A Debate on the WTC collapses.

[reprehensor]

Jules: Do you know what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese in France?
Brett: No.
Jules: Tell him, Vincent.
Vincent: Royale with cheese.
Jules: Royale with cheese. Do you know why they call it a Royale with cheese?
Brett: Because of the metric system?
Jules: Check out the big brain on Brett. You one smart motherfucker.

- Jules, Vincent & Brett, "Pulp Fiction", 1994.

Check out the big brains on these motherfuckers.

To whom it may concern

By Frank R. Greening
Physical Chemistry
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
[e-mail]

The Journal of 911 Studies has recently published a paper entitled Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1 by Gordon Ross. The Journal paper presents an alternative approach to an earlier treatment of this topic by F. R. Greening: Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse, (available in pdf format at 911myths.com). The paper by Ross claims to show that a simple gravitationally driven collapse of the upper section of WTC 1 would have been arrested after the first impact. By contrast, Greening’s previously mentioned paper concludes that a self-sustaining progressive collapse was physically possible for WTC 1 & 2.

I intend to show that Mr. Ross’ article is incorrect in at least four important ways:

(i) An error in the calculation of the kinetic energy of the falling section after the first impact.

(ii) An over-estimation of the energy required to pulverize the WTC 1 concrete.

(iii) The argument that the initial elastic deflection would propagate 24 storeys below the impact floor.

(iv) The use of a safety factor of 4 in the calculation of the elastic strain energy....

Rebuttal;

Reply to Dr. Greening

Author:
The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984. He can be contacted at [e-mail]

...By adopting Dr. Greening's own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage. Dr. Greening has not disproved the logic and conclusions of my article, but has in fact reinforced the most important conclusion: that collapse would have been arrested at an early stage.

Further doubt has been cast on a gravity-driven collapse using the analysis Dr. Greening has provided in reference to the pulverisation of the concrete. Combining this with our knowledge of the theoretical minimum collapse time having regard only to momentum transfer, it is shown that a collapse time of 17.5seconds, is the theoretical minimum collapse time having regard only to the momentum transfers and the concrete pulverisation. This timing contrarily does not take regard of the loss of effective mass that would be present due to the pulverisation and the ejection of the concrete pieces outside the area where they play a role in promulgating the collapse. Having regard to this and the other energies involved, the theoretical minimum collapse time can be seen to be approaching double that of the figures given for the collapse timing in official reports, even with no account taken of the energy demand from the distortion and destruction wrought to the steel superstructures.

Articles available in PDF format at the Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 2 - August 2006

[Carefulplease]

1. Did you read both articles?

So, who wins the debate in your opinion? Greening or Ross? And why?

(You are free to remain agnostic on the issue, of course.)

I'll comment more fully later. I've already commented on Ross's argument a couple days ago.