Gordon Ross Paper

[Dave Rogers]

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.

I've looked over Ross's paper a few times now; the main reason I haven't formed a clear opinion on it is that I'm not enough of an engineer (or I haven't read the right engineering texts) to understand his arguments fully. However, it does seem to me that his entire analysis is based on an unrealistic model of the collapse mechanism. He's starting from the assumption that the supports of a floor are abruptly removed, leading to the part of the structure above those supports falling and making an impact on the part below, such that the impact on the lower support columns is entirely longitudinal (to his credit, he also comments on how idealised a model that is, but only to suggest that the rate of collapse is less than it predicts). He then analyses the failure of the columns to a purely compressive force. The issue I take with that is that any lateral displacement comparable with the width of a column will mean that the columns of the falling part impact, not on the lower column ends, but on the floors, which would be very much less able to absorb the impact. Since Ross also only finds an energy deficit of 17% for continuous collapse in the idealised case where the lower columns are most able to absorb the impact, it seems to me that the conditions for a self-arresting collapse are too narrowly constrained to be realistic. The real collapse featured the upper sections of both towers tilting, and that alone makes a direct column-to-column impact on all the columns geometrically impossible.

It's also worth noting that, had the collapse progressed as Ross assumes, the core columns would have failed at the same time as the rest of the structure, so the survival of the collapse by significant portions of the core columns argues against his analysis.

This is just the comment of a relatively uninformed layman. I'll be very interested to see what more Newtons Bit has to say on this, and the same from other engineers on the forum.

Dave

 

[uk_dave]

Any person who seriously believes that a complex structure such as the wtc tower would fall in a way where the falling columns would be perfectly aligned with those below......is just not living in the real world.

And that's putting it politely.

 

[stateofgrace]

Or if you lose the floor decks you lose the bracing which means you lose the columns.

Exactly, this as been my line of reasoning, if you loose a single component of the three components that made up the towers, i.e. the core, the floors or the external columns the towers are compromised.

A core failure anywhere is going to drag the floors down and then the external columns. A floor failure and internal collapse of the floors is going to compromise the external columns and the internal core. An external column failure is going cause the floors to drop and then the core.

Which ever way it is looked at by loosing a single component, the floors, the internal core or the external columns, the towers were going to collapse.


Welcome to the forum Newton bits.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Any person who seriously believes that a complex structure such as the wtc tower would fall in a way where the falling columns would be perfectly aligned with those below......is just not living in the real world.

To be fair, that's my interpretation of Ross's collapse model. I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way, but I realise I'm a physicist, not a structural engineer.

Dave

 

[uk_dave]

not a structural engineer.

Dave

Unfortunately, neither is Ross.

It's a shame, because I really want to see a 'truther' structural engineer actually produce a design for a wtc tower which would have survived the impact damage and fire.

Then we could compare it to the real thing.

Christophera's 14ft thick RC core walls comes to mind.

 

[Horatius]

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.

We've discussed the buckling of columns before, with very little effect on the twoofer's arguments, alas.

It seems they are constitutionally incapable of understanding the interrelated nature of the structure of the towers, and how failure of one segment leads to failure of all of them.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Perhaps it would be an interesting thought experiment to turn it around; have some architects and/or engineers theorize how they would design a building that would be resistent to global collapse and see if the WTC towers had any of the those elements.

 

[uk_dave]

Perhaps it would be an interesting thought experiment to turn it around; have some architects and/or engineers theorize how they would design a building that would be resistent to global collapse and see if the WTC towers had any of the those elements.

Interesting but expensive.

The 'truthers' should pay for the work to be done.

 

[R.Mackey]

This paper by Gordon Ross is simply wonderful. I am going to quote in its entirity because it is too good to miss.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id4.html

UK dave do you have a source for there being no bracing in the core. I had never even heard that claim until today.

Am I to assume the latter point refers to Gordon's cowardly rant about my debunking of his paper?

I addressed Gordon's comments some months ago in my Victory Thread, wherein you will see links to my debunks of Gordon's papers.

The question of "no bracing in the cores" is a complex mistake/lie originally made by Ace Baker, who occasionally posts here as TruthSeeker1234. This issue was explored in nauseating, disrespectful detail in this thread, where Ace calls me on it for the fifth time, and I demonstrate just who's lying, and why.

To summarize, the core did not have bracing -- on the floors of interest. Diagonal cross-bracing was restricted to a few locations, including the mechanical floors and atrium floors. This is shown clearly in the NIST report, as referenced in the thread above. This fact is also not central to my argument, or in fact even anything I brought up at the time. My debunk of Ross's progressive collapse paper proceeds from the same assumptions that Ross used.

