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

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.

...

Go far enough in those slides and you'll find a graph Mackey lifted from me (with credit, not stolen).

[...]. 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 ?

No, it is to demonstrate it was not necessarily explosive demolition removing resistance.

One might be similarly amused that evidence of a terrorist conspiracy is used to disprove the notion that 9/11 was a conspiracy theory. But that's an equally semantic argument.

Last edited:
(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. )

Sounds like something for another thread. I don't think that's why he was fired.

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.

There's the rub. When we get into details, it descends into if something seems right or not. We should be going by the math, but the math is too complicated, so people stick with their gut, and 9/11 will remain a conspiracy theory forever.

We should be going by the math ............

OK Mick. But your use of the word 'majority' would have to be justified by the maths to be valid.

Anyway, as @OneWhiteEye so eloquently puts it:-

Thats it for me on this thread.

I prefer not to.
You can't. Despite all your "research" into this area.

[...] 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 ?
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.

@Hitstirrer

I don't believe that you really believe what you say, any more.

Consider the following thought experiment.

You are standing in a building built like WTC1.

|------------------------------|----|----|----|------------------------------|
|------------------------------|----|----|----|------------------------------|
|------------------------------|----|----|----|------------------------------|
...

No extra concrete reinforcement like post 9-11 buildings.

A commercial jet crashes into it.
• Would you stay because it is virtually impossible for such a building to collapse?

@Hitstirrer

I don't believe that you really believe what you say, any more.

A commercial jet crashes into it.
• Would you stay because it is virtually impossible for such a building to collapse?

A few points.

You can believe what you want. But I don't lie. Never did see the point in that as its usually shown to come and bite you in the bum later.

Next:- 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.

Next :- Thats a complicated question and requires me to second guess my reaction at the time. Honestly, as a human being with a strong survival instinct I would be outa there in a nanosecond and at home inside an hour to watch events on my TV. But thats not due to any rational and cool assessment as to whether the building would come down or not after watching 911 years ago. But equally, I wouldn't stay there insisting to everyone else that " its perfectly safe folks" based on any strong conviction that 911 was virtually impossible.

In any case, I have actually worked near the top of a high rise in Birmingham UK called Alpha Tower. Its a baby in your terms at 28 floors and only 328 feet high but trust me that baby swayed in the wind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Tower

I was 'fire marshall' for my floor for a 18 months. Evacuation was practiced, and mandatory, in any serious event with the building. That is hard wired into me and therefore - honestly - as I said, I would be out of there as rapidly as I could, subject to fulfilling my fire duties first.

I know that you are really asking me if I would forget that and stand on my convictions that it was safe to stay. Doubt it.

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?

[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?

[1] Thanks. Accepted.

[2] 'Fraud' is far too strong a word. In post #178 I said this.

" I am also aware that 'peer review' means very little - having made a few discreet enquiries myself into a totally different area of expertise. The closed circle of 'peers' who review each others work is scary in some disciplines. Its also further under question when you consider that many people reading the 'peer reviewed' papers in learned journals will decline to offer any criticism - even if they do find some aspects troubling - because they do not want to rock the boat inside their own chosen field. More so because they are in a narrow field of research and quite like to keep their jobs and not be known as a troublemaker."

The only line that could possibly be interpreted as controvertial is the highlighted one in red. It was in a field well outside any discussions in here, but still broadly 'scientific'. The reviewers obviously didn't pass complete rubbish. As you said, complaints to the journal would close down any such professional malpractice instantly. But there was a clear favouritism and grudge carrying culture around in a very tight knit community. Papers quietly sidelined because the writer wasn't one of the 'good ole boys' - and others fast tracked through because that particular 'good ole boys' judgment was trusted without question.

Just made me wonder whether I had luckily, or unluckily, picked the only field where that was going on - or whether it was a tip of a large iceburg. Thats why I said " in some disciplines" - and didn't put a full stop after ....scary.

But I have no intention of telling you specifics.

However, as I said earlier. I'm done in this thread. Its been interesting and we have all learned things I suspect. I have learned that @OneWhiteEye has strong personal integrity and is honest enough to admit mistakes. I have learned that he is tenacious and will now re-double his efforts to fully debunk Kuttler. I suspect that others will have learned not to fall in behind @OneWhiteEye instantly until he has re-checked his own work and found errors. As I say -- interesting thread.

