall time than a simple floor to floor drop with zero resistance between floors and no resistance from that core. And even the simple models couldn't be made to comply with the vids seen. Something else, producing some other energy source, would be required to square the circle.
As it should be.
I'll return to this, but I first want to focus on what put me off before.Find me a highrise steelframe building where vérinage alone has been used to cause global collapse and we can discuss that further.
No, it's not. Yours is an attempt to handwave away my point without due consideration.Until then its a pure diversion...
The person who brought up stacks of cars in analogy to one part of a BUILDING crushing another part of a BUILDING is surprised when I bring up real world examples involving one part of a building crushing another??? That's breathtaking. Do you honestly think vérinage is less relevant to this subject than stack of automobiles? A car is more like a steel framed building than a steel-reinforced (or not) concrete building? Really? You can try to explain that, but I'd prefer you didn't....and quite frankly it surprises me that you suggest it.
I'm trying to avoid condescension in my tone. You think you could do the same? After all, between us, I think I'm holding the only physics degree and I think I'm the only one who's written multiple collapse simulation programs. Right or wrong, I'm coming from a solid background. If you want to try one-upmanship condescension with me in this subject, I'd recommend against it.To excuse you a little...
Cars are steel-framed, too, you know. And vehicles, not buildings.Find me a highrise steelframe building where vérinage alone has been used to cause global collapse and we can discuss that further.
No. So why then all the incredulity about concrete pulverization in the WTC collapses? You said sarcastically:...vérinage does very clearly show the interaction when one concrete mass impacts under gravity on another concrete mass, to produce much pulverised dust. But is that a surprise ?
My aside about vérinage (while we were discussing VEHICLES) was to address the fact gravity alone does indeed pulverize concrete and also produces large clouds of dust, in BUILDINGS an order of magnitude smaller - and where all the wallboard and other major dust sources have been removed. If you have no incredulity about pulverization, why talk like you do? And, if you do, what sense does it make to simply brush away a class of examples which address this unfounded disbelief to a T (unlike cars)?But I keep forgetting. Gravity alone can it seems produce massive amounts of pulverised material...
The awesome "pyroclastic" clouds... the "deep" layer of dust "all over" lower Manhattan... all of it being concrete... all of it being crushed to less than X microns... my head swims at how far off this argument is just on the basis observational facts! No one needs to explain how all of the concrete was pulverized to fine dust because it wasn't. There's another thread where one of these notions is being challenged, or should I say has already been put to bed. ALL of these notions should be properly dispensed with before any analytical discussion takes place.OWE,
The amount of dust and the amount of pulverization appears to be one of the big incredulity issues for truthers. To them this is simply impossible without explaining why. No one seems to have taken this on either... so it sort of hangs there as an unexplained observation.
. If you want to try one-upmanship condescension with me in this subject, I'd recommend against it.
Wouldn't dream of trying to outdo you on condescension. You hold a masters in that.
My, but you must have been fuming for weeks to come back with such a flurry of entries. Seems that your main problems lie in my reluctance to spend a few years gaining equal qualifications to Kuttler in order to fully understand his paper. And then it seems that you also want me to spend another few years gaining a physics degree in order to avoid being treated like some kind of unintelligent student under your gratis tutor role.
Look @OneWhiteEye, I really don't want to fall out with you. I think that we are both capable of being abrasive and condescending. After all, my nickname is a clue. (They wouldn't let me have an initial 'S' in front.) The car analagy is a well known one and as I said upfront - they rarely satisfy either the poster or the reader. In any case it was meant as a kind of explanation to others reading the thread who have been totally taken in by the 'expert' reports concerning momentum. It wasn't directed at you. That would indeed have been disrespectful to your knowledge base.
A discussion on vérinage is a bit different though because it does indeed demonstrate that gravity, properly directed, can bring down concrete buildings quite efficiently. And result in fairly small 'chunks' left to clear up. Like you, I have no idea why its not used for steelframe highrise buildings. I suspect however that it has been tried and failed. Steel doesn't fracture like concrete and I could envisage a real nightmare of a debris field with huge still connected frames entangled with other still connected frames in a three dimensional jumble. Health and Safety issues galore as flame cutters attempt to un-jumble such a mess with every cut redistributing the loads in all directions. That was why I was surprised that you brought the subject up. Perhaps you havn't yet given it much thought in relation to steel.
