For those who claim Prof. Jones failed to present a scientific explanation

[Woody Box]

...here's Jones' original paper from 2005, with "calculations, references and all the other things one expects in a scientific paper".

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

I hope this paper contains enough "calculations, references and all the other things one expects in a scientific paper" to satisfy our ol' hacky lazy-bone...

[Make7]

1. Calculations?

I see these:

Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have evidently not moved relative to one another yet, from what one can observe from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors (see Chertoff, 2005) is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt², yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)^1/2.

Are there some other calculations to which you are referring? Perhaps I missed them.

For a 12,000 word paper by a Physics Professor, the calculations quoted above are not really an impressive showing. There seems to be little, if any, original work in his paper at all. What has his contribution to this subject been exactly? (Other than just being a Professor of Physics that happens to believe in the controlled demolition theory.)

- Make7

[Woody Box]

2. You're not really familiar with science, are you?

What you have put in bold letters are equations. An equation is not the same as a calculation. Got it?

The text is full of calculations. Just open your eyes.

[Make7]

3. I was just assuming that he did some calculations....

... using those equations to come up with the results of 0.6 seconds for the first example and 6.0 seconds for the second one. Perhaps you are correct, one doesn't even need to do calculations using equations to arrive at some result. He's a Professor of Physics - he probably knows the answer without doing any math at all. I don't know why he even bothered to put those equations in there.

Posted by woody b:

The text is full of calculations. Just open your eyes.

Seeing as I have an inability to figure out what equations are even for, why don't you help me see what I am missing by posting a few examples of his numerous calculations from that paper.

- Make7

[Woody Box]

4. *sigh*

Are you really sure you know the full meaning of the term "caluclation"? Here you go - just a random selection:

The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, aluminum materials from the buildings should continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions with materials also entrained in the molten metal pools including hydrocarbons and metal oxides, which will then keep the pools molten for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses.


"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range . It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C . This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire."

I have to stop here due to DU rules. The whole paper goes like that.

[trotsky]

5. I don't think it's Make7 who doesn't know what a "calculation" is.

Many facts and temperatures are given, but those can be looked up in any CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. I don't see anything that was actually calculated.

[Make7]

6. Please explain:

Posted by woody b:

Are you really sure you know the full meaning of the term "caluclation"?

After reading your last couple of posts, I suggest asking yourself that question. I would be interested to find out what you believe a calculation is though. For instance, why do you believe what you have posted are examples of calculations?

The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, aluminum materials from the buildings should continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions with materials also entrained in the molten metal pools including hydrocarbons and metal oxides, which will then keep the pools molten for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses.

Thermite gets really hot. Did he calculate that temperature himself based on the chemical reactions involved or did he just look it up somewhere? There is nothing in the above paragraph that would indicate that any calculations were actually performed by Professor Jones regarding the temperature stated, or even how that temperature was arrived at.

Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.

But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire."
(Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

How exactly is directly quoting someone else's work a calculation?

Although I do find it interesting that Professor Jones decided not to quote the paragraph that immediately follows from that paper.

"The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Does Professor Jones think it wise to use the work of someone that believes the steel structure in the towers failed due to the fires? Isn't that the opposite of what Professor Jones believes? Odd choice for a source. And the quote almost seems out of context as presented in the Professor's paper. Hmmmm....

- Make7

[hack89]

7. He made the "calculation" that no CTr would question it! nt

[Woody Box]

8. calculations

By mixing up "equation" and "calculation" you've already shown that your understanding of scientific concepts is a little bit...let's say fuzzy.

So it doesn't surprise me that your understanding of the meaning of "calculation" is pretty poor, you seem to narrow it down to calculations including mathematical formulas. But there is more to it. This dictionary here has three explanations:

calculation

- the procedure of calculation; determining something by mathematical or logical methods;

- planning something carefully and intentionally

- problem solving that involves numbers and quantities

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/calculation

Calculations fulfilling definition #3 are everywhere to find in the text, for instance here:

This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire.

The author takes different data, compares them and puts them into relation to solve the question if the steel could withstand fire stress under certain conditions. Problem solving that involves numbers and quantities.

You think a scientific text with few or no mathematical formulas is no science (hack89 does, obviously, as he refers to the narrow meaning of "calculations", too)? You're wrong again.

[hack89]

10. But how were those "facts" derived?

He says

Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire.