BTW I didn't actually start it up. Mick hived it off from another thread and attributed it to me. As such I have been tag-teamed - but thats OK.

Out.

@Hitstirrer
If you cannot back something up,
He asked me to explain in here why I said - "I prefer not to" - but frankly its none of your business.
for personal reasons, then please do not use that as evidence.

It is unfair.

@Hitstirrer
If you cannot back something up, for personal reasons, then please do not use that as evidence.

Sorry. But I'm not used to people not believing me. Most people who I have any extensive contact with me know that I don't lie.

And I didn't use that comment as evidence at all. It was an observation to support my own opinion as to why - personally - I somewhat distrusted the peer review system. You yourself can accept every peer review as being absolutely straight, honest, and incorruptable, as you wish. I wouldn't ask you to support that view with hard evidence would I.

Anyway, its water under the bridge. And as I said ( twice). I will watch any further entries, but am out of here now.

@Hitstirrer
• So do you accept my argument that Kuttler is internally inconsistent.
That according to Kuttler, there is no physical explanation for the WTC collapses what so ever.

1. WTC collapses in 11-18s if and only if the is very little crushing of concrete and very little ejected dust.
2. If there is lots of crushing and ejected dust then WTC collapse in 38s.

Last edited:
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.

I am late to the party here and haven't read the entire discussion and so the points I am about to make may have been brought up. If so I apologize.

First the total collapse time is rather indeterminate. We might be able to know the start... the first measurable movements of the roofline downward... but even that is questionable. Obviously parts of the building were destroyed by the plane impact so we have both an less than 100% building with some parts re positioned... and we have a process of collapse which began well before the roof descent can be measured. My one theory is that the core what collapsing inside above the strike zone and the roof movement only began when the facade loads of the top caused buckling and translation to the facade below. And the movements of destruction included some manner of lateral movement. Why think of this as race to the bottom only?

Secondly, we can't establish the end of the collapse or destruction. The core columns for MOST of the core up to and above floor 50 survived up to 14 seconds (IIRC) after the main show... floor destruction and facade tip and peel and slip and drop.. We're talking 1wtc.

Thirdly, despite the above how does anyone determine when the main show ended? You can't see it You can't even see most of to measure the speed of it moving down except for a period when the collapse front was not obscured by the dust canopy. That bit was calculated at 65 mph. We don't know how long it too for the collapse to reach that velocity and if it was sustained for certain. Even that measurement is a bit crude because it is not the entire collapse but the crush front moving down inside the building.

Trying to link the sound of failing debris to the end of the collapse is a fool's errand.

Finally what is the collapse Prof K is referring to? the destruction of the floors? Or the entire frame? The facade part tipped over... nothing mysterious about that I would think. The spire? When the surviving core columns could no longer stand... after teetering they finally went from Euler buckling or just tipped and leveraged their column to column joints apart. Those that Euler buckled dropped at Free fall acceleration... much like kicking a stack of blocks out at the bottom.

[...]

Now to return to the theoretical collapse of the floor system... That system was composed of 104 plates most with fluted pans and 4" max 2 1/2" min. thick no stone aggregate lightweight concrete.. hardly stronger that pour in place gypsum board. The metal pans which the slabs were poured on were 22 gauge which is .03" thick... hardly something one would call robust.

The floor slabs was intended to be composite with the flimsy bar truss which supported them. Trusses spaced at 80" apart with 4 bolts at each double truss end and the chords were 1/4 angles. This was not a robust structure.

The process of destruction has been nicknamed ROOSD a vertical avalanche of sorts. Once the threshold mass was developed... the mass accelerated and in short order crashed the slabs it smashed onto in a micro second. Those slabs were no resistance virtually to the dynamic force of scores of tons per sq ft. of falling rubble... broken concrete, office contents, electrical and HVAC machinery, steel from the hat truss and yes the stronger concrete bits from floors 108 - the roof and the 360 ton antenna broken into bits... the ones which didn't fall over the side.