To summarize Gordon Ross, he is a liar and a fraud. I've demolished two of his papers, and while he'll snipe at me on his own 'blog, he's never even demonstrated that he understands the criticism.

 

[beachnut]

UK dave do you have a source for there being no bracing in the core. I had never even heard that claim until today.

Ross was wrong on his calculation about 10 to 20 percent; and as you see the WTC towers did fall without explosives. You can take the numbers and see why if you can do math. Greening and others, including NIST, all prove there is enough energy from the top floors failing to destroy the WTC towers. Funny thing is Ross was only missing a little energy to make it happen. If you read his papers he was only short a little energy, and looks like he was off by that plus just a little energy. You could look all this up and comment on it.

The core was primarily holding gravity loads, the shell of the WTC towers was the lateral support holding the towers up in wind. The WTC towers had to be built with the core and shell going up at the same time. Extra bracing was removed as they went up, so you could use the building core for elevators etc.

 

[beachnut]

Gordon Ross
(I think)
(Therefore I am)
6 December 2006

Was he one of the Moody Blues, or just a want to be? I am not sure if he does exist if he believes in fairy tales; do you? Ross, explosives, now really? I got sick reading his stuff, what was the extra energy needed for global collapse?

Ross shows clean up cuts of steel columns as proof of his ideas - ERROR - why does he lie?
Ross appears to think the core could stand on its own - ERROR - the core had to have the shell and floors to survive. Why does he lie? http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

His web site, with no facts and false information, proves he is just another teller of lies in the world of 9/11 "truth". He just makes up lies. See his web site which ER thinks he found the smoking gun, only to find more lies. This looks like a hoax site made up to fool "truthers". I love how he shows cuts of steel by the workers during clean up as proof of his lies. Debunked more now than just his old paper, due to his nutty web site. Does he really believe the WTC tower cores could stand on their own?

 

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the Forum Newton's Bit.

TAM

 

[TraitorBasher]

Hmm... I wasn't aware of rule 4, I should have read them.

I don't think Ross would have objected to me posting the entire article seeing as it was aimed at JREFers.

Which sad person reported it?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hmm... I wasn't aware of rule 4, I should have read them.

I don't think Ross would have objected to me posting the entire article seeing as it was aimed at JREFers.

Which sad person reported it?

You hadn't read the membership agreement.
You assume Ross would have given you permission to reproduce the entire work.

And you have the gall to ask "Which sad person reported it?"?

I was going to do so, but decided it wasn't worth the effort and assumed someone else would. I'm glad they did.

 

[pomeroo]

Hmm... I wasn't aware of rule 4, I should have read them.

I don't think Ross would have objected to me posting the entire article seeing as it was aimed at JREFers.

Which sad person reported it?

What was your objective, professional opinion of R. Mackey's refutation of Ross's "simply wonderful" paper?

 

[stateofgrace]

Hmm... I wasn't aware of rule 4, I should have read them.

I don't think Ross would have objected to me posting the entire article seeing as it was aimed at JREFers.

Which sad person reported it?

You posted trash aimed at people who trashed his trash.

I didn't report it but wish I had. In future be prepared to back up trash when you post it.

Only sad people post debunked trash, try harder next time

 

[Architect]

It's worse than you all think.

HE'S FROM DUNDEE!!

Jings, Crivens, Help Ma Boab.



(Only JAStewart and StateofGrace will actually appreciate this)

 

[T.A.M.]

Hmm... I wasn't aware of rule 4, I should have read them.

I don't think Ross would have objected to me posting the entire article seeing as it was aimed at JREFers.

Which sad person reported it?

1. It doesnt have to be reported, as the Mods are constantly reviewing threads here (especially here).

2. If someone did report it, good for them, you breeched the rules, and it isnt like you got suspended, they merely removed the offending part of your post and gave warning.

TAM

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

Actually as a fond reader of Oor Wullie, *I* appreciate it.
(Scottish parents and the Saturday Evening Post)

 

[chipmunk stew]

Hmm... I wasn't aware of rule 4, I should have read them.

I don't think Ross would have objected to me posting the entire article seeing as it was aimed at JREFers.

Which sad person reported it?

Even if it weren't a forum rule, C&Ping a whole article is bad netiquette, and many people will not read it on principle. People are actually more likely to follow a link to see an article in its original context than read through the thing within a thread. So Darat actually did you a favor!