Split Thread henryco's new paper

[henryco]

Hello,

I tried to announce this a week ago:
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/Pancake_GB.html

Was it on the wrong thread?

F

Hi henryco,

This post and the previous one I deleted are off-topic for the thread. But I approved the post this time since you seem to have missed the private messages I sent you.

The best thing would be for you (or someone who knows the topic) to start a new thread.

ETA: nevermind

Split from: New Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper.

Posted By: Gaspode

 

[newton3376]

Hello,

I tried to announce this a week ago:
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/Pancake_GB.html

Was it on the wrong thread?

F

Hi henryco,

This post and the previous one I deleted are off-topic for the thread. But I approved the post this time since you seem to have missed the private messages I sent you.

The best thing would be for you (or someone who knows the topic) to start a new thread.

Posted By: Gaspode

I bookmarked the paper....at first read I don't understand why you believe the "ejections" must have come from air pressure alone....why couldn't they come from collisions during the collapse?

 

[leftysergeant]

Collisions would not account for ejections of solid matter ahead of the collapsing front. They could only act at the speed of gravity. Over-pressurization would occur much more quickly.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Collisions would not account for ejections of solid matter ahead of the collapsing front. They could only act at the speed of gravity. Over-pressurization would occur much more quickly.

It just shows how off the rails the twoofer claims of how the air ejections=explosives going off=ext columns being flung out.

If the air being squeezed out from between the floors and through the windows is from explosive, and the explosives are responsible for these ext columns hitting the Winter Garden, then it should be easy to see in videos these columns being propelled at the very instant this air is being ejected. If explosives were indeed responsible, then it MUST be when these air ejections are seen, since any rational person realizes that the impulse can't come later.(of course THAT'S the point. Twoofs aren't rational)

But instead, we never see that. We see the air ejections progress down the building, and the ext columns still firmly in place, and not yet moving.

Ok, so now they'll claim that those were "turning the floor into dust", and the explosives that blew the columns came an instant later and were obscured by the dust clouds. So how does that work when the floors are gone, and the falling floors would have "wiped away" any charges that could have been attached to the inside of the ext columns?

There's just zero consistency from these morons. Not even Tony Szamboti seems to be able to meet that rather important criteria.

 

[rwguinn]

wrong again, lefty:
Ejections due to collisions belong in the F=K*X part of the equation, where K is the spring rate of the material section. When a steel beam (or any elastic material) is compressed, bent, stretched, or otherwise distorted, it stores energy as E=1/2K*X².
It follows from that that the acceleration resulting, when the spring is released, is a=K*X/m, where m is the mass of the ejecta, X is the deflection of the distorted part, and K is spring constant. This can be many times g, and if it acts opposite g, can even fling stuff upwards.

 

[Newtons Bit]

wrong again, lefty:
Ejections due to collisions belong in the F=K*X part of the equation, where K is the spring rate of the material section. When a steel beam (or any elastic material) is compressed, bent, stretched, or otherwise distorted, it stores energy as E=1/2K*X².
It follows from that that the acceleration resulting, when the spring is released, is a=K*X/m, where m is the mass of the ejecta, X is the deflection of the distorted part, and K is spring constant. This can be many times g, and if it acts opposite g, can even fling stuff upwards.

This is why you can shoot a rubber band up.

 

[beachnut]

Hello,

http://www.darksideofgravity.com/Pancake_GB.html

Another delusional paper proves there are a few fringe conspiracy minded people who don't care if they publish total nonsense.

What was the total joules in the collapse?

What did the authorities say when you presented this poppycock? What did the Journal of Engineering Mechanics say? Working on your Pulitzer package?

 

[newton3376]

Collisions would not account for ejections of solid matter ahead of the collapsing front. They could only act at the speed of gravity. Over-pressurization would occur much more quickly.

Just noticed this post....

I don't know....I am not expert in fluid dynamics or turbulence but I would think that huge columns falling onto and dislodging the still attached columns, floor trusses, etc could cause some pretty forceful collisions....

I could be wrong here though....

 

[newton3376]

wrong again, lefty:
Ejections due to collisions belong in the F=K*X part of the equation, where K is the spring rate of the material section. When a steel beam (or any elastic material) is compressed, bent, stretched, or otherwise distorted, it stores energy as E=1/2K*X².
It follows from that that the acceleration resulting, when the spring is released, is a=K*X/m, where m is the mass of the ejecta, X is the deflection of the distorted part, and K is spring constant. This can be many times g, and if it acts opposite g, can even fling stuff upwards.

Ah yes.....that makes sense......that could cause some ejections I would imagine....