The floors stacked up would be 34' tall compared to the building's ht of 1362 feet... so there mostly air for the shattered floors and building contents to fall through 97.5% was air! My guess is the floor collapse was about 14 -18 seconds with FF returning 9.2 secs I believe. Let's call it 18 and that means that the slabs slowed the collapse down 9 secs/104 slabs or average time to crush per slab was .09 seconds.

By the way what is ejected through the windows is the clg tiles, walls and other materials ON the floors between the slabs... not the concrete slabs themselves.

There's my back of the envelope math. Take that Prof K and have a nice day... [...].

Last edited:
After over a month away, I don't find this quite as disagreeable. I'm going to try this again; if hitstirrer doesn't wish to take it up again, that's fine.

@OneWhiteEye - You said " Are you familiar with verinage?".

That is frequently brought up.
As it should be.

Find me a highrise steelframe building where vérinage alone has been used to cause global collapse and we can discuss that further.
I'll return to this, but I first want to focus on what put me off before.

Until then its a pure diversion...
No, it's not. Yours is an attempt to handwave away my point without due consideration.

...and quite frankly it surprises me that you suggest it.
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.

To excuse you a little...
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.

Now, back to this:
Find me a highrise steelframe building where vérinage alone has been used to cause global collapse and we can discuss that further.
Cars are steel-framed, too, you know. And vehicles, not buildings.

It's true it's not done on steel frame buildings. What is the reason? I don't know (but can speculate). Do you know? You'd better, since it's the unstated basis for your dismissal.

Personally, I think the examining that reason as well the expected differences in dynamics should be very useful in this discussion. Hardly a diversion. I've looked a bit for the answer, but all I find is lay speculation. Perhaps I can contact someone in the business and find out. Whatever reason you give, if any, it ought to match up with the answer given by the people who do it.

...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 ?
No. So why then all the incredulity about concrete pulverization in the WTC collapses? You said sarcastically:

But I keep forgetting. Gravity alone can it seems produce massive amounts of pulverised material...
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)?

It only makes sense in the context of evasion, and that's why I decided I would return to this after all.

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.

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.
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.

I was taken to task somewhat in this thread for erroneously assuming that Kuttler included mass other than concrete in modeling the towers, but the same individual won't take Kuttler to task for a model in which the percentage of crushed material as a fraction of total mass exceeds the fraction of concrete mass in the real towers. That's just one point. The reality is, the average particle size MUST be much greater than assumed by Kuttler, and this can affect the result by an order of magnitude, and bring the dynamics in line with everyone who's done a better job at it. Bam! Kuttler paper invalid on another entirely distinct issue.

Once again, an argument where the only foundation is incredulity, as the flaws in the mechanics which render it useless are either not understood or relegated to insignificant status if they are. Kuttler ignored conservation of momentum in an inelastic collision, for goodness sakes! He did so thinking it would be conservative for his thesis where I've already shown here that it's just the opposite. That's what happens when people who don't know how to mechanics do mechanics. I believe that point was totally ignored in favor of an out-of-the-blue CAR analogy. Could that have been a diversion?

Aside from getting straight what observations should be fit to a model in the first place, a genuine interest in discussing the subject of mechanics - which is what this is paper purports to do - would be accompanied by a willingness to expend the time and effort necessary to become minimally conversant in the subject. Since there seems to be no self-initiative in that regard, taking a haughty tone with a gratis tutor after several times trying to take the steering wheel from the back seat and then calling an attempt to address these petulant distractions a diversion did not sit well with me.

. 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.

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.

Publishing is not proof of anything... other than someone(s) wanted recognition from a group of editors who publish in esoteric magazines. 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. But that doesn't stop the truthers from screaming PEER REVIEWED paper. Jeez Louise how dumb is that?

I would never publish because I don't care for credit. I offer my ideas and anyone can take it or leave it, even steal them and publish their own paper. I could care less. It might even be a form of flattery.

The point is people have different motives for getting into the mysteries of the collapse of the WTC structures. I've stated mine any number of times.. a personal interest to understand. I can only understand at the level of my technical background. It's not too bad, but mathematical proofs don't speak to me. I respect those to whom it does and are facile with this approach.

