Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: North Tower Acceleration [View all]William Seger
(11,052 posts)179. Stop it, you're fracturing me
PULVERIZE. transitive verb. 1. : to reduce (as by crushing, beating, or grinding) to very small particles.
I do believe that crushing, beating, or grinding concrete reduces it to very small particles by fracturing it. If you believe something different, then yeah, I can see why you didn't understand what I was talking about.
I also believe that the initial collision fractured the concrete into pieces of all sizes, which certainly included some pulverization but surely not all of the concrete was pulverized, so I do believe Ross is the one who is being misleading by calling all of it "pulverisation" (which I keep putting in quotes because of the exaggeration, not because of the British spelling).
I also believe there was a hell of a lot of crushing, beating, and grinding going on after that collision, before that concrete hit the ground, so a guess about how much fracturing there was in the initial collision by looking at what was on the ground is not going to be very accurate. But it really doesn't matter for Ross' argument, because he already made a guess about the velocity of the mass after the collision and used that guess and the momentum conservation law to calculate a kinetic energy loss.
I was indeed wrong to say that Ross had "another line" for concrete fracturing, er, I mean "pulverisation" when there were actually two lines, but it's been a few years since I looked at it. However, the point remains that Ross can't have his cake and eat it too: either he can claim an energy loss due to the inelastic collision or he can claim energy losses for specific deformation processes, but he can't do both.
I do believe that crushing, beating, or grinding concrete reduces it to very small particles by fracturing it. If you believe something different, then yeah, I can see why you didn't understand what I was talking about.
I also believe that the initial collision fractured the concrete into pieces of all sizes, which certainly included some pulverization but surely not all of the concrete was pulverized, so I do believe Ross is the one who is being misleading by calling all of it "pulverisation" (which I keep putting in quotes because of the exaggeration, not because of the British spelling).
I also believe there was a hell of a lot of crushing, beating, and grinding going on after that collision, before that concrete hit the ground, so a guess about how much fracturing there was in the initial collision by looking at what was on the ground is not going to be very accurate. But it really doesn't matter for Ross' argument, because he already made a guess about the velocity of the mass after the collision and used that guess and the momentum conservation law to calculate a kinetic energy loss.
I was indeed wrong to say that Ross had "another line" for concrete fracturing, er, I mean "pulverisation" when there were actually two lines, but it's been a few years since I looked at it. However, the point remains that Ross can't have his cake and eat it too: either he can claim an energy loss due to the inelastic collision or he can claim energy losses for specific deformation processes, but he can't do both.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
207 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Good video! It's certain to generate snark and slander and not much else by way of rebuttal. K&R (nt
T S Justly
Dec 2011
#19
Thanks, I think. Lol. But the video still trumps nonsensical Bush Era "science". (nt)
T S Justly
Dec 2011
#30
Lol, but yes. The videos have laid waste to Bush and his doctrinaires' output. (nt)
T S Justly
Dec 2011
#32
Rather, it is I who supports Chandler's video evidence of NIST/Commission fraud ...
T S Justly
Dec 2011
#35
Most of what we know about 9/11 didn't come from the "Bush administration"
William Seger
Dec 2011
#36
Most of what we know about 9/11 didn't come from the "Bush administration" - Lol, that is true. (nt)
T S Justly
Dec 2011
#37
"The lower block only slowed down the acceleration of the upper block's mass....
jesters
Jan 2012
#43
"Bazant's cartoon model which has largely been discarded by both sides of the debate now"
Bolo Boffin
Jan 2012
#44
I don't see the problem with you providing a properly labelled free body diagram
Bolo Boffin
Jan 2012
#54
"Bazant Zhou shows that the upper section would have had ~31 times the energy necessary
jesters
Jan 2012
#59
Yup, that's a clue. The section "Elastic Dynamic Analysis" is a little less obvious, but...
William Seger
Jan 2012
#89
"shown to be wrong by numerous independent analyses, on both sides of the debate."
Bolo Boffin
Jan 2012
#74
Please provide the proof of physical and mathematical impossibility of 30% resistance.
AZCat
Jan 2012
#79
"The calculations have been done by many others." Which you continue to omit to link to.
Bolo Boffin
Jan 2012
#85
Fortunately the lower section can absorb the energy. A miracle of highrise engineering.
jesters
Jan 2012
#92
No, but I have noticed so-called "truthers" assert amazing things without evidence
zappaman
Jan 2012
#102
"The lower structure can absorb the energy. That's what I've been saying for the last 18 posts."
Bolo Boffin
Jan 2012
#95
Hmm. No links, no properly labeled free body diagram. Goodbye, jesters. n/t
Bolo Boffin
Jan 2012
#99
"don't be presenting the Bazant model as if it doesn't have fatal flaws" Links, please.
Bolo Boffin
Jan 2012
#148
after further review, Greening is NOT distinguishing between fracturing and pulverization
OnTheOtherHand
Jan 2012
#181
Not momentum loss; "momentum losses," Ross' term for the kinetic energy lost
William Seger
Jan 2012
#201
You are member of a tiny internet fringe group - lets not forget that simple fact
hack89
Jan 2012
#135
"intact 80 - 90-storey steel framed highrise" - just popping in to point out
Bolo Boffin
Jan 2012
#128
What I've noticed is that post #5 is still sitting there, unanswered. (n/t)
William Seger
Jan 2012
#83
A physics "gotcha"? No, you'd have to hand that to the guy who figured it out in the first place.
AZCat
Jan 2012
#125
You didn't respond to my questioning of your statement contradicting the second law.
AZCat
Jan 2012
#133
It doesn't matter if the bodies are moving or not, the second law still applies.
AZCat
Jan 2012
#137
You're assuming the buildings had a normal ability to withstand forces after collapse initiations
cpwm17
Jan 2012
#63