• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gordon Ross Paper

TraitorBasher

Banned
T
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
259
This paper by Gordon Ross is simply wonderful. I am going to quote in its entirity because it is too good to miss.



Sorry Dr Greening et al

Apparently, I do not exist. According to a thread on the JREF forum, no one by the name of Gordon Ross has been born in Dundee since the latter part of the 19th Century. This came as quite a shock to me and no doubt will also surprise my father, who it seems has laboured for all his life under the delusion that he is also called Gordon Ross and was born in Dundee. My Great Uncle Gordon passed away several years ago and has thus been spared the trauma of discovering that he also did not exist. ....snip...

Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed.
Click to expand...

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id4.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now let us combine some of these wilder utterances which have issued from the official conspiracy theorists camp. We have a structure which was;

1/ Held together with only half the required fasteners
Click to expand...

unlikely
2/ Welding which was not fully seamed but only tacked
Click to expand...

Also unlikely

3/ The structure was so rusty it could provide tonnes of rust to the intelligent thermite from only the area impacted by the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Corrosion on the outer surface of steelwork would not be uncommon.
Intelligent thermite? No more likely than finding an intelligent 'truther'.

Maybe he means 'intelligent termites'?

4/ The core had no horizontal or diagonal bracing
Click to expand...

Correct. It didn't need any.

5/ No lateral support to the columns except that provided by the floors
Click to expand...

Therefore there was lateral support to the columns, as provided by the floor.

This is only inconvenient if you want to remove the floors.

And only mad people and 'truthers' want to do that.

6/ A steel superstructure which was likely to burst into flames at a moments notice
Click to expand...

Huh? Spontaneous combustion?
Here's me thinking a bloody great plane, laden with aviation fuel, slammed into the structure.

7/ A designed safety factor of only 2.
Click to expand...

So, what should it be?

If you was paying for someone to design an extension on your property to provide an additional bedroom, and you needed a beam designed by an engineer, how many multiples of an accepted domestic loading are you going to be prepared to PAY for before you start to say "Now, hang on a minute...."?
 
UK dave do you have a source for there being no bracing in the core. I had never even heard that claim until today.
 
What I find really interesting is that, although Ross and Greening disagree with each other, they are both very qualified scientist who absolutely agree on what JREF is. That should be a wake up call.
 
ERichardson said:
UK dave do you have a source for there being no bracing in the core. I had never even heard that claim until today.
Click to expand...


The recent release of wtc blueprints?

Do you have any source for there being bracing in the core?

(Cue: pictures of the tower cranes during construction)
 
I'll admit that I only skimmed through this post, but one thing struck me.

It seems that a large part of this "paper" was devoted to personal attacks against critics such as Greening and R. Mackey. Is this how real scientists work?

If someone publishes a paper critical of someone else's paper on, for example, M-TheoryWP, does that person respond with:

The time that I did spend on him was just a part of my life that was pointlessly used up. It is hard work wading through his diatribe, sifting for facts which can be discussed, but if you make the effort you will find that his explanation for the collapse involves the steel in the towers' superstructure catching fire and burning. I'll repeat that, in case anyone has difficulty.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I can't take this guy seriously. I estimate that ninety-percent of this "paper" is spent trying to discredit his critics, rather than their arguments.

Try again.
 
I love it when people use personal attacks as a way to say "all they do is personal attacks".

If I had a link to the irony meter I'd post it.
 
I just want to address a single paragraph of Ross's comments (I don't think "paper" is an appropriate description, as this is not a presentation of scientific results in the way I understand the word to be used) because it strikes me that the arguments presented are sufficiently absurd as to cast doubt on the originator's objectivity.

Then we have his explanation for the molten metal which was seen to pour from the towers. Dr. Greening postulates that the enormous levels of heat required to melt a section of steel columns could have been allowed by the presence of oxygen from the tanks and generators in the aircraft. On this occasion he goes into some creditable research and detail of the mechanisms which would be required for this oxygen to become available and concentrated in the area of the observed molten metal. However, he fails to realise, or perhaps simply ignores the simple fact that a fire requires fuel as well as oxygen. Although he may have posed an explanation for the continuous supply of oxygen to a concentrated discrete spot, he makes no mention and poses no explanation for the continuous supply of fuel to the same concentrated discrete spot. In the absence of such a supply we would not have a fire and there would be no heat input. On the contrary, the expansion of the oxygen would cause a drop in temperature. So we have the situation that Dr. Greening in attempting to find an explanation for the hot spot from whence we see the molten metal, has actually inadvertently stumbled across a far more plausible explanation for the cold spot, identified by NIST, in the same general area.
How much more wrong is it possible to be?
Click to expand...