Possibly you are really most upset that many in here leapt to 'like' and support your early input in this thread, only to discover that you later backtracked a bit causing them to look a little sycophantic. I didn't 'like' or 'attack' your earlier input because, as you have correctly identified, I don't have the knowledge base to do that. My approach is always to seek verification. When two experts have opposing views, picking sides isn't easy. And shouting at me will not make me favour your view either.
If you want to only discuss Kuttler thats fine. But the only thing that would really impress me would be to publish your own paper taking it apart and have that peer reviewed. If other topics are deemed to be distractions in here then I fear that it has run its course.
Kutler's "paper" is not published.But the only thing that would really impress me would be to publish your own paper taking it apart and have that peer reviewed.
Are you impressed by the Bentham Journal? Actually publishing there in my opinion has backfired as the intended purpose was to establish "peer review" creds.... and they paid to publish and the editor of the journal who claims to be an expert in nano particles resigned of the publication.
Haven't slept a wink.My, but you must have been fuming for weeks to come back with such a flurry of entries.
To put this in perspective, the principles employed are covered within the first couple of months of an introductory course at 3-5 hrs per week. Just like any subject, you can cut through all the window dressing and get to the meat in a lot less time. It's been at least a decade since some of the CD claims came on the scene. I spent a couple of years in remedial study and canvassing the arguments being made before doing my first post on the subject. It's been over six years since I started arguing some of these things and I can still see some of the same people I've engaged from back then going forum to forum saying exactly the same things to whomever will listen. Still squandering time that could be spent learning.Seems that your main problems lie in my reluctance to spend a few years gaining equal qualifications to Kuttler in order to fully understand his paper. And then it seems that you also want me to spend another few years gaining a physics degree in order to avoid being treated like some kind of unintelligent student under your gratis tutor role.
I don't want to fall out either. And that's a shame about your 's'. We'd probably have more fun with this in a free-for-all environment like Huffington post.Look @OneWhiteEye, I really don't want to fall out with you. I think that we are both capable of being abrasive and condescending. After all, my nickname is a clue. (They wouldn't let me have an initial 'S' in front.)
This last part is precisely why I take the 'tude above. You're intimating that you know something more than the experts about momentum in this context, yet can turn around and plead ignorance when challenged on anything related. Which is it? And what is it? What is wrong with what the experts' (and who are they?) reports concerning momentum? You do realize that one of the problems with Kuttler's paper is he deliberately ignores conservation of momentum when setting out to do the mechanics of collision? Mick and I have mentioned this several times now and I've gone into some detail as to why this goes bad.The car analagy is a well known one and as I said upfront - they rarely satisfy either the poster or the reader. In any case it was meant as a kind of explanation to others reading the thread who have been totally taken in by the 'expert' reports concerning momentum.
I think your assessment is probably correct. Now, stop and think about the perimeter columns of the towers peeling off in great sheets and hitting the ground up to 400 feet away. This dovetails with what you just said. The columns were not crushed. This situation is not acceptable for a controlled demolition, obviously. But how did they peel off in the first place? It happened because the floor assemblies behind them were already gone. Those floor assemblies are mostly concrete; I wouldn't call trusses steel frames. Once trusses are deformed significantly, most of the capacity in all axes is gone. Seems like the interior would be more susceptible to gravity-driven destruction than an apartment building with tight repetitive cellular structure filled with walls, given the floor assemblies are separated by air with (relatively!) flimsy connections to perimeter and core.A discussion on vérinage is a bit different though because it does indeed demonstrate that gravity, properly directed, can bring down concrete buildings quite efficiently. And result in fairly small 'chunks' left to clear up. Like you, I have no idea why its not used for steelframe highrise buildings. I suspect however that it has been tried and failed. Steel doesn't fracture like concrete and I could envisage a real nightmare of a debris field with huge still connected frames entangled with other still connected frames in a three dimensional jumble. Health and Safety issues galore as flame cutters attempt to un-jumble such a mess with every cut redistributing the loads in all directions. That was why I was surprised that you brought the subject up. Perhaps you havn't yet given it much thought in relation to steel.