It seems to me that some get agitated over technical BS and smoke and mirrors launched to deceive the public. Who could blame them? No one likes a fraud and poser. or as they say if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen... the heat being the facts... not the name of the person conveying them.

But the only thing that would really impress me would be to publish your own paper taking it apart and have that peer reviewed.
Kutler's "paper" is not published.

It is just hosted on a website. No peer review whatsoever.

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.

A few misconceptions there that first saw light in JREF. And by the nature of such disinformation the misconceptions take on a life of their own by repetition in this way.

The intention was never to buy a 'peer reviewed' stamp. As you will be aware, most journals are subscription only and access to papers in them come at a high price. Copyright restricts reprints. They are able to continue in business in that way, and as such the submitter also 'buys' access there, but by monthly subs rather than one off fees. Everything must be paid for in some way. Open journals are just up front about it.

The intention of the choice of Bentham was to actually allow access to the information to a far wider audience that otherwise would never pay huge annual fees to read a one off paper of interest. That was what drove the selection of an 'open source' journal. Contrary to opinion these are not 'vanity' journals at all. They are a new way of allowing access to erudite papers to a far wider audience. That academia riles against them is to be expected. In much the same way that the same people vilify Wikipedia.

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.

As to the resignation of the editor. I would suggest that you should look closer at that event. Your inference is that she resigned because she was in some way in disagreement with the veracity of the paper contents. That is far from the truth otherwise the paper would have been removed from their site. JREF found 2 - added another 2, and got 5. And that answer of 5 is repeated by others until they bother to check personally.

My, but you must have been fuming for weeks to come back with such a flurry of entries.
Haven't slept a wink.

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.
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.

My opinion after all these years: Everyone talking about alleged violations of physics and experts talking trash on momentum or Newton's third law have had ample time to achieve post doc level in physics or engineering mechanics, from scratch. Those who haven't would be wise to stay on the sidelines, since they are unable or unininterested in doing the groundwork to make their opinions worth listening to.

From what limited interaction I've had with you, it seems to me you have more than sufficient intellect to absorb the relevant material, unlike countless others. I don't think it's necessary for you to rely on others for a great deal of this.

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.)
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.

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.
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.

Please explain to me the issues with 'expert' statements concerning momentum. I'm not joking. You have a complaint, let's hear it.

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 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.

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'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.

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.
Might make me feel better. Seriously, sorry, I don't want to shout at you.

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.
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.

Last edited:
Please explain to me the issues with 'expert' statements concerning momentum. I'm not joking. You have a complaint, let's hear it.

One word should suffice. Bazant.

I wish one word would suffice. I agree there are problems with Bazant. What does he get wrong about momentum, specifically?

I agree there are problems with Bazant. What does he get wrong about momentum, specifically?

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.

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.

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.

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.
Okay, I thought you were speaking of a violation evident in the formulation of the equations of motion. This is a different thing.

Yes, I know about the initial freefall drop. It is an assumption concerning initial conditions. It is not a valid assumption. It is NOT an assumption which is conservative towards survival, thus rendering his claim of such false right out of the gate. It doesn't pass muster as realistic even on casual observation. It's shown false by direct observation.

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.

So its OK to use ad hominum attacks ? Are his credentials and expertise in question ?

On the matter of Bazant's initial conditions...

Did you know that he also determined that a 0.5m freefall drop was sufficient to cause the same result - global collapse - according to his input estimates?

Does this alter your perception of the situation?

The way in which the initial drop factors into the equation of motion is to establish a velocity at first impact. It's just a scalar number. One can posulate NO drop but simply a given initial velocity and the result will be the same. There is a categorical difference between making an invalid assumption and inadvertantly violating a conservation law in setup or solution of the equations of motion. Both can be of sufficient severity to render the conclusions invalid but (and I'm not trying to spin this) but the latter is generally viewed more critically by practitioners. If the assumption is really stupid, yes that's embarrassing but remaining consistent and correct with solution is very important. One is like design, the other workmanship.

It's pretty much okay to assume whatever initial conditions or constraints you like, so long as the follow-through is consistent and correct. What it will affect is the applicability and usefulness, it's not considered an error per se. In both Bazant's and Kuttler's situations, there are invalid assumptions both of which can be considered counter to basic laws. The effect of these assumptions on the results, however, are quite dissimilar.

