DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY

DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY

by Gordon Ross, ME, June 4, 2007*

When NIST encountered the sticky problem of how to explain the various facets of the collapse of the WTC Towers which did not fit their pre-ordained conclusion they must have been overjoyed to come across a hastily written paper by Dr. Bazant which purported to show, in a theoretical manner, that once started, the tower collapse would inevitably progress to ground level.

Dressed up a little to remove the obvious shortcoming that it talked of the columns reaching temps of 800 C the paper could be presented in NIST's final report in place of what should have been there - a comprehensive examination of all of the evidence which could be gleaned from the collapse and the debris field. When it all comes on top NIST can stand back and point at Dr. Bazant as the reason for their failure to study the collapse. It was he after all who assured them that collapse was inevitable.

But NIST's attempts to hide behind this theoretical paper, hampered as they were by the large hole at its centre, are now under threat by Dr. Bazant's latest attempts to bolster his ailing theory. Moving from the previously safe haven of his theoretical world he now moves into the real world of physical observations of the events of the day. But the harsh light of reality easily shines through the still retained security blanket of mathematical formulae to reveal this theory's true nudity.

Did it never occur to him ask why NIST avoided like a plaque, any detailed mention of the collapse process?

Continued after the jump...

Perhaps he should be congratulated for moving the debate away from what to some is an incomprehensible sea of mathematical formulae and back into the physical world where anyone can see and understand the evidence. His motive in doing so, protection of his theory, is also understandable.

But the fundamental problem with his theory remains that it is a physical impossibility. He assumes that all of the energy of the upper section will be somehow transferred to act only on the uppermost storey of the lower section. He ignores the fact that in order for the energy to even reach that storey, it must be transferred through every column in the storeys of the upper section. For his theory that the energy would concentrate in and overcome the columns sequentially down the tower to be correct, the columns of the upper section would have to transfer loads sufficient to cause failure to the stronger, less damaged and less thermally affected columns of the lower section, without themselves absorbing any energy whatsoever.

With increasing awareness of the shortcomings of his theory, Dr. Bazant, has selected a single piece of physical evidence and now holds it up to fend off the criticism. NIST could not have asked for a more staunch defender. But the physical world is a dangerous place for a flawed theory.

A theory must fit all of the evidence and a cursory glance at the sequence of the collapse of the towers shows evidence that completely contradicts his argument.

Dr. Bazant's theory tells us that the energy would concentrate in and crush the volume below the aircraft impact level.

These photographs clearly show that the first volume to be crushed was a volume of the upper section. Dr. Bazant has supplied us with a physical measure of the movement of the roof of the tower. He has asked us to believe that this acceleration of the roof line was the same as the lower end of the upper section, because the upper section remained whole and rigid. This is easily revealed to not be the case. Far from being a measure of the progress of the collapse front down the tower, it is actually a measure of the progress of the destruction of the upper section. The foundation of the entire argument can be undermined simply by showing one undeniable sequence of events.

The first volume to be crushed was as shown in the photographs, in complete contradiction to the theory of Dr. Bazant. Is it now becoming clearer why NIST wouldn't touch this with a bargepole?

Working under the mistaken assumption that the upper section would remain rigid, equating the movement of the collapse front with the movement of the roof line is a logical mistake to make, but it leads to greater errors. Content with the thought that this facet of the collapse fits his theory, Dr. Bazant then offers little else in the way of physical observations.

Had his attention not been deflected away from the collapse front and towards the roof line perhaps he would have noticed another phenomenon which casts extreme doubt upon his ideas,

Note the level of the storey from which the expulsions are issuing in the first screen capture and compare these with the new expulsions in the second capture less than one second later.

Leave aside the question of how the collapse front can cover these three storeys within one second.

You will note that these expulsions do not issue from consecutive storeys, but rather from about three storeys apart. How can that be explained by a theory that says the energy was concentrated in and destroyed the storeys sequentially down the tower?

Note also that the expulsions are issuing from only the mid wall areas. The corners of the tower are not involved with this phenomenon till a few parts of a second later.

Had Dr. Bazant only looked a little further then perhaps he would have begun to see through NIST's set-up.

Perhaps then he would have gone on to search for a collapse theory which did actually conform to the evidence and the real phenomenon identified during the collapse, evidence which was deemed unfit for inclusion in the NIST report.

His examination of the roof line may have allowed him to see the early movement of the antennae, and when viewed in conjunction with the following photograph, he would then have been armed with the knowledge that there was an early core failure, involving a complete severance of all of the 47 core columns.

Further investigation would have been necessary to learn why this severance of all the core columns was well below the aircraft impact level.
This may have led him to discover that this photograph shows much more than that simple fact. Perhaps in his investigations he would have ventured down the same road as members of the stj911.com who conducted further studies such as this analysis of the above photograph.

Clearly this core remnant does not include all of the core columns. Analysis of the relative spacing and dimensions of the remaining columns in this core remnant and the "spire" using this and other photographs show that the columns which survived the early stages of the collapse were those from column rows 700 and 800 - the lightest columns in the core. The strongest columns in the core, those from column rows 500, 600, 900, and 1000 were destroyed in the early stages of the collapse.

It seems that strength was not a saviour during the collapse but as a general rule of thumb, the proximity of an elevator shaft was a key factor. The core columns which were situated adjacent to and accessible from the elevator shafts were destroyed in the early stages of collapse, whereas those which were remote from elevator shafts survived.

Maybe then Dr. Bazant would have come to suspect that the strongest core columns were subject to concussive charges placed close to the welded junction of the three storey high core column sections. This gives cause and effect for the previous observations that the expulsions of dust and debris issued every three storeys down the building and not every storey. It would also explain why the expulsions issued firstly from the mid wall areas because they were directly opposite the core columns which were being attacked.

To confirm his suspicions and his role as the fall guy he may have tried to examine the steel recovered from the debris pile. With his engineering knowledge he, like other members of stj911.com, could envisage and identify the type of failure which would be expected in a welded box column which had been subject to an explosive charge in this manner.

In one end of the column he might expect to find two opposite concave faces, one concavity caused by the concussion of the explosion the other caused by the flanges tearing across each other. Such as in the column in this picture

The other end of the column would tend to show one flange torn away from the box section, just like the columns shown in these photographs:

The colour of the ends of the columns exhibiting the same discolouration as one would expect after a localised thermal event may have also given Dr. Bazant pause for thought.

Now armed with far more information and knowledge of the collapse than could ever be salvaged from the NIST report Dr. Bazant's attention may have then turned to the perimeter columns.

His now suspicious eye would have alighted upon the distinct change in the colour and character of the smoke emission from this area of the tower immediately prior to the collapse initiation.

Followed immediately afterwards by a similar change in the adjacent corner on the same floor and by distinct flashes of light in these two and one other location.

Also noting the molten metal stream and the "white rectangle" issuing from a fourth position on the same face - the area impacted by the aircraft debris

Dr. Bazant could then have fallen back on his mathematical theory to work out the probability of these four localized events occurring,
on only two floors,
in the same position relative to the corner,
at the same time,
immediately prior to collapse initiation.

Added to this Dr. Bazant would have also noted that each of these areas was then the site of a major seat of failure during the early stages of the collapse. The first volume to be crushed was the volume between the floors where these flashes, smoke changes, molten metal stream, and white rectangle were seen. None of these events have been adequately explained by the NIST report. The enormous implausibility of these events being unrelated to the true cause of the collapse may have allowed Dr. Bazant a glimpse of the enormity of the can he is being asked to carry.

For clarification Dr. Bazant would have looked at other videos to ensure that these flashes were not just video artifacts, or pieces of debris flashing in the sunlight. But his suspicions would only be confirmed as he realised that not only did the flashes show on other videos, but that there were many more such pieces of video evidence showing the same flashes of light, at the same position relative to the corners, in a distinct and meaningful pattern, every fifteen to twenty storeys down the tower. In each case the area soon after became a major seat of failure. His now growing catalogue of evidence may have included the columns in this video capture, where we see a section of corner perimeter columns still standing after the main collapse front has passed, but with the now ominous distinct white flash.

Followed soon afterwards by the same columns but without the section which was previously above the position of the white flash.

Perhaps he would have stumbled across this, perhaps the clearest pictures of these white flashes. His knowledge of the tower construction would have allowed him to note that the dark line dividing the flash is the windowless corner columns, telling him that the source of this flash was located at the corner, just inside the tower.

He would have also noted the flashes in the "spire" just before it too was felled, and noted the unusual white ends of these otherwise straight columns as they fall, with trailing eddies of white smoke. By this time the distinctive white smoke would have been a common sight as it is often seen in the video record and often foretells an area where a major seat of failure is about to occur, or has recently failed.

Dr. Bazant has not amalgamated all of the evidence into his theoretical argument. It is of no use to simply select a single piece of physical evidence and crowbar that into position in a flawed theory. All of the available evidence must be accounted for within a cogent, detailed, meaningful collapse scenario.

It is difficult to accept that the twin towers were demolished by means other than the aircraft impact and subsequent fires, especially so when acceptance also means the abandonment of a strongly held belief with which one has become associated. But that is where the growing evidence is inevitably leading. This brief run through of the various facets of the collapse shows that the official story lags a long way behind the current knowledge even when limiting the examination to the mechanical aspects of the collapse. Many other areas of research are throwing up questions for which the official story not only has no answers, but far more importantly, refuses to even acknowledge the questions.

What is the source of the microspherules discovered by Professor Jones?

Is it true that there is no trace of the bodies of over 1000 of the victims? Why? How?

It is time that individuals and institutions within the worldwide engineering and scientific community exposed themselves to the information, openly and impartially analyzed the history of these events and verified for themselves the true cause of the collapse of the twin towers.

A final message to Dr. Bazant - it's not too late to resign from your position as NIST's fall guy. I must also admit total surprise when I viewed the list of co-authors, although I am tempted to ask, "Is this analysis, with or without bolts?"

-----------------------------------------------------------

* You can see more of Gordon Ross's work at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. Ross will be delivering a talk referencing the material in article this coming Friday in the UK;

9/11: Separating Facts… from Fiction
with Gordon Ross and Calum Douglas**
PUBLIC MEETING
7 pm on Friday 8th June at the Mahatma Gandhi Hall,
Indian YMCA,
41 Fitzroy Square, London W1

So he apparently must really exist.

** For those who don't know, Douglas is the person who filed the FOIA request which resulted in the NTSB animation that doesn't exactly shore up the Pentagon OCT.

Bravo Sir!

Bravo Sir!
What a pleasure to see your response (to the Bazant paper) this afternoon- I hope Dr. Bazant wears the mark of "fool" with pride.
Please post your lecture on the web for others to see next week.

Half way through the progression

there remained, because of debris ejection, about half less building, above the remaining half (in other words, little more than ATMOSPHERE remaining above), yet the debris plume continued, all the way to the ground at nearly the rate of absolute free fall in nothing but air. Absent the use of explosives, I call it "the foot of God hypothesis".

Once initiated, there was no "dynamic" impact and cumulative weight loading. Just the opposite in fact. So as the progression continued, at near total free fall speed in air, the ejecting fountain-like debris plume chasing those outer perimeter steel frame pieces all the way to the ground, to within a mere second or two, the total load became increasingly weight-LESS! - relative to, an increasingly strong steel core structure + perimeter support, since everything was tapered ever thicker toward the bottom, to handle the entire load of the rest of the building. Think about that, and then explain continual momentum at about free fall speed, in air...? You cannot. Not without altering the laws of physics, and nullifying the work of Newton and Gallileo in the process. That's who you're up against, the moment you try to explain the actual collapse itself.

I LOVE Gordon's work, and it just ROCKS that he's on our side and speaking out, but folks, the fact and the reality of the actual occurance of destruction, is even simpler than that! We don't need the steel, only the videos and photographs, up to 10,000 of which NIST is refusing to release. To put pressure on NIST right now, we need to start demanding the release of all videos and photographs. Now there's a scary demand...because contained within it, is the implication of the obvious truth that NIST has intentionally fudged and agressively covered up, with their "fire unduced collapse initiation hypothesis" where what ensued thereafter, the ACTUAL COLLAPSE ITSELF, is INEXPLICABLE, absent the use of explosives, unless you want to invoke the "foot of God hypothesis" TM.

If our movement were to just HAMMER away at this observation (debris ejection combined with near free fall descent), then the American people would really start to wake TF up! We all SAW the way those buildings went down, and we can look at it, over and over again from just about any angle and perspective. The historical record is like right THERE, before the observing lens of the whole world.

Friends, the "mere" absense of those twin towers from the NYC Skyline are THE number ONE smoking gun of 9/11. The only response to this is "but I saw the planes hit!". Yes you did, and that was the essence of the black-op psy-op, committed before the WHOLE WORLD, in broad daylight. There's no getting around it.

What Bazant realizes, is that the whole thing cannot remain pinned to a "collapse" INITIATION hypothesis only, and so he's ventured into that dark water, which Gordon Ross has so clearly pointed out. NOW, let the debate begin in earnest.

WTC7 is great, but the EXPERIENCE everyone had, what they what WE, ALL witnessesed together, what plumbed the very depths of the heart and soul, was those towers' total destruction an hour and an hour and a half later. And that too is where the vast majority if not almost ALL the deaths occured on 9/11.

This is the CRUX of the whole psy-op, and let's not forget about the eye and ear witness testimonies as well as the squibs, and the white smoke at the base, as well as those thunderous rumblings, pre-"collapse" in the 9/11 Eyewitness video.

It's clearly self evident. NIST is on very shaky historical ground, and sacred ground, but only through the en mass realization of the truth of the matter. Historically, the truth is going to gain ground. It's a one way street, and, as Barrie Zwicker so aptly points out, the OCT myth hangs by only the very thinnest of threads, which, under almost ANY amount of rational scrutiny and analysis, snaps, and the myth falls away, the only "story" remaining, based in the self evident truth and reality itself. What I used to talk to Fetzer about, (though we don't need to go THERE right now) was how these observations are historically perpetual observations. They remain forever imbedded in the collective psyche, for good or for ill, but most importantly, the occurance of the event itself remains in the historical record, in perpetuity, from generation to generation, and from age to age. I cannot be the only one who understands, at least to some extent, the full long term implications of this on "the system" of the "dark shadow government" what Cheney insisted they actively engage as "the dark side". Well they did, and soon EVERYONE the whole world over, is going to realize it, no matter how seemingly impossible or absurd the proposition.

Powerful stuff!

As more and more engineers and architects and scientists of all disciplines, begin to turn their curious eye towards this rather HUGE, historically significant occurance, over time, more and more, they are going to step forward and state the truth and PROVE IT, in no uncertain terms. It's inevitable, that this will happen at SOME point, and the sooner the better. This is why they are "chattering" up more terror, the Republicans, because they see the writing on the wall. I say that Giuliani's candidacy for POTUS, represents an almost diabolical prospect. He's the evil guy in Orwell's 1984, the torcherer, except not as smart by a longshot, and therefore infinitely more dangerous.

Very strange history we're living in..eh?

____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Robert, this is a first-rate

Robert, this is a first-rate analysis. I agree with what you say.

I hope everyone reads this.

________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

Awesome!

I am glad your on this side of the truth Gordon...

still no fruit crumble?

Airplane damage + fire +

Airplane damage + fire + gravity (+ the building) have neither the mass nor energy to produce the effects observed. Ergo, something else produced them.

________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

OT but very interesting photo of WTC-5, WTC-6, & WTC-7:

Notice WTC-6 & WTC-5, which were severely damaged & blazing infernos on 9/11, being much closer to the towers, yet they are both still standing up!!! Now look where WTC-7 had been--it's nearly as flat as vacant lot!!!

The picture speaks volumes: http://www.freewebs.com/911reopen/wtc7wtc6.JPG

Bldg. 6

Building 6 is a total mystery. Something burned a hole in it over thirty feet below grade.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s781.htm

http://zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

Also strange how the building called "30 West Broadway"

which was across Barklay Street to the North of WTC-7, sustained lots of damage, presumably due to the "collapse" of WTC-7.

On another note, this map of the WTC might suggest that when the airliner clipped the corner of the south tower, perhaps much of the plane was supposed to carry through & strike WTC-7: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/wtc_p200003-1.jpg

Why is RJ's post being voted down? There are great pics linked

there; very incriminating & graphic.

Perhaps more than three buildings exploded?

I don't see why they couldn't have partially blown up the other WTC buildings as well. I'm puzzled by the holes in WTC 5 and 6. Could randomly falling debris have caused them?

Show "Have you formulated a" by Newtons Bit
Show "." by imgstacke
Show "The fact that Gordon Ross" by Newtons Bit
Show "no, I am not still beating" by imgstacke
Show "That was sort of a leading" by Newtons Bit

See my post above.

You are on the same ground as NIST if you are defending the OCT myth in the face of the actual occurance of destruction.

Over the target? Taking flak. But who would DEFEND the OCT myth? That's what I'd like to know. Someone in some big time denial, or worse, consciously aware of what they are doing.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Show "Or... Gordon Ross could just" by Newtons Bit

Newtons Bit, please answer my questions below

I cannot understand how the upper part could have acted like a hammer without being affected.

And as Robert Rice points out, the upper part disappeared early in the process -- so what drove the building down.

The Foot of God, indeed.

Show "What drove the building down" by Newtons Bit

That will never fly because

That will never fly because there is not enough mass or energy to produce near-free-fall-speed pulverization and collapse of the structure.

________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

You haven't read the paper . . .

yet you're here defending it.

Sorry, I don't buy your "you have to be a structural engineer" and "I'm just critiquing Gordon Ross" lines. I asked you to explain Bazant's absurd theory, and not surprisingly, you can't and don't want to admit it.

Show "No, I have read the paper." by Newtons Bit

Yes, symmetry as conservative assumption, right?

They take an unrealistic assumption, then say that distributes the load and is thus conservative. Clever.

It's unrealistic in favor of

It's unrealistic in favor of collapse prevention though. Imagine if the entirety of the load was applied to only one member. This would cause it to fail sooner.

I know what "conservative" means here

So what if all the load was applied to one column and it collapsed? The others would remain, with ample redundant capacity. This is not a realistic example of course.

My point is that symmetry is assumed, then called "conservative" (in favor of collapse prevention), when it is not only unrealistic, it is not what was observed. So how can Bazant claim to be explaining what was observed?

I just don't have a 100% grasp of it yet.

I'm not surprised that you don't have a grasp of it yet. Many of Bazant's points are both obscure and obtuse.

1. His term for the post buckled plastic hinge resistance is pulled out of thin air. While lumping the energy is valid for a simplified analysis, he, or his flunky grad student, needs to show some method for arriving at his assumption that the gravitational energy is 8.4 times the resistance so it can be checked for errors or alternative hypotheses;

2. His latest paper relies on non-linear differential equations for "crush up" and "crush down". He assumes that the crush up occurs after the crush down. Gordon Ross' analysis shows quite clearly that the crush up occurred before the crush down. The significance of the difference is this:

At initiation, the dynamic load is applied in one floor increments as the upper block disintegrates a floor at a time, instead of all at once as Bazant assumes. This is a very big difference and, at the very least, would affect all of the collapse times and other conclusions in Bazant's latest.

Bazant's paper should be rejected until Ross' objections are answered.

According to NIST

That upper part, which disintegrated, in both cases, "crushed" the entire remaining length of building, with "cumulative weight loading" aka "pancake collapse" being an inevitable result, once initiated, when the truth of the matter, which Gordon Ross has pointed out from a variety of perspectives (and he needn't be entirely right about ALL of them to make the others sound), is something entirely different, an explosive, disintegrating, near total free fall destruction, the whole building just "giving up the ghost". It makes no sense within a sequential progression pancake collapse scenario, what is actually observed to have occured. However, if explosives were used, everything is consistent, from all angles and perspectives, and, in spite of the plane strikes, is the direction that Occam's Razor slices, as the very best explanation capable of being self sustaining through a contexual frame of reference including ALL observations, phenomenon and information.

It's absurd. Continual momentum at near total free fall speed in air, all the way to the ground, with relative uniformity. We KNOW there were 47 steel columns and a weight bearing steel perimeter framework, and we know that the top basically blew right off the North Tower, and that the rest of the building basically peeled away at near free fall speed, all the way to the ground. "Foot of God"..?

The appeal to experts, is the last stand for the sceptics and debunkers. What I'm saying, is that the truth of the matter is self evident. A simple thought experiment resolves it. They blew the buildings up, from the top down. They blew them to kingdom come right in front of the whole world, and they cannot take it back, ever.

____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Show "Congratulations, Dr. Ross" by sartre
Show "What drove the building" by sevon

No, just the opposite occured

in actuality.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Begging the question

Why was each sequential foot destroyed? Why did the upper block disappear early in the process? Why does Bazant assume it did not, and assume that it pulverized the building below without being destroyed itself.

Good question. Utter simplicity.

Makes all his calculations moot, since the presupposition is not based in reality, nor can it be consistent, with the first and third laws of motion by Isaac Newton.

He's lying, and that's what Gordon Ross is chasing here, but you've just nailed it.

The lie is cumulative weight loading, all bearing down on one floor at a time. Now we just need more engineers and scientistst, to fully explain it, in purely scientific terms.

There needs to be a 911 truth consortium of engineers, who's sole purpose will be publication in a tier one journal of engineering or science.

Ross's work, however flawed it may be, is helping to pave the way for the right kind of scientific inquiry to be made, but it's DAMN obvious.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Foot of God . . .

with peer review for the non-believers. :-)

Discussion is open on Bazant's paper -- do you know how that works?

Oh the irony! ;-D

____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

But...

... everyone can see from the videos that the concrete pulverized, starting from the very first seconds of the "collapse", and much - if not most - of the steel was hurled far outside the building's footprint throughout the destruction.

The videos also do seem to show that much of the top section was destroyed during the very first seconds.

Show ""I cannot understand how the" by sevon

Buckle this!

I've had enough statics to get the basics of buckling- that's why there is so much redundancy in modern structures- to prevent this from occurring. Why focus on this one issue when so many other factors point to CD. It's sort of like looking at snow flakes as an avalanche is cascading towards you. Don't fret that the subtle nature of buckling may elude a mechanical engineer who never read the same textbooks as yourself- Mr. Ross understands well enough that buildings don't erupt like volcanoes leaving molted steel behind (for others to ignore) for weeks and weeks. Buckling...charming.

Show "Oh, someone who is educated." by Newtons Bit

Newt, with all due respect,

Newt, with all due respect, you are missing the forest for the trees.

Step back and look at the problem from more of a distance. There simply is not enough mass in the top of the Tower to smash through the intact floors below at near free-fall speed.

Add to this the symmetry of the collapse, its sudden onset, the pyroclastic flows produced by it, and you are rationally bound to admit that the observed effects cannot have been produced by gravity alone.

________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

New argument

Saw it posted at blogger somewhere but I can't find it.

You cannot produce 50 micron particles with ANY compressive force. Take a hammer and try to smash a piece of glass into 50 micron sized particles. You cannot do it.

Best new hypothesis I've seen, and I thought we'd looked at them all, and the most straightforward, since everyone remembers what happened, and the way the buildings just sort of poured out in that fountain-like cascade of debris, puring forth an unbelievable amount of "particulate".

Only EXPLOSIVE force, can account, once again, for what is observed, and based on what really happened.

I repeat, no compressive force, of the type being described (absent the foot of God which could do anything), can possibly produce that quantity and SIZE of dust particles. It's not possible. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, was PULVERIZED, down a fine small, granular, particulate, except large steel beams all laying around, cut to size, like so many matchsticks, litered around the site, EVERTHING destroyed.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Show "So, you're saying the only" by Newtons Bit

You have made a good point.

You have made a good point. But it is a small one. And you seem to be implying by it that the OCT is a decent hypothesis. It is not.
Even if everything you say about buckling is correct, it does not matter because the the OCT does not describe sufficient mass (the top of the building) or energy (gravity) to produce the effects observed. Period.

________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

How much more would the top

How much more would the top section have to weigh in order to smash through the floors below?

10x as much as it did?
40X?
100x?

Does Bazant "know what he's talking about"?

He's put his name on an argument that makes no sense.

I can't read chinese but I

I can't read chinese but I suggest not clicking on any of those links if you have an insecure browser (Internet Explorer)
--
fghp2
( Home » user account » fghp2 )
History

Member for
46 min 33 sec
--
For the curious - spam for a data recovery site

Looks like it's the official story in a nutshell.

It never made much sense to me then, or now.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

P.S. There was a post, now gone

in Chinese characters, with lost of dubious looking Chinese links.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Hey genius. We don't have to

Hey genius. We don't have to sit here nitpicking over the fine details of the collapse when the free fall speed is a dead give away. Either get over your cognitive dissonance or go to plan B. None of us are buying into the propaganda any more. You're going to have a hell of a time convincing all the youth who are learning calculus in high school. Guess what. The youth are the future and they've been conditioned less than the older people in the population. If it's not cognitive dissonance you're suffering then you can mark my words that all COINTEL will get theirs when the people rise up for justice!

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/

You make quite a point about your education

I've yet to read any enlightening comments from you regarding Bazant's impenetrable bilge.

If Bazant was trying to enlighten anyone, you'd think he could do better than nonlinear dynamic differential equations. He knows that no one reading his paper is going to take the trouble to use a Runge-Kutta scheme to solve them. If someone does, he can still fall back on his ethereal parameters.

And his initial conditions aren't even right! The crush up occurs before the crush down! His answers can't even be close!

Bazant's purpose is obfuscation. He's known to traffic in mystifying bs. Read, or try to read, any of his journal articles.

Gordon Ross is a far better man than a little puke like you.

LOL, Nicely said, 7man.

Who is this snake oil salesman & what are your credentials anyway, newt? Your blog is a little barren of any useful information.

The only thing I blindly

The only thing I blindly follow is my heart, everything else is suspect.

And I read people much the same way a gambler counts cards in BJ, I keep a running total - I have over the last year or so seen nothing but honorable actions of Gordon Ross.

You on the other hand, you defend the OCT... you start at -1

Does that address Ross' main criticism?

The paper by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson says that the upper part of the building crushed the much more massive lower part of the building, without being damaged until it hit a compressed layer of debris at the bottom.

Why would the upper part not be destroyed? Would the impact not act on the upper part? Why does crush up only begin after the upper part has pulverized all the floors below?

And, as a separate question, wasn't the upper part observed in videos to be destroyed early in the process?

I'm not an engineer, and have not worked my way through the formulas. You should be able to explain this in lay terms.

Investigate the "collapse" onset of the

North Tower's destruction. Top blew right off the building, the communications antenna plummeting in free fall straight down, which leaves the rest of the remaining structure, about 95 floors worth, yet the whole building just sort of banana peeled away, at near total free fall speed in nothing but air. "Foot of God hypothesis"! ;-D The buildings did not COLLAPSE! They blew up, from the top down, the first EXplosive controlled demolition in history.

And in the case of the south tower "chunk" which, while inexplicably reversing it's angular momentum, in contradiction to the law of conservation of momentum, and basically disintegrating into dust, it charts an ACCELERATION curve, THROUGH THE FULCRUM OF THE BUILDING! Think about THAT? There it is once again, self evident. One architect who saw it happen that very day, said in horror "My God, they wired the building!"
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Show "We've all seen the upper" by Newtons Bit

Through the strategic removal of support columns beneath

That's how. Like I said, the block, or the remnants of it, as it began to disintegrate in mid air and as it altered it's angular momentum and "rotated" back to the vertical axis, charted an *acceleration* curve, from the onset of descent, through the fulcrum of the building - doesn't matter the amount of mass, since free fall is not mass dependant, and presumably, the first and third laws of motion still apply...

Here's an expert on it:

Company head Mark Loizeaux was recently interviewed by New Scientist:

"It has to be the right job in the first place, the right explosive, the right pattern of laying the charges, and sometimes, which sounds odd, the right repairs to bring it down as we want, so no one or no other structure is harmed. And by differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance."

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

You know some very large sections of the antenna survived?

They are still housed in Hanger 17 at Kennedy Airport.

It seems it met little resistance on the way down considering the surprisingly good condition these sections are in. It also indicates that the pulverization that destroy the contents of the buildings did not pulverize the antenna which was outside and on top of the building.

Here's some pictures of a big piece of the antenna that survived

There's lots of other interesting pictures from Hanger 17 at the link below. I get the feeling someone needs to get a court order? I'd love a sample of some of the steel, especially the meteor.

http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,261984.photo...

Newton's Bit

How apt.

But you can't ride that horse! He throws you.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Submitting this for consideration?

Will this analysis be submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics as part of the peer-review process?

I don't know the answer to

I don't know the answer to your question regarding Ross's analysis above, but I have submitted my own analysis of this paper for consideration during the peer review process. The following is the text of an email I sent yesterday to the editor of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:

Dear Sir,

I understand you recently received a paper for peer review entitled "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?" by Bazant et al. (referred to herein as the "Bazant Paper"). I have reviewed the Bazant Paper and would like to offer my thoughts on a severe and fundamental scientific flaw contained in its analysis which casts serious doubt on its conclusions. For your convenience, the Bazant Paper can be found here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20C...

The flaw in the Bazant Paper's analysis occurs very early on, wherein the mode of collapse for each Tower is assumed to occur in two phases. In the first phase, which is referred to in the Bazant Paper as the "crush down" phase, the section of the Tower above the collapse zone (referred to in the Bazant Paper as the "upper part") crushes the entire section of the Tower structure below the collapse zone. The second phase, referred to in the Bazant Paper as the "crush up" phase, starts when the entire lower structure of each Tower has been completely destroyed by the upper part, and the upper part allegedly impacts the dense pile of debris created during the crush down phase at high speed, thereby destroying the upper part. To the lay person, this two phase collapse mode may seem plausible, but I do hope your peer reviewers can see the inherent implausibility of this two-phase collapse scenario, which can be summarized as follows:

For a particular Tower, the "upper part" and lower section were very similar to one another from a materials, engineering and construction standpoint. Therefore, the only reasonable qualitative assumption to make when analyzing the damage done when the upper part impacts the lower structure is that the deformation and yield strength of the components of the lower structure, regardless of what quantitative assumptions are made about those deformation and yield strengths, are roughly equivalent to the deformation and yield strengths of the components of the "upper part". This reasonable and logical assumption would lead to the conclusion that when the "upper part" impacts the lower structure, the damage must be shared roughly equally between the upper part and the lower structure.

The Bazant Paper ignores this fundamental qualitative assumption and its unavoidable conclusion, and proceeds to analyze each collapse in two phases. In the first phase, or crush down phase, the entire mass of the upper part is assumed to act at the collapse front. The crush down phase only takes into account the deformation and yield strengths of the lower structure without deforming the upper part at all. This crush down phase is represented by its own differential equation (Equation 2). Then in the second phase, or crush up phase, the deformation and yield strengths of the upper part are finally taken into account, but only after the upper part allegedly impacts the dense rubble pile created during the crush down phase. The crush up phase is represented by its own differential equation (Equation 3).

There is no support given in the Bazant Paper for employing this two-phase approach to the collapse sequence (except, perhaps, that it allows Bazant et al. to reach the politically expedient conclusion that gravity alone was enough to cause both of the Twin Towers to be completely destroyed). However, such a two phase analysis is fundamentally flawed, as demonstrated above. The Bazant Paper relies on this two-phase approach to the collapse sequence in each and every section of analysis contained therein. As such, the Bazant Paper should not be published in a prestigious engineering journal.

Bazant and his co-authors are clearly skilled mathematicians, and would likely be able to generate a single differential equation that takes into account deformation caused in both the upper part and lower structure at impact. Such a differential equation would be far more representative of reality. Therefore, their paper should be returned to them with a request that their equations and analysis conform to reality, which is described above.

If you are not involved in the review of this paper, I would very much appreciate it if you could pass my comments on to those that are responsible for reviewing and approving the Bazant Paper for publication in your journal.

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns.

Best regards,

[name redacted]
B.S. Chemical Engineering
Juris Doctorate

Also, thanks to Ningen's keen eye, I am now aware that the "discussion" period is still open for Bazant's previous Journal of Engineering Mechanics paper espousing this same ridiculous "crush down"/"crush up" notion. I refuse to believe civil engineering peer reviewers could not catch this fundamental error, and I (and hopefully a few others will join me as co-authors) will be preparing and submitting a discussion paper for consideration for publication to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. The blind reliance on this absurd crush down followed by crush up theory of collapse demonstrates the true bankruptcy of the gravity driven version of collapse.

Thanks!

I wish I could do it.

I've half a mind to do it anyway - how would they feel getting letters from laymen that make sense because the paper makes no sense?

Is there anything in those two sets of differential equations that explains their argument, or is it just a way to obscure the absurdity?

Here is an earlier version, FYI:

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSE-BAZANT.pdf

It seems largely the same, but has a different co-author, a visiting fellow from France.

Perhaps you can explain

how the upper block would remain intact all the way down as it destroyed progressively more massive floors of the building. Newtons Bit wouldn't touch it.

Discussion is open on Bazant's paper until August 1.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Show "Not until I actually fully" by Newtons Bit

But do you understand the reality

of the actual occurance of the destruction of those buildings itself? Come forth, out into the light!
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Show "Yes." by Newtons Bit

But you think it was a "trash compactor", "pancake collapse"?

Is that right?
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Then where's the beef?

"I can say, that an inspection of Ross's prior papers show serious flaws. Not flaws in assumptions, but rather flaws in knowledge, expertise and ability to understand actual structural engineering concepts."

"In reality it was much more complicated with individual elements being overloaded before the rest of the structure was fully loaded, lateral loads induced from eccentric loading as well as multiple floors of columns failing at the same time. However Ross as well as Bazant and Zhou make these assumptions and I will not challenge them as they make the math easy."

"Ross’s paper fails on his knowledge of buckling failure; buckling is the phenomenon which causes a member to bow in compression."

Does a disproof of Ross's buckling equations make the whole paper wrong? If corrected, will Ross's theory reach a different conclusion? Can you disprove the theoretical basis, without equations, of the arguments against the Bazant paper? If not, can you show with equations and theory that the OCT is correct? Can you do so while fully explaining all major observed phenomena, including particle size and lava pools, on the basis of planes, brief fires, and gravity alone? Until you can, you have no ground upon which to stand.

Point of interest: can the theory of virtual work be applied to show the loads at different points during the collapse? Could that shed some light as to the structural integrity of the towers at different times?

"Not until I actually fully understand the paper."

So you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

"Does a disproof of Ross's

"Does a disproof of Ross's buckling equations make the whole paper wrong? If corrected, will Ross's theory reach a different conclusion?"

Yes. The strain energy equation Ross uses is the integral of F(u)*du. Where F(u) is the axial force dependant upon the strain and u is the strain of that memeber. What Ross fails to realize, is that the axial force decreases after the critical buckling stress is reached. This occurs before 0.2% strain. Ross assumes that it can take a constant force over the entire length of the strain curve. This is false. In reality, he needs to allow plastic hinges to form and analyze the strain-energy being dependant upon the not only the axial force, but also upon the rotation of that plastic hinge. This isn't easy math, but it is results in a very different answer. You read the introduction of my response, I suggest you read the meat of it because that is where I show Ross doesn't know what buckling is, and hence cannot correctly determine the energy transfer from floor to floor.

""Not until I actually fully understand the paper."

So you actually have no idea what you're talking about."

I don't say I fully understand something until I've gone through and derived every equation myself. A cursory look at it just shows that they're doing F=ma, and include the momentum transfer from floor to floor. Ross can't even figure that out. He hides behind "oh that math is hard!", because he can't do it. And then like he does on his paper on momentum, he makes things up to simplify the math and gets the wrong answer.

That makes sense.

But are you considering the following arguments against the Bazant report:

"It is impossible for all of the energy of the falling section to act on only the one
topmost storey in the lower section, since the very act of transmission of the energy
to that storey, dictates that all of the storeys in the upper section will come under
load and consume energy"

"It must be noted that the columns in the upper section could not deliver
a greater force than they themselves were able to transmit"

Are these not valid points? If the bottom section is considered only floor-by-floor, then why is the top not also? If the top section is delivering forces that buckle the members of the bottom section, would the members of the top section not also buckle simultaneously? They're the exact same design! How would every single member of the bottom section buckle simultaneously and symmetrically floor-by-floor, especially considering the asymmetrical impact and fire damage?

I'm not an expert, but I had a few ME classes as an industrial engineering student. I find this very interesting. I apologize for making the personal remark; I think it's safe to say that we can all get riled up about this quite easily. We're all in this discussion because we care very deeply about the events of 9/11, and I thank you for any and all relevant discussion that you add here.

In fact

The upper section should be weaker than the lower section, due to the fact that the support columns' thickness tapers down as you go up the building.

The upper and lower sections are not similar at all. If anything, the lower section is much stronger structurally than the falling section.
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Help me shout 9/11 articles on:

www.shoutwire.com

Also, the upper block would

Also, the upper block would have the heated steel with the lower buckling strength.

not similar at all?

Be serious. You have a valid point about the core columns' thickness, but otherwise the buildings' design was virtually identical from one floor to another. At least, I don't recall any indication to the contrary.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

The top should, to a degree,

The top should, to a degree, absorb some energy in the collapse. It has less steel and thus will absorb less, but you are correct. The bottom section and the top section would each buckle. What's important to note here, is that the forces delivered from the initial impact will cause plastic yielding in more than just the first floor of impact, it will also deliver lateral forces down through the column line on several floors. The pictures you've seen of huge panels of columns being peeled off from the structure is evident of this. These columns did not buckle and yield, they were ripped off by lateral forces.

The don't buckle simultaneously, they buckle nearly simultaneously. If one column fails before another, the load is redistributed and a bending moment is exerted by on the mass above and on the other columns resisting the collapse. This bending moment is again something that would peel column panels off of the core.

Buckling isn't something you'll get into unless you're taking graduate level ME classes or upper-level civil courses (depending on the program). If you have a decent foundation in mechanics of materials, you'll be able to easily understand what my argument is. The equations for buckling are also there, they're in non-dimensional terms and apply to any steel compression member. You'll also notice that I was lazy and have a stress-strain curve that doesn't include the rupture stress of steel, but I felt it wasn't really necessary for a debunking of Ross's knowledge.

"It has less steel and thus will absorb less [energy]."

So why does it remain intact in Bazant's model? This smaller portion takes a hit each time it hits a floor, and the floors get progressively thicker going down, yet crush up does not begin until the top portion hits the debris pile at the bottom? How can that be? Aren't the lateral forces transfered up through the column line on several floors?

Perimeter 'banana skin'

The peeling outward of the perimeter columns, being hurled hundreds of feet, is interesting. One would think that the floor trusses would tie these columns and tend to pull them inward towards the core.

That is, unless the outward columns of the core were blown by demolition, and Ross states. Then, of course, the perimeter columns would be thrown outside the footprint, as they were.

Newt, the buckling argument

Newt, the buckling argument is entirely beside the point. It is dead on arrival.
Why? Because the effects observed were clearly not "gravity-induced."
As stated, there is not enough mass (the top of the building) or energy (gravity) to produce those effects.
And THAT means that the underlying premise (gravity-induce collapse) of the OCT is not viable.
And that means that something else must have happened.
What could that be?
Look at just the most basic evidence--sudden onset of collapse, symmetry of collapse, near free-fall speed of collapse, massive pulverization of most of the building, pyroclastic flows of very fine dust.
If you are a scientist you are rationally bound to admit that the hypothesis that best explains those observed effects is that the buildings were blown up.
You may have interesting things to say about buckling, but you must understand that your arguments are valid only insofar as they are part of larger argument that is also valid. Since the larger argument (gravity-induced collapse) cannot be shown to be valid, your arguments are to the same degree shorn of validity.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

Show "Clearly not" by sevon

Question: How did you

Question: How did you determine that there wasn't enough mass up top to cause the building collapse? Who's calculations did you look at to determine this fact?

The top of North Tower above

The top of North Tower above the crash site represents less than fifteen percent of the mass of the building.
Call it twenty percent if you like. It won't matter.
The problem with the OCT is that the Tower pulverized/collapsed at near free-fall speed. That means the mass (and energy) required to produce the effects observed would have had to be large enough to overcome the resistence of the intact 90+ floors below the crash site almost as if they were not even there.
The speed of the collapse/pulverization is the give-away.
Name any other phenomenon in nature where such an effect is observed.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

So... you don't have any

So... you don't have any calculations? It just seems like common sense to you? Would you stay in a building if you knew that the top 20% of it was structurally damaged?

Newt, imagine a model of the

Newt, imagine a model of the North Tower. Make it roughly the size of your refrigerator. Now imagine that the top fifteen percent is dropped the scale-evquivalent of one floor, or more if you like. Will it pulverize the remaining 85% at near free-fall speed?
Can you name any other phenomenon that exhibits what was observed in the North Tower's pulverization/collapse?
Call it common sense, Newton's Law of Transfer of Momentum, whatever you like. The mass and energy described in the OCT are not sufficient to account for the effects observed.
And by the way, what we are talking about here is just ONE of the holes in the OCT.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

Show "Is this one of the glorious" by Newtons Bit

Newt, it was a model the

Newt, it was a model the "size" of a refrigerator.

The problem is the speed at which it fell.
Your example is one 2 x4. Do that with 90 2x4s. Will they pulverize at near free-fall speed?
You are doing what so many do who support the OCT.

--Diverting the case into irrelevant details.
--Using misleading models.
--Failing to meet the burden of proof.
--Failing to explain all of the evidence.

Some people have been rude to you in this string. I have not.

Somewhere in this string you say "I feel that it is entirely plausible for the building to collapse the way it did."
This is not about what people "feel" but what can be proved.
Right now the burden of proof is on those who support the OCT.
You have not proved it by a long shot and no one else has either.

You still have not named another phenomenon that shows similar collapse/pulverization characteristics as the Towers.

________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

I misunderstood your post.

I misunderstood your post. I apologize. I normally see something like that and my world turns red with rage. Even a small model, if scaled appropiately for strength (buckling, etc) would behave in much of the same way. The same goes for the 2x4's. 90 2x4's, but 90 times the original weight and 90 times the original impulse from impact. No normal structure designed economically could resist 20% of it's mass dropping 12ft.

Concrete is a brittle material, it does not take much for it to shatter into a bunch of smaller pieces. When steel (and to a degree, wood), exceed their yield stress, they elongate and stretch before tearing. Concrete crushes, sometimes explosively. Concrete crushing, even to a fine powder, does not suprise me. I would expect it in any collapse of that magnitude.

My entire point here is that Gordon Ross does not have the basic knowledge set of structural engineering to be claiming anything. How he calculated strain-energy in his momentum paper is indicative of this. He does not understand structural engineering. Let me repeat that. He does not understand structural engineering. The biggest problem is that he claims to. He can't back up his claims with real calculations because he can't do them. The entire idea that the structure would resist the collapse is based on his paper. You can argue until your blue in the teeth about collapse times or molten metal or pulverized concrete, but it all boils down to strain-energy. You think that there was enough strain-energy to resist the collapse based upon people like Ross claiming, and on Ross himself because he actually did calculations that incorrectly show the strain-energy of the columns resisting the collapse. But what it boils down to, this "irrelevant detail" is he does the calculation wrong. Very wrong.

Let's use your 2x4

Let's use your 2x4 model.
Place one above the other for a total of ninety of them (a model of the intact floors of the Tower).
Let's just assume that each one will collapse due to the increased load from the collapse of the one above it.
The top will not hit the bottom at near free-fall speed because each 2x4 (each floor of the Tower) will provide resistance that will slow the collapse to something much less than near free-fall.

As for concrete, the pulverization of this material (plus all of the furniture, carpets, machinery, etc.) and the pyroclastic flows of this material is seen only in explosions. I do not believe that you can name any other phenomenon that shows these characteristics.

Your point about Ross's paper is interesting, but it does not explain why the Tower violated Newton's Law on Transfer of Momentum. Take your 2x4 example, or any other--these models will not reproduce the near free-fall speed of the Towers, let alone their pulverization.

No model has been made that can do that and none will because it is not possible.
Again, I ask you name any other phenomenon that exhibits what was observed in the collapse/pulverization of the Towers--near free-fall speed, pyroclastic flows, pulverization, etc.

This last question is important as it makes the OCT even more difficult to prove if there is no other similar phenomenon in nature.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

Show "The whole point of" by Newtons Bit

Why don't you try responding to my letter to the Journal Editor

Specifically, please address my point about Bazant's qualitative assumptions. Bear in mind that assuming the deformation and yield (or buckling as you have been calling it) strengths in the upper part and lower structure are approximately equal is actually more favorable to the gravity driven collapse theory than the reality of the situation. In reality, the lower structure got sturdier the lower down you go, but for the sake of argument, I'm willing to assume that these strengths are approximately equal. Now, please explain why two separate differential equations are needed to mathematically describe the situation. For your convenience, my letter is reproduced below:

Dear Sir,

I understand you recently received a paper for peer review entitled "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?" by Bazant et al. (referred to herein as the "Bazant Paper"). I have reviewed the Bazant Paper and would like to offer my thoughts on a severe and fundamental scientific flaw contained in its analysis which casts serious doubt on its conclusions. For your convenience, the Bazant Paper can be found here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20C...

The flaw in the Bazant Paper's analysis occurs very early on, wherein the mode of collapse for each Tower is assumed to occur in two phases. In the first phase, which is referred to in the Bazant Paper as the "crush down" phase, the section of the Tower above the collapse zone (referred to in the Bazant Paper as the "upper part") crushes the entire section of the Tower structure below the collapse zone. The second phase, referred to in the Bazant Paper as the "crush up" phase, starts when the entire lower structure of each Tower has been completely destroyed by the upper part, and the upper part allegedly impacts the dense pile of debris created during the crush down phase at high speed, thereby destroying the upper part. To the lay person, this two phase collapse mode may seem plausible, but I do hope your peer reviewers can see the inherent implausibility of this two-phase collapse scenario, which can be summarized as follows:

For a particular Tower, the "upper part" and lower section were very similar to one another from a materials, engineering and construction standpoint. Therefore, the only reasonable qualitative assumption to make when analyzing the damage done when the upper part impacts the lower structure is that the deformation and yield strength of the components of the lower structure, regardless of what quantitative assumptions are made about those deformation and yield strengths, are roughly equivalent to the deformation and yield strengths of the components of the "upper part". This reasonable and logical assumption would lead to the conclusion that when the "upper part" impacts the lower structure, the damage must be shared roughly equally between the upper part and the lower structure.

The Bazant Paper ignores this fundamental qualitative assumption and its unavoidable conclusion, and proceeds to analyze each collapse in two phases. In the first phase, or crush down phase, the entire mass of the upper part is assumed to act at the collapse front. The crush down phase only takes into account the deformation and yield strengths of the lower structure without deforming the upper part at all. This crush down phase is represented by its own differential equation (Equation 2). Then in the second phase, or crush up phase, the deformation and yield strengths of the upper part are finally taken into account, but only after the upper part allegedly impacts the dense rubble pile created during the crush down phase. The crush up phase is represented by its own differential equation (Equation 3).

There is no support given in the Bazant Paper for employing this two-phase approach to the collapse sequence (except, perhaps, that it allows Bazant et al. to reach the politically expedient conclusion that gravity alone was enough to cause both of the Twin Towers to be completely destroyed). However, such a two phase analysis is fundamentally flawed, as demonstrated above. The Bazant Paper relies on this two-phase approach to the collapse sequence in each and every section of analysis contained therein. As such, the Bazant Paper should not be published in a prestigious engineering journal.

Bazant and his co-authors are clearly skilled mathematicians, and would likely be able to generate a single differential equation that takes into account deformation caused in both the upper part and lower structure at impact. Such a differential equation would be far more representative of reality. Therefore, their paper should be returned to them with a request that their equations and analysis conform to reality, which is described above.

I am not the white knight

I am not the white knight riding out to defend Bazant's soiled honor. I am the one calling out Gordon Ross for being a fraud. I've sent a letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies regarding Gordon Ross's paper. They said that they would address the issues I raised in it, however they've had it for over 3 weeks now. Ross has since written replies to other papers such as this one. What it boils down to is that Gordon Ross has no defense of his paper on momentum. He can't figure out the basic concepts.

By the way. F = m*a is F = m * second derivative of position. If you can't figure out how that can easily turn into a differential equation than you need to stop writing responses to things you don't understand and pick up a physics book. Or better yet, an engineering dynamics book.

So you agree that the

So you agree that the collapse model can be represented by a single differential equation?

Also, thanks for admitting you have absolutely no response to the points I made to the editor. I was just making sure.

Saying that it's obvious how

Saying that it's obvious how they got one differential equation is the same with saying it should only be one? This is math. Math is what it is. They're not making it hard on purpose. It's hard because there's alot of very complicated issues here.

I didn't even read your response. I am not the editor of said Journal. I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just not why I'm here.

Thanks. You have further

Thanks. You have further demonstrated that you have no idea what Bazant is proposing. He, in fact, uses TWO differential equations to model the collapse. The first differential equation represents the mythical "crush down" phase, then the conditons at the end of the "crush down" phase is used as the initial conditions to solve the second differential equation, which represents the mythical "crush up" phase. I have clearly demonstrated how this approach is flawed. I would again commend to you my letter to the editor. Or, you can stay completely ignorant of the real issue here. It's up to you.

You're still putting words

You're still putting words into my mouth. I'm not here to defend Bazant. You know this already. Try reading what I actually wrote in response to you.

I did read what you wrote,

I did read what you wrote, and I maintain that it demonstrates your ignorance of the real issues. And again, if you wish to remain ignorant, that's up to you.

Where do you get 20 percent?

"No normal structure designed economically could resist 20% of it's mass dropping 12ft."

North Tower - "collapse" ensues at approx 95th floor.

15/110 = 14% of floors.

South Tower - "collapse" ensues at approx 80th floor.

30/110 = 27% of floors.

Is it your understanding that each floor had an equal mass?

Look at these figures for mass of structural steel on each floor, on page 3 of this paper:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/wtc_mass_and_energy.pdf

Floors 1-30 -- approx 1500 - 1100 tons per floor

Floors 81-110 approx 480 -100 tons per floor.

Concrete and office loads were about the same on each floor, I think but am not sure. Still, the mass of the structural steel is concentrated in the lower floors.

Even assuming your 20%, and since you assert that gravity was the only force, the building did resist "collapse" of 20%, because it disappeared early in the process.

And how does it "drop 12 feet"? Does an entire floor just disappear all at once? Bazant assumes that the buckling expends almost no energy - is that realistic? How does it occur in such a symmetrical manner?

Greogry Ulrich knows the

Greogry Ulrich knows the issues I have with his calculation of the weight of the WTC. He has since refined his calculations since posting his original letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, though it is still low in my perspective. The 20% comes from Alvin R. rounding up to 20% just as an assumption for talking generalities. If you had read the whole line of posts you would have seen that.

The floor to floor height of the WTC is 12'-4" o.c. 12' is easier to say than 12.33...

Bazant calculated the strain-energy of the column failing as approximately 14% of the total energy released (if I remember correctly). This is probably overly conservative in favor of collapse prevention as he allows the column to completly rotate from being straight vertical to lying horizontal. This level of strain would cause the steel to rupture and not resist any more force very on. Symmetrical collapse that his paper shows is also conservative in favor of collapse prevention, it also makes the math easier. I have not done the calculations to verify this. It's just what he says.

Assumes, not "shows"

"Symmetrical collapse that his paper shows" As I said above, it is clever how you and Bazant turn this incredibly unlikely event into something that actually happened -- as it must to explain the observation - then say it is "conservative in favor of collapse prevention." Yes, I understand that symmetry supposedly distributes the load across more columns, but it begs the question of why the columns with much redundant capacity would give way in the first place.

About the 20%, I said we can assume a 20% upper block, and ask you how it disappeared early on. Again, how did that happen?

Even if you disagree that it was gone early in the process, it was losing mass through (you must be saying) impact with floors below. Why would this process not continue as the floors below got thicker (being lower floors) and the floors above got weaker (being higher floors).

Quit answering in details. Did I say 12 feet was wrong for floor to floor height? No, yet you tell me it was 12.33.

You are avoiding a very basic question -- how does the less massive upper part drive down through progressively stronger floors?

Your attempts at detraction are laughable.

You ignore the facts that nearly all the concrete was pulverized, the molten metal & free-fall "collapse" of the buildings all while babbling about some calculations that aren't relevant here in reality, you're too transparent. What are your credentials anyway?

plus...don't mean to change

plus...don't mean to change the subject...but how was building 7 brought down as well? The top 20% wasn't damaged.
Even if you say that mysteriously 25% of the building was missing (with no visual evidence to back it up) why would it fall straight down?
You're basically saying all you have to do is damage 20% of a building to make it fall. Why rig explosives on every floor then when bringing down buildings with CD?
And if you say that it was just a rare occurance and not all buildings will fall that are 20% damaged, then what are the odds it would happen 3 times within a span of 10 hours and never before or after again in history?
Cmon now...give it up

Would you stay in a building if you knew that the top 20% of it

Would you stay in a building if you knew that the top 20% of it was structurally damaged?

Yes. If the top 20 floors of a 100 floor building were structurall damaged and there was a good reason to remain in the lower floors I would feel perfectly safe in doing so. That is, unless explosives were planted in some of the lower floors. Or, unless it happened to be a building leased by Silverstein.

Good luck with that

Your task is to fully understand the contorted logic that brought him to the absurd conclusion.

I fully understood it on page 3:

Unspoken premise: "I must explain gravity-driven progressive collapse."

Spoken premise: "The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower must consist of two phases -- the crush-down, followed by the crush-up . . ."

Conclusion: Crush-down, followed by crush-up, Newtonian physics be damned.

And if you don't understand it, it's because you haven't had the requisite graduate courses in structural engineering. (That was Bazant's answer to Steven Jones.)

Sorry to be so snide, but this paper is a transparent and outrageous lie, and I've had enough of the silence of the engineering profession in this country.

Silence is complicity.

"Crush down and crush up"... (cough):

Although the buildings employed a vertically uniform construction pattern (outer parameter, floor plan layout, and basic core dimension... truthers know that the 47 primary load bearing box columns running from bed rock to top hat, maintained a consistent O.D. (outside dimension) for the uniformity and repeatability of cosmetic construction as the floors ascended.

HOWEVER, the I.D. (inside dimension) of each vertical box column ALSO increased along with ascending floors (irrelevant to cosmetics). THUS, the wall thickness of metal in the box column was REDUCED, reducing weight AND strength as the floors ascended. The strength of the core at the 90th floor was NOT the same as the strength and load-bearing requirements of the core at say the 10th floor level. The top didn't need the same strength as that of the root. Obviously. The top twenty floors had less metal, weight and strength... than say for example, floors 10 through 30 (yet still twenty floors worth of construction).

Is everyone with me, so far?

Non of this is to say that the top twenty floors were "rickety", by any stretch of the imagination... what I insist however, is that the ever lower portions of the building where ever more absurdly 'strong' by comparisons made to upper sections.

Still with me?

Forgive the hyperbole, but it is NOT hyperbole for deception (I leave that to governments), but here is an anology of the argument "Crush Down and Crush Up" (so long as one pretends to know nothing about the core and box column I.D/O.D.):

"The feather crushed the sledge hammer below it, and then the feather disintegrated."

What was the feather thinking to then so disintegrate? Fear of success?

What a load of shit!

The buildings where demolished intentionally... completely... thoroughly... to the ground in seconds. Something tin darts and lamp oil CAN NOT DO!

Millions and/or Billions spent on mathematical gymnastics will NEVER change the mind of this real life metal worker. People would die if I had to rely on the mathematics conjured by this parade of government lackeys, its pole-smokers, and basic sycophantic fucks... oh wait... people DO die because of such fucked up deceptions. What was I thinking?

Ross' photographs simply

Ross' photographs simply show that the upper block disintegrated before the lower portion started downward.
What is the debate? The initial conditions for Bazant's differential equations are completely wrong. His results are worthless!

Newton's Bit, please read what Erin Myers says

You can pick at Ross all you want, but the problem is very simple - the upper part of the building is much less massive than even the mid part of the building, yet Bazant says it drove down like a hammer to the ground without being destroyed until after it had destroyed the base of the building. How do you explain this?

Very nice, Erin.

What's the point?

If this is an outright lie, why even write it, let alone submit it for peer-review, where experts in the field would surely catch these glaring errors?

It was written to explain the "collapse"

and experts did not acknowledge the "errors," because that would not be politically correct. Bazant's paper has already been published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Discussion is open until August 1.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

It may surprise you, but and

It may surprise you, but an awful lot of undiluted sh*t gets published in those journals every month.

Show "Silence means that we don't" by Newtons Bit

So you have taken a position

You think it is plausible for the upper part to drive down through the progressively more massive tower, with virtually no apparent resistance, and without being damaged. And the fact that the upper part disappeared early on does not matter.

Denial is not complicity. It's just pathetic.

Show "No, I feel that it is" by Newtons Bit

Of course I'm denying it happened

in the way claimed by Bazant, et al. It was not a "collapse."

I no more need a mathematical proof for asserting the earth is round.

This paper is a sick joke. A disgrace. An outrageous fraud.

Bazant's paper purports to

Bazant's paper purports to prove that gravity alone was sufficient to destroy the towers. However, it is evident that the crush up occurred first, contrary to assumption. This was a gross error because the dynamic load on the lower portion was much lower due to the lengthened time interval of load application.

Thus, Bazant's paper proves nothing.

Further, Bazant is vague about the post buckled failure mechanism. It would be nice to see a sketch.

To my way of thinking, the fact that all the perimeter steel was propelled outward is an anomaly, given that the trusses would have pulled inward, unless, as Ross states, the core columns near the elevators that the trusses tied into were blown by explosives.

Looks like we're taking some flak on this one!

with posts getting voted down that deserve to and ordinarily get voted up.

Over the target. Fire at will!
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Is it the same Dr. Zdenek Bazant, i.e. Czech emigrant from 1968?

It seems to me that this figure, Dr. Zdenek Bazant is the same guy.
His bio reveals that he is a 1968 emigrant from Czechoslovakia after the soviet invasion.
Just to give you a small historic expose most of the people who left the country after 1968 were often communists to certain degree, from the dissenting "soft wing" of the party who have been afraid of the purges by the incomming Breznev gang. These were very often strongly disliked by the older generation of refugees after the WWII living in the US who were usually not lefty at all and more to the contrary.

Now, given the complicated background of the 1968's emigration wave, similar figures were likely target of CIA and other agencies, basically you can blackmail them very easily by finding some youth dirt laundery like Stalin propaganda, spying on your colleagues etc.

Similarly, for better or worse Czechs are by tradition and history learned to be very subservient to their masters, especially after changing sides. In any case if it is him this guy is like walking big warning signal..

BIO:
http://www.ce.jhu.edu/carroll-lectureship/2005Bazant.htm

--

Now Bush is on the visit in Prague, the Czech capital. The minister of defense which is a "lady" Mrs. Parkanova (former c-grade singer) even recorded a welcoming country song depicting US as liberators and speaking on behalf of the NMD radar installation in the country (against 2/3 of the pop. will), wtf? Can you imagine this is part of the EU now?!? Even the new rightwing french gov. sais, wait a minute we dont' want the NATO countries to be targeted by the russians nukes again for some stupid czechs and their side deals with the US? Czechs=Troyan horse indeed, beware!

Well done, thank you

When I first started looking at the attack on the WTC in a serious way, the first thing I did was to try to figure out how the buildings were constructed. What kind of materials were used, how were they put together, that sort of thing. The Towers were elegantly simple in many ways. Basically three big boxes sitting on top of each other. Once you understand how the buildings were put together, then it is relatively easy to figure out how to take them down.

The mechanical floors and certain corners on certain floors played a big roll in bringing the buildings down. In WTC 1 & 2 the mechanical floors below the sky lobbies and had beams instead of trusses. In addition, the perimeter wall columns were set at an even height on the mechanical floors, rather then staggered. This created seams that ran all around the building just on these floors. I would think that this would be a good place to 'crack' the buildings where these seams were?

A couple of floors above the top sky lobby is the 81st floor, which in both buildings was a mechanical floor, where they housed the dozen 24 ton elevator hoists. According to the NIST folks, WTC 2 failed at the 81st floor. Gee why am I not surprised? The failure in WTC 1 started further up, but I think that may have been because they also needed to deal with bringing down the huge antenna that was on top.

I'm not a structural

I'm not a structural engineer but even I can see the numerous holes and assumptions that this paper is base on . Not to mention I have never seen the word "may" used to describe so many events with such certainty.

Plus Bazant mentions the anomaly which is the speed of collapse but does not go into to any detail about how it would be physically possible. If anyone could demonstrate scientifically how Newtons second law was overcome or somehow does not apply in this instance I would be sold on the gravity collapse. I suspect i will be waiting indefinitely for a definitive answer.

Cool thread!

Thanks for your participation, and I enjoyed it as well very much.

Now, it's just "move along, nothing to see here folks" ;-)

so obvious...so devastating to the official conspiracy story/myth...

Keep up the good work all, we're winning, and we will win out in the end. The truth will prevail.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Show "Let's all ignore the 800lb" by Newtons Bit

That would be lighter than the 911-pound Fraudzilla

that you are here defending. Gordon Ross may be wrong - his credibility is not the issue.

That's "fraudshilla"

7man

Oh no

they say he's sunk so low
'cause he 's Fraudshilla!

History shows again and again
How cheap the souls are of some men
Fraudshilla!

Your picking on Gordon Ross

Your picking on Gordon Ross is despicable.

Bazant is the one who has to be right about everything. Ross only has to be right about one thing, and his photos and drawings are very credible.

Take another good look, at the first three frames, in the

*North Tower* "collapse" onset pics posted in Gordon's paper. See the squibs btw?

Like I said, the top just blew right off the North Tower. It wasn't THERE to "crush" the rest of the entirety of the building, all 95 floors worth of it, none of it damaged by fire, the whole building just peeling away, all the way to the ground, at nearly the rate of absolute free fall in nothing but AIR.

Explain THAT "DR. BAZANT"! ?

"Foot of God", he replies... ;o)

"Either that or, crush up crush down (Czech accent), all the way along to the ground, at near total free fall speed in air." (mimics playing an accordian)

The absurdity level, for the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11, is what's to the moon and back, not these simple and straighforward observations.

Call it "the Great Bazant impossible high speed inchworm theory" of collapse or something like that. That is where the missing energy is from, some etherial shock wave dynamic, but WHAT'S CRUSHING THE BUILDING? And at about the rate of free fall?

Could someone post those first three frames, with the lines on them? I don't know how..? Don't have the rich text capability any more.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

(No subject)



Best Viewed Wide (2 imgs per row)


1-2
2-3
3-4

JREFers

I read the thread on JREF. They claim that the lower red line is misplaced. But if you look at the image carefully, it is clear that the upper section decreases significantly in size even before it startes to cause any real damage to the lower section, even if you extend the lower red line to the first most visible part of the building.

Not only that, you clearly see that most of the Upper section already imploded onto the lower section with most of its debris flying out of the foot print.

Looking at the pictures more closely, it seems that an Implosion of the upper section started prior to the explosion of the lower section.

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Help me shout 9/11 articles on:

www.shoutwire.com

the antenna!

Watch the videos of WTC1 starting to explode and notice the antenna starts falling BEFORE the (visible) rest of the building goes boom. (This is especially easy to see in the reversed footage, when the rest of the building finishes "returning" to its proper place and *then* the antenna goes up -- doink! -- the last little bit.) So the support for the antenna went away somehow *before* the exterior of the building began going away.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Dr. Frank Greening comments

"It would be interesting to see GR actually say something specific about the new paper by Bazant et al. instead of simply re-packaging some of his old material and pretending it's some sort of critique of Prof. Bazant.....

"Let's see something "concrete" like GR's very own calculations on the energy used for comminution, or the rate of tilting of the upper section of WTC 2, instead of mumblings about "a theory's true nudity"."

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2665729&postcount=9

Greening talks out both sides of his mouth

One minute he's ranting about how it's a fact that there was molten steel at the WTC, and the next he's defending a paper that promotes the idea that there wasn't molten steel. Here are some recent quotes from Greening about the molten steel as well as some of his conspiracy theories regarding NIST and 9/11:

Dr. Greening writes:
"There is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2"
"I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed."
"The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes... Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses."
"...some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings."
"Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC."
"This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies."
"I would say that the presence of molten iron in the WTC is inconsistent with the NIST Report’s conclusion that temperatures in the towers during 9/11 were well below the melting point of iron or steel."
"NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed!"
"How did the fires in the rubble pile melt steel?"
"Why does the presence, I mean the FACT, of molten steel in the Twin Towers bother you so much?"

-Dr. Frank Greening, originally posted at Physorg.com March/April 2007 as forum member "NEU-FONZE", and as "Apollo20" at Forums.Randi.org, April 2007 (Greening's questions and comments directed at other forum members who were denying the existence of molten steel at Ground Zero)

"I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!"

-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91

"NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory"

-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92

"The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!"

-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102

"Many of the events surrounding 9/11 are questionable, so it’s natural to assume that the “main event” - the collapse of the Twin Towers – is also questionable."
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Feb 9 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 11

"I think the reality is that 99 % of terrorist acts are committed for political or nationalistic reasons - mainly as retaliation for some kind of foreign occupation.
Besides, the true religious sentiments of the alleged 19 hijackers is unknown, inspite of all the Hollywood-hype about it!"

-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Apr 17 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 154

"I am curious what Bush meant when he said we should not "tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories". I wonder about the word TOLERATE....Bush says (in the home of the brave and the land of the free) we should not allow, or permit certain theories about 9/11?" From the same Bush speech: We face enemies that hate .... the TOLERANCE OF OPENNESS and CREATIVE CULTURE that define us." Conspiracy theories only come from doubt. Those who believe/accept the official theory shouldn't worry about those that doubt it."
-Dr. Frank Greening as forum member "Apollo20" at JREF, April 2007

Greening on his calculations regarding the "collapse" of the Twin Towers...

"These studies are not PROOF that explosives were NOT used. And Occam's Razor is merely a dictum, not a universal law... a calculation cannot rule out explosives, it can only show you if something was possible."
-Dr. Frank Greening as forum member "Apollo20" at JREF, April 2007

_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

He wrote earlier

Greening earlier wrote:

"I did discuss some of my more controversial theories with Professor Bazant. He was very open to my ideas, but was humble enough to say that metallurgy/chemistry was NOT his speciality. We were pushed for space in the paper since 24 pages is at the limit of what the journal would accept, so I agreed to hold back on the topics of zinc embrittlement and the mystery of the spheres for some future paper(s)."

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2663849&postcount=149

Has anyone mapped the locations

of the squibs and the flashes?

If the collapse was accidental these events would be random and unpredictable.

If it was a planned demolition, then they would in specific places based on understanding the design of the buildings. Almost all of the single puffs come from the centerlines or are across key floors. This was not a random event.

IMO this example proves that there were explosives planted...

inside the towers

@ 59 seconds into this video clip you'll see an explosion occur 50 or so floors below the "collapse" zone at approximately the same time the tower begins to fall...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sj8vNAMOFM

I'd love to see one of the so-called "debunkers" try to explain away this video evidence..
_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

That one at 59 secs is an odd one?

It would be interesting to see a video with all the faces at the same time, to see if there were 'matching' squibs on the adjacent corner.

It seems like the individual squibs come in pairs on the same floor, but on different faces in the centerlines of the walls, or in groups on both sides of a corner. Just where you would expect to see them if you wanted to peel the building apart.

The video you posted seems to confirm these observations and also points out the significance of the some of the squibs originating from the mechanical floors. Since the mechanical floors would be among the key floors to target for CD, it is important to note that these floors did not have windows. So the squibs shooting out from them, could not be from the pressure of the building coming down blowing out the windows.

Hey, NB

Have you seen "9/11 Mysteries"? What are your thoughts about their findings?

Newton's Third Law

says that to every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. Assuming (for sake of argument only) that the impact zone fails and the upper section falls rapidly and symmetrically upon the lower section, then upon impact there would be very high forces in the columns of the lower section because of the very high deceleration of the upper section, and the columns would break and buckle and plastically deform. But what Bazant seems to forget is that the forces exerted by the lower section on the upper section are equal and opposite to the forces exerted by the upper section on the lower section. If we grant them that the columns of the lowermost storey of the upper section are equal in size (perhaps a bit less in fact) than those of the uppermost storey of the lower section, then the stresses will be equal and they will fail at the same rate. If the upper section is 14 storeys in size, then no more than 14 storeys of the lower section could be destroyed (obviously it would be less than that as the weaker top storeys are reached and the intact mass reduces). Therefore their theory can not be true.

And the first law

is that an object in uniform motion will tend to remain in motion UNLESS ACTED UPON BY A FORCE OF RESISTANCE.

And, aside from the near free fall nature of "collapse" like I said, the main mass of building material peeled away and was laterally ejected through the progression, resulting in increasing weightlessness above the remaining length of undamaged structure.

We don't need to get sidetracked with a bunch of equations, though I do hope someone is capable of utterly annihilating Bazants math and premises through the open discussion.

I hope that Richard Gage's people are on this for example.

But it's clearly self evident.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

RSS