reply to post by Whyhi
Whyhi,
Good try,
That paper was presented by the NIST Charlatan "Greening" and he obviously tried to make it over technical so that your general MOP and most of the
Govt would not understand it. He did a good job too, but he has since been found out by his peers.
He was soon brought to task over that and many other of the reports findings. He has been proven to be a liar.
Professor David Chandler tore holes in Greenings physics behind the collapse, during a discussion (albeit about WTC 1) between the two, here is what
YOUR MAN GREENING had to say....
FG:
The collapse of WTC 1 is best studied by considering how potential energy was converted to kinetic energy and dissipated at the crush front and
subsequently within the steadily growing debris/rubble layer. This debris layer was not only a sink for potential energy, but a source of
random fluctuations in the motions of the individual debris particles. These fluctuations cannot exert a net resultant force against the downward
motion of the upper block but rather serve to control the gravitational work rate. In fact, if this type of collapse should attain a state of dynamic
equilibrium, there will be a balance between the production of fluctuation energy
at the crush front and the conversion of this energy to heat within the debris layer through the dissipating effects of many random collisions of
debris particles. It is considerations such as these that help to quantify the complexities of the WTC 1 collapse, not naïve applications of
Newton’s 3rd Law of motion.
I understand fully what he is saying here and I suggest he is talking utter CRAP.
Here is Professor Chandlers reply:
You are engaging in pseudo academic obfuscation. In my video I have made the argument that the constant acceleration of the top section of the
building implies that the resistive force is much less than the weight of the falling block. If I’m wrong, show me how. You seem to be hoping
non-technical readers will assume what you have said is profound. It is not profound. It is incoherent.
Unsuspecting readers may not understand the significance of your last line. They should be informed that the reason you view the application of
Newton’s 3rd Law of motion as naïve, is because, as you have clearly and repeatedly stated in both private correspondence and public
forums, that you believe Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to falling buildings. That, of course, is utter nonsense. Your entire letter needs to be
read and understood in the light of this concluding statement. Your argument is not with me; it is with Isaac Newton.
I agree totally.
PEACE,
RK