How does he know that? Without his calculations there is absolutely no way to verify his numbers. Without his calculations, how do we know what assumptions he using. You lambaste NIST for their skewing the investigation with false initial assumptions yet you don't hold Jones to the same standard.

A fundamental aspect of science is that it can be repeated and verified - how is that possible in this case? It is no more than unsupported opinion.

[Make7]

11. Issues.

Posted by woody b:

By mixing up "equation" and "calculation" you've already shown that your understanding of scientific concepts is a little bit...let's say fuzzy.

Did you not understand my previous explanation? Let me try again:

Time it would take for an object to fall the distance of a single story of the building (in a vacuum):

           y = ½ gt2
        (2)y = (2)½ gt2
          2y = gt2
      2y / g = gt2 / g
      2y / g = t2
   (2y / g)½ = (t2)½
   (2y / g)½ = t
           t = (2y / g)½

Now, using 12 ft. as the approximate height between floors we get:

     t = (2 (12) / 32.16)½
     t = 0.864 seconds

The additional time it would take the object to fall another floor works out to be 0.358 seconds.

And for the entire height of the building:

     t = (2H/g)1/2

Using 570 ft. as the height of WTC7:

     t = (2 (570) / 32.16)1/2
     t = 5.95 seconds

Are those examples of equations or calculations? And what would these be examples of:

Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt², yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)^1/2.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Did Professor Jones pull those numbers out of a magic hat?

And did he simply average the theoretical collapse times for the first two floors to get "a little over 0.6 seconds"? It is difficult to say for sure without seeing how he arrived at that figure.

Posted by woody b:

So it doesn't surprise me that your understanding of the meaning of "calculation" is pretty poor, you seem to narrow it down to calculations including mathematical formulas. But there is more to it. This dictionary here has three explanations:

calculation

- the procedure of calculation; determining something by mathematical or logical methods;

- planning something carefully and intentionally

- problem solving that involves numbers and quantities

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/calculation

It seems readily apparent that you started this thread in response to hack89, in part because of his use of the word "calculation". I think it is also apparent that you believe his use of the word would fall under your definition #1 above. My usage of the word would also fit the first definition.

If you want to redefine how you intend to use the word in the discussion, you should be upfront about it so people don't mistakenly believe the original usage is being consistently employed by all the participants. Unless, of course, your intention is to not make your meaning clear.

Posted by woody b:

Calculations fulfilling definition #3 are everywhere to find in the text, for instance here:

This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire.

The author takes different data, compares them and puts them into relation to solve the question if the steel could withstand fire stress under certain conditions. Problem solving that involves numbers and quantities.

So is your point that Eagar and Musso have adequately performed "calculations" in their work?

The problem with what you have quoted is that the authors of that article believe that the steel structure of the buildings failed because of the fires. Or was that the point you were trying to make? The fact that the steel could have failed as a result of the fires.

Posted by woody b:

You think a scientific text with few or no mathematical formulas is no science (hack89 does, obviously, as he refers to the narrow meaning of "calculations", too)? You're wrong again.

I believe common courtesy would suggest that one actually wait for a reply to a question before telling someone that they are wrong. And if not to be polite, at least to prevent the possibility of making a mistake. (See below.)

The answer to your question is: No, I don't think that.

Here are the main issues that I see with the paper by Dr. Jones from the original post:

• Far too much of the paper seems to be quotes of other people's work. (In my opinion.)
  
• Professor Jones has added very little, if anything, to what has already been done by previous researchers regarding this issue.
  
• There does not seem to be the detailed analysis of the actual physics involved that one would expect from a Professor of Physics. (Once again, my opinion.)

- Make7

[dchill]

9. "Calculation"

cal·cu·la·tion
1. a. The act, process, or result of calculating.
b. An estimate based on probabilities.

2. Careful, often cunning estimation and planning of likely outcomes, especially to advance one's own interests.

I think definition 2 says a lot about both sides of the argument. Any calculation's result is completely dependent on the data used. How hot did the fire get? How long did it last? How much fuel was involved initially? How much burned up in the explosive fireballs? How much concrete was used in the cores?

The point is this - Who can say? Nobody. Nobody knows for sure, because we're not supposed to. If that weren't the case, there would have been a real criminal investigation on the site, at the time. We all know that didn't happen. Real evidence was destroyed. Discovering the real reasons for THAT would be the best "calculation" of all.