Bazant's assumption is indeed all of the negative things I said in the prior post, AND it would be stupid (or more likely dishonest) if it were critical to his conclusion, but it's not. Keeping everything the same, but making the drop much smaller ( => impact velocity much smaller), he dispenses with any concern that this unrealistic and untrue assumption changes the overall result.

Kuttler assumes that, by ignoring momentum conservation, his result will be skewed towards a faster collapse. Given the way he frames the problem, this is not true. It fully negates his result. By decreeing that X amount of concrete must be crushed in each collision, he forces the dissipation of a great deal more kinetic energy than physics allows possible for these collisions.

Because of the non-linear nature of the collapse time as a function of energy dissipated, there's a point where incremental increase in this amount of energy gives very large changes in collapse time. There's a quasi-linear phase from zero resistance up to that afforded by a significant factor of safety, after which collapse time starts the ever more rapid march to infinite collapse time (aka arrest). A 1% increase in dissipated energy can increase collapse times by literally any amount of time - years - if close enough to conditions of arrest.

Kutter's result is climbing that curve. But, most importantly, an assumption he made which he never should've made means he's doing the mechanics all wrong despite his internal consistency. The same is not true with Bazant, who took a BS assumption and carried it through consistently with a correct formulation and solution, then went back and showed the assumption didn't even matter to the result.

Kutter's result is climbing that curve.
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.

So its OK to use ad hominum attacks ? Are his credentials and expertise in question ?

His list of qualifications is not in question. What is in question is his lack of bias and his general ability. Clearly if he can be fooled by the trivial chemtrail nonsense then he can be fooled by a scientific looking paper.

You are the one bringing an argument from authority. I'm just pointing out that his authority here is very doubtful.

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.

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.

No I'd argue that his failure to see the problems with the chemtrail theory points to a general willingness to believe fringe theories, and/or a general current lack of scientific competence.

But we are getting a little off-topic here. The general point being the being published in a peer review journal is not necessarily an objective measurement of quality.

Kuttler's paper is pretty much nonsense. Why on earth does it need a peer reviewed rebuttal? 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.

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.

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.

I'm not actually defending it. I only threw it in the room to see what others thought of it. And I do actually understand what Kuttler is saying. You misquote me there. What I don't understand, not being a maths professor, are the calculations and formulae that are bandied around. The import of Kuttlers message is perfectly understandable by any layman. He tried to bend over backwards in every direction to make the collapse times fit in with known physical laws, and failed. The inference being that the times observed would have required outside assistance, other than gravity, to make them work.

It then took around 50 posts in here before someone called out for help from @OneWhiteEye. Prior to that none of the entries here made any attempt to take apart Kuttler's work. The focus was almost exclusively on 'shooting the messenger'. Go look if you dont believe me. There was much bluster about how easy it was to understand the calculations but when called upon nothing was forthcoming. Eventually @OneWhiteEye began to submit information that was seized upon by the early posters and chanted at me as manna from heaven to them. Pity that they jumped too early though.

Now OWE may well hold higher qualifications than Kuttler and/or is better placed from his own speciality to comment. How am I supposed to arbitrate between two opposing opinions? One has published his work for worldwide criticism. The other visits a chatroom, under protest, and leaps to a conclusion that requires almost immediate adjustment. The veering off into 'peer review' territory is my fault. What I really meant to say was that an opinion in a forum really needs some kind of outside support from peers before it can be accepted to overturn an eminent maths professors work. Surely that isn't an unreasonable request.

You say :-
Kuttler's paper is pretty much nonsense.

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.

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.

As it happens I tend to agree with you.

But sometimes a person's own beliefs are held to be strange by others too, and they would also reject anything that is said on those grounds. See how that works. I happen to believe that in circumstances where a persons skill, knowledge and expertise is accepted, then they wouldn't find it possible to deviate from that when faced with a professional problem, simply because they also happened to be a member of a weird religious sect for example. I believe that they would still be capable of compartmentalising their brain.

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.

But there's the rub. If you can't understand the math, what actually would qualify as "more substantial"? What would it take?