North Tower Acceleration

[William Seger]

205. WTF?

It's really annoying to try to interact with someone who either doesn't even read what I write or utterly fails to understand it but then calls it "blather." I explained EXACTLY what Ross' "momentum losses" number was and how he calculated it in post #163, when you first decided to share your ignorance with us, and I'll bold the most relevant part so you can't miss it again:

The major item in Ross' "energy summary" loss column is "Momentum losses 1389 MJ". He got that number from these two calculations:

If we assume that the upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full gravitational acceleration through a height of one (removed) storey, a distance of 3.7 metres we can calculate that its velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second and have a kinetic energy due to its mass and velocity of 2.105 GJ. (Using the figure of 58000 tonnes as detailed in the report by Bazant & Zhou.)

...

K. E. of falling sectionfiltered= 16 floors moving at (8.5 m/sec)
K. E. of falling sectionfiltered= 17 floors moving at (4.8 m/sec)
Percentage loss of K.E. = 1-(17 * 4.8/ (16 *8.5) * 100% = 66%

What Ross is doing in that last line is calculating the kinetic energy present in the masses and velocities before and after the collision, showing a loss of 66% of the kinetic energy due to the inelastic collision. So 66% of 2.105 GJ is 1389 MJ, which Ross takes as "momentum losses."

If you do not understand that simple, clear explanation of Ross' "momentum losses" then you should have bowed out of the discussion many, many posts ago. How could you possibly think that anyone would be interested in your opinions about an issue which you simply do not understand? Have you really deluded yourself into thinking nobody else understands it either, so you can just spew nonsense?

You owe me ten bucks, and I'll thank you to contribute it to DU. That would be a cheap lesson, but I have to doubt that you've really learned anything from it.

EDIT: I'll bet you another $10, also payable to DU, that you cannot find a single "inconsistency" in what I've said on this subject that isn't also a product of your own lack of understanding.