 

[leftysergeant]

It follows from that that the acceleration resulting, when the spring is released, is a=K*X/m, where m is the mass of the ejecta, X is the deflection of the distorted part, and K is spring constant. This can be many times g, and if it acts opposite g, can even fling stuff upwards.

The spring effect is not readily apparent in the collapses. As best I understand what you have posted, this should, if it could accelerate downward motion, have shot some items out ahead of up upward through the dust plumes. This is not observed. Further, when a spring is released, it tends 9from what I have observed in real life)to follow the path of least resistance, which, in this case, would be horizontal.

It is unlikely that a great deal of potential energy was released by collision of steel-with-steel, since so much of it was layered with concrete.

The only effect I can easily model in my head resylting from the elasticity of steel would be to increase the stresses placed on concrete slabs. This may, then, be the "missing energy" that some of the less mentally stable twoofers rant about when they discuss the pulverisation of the concrete.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

It is unlikely that a great deal of potential energy was released by collision of steel-with-steel, since so much of it was layered with concrete.

We are talking about the exterior columns. They were not "layered with concrete."

imagine that as the bulk of the colapsing floors and top of the building dropped, it wedged the exterior walls outward while the floor connections would have pulled them inward, buckling the exterior columns like a bow. when the floor conections and the column connections fractured a lot of energy would have been released.

 

[rwguinn]

We are talking about the exterior columns. They were not "layered with concrete."

imagine that as the bulk of the colapsing floors and top of the building dropped, it wedged the exterior walls outward while the floor connections would have pulled them inward, buckling the exterior columns like a bow. when the floor conections and the column connections fractured a lot of energy would have been released.

In controled demolition, management of the gravitational; energy (PE due to position) is the easy part. It's all those pesky springs that cause the problems. That's one reason why, on the occasions they do demolish steel-framed buildings, they do so much cutting of steel to weaken the structure-and why they get paid the big bucks...

 

[leftysergeant]

The towers were different. The floor-to-perimeter connection was a lot weaker than in conventional structures. The perimeter columns supported each other and the floors were more spacers than an integrated part of the structure of the perimeter clumns.

When collapse started, any pulling-downward-and-inward was overcome by the great pass of debris trying to spread laterally against the resistance of the perimeter columns. Thus we have a fluid mass contributing to the ejection of perimeter columns, probably levering three-piece segments of the perimeter outward a couple of floors ahead of the collapsing front. This would accelerate the rate of collapse slightly. The increase in falling mass would also over-pressurize the interior of the building below the collapsing front, but not greatly. This is why the "squibs" start out as whisps of dust and gradually fill up with matter.

 

[WildCat]

wrong again, lefty:
Ejections due to collisions belong in the F=K*X part of the equation, where K is the spring rate of the material section. When a steel beam (or any elastic material) is compressed, bent, stretched, or otherwise distorted, it stores energy as E=1/2K*X².
It follows from that that the acceleration resulting, when the spring is released, is a=K*X/m, where m is the mass of the ejecta, X is the deflection of the distorted part, and K is spring constant. This can be many times g, and if it acts opposite g, can even fling stuff upwards.

This is why you can shoot a rubber band up.

Or why hitting a nail off center can send it flying. Which is why you're supposed to wear goggles when hammering a nail.

 

[leftysergeant]

I still do not see how the springing properties enter into the picture to any great extent in the towers. They may be more significant in re WTC 7, in which all the columns were already under a great deal of stress as built.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I still do not see how the springing properties enter into the picture to any great extent in the towers. They may be more significant in re WTC 7, in which all the columns were already under a great deal of stress as built.

Energy in columns do not dissipate immediately after the load has been released. Think of how a spring behaves. This is what the towers will do.

 

[newton3376]

Energy in columns do not dissipate immediately after the load has been released. Think of how a spring behaves. This is what the towers will do.

So am I correct in assuming the ejections can indeed be caused by collisions and not necessairly by air pressure alone?

 

[Newtons Bit]

So am I correct in assuming the ejections can indeed be caused by collisions and not necessairly by air pressure alone?

The steel ejections were not caused by air pressure at all. The dust plumes, concrete and maybe even furniture could be caused be ejected by air pressure.

Do a sanity check if you don't believe me. The velocity of the air pressure would need to be nigh on super-sonic to cause a steel column to be thrown outwards.

 

[rwguinn]

So am I correct in assuming the ejections can indeed be caused by collisions and not necessairly by air pressure alone?

indeed- they mostly are due to collisions. Windows (of which most of the facade was made) breaks at considerably lower load than steel and aluminum, and will act as a pressure relief...

 

[leftysergeant]

Energy in columns do not dissipate immediately after the load has been released. Think of how a spring behaves. This is what the towers will do.

I still see the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as more resembling the rersults of a mub slide or turbidity flow than they do the release of a spring.