I'm not as disturbed by that as you think. Remember, it's still true he crushed more concrete than was in the tower, and it's still true that he modeled a train collision with only disconnected wheels, and it's still true that he cast aside momentum conservation in a situation where it's not valid to do so. Now, his paper took way more than an hour to write and has been posted publicly for a number of years, and has been seen by a lot of people. I looked at a chunk of it for a short time and seized on basically the first thing I saw. I didn't realize the problem was framed in such a way that it wasn't even mechanics he was doing. My bad. In discovering why my initial observation was wrong, the rest of what was wrong with the paper came tumbling out, and it's frankly worse than my ill-founded criticism.Possibly you are really most upset that many in here leapt to 'like' and support your early input in this thread, only to discover that you later backtracked a bit causing them to look a little sycophantic.
Might make me feel better. Seriously, sorry, I don't want to shout at you.I didn't 'like' or 'attack' your earlier input because, as you have correctly identified, I don't have the knowledge base to do that. My approach is always to seek verification. When two experts have opposing views, picking sides isn't easy. And shouting at me will not make me favour your view either.
What qed said. If you consider posting an article on a website run by colleagues publishing, then I've already published hundreds of technical articles on the collapses on the 9/11 forum. Please, go on over, read, and critique. Send Kuttler there. I'd be pleased.If you want to only discuss Kuttler thats fine. But the only thing that would really impress me would be to publish your own paper taking it apart and have that peer reviewed. If other topics are deemed to be distractions in here then I fear that it has run its course.
Please explain to me the issues with 'expert' statements concerning momentum. I'm not joking. You have a complaint, let's hear it.
I agree there are problems with Bazant. What does he get wrong about momentum, specifically?
The peer review process of this paper was said to be rigorous. Following rabid attacks from JREF, one reviewer broke convention and disclosed his impressive credentials. He confirmed that the paper was discected meticulously and in his opinion was one of the most reviewed paper he had been involved in due to the highly controversial nature of its content. Still not overturned despite much effort.
Okay, I thought you were speaking of a violation evident in the formulation of the equations of motion. This is a different thing.Specifically his very first assertion. He calculates the mass that begins to descend. Measures the distance it falls until impact with the next lower floor. And applies kinetic equations to achieve a velocity ( 19mph ? ) at that impact to proceed with the next calculations.
But assumes zero resistance during that initial fall. Just a gravity/mass/distance calculation.
If the initial momentum calculation is wrong, the following ones emphasise that error. But of course you will already know about his initial error.
But it was also disclosed that he was an ardent 9/11 truther, and believed that contrails should not persist, and that chemtrails are real. If you are going to argue from authority, you need to be honest about your authorities.
To be perfectly and technically accurate, as I recall, it isn't actually climbing this curve because he's not doing real mechanics. Close enough, though, to get the point across. At these energies, if the mechanics observed conservation laws, he would've already arrested.Kutter's result is climbing that curve.
So its OK to use ad hominum attacks ? Are his credentials and expertise in question ?
His list of qualifications is not in question. You are the one bringing an argument from authority.
Are you suggesting that he suddenly becomes incompetent at his speciality because of a side interest in chemtrails ? In any case, your own bias in connection with the chemtrail issue is clear and well documented so I could argue that your opinion on his views can be discarded. And Im not bringing up an argument at all. All I did was to correct a wrong impression pushed by JREF over a papers review. Your ad hom attack and obvious bias over a pet hobby horse fails.
The only reason you continue to defend it is (and I mean no insult here, as this is what you said yourself) because you don't understand it.
Kuttler's paper is pretty much nonsense.
Agree with Mick on this... if X believed in "creation science" it would be a huge red flag and I would not bother looking at anything else the person says. There are legitimate investigation into the paranormal... and so it's not a black or white issue... but chem trails aside from cloud seeding which was been done is off the reservation.
Says who ? You and fellow forum chatters ? Forgive me but I would require something more substantial than that before I throw Kuttler under the bus. And that mustn't be construed as 'defending' him either. Its a perfectly logical thing to say if you step back and see whats been going on in here.