To place this in context, we are discussing the possibility of the rupturing of oxygen tanks in the middle of a large and fast-burning office contents fire, which has been accelerated by the combustion of aviation fuel. The fuel present would include, but not necessarily be limited to, furniture, office paper, computer equipment, carpeting and other furnishing fabrics. Many conspiracy theorists have suggested (although this point is still disputed) that this fire was oxygen deficient, and therefore limited in its rate of combustion not by the availability of fuel but by the availability of oxygen. Is Ross seriously suggesting that the sudden release of a significant quantity of oxygen into the region of such a fire would not lead to a sudden, rapid combustion and a localised increase in temperature? If so, I would suggest that he has successfully explored exactly how much more wrong it is possible to be.

Dave
 
qarnos said:
I'm sorry, but I can't take this guy seriously. I estimate that ninety-percent of this "paper" is spent trying to discredit his critics, rather than their arguments.

Try again.
Click to expand...

While the conclusions are almost certainly nonsense, I'll give Mr Ross the credit for actually assembling some kind of argument that is actually not self-debunking - http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html .

It seems to be on a different level to the likes of Lyte Trip or Christophera7, whose ideas are obviously nonsensical. I'd be interested in seeing just where his errors lie. Given his attack on JREF, I imagine that they've been pointed out already.

Most of the CT's are "not even wrong". Mr Ross seems to have advanced to being wrong.
 
ERichardson said:
What I find really interesting is that, although Ross and Greening disagree with each other, they are both very qualified scientist who absolutely agree on what JREF is. That should be a wake up call.
Click to expand...

Really ? Gordon Ross is no more qualified than me. He has a BSC in mechanical Engineering. I have a BSC in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. Am I qualified to write about the collapse of the Towers?

Me? Who as never been there, never inspected the site? Somebody who has never examined the steel, spoke to anybody that was there? Never been involved in any form of civil engineering in my entire life.

No I am not pal, hence the reason I rarely venture outside my own field.

Incidentally maybe you should ask Ross does he still believes the towers would have stood without the cores,that's what he told me a while back.
If this core failure occurred six minutes prior to the collapse how did it manage to stay standing?.

Because the perimeter columns were capable of taking the entire weight of the structure above without the assistance of the core.
Click to expand...

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3287&start=30

I don't know,do you ? Ross seems to think so.

Also ask him from me why he as not got in touch with anybody to peer review his paper, why he will not contact any institute of structural engineers to have a look at his maths and theories, why they simply fester away on the net and have not made a single scientific journal.
 
Last edited:
The perimeter columns may have been able to support the weight of the whole structure, however, those core columns are needed to support the floor decks which in turn brace the perimeter columns against Euler buckling. If you lose the core columns, you lose floor decks, which means you lose the bracing.

Ross said in his paper on progressive collapse:

Euler calculations show that columns of the dimensions used in the towers would not fail due to buckling over a length of one storey height, but would instead adopt a compressive failure mode
Click to expand...

This is dead wrong. All but the heaviest shapes will suffer moderately from Euler Buckling over a typical floor to floor height. I have a chart showing the effect of Euler buckling on all 14WF shapes from the time, however I can't link to it because I don't have the required number of posts. It's on my blog at blogspot (same name) if you REALLY want to look at it. Suffice to say, Ross either didn't actually do the calcs, or he's just hiding evidence to support beliefs. I'll add another set of tables showing the effect of Euler buckling on typical box columns later today or tonight.
 
Newtons Bit said:
The perimeter columns may have been able to support the weight of the whole structure, however, those core columns are needed to support the floor decks which in turn brace the perimeter columns against Euler buckling. If you lose the core columns, you lose floor decks, which means you lose the bracing.

Ross said in his paper on progressive collapse:



This is dead wrong. All but the heaviest shapes will suffer moderately from Euler Buckling over a typical floor to floor height. I have a chart showing the effect of Euler buckling on all 14WF shapes from the time, however I can't link to it because I don't have the required number of posts. It's on my blog at blogspot (same name) if you REALLY want to look at it. Suffice to say, Ross either didn't actually do the calcs, or he's just hiding evidence to support beliefs. I'll add another set of tables showing the effect of Euler buckling on typical box columns later today or tonight.
Click to expand...
HE also neglects to mention that with a single floor failure, even in a local area (i.e., the lateral support to only a few outside collumns), that length is not merely floor-to-floor, but 2 floors.
 
link is newtonsbit.blogspot.com

Now I actually need to go to work and do real engineering :(
 
Newtons Bit said:
The perimeter columns may have been able to support the weight of the whole structure, however, those core columns are needed to support the floor decks which in turn brace the perimeter columns against Euler buckling. If you lose the core columns, you lose floor decks, which means you lose the bracing.

Ross said in his paper on progressive collapse:



This is dead wrong. All but the heaviest shapes will suffer moderately from Euler Buckling over a typical floor to floor height. I have a chart showing the effect of Euler buckling on all 14WF shapes from the time, however I can't link to it because I don't have the required number of posts. It's on my blog at blogspot (same name) if you REALLY want to look at it. Suffice to say, Ross either didn't actually do the calcs, or he's just hiding evidence to support beliefs. I'll add another set of tables showing the effect of Euler buckling on typical box columns later today or tonight.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forums Newtons Bit! Nice call on the Euler buckling bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom