Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

page: 43
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

If you say it loud enough 3 times in a row and then turn a circle in the light of the full moon, you might also start to believe yourself. I won't waste my time here anymore though as its obvious you are the world expert on "what really happened". Good luck with that attitude though, I'm sure it will get you far in life.

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Another Truther that can't defend his beliefs...

Sorry, you're right, my attitude of having to have facts before I believe something, of not simply spouting lies because I want my point to "win"... of being critical of everyone and everything, not just the stuff I don't like...

Yes, that's what's wrong with the world... yes, I will fail in life because of my high standards..

nailed it..

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

Facts get presented to you over and over...and when they did you got so bashed ,,,you decided to start a thread to only bash people rather than listen to what was being said over and over...

This thread does not need to have facts presented to you because i feel you will just not assess any of them presented to Ignore people and your quite rude to people for having opinions....which niether helps you in your endeavor or generates any reasonable Debate with yourself.

I see you also do not present any facts yourself...just your opinion with out actual proof in the opposite direction.

It would be good to present in here...but i think you have bit off your own nose....and have done nothing to futher the OSer story.....even in your OP you only presented a video which immediately got trashed as it did not represent what occuered on the day in any way,

you tried to go SEE look top down demolitions... without stating that the examples were all concrete structures alone....the was no steel cores in any of them....they also did follow the bazant model and the upper blocks progress doward INTACT before crush up initiated...also when people immediatly also showed how many instances top down collapses failed by not either completing collapse and or falling to the side ....or the collapse stops entirely and the upper block stays in tact and that is in stauctures of concrete construction only.

Now while your stay in another thread went so bad for this attitude towards others members this site was so arrogant was it necessary for you to start a thread where you might find some like minded people to come to your aide....well while reading again throuhg this stuff....i see the regualr OS presenters presented valiantly but you did not learn from them and your still on the attack and still not debating things....You seem to feel that by saying you are all knowing it makes you know....well actually it shows your Ignorance on the matter and it shows how you may be lacking any kind of expertise it shows you just blast to build up an Ego and might make yourself feel better.

I have a feeling that you might take this all in the wrong way...but i do hope it is constructive and will assist you in a better experience on ATS to do research.....check facts....and present decent rebuttals instead of just TRUTHERS.

I mean you seem to be pretty critical of Richard Gage...have you bothered to write to him concerning your opinions.....I have.

have you written to Donald Rumsfeld to ask him about the day at the pentagon....I have...but sadly no reply from him.

you see the man in my avatar.....Brother Nathanael....i have written and spoken to him about my views on the criminals behind 9/ see it is about gaining knowledge for oneself ....and relaying it to others....and always keeping in mind...EVERYTHING is opinion.....just because someone say it is so does not make it just because you say it is so...does not make it true.

anyways...enjoy your stay here...and i am glad your such a firm believer in the OS....but IF your going to call truthers for having the same belief system then you might like to look at the blindness you might be habouring for your own beliefs.

Truthers may have people showing a bunch of crappy hypothectical theories out there.....but a great many truthers know when this is not the case and look at the facts rather then the fantasy and fanactical.

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:40 AM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

you never called me out. im gona call you a dishonest anti truther. You failed to reply to three posts i left for you...
thread fail...

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:00 AM
A lot of mirroring from the OP.

Truthers seek the truth.

OS believers believe blindly.

Get it right.

If you seriously want me to educate you on 9/11; I challenge you to a debate in the "member debate section".

This way everything is archived and easily viewable to ATS after you lose.

If that section of the forum still exists that is . . . I've been away for a while.

PS: No OS believer has ever accepted my challenge and I've offered it nearly a dozen times.
edit on 10/1/2011 by JPhish because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:05 AM
reply to post by purplemer

There's a lot of posts on this... I didn't intentionally not respond... I'll go look now...

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:11 AM
reply to post by JPhish

This is the irony of the Trurther movement, Many of them are wildly dishonest. I've noted many occasions of this dishonest behavior.

And btw., I WAS a Truther. I didn't believe anything blindly. I think any OSer on ATS didn't believe it blindly. Pretending that the only honest conclusion you can come too is Trutherism is both insulting and... WRONG.

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:13 AM
reply to post by JPhish

Where's this debate section?

I'll happily debate you.

Where in the world are you, so we can find a reasonable time (so neither of us are up at 2AM doing it). I'm a US expat in Ireland, so on GMT.

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:14 AM
reply to post by plube

Show me an example of an accelerating top down demo of a building with a steel core. Go on.

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 07:00 AM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

PM me and we'll try to set it up with the mods; hope the section is still on here, i know there used to be one years ago.

time differences shouldn't be a problem; if i remember correctly, you're given ample time to make responses .

PS: logging off for a few hours.
edit on 10/1/2011 by JPhish because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by JPhish

PM sent

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Another Truther that can't defend his beliefs...

Sorry, you're right, my attitude of having to have facts before I believe something, of not simply spouting lies because I want my point to "win"... of being critical of everyone and everything, not just the stuff I don't like...

Yes, that's what's wrong with the world... yes, I will fail in life because of my high standards..

nailed it..

How can yo say you need facts beforfe believing and then you buy the OS, cant you see how retarded that is? Guess not...
Your high standards?

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

Eaxctly...are you for real...there isn't one do you know why....BECAUSE IT DOES NOT WORK FOR STEEL STRUCTURES WITH A CENTRAL CORE.....not only that the steel will not just crush down upon would twist and deform....therefore..would not be a straight down collapse.

so when you can come back with a vid that represents that then as i said it might represent what occurred on the day,

So once again i will re iterate your example was not a true representation as to what who is the one being dishonest in this particular case.

So if you call out truthers for being dishonest....Do not be dishonest with what you show.
edit on 013131p://f52Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by plube

I beg to differ, Bazant describes a satisfactory mechanism that requires neither government ninjas planting demolition charges or Israeli thermonuclear weapons in the basement.

First, let us review the basic argument . After a drop through at least the height h of one story heated by fire (stage 3 in Fig. 2 top), the mass of the upper part of each tower has lost enormous gravitational energy, equal to m0gh. Because the energy dissipation by buckling of the hot columns must have been negligible by comparison, most of this energy must have been converted into kinetic energy K = m0v2/2 of the upper part of tower, moving at velocity v.

Calculation of energy Wc dissipated by the crushing of all columns of the underlying (cold and intact) story showed that, approximately, the kinetic energy of impact K > 8.4 Wc ). It is well known that, in inelastic buckling, the deformation must localize into inelastic hinges. To obtain an upper bound on Wc, the local buckling of flanges and webs, as well as possible steel fracture, was neglected (which means that the ratio K/Wc was at least 8.4).

When the subsequent stories are getting crushed, the loss m0gh of gravitational energy per story exceeds Wc exceeds 8.4 by an ever increasing margin, and so the velocity v of the upper part must increase from one story to the next. This is the basic characteristic of progressive collapse, well known from many previous disasters with causes other than fire (internal or external explosions, earthquake, lapses in quality control)

Merely to get convinced of the inevitability of gravity driven progressive collapse, further analysis is, for a structural engineer, superfluous. Further analysis is nevertheless needed to dispel false myths, and also to acquire full understanding that would allow assessing the danger of progressive collapse in other situations.

Specifically regarding the assertion that

steel will not just crush down upon itself

Variation of Mass and Buckling Resistance along the Height Near the top, the specific mass (mass per unit height) μ = 1.02 × 106 kg/m. In view of proportionality to the cross section area of columns, μ = 1.05 × 106 kg/m at the impact level (81st floor) of South Tower.

Although precise data on μ(z) are unavailable, it appears sufficient to use the approximation μ(z) = k0ek2z + k1 (where k0, k1, k2 = constants), with a smooth transition at the 81st floor to a linear variation all the way down. The condition that R H 0 μ(z)dz be equal to the total mass of tower (known to be roughly 500,000 tons) gives μ = 1.46 × 106 kg/m at the base. There are various local complexities whose possible effects were estimated in calculations (e.g., the fact that 16 of 47 core columns at the bottom were much more massive than the rest).

However, they appeared to have no appreciable effect on the overall response, particularly on the diagram of z(t) and the collapse duration. The total energy dissipation per unit height, which represents the resisting force Fc, consists not only of energy Fb dissipated by the inelastic hinges formed during column buckling, but also of energy Fs required for comminuting concrete floor slabs, energy Fa required for expelling air from the tower, and energy Fe required for ejecting particles and fragments.

Based on Fig. 5 and Eq. 8 of Baˇzant and Zhou (2002), we have, for three-hinge column buckling: Fb = Z uf 0 F(u)du h , F(u) = XN i=1 2[Mai(i) +Mbi(0i)] Li sin i , i = arccos  1 − u Li  (6) where F = axial force resultant of all the columns in the story; u = vertical relative displacement between column ends, uf = final u-value; 0i = 2i; i, 0i = hinge rotations at the ends and middle of column i, which are functions of u; Mai,Mbi = bending moments in inelastic hinges at the ends and middle of column i, as functions of i or 0i; and Li = initial clear length of columns i. For plate-type four-hinge buckling, similar simple expressions apply.

Although some core columns were rectangular, their plastic bending moments Mp were nearly proportional to the column cross section areas because, in the weak buckling direction, most core columns had the same width as the perimeter columns. Thus the curve F(u) corresponding to perfect plasticity (Mai = Mbi = Mpi) is not difficult to estimate from the weight of all the columns in a story.

However, three effects doubtless intervened to reduce F(u): 1) multi-story buckling of some columns; 2) softening due to local plastic flange buckling, and 3) fracture of steel in inelastic hinges (the last two likely occurred only at large buckling deflections for which F(u) is small).

The available data are insufficient to make an accurate estimate of these effects, and even the data on the flange thicknesses in the perimeter and core columns of all the stories are missing.

So we simply apply to Fb an empirical correction factor ( 1) which is reasonably expected to lie within the range (0.5, 0.8) for normal structural steel (yield limit 250 MPa), but in the range (0.1, 0.3) for the high-strength steel (yield limit 690 MPa) which was used for perimeter columns in the lower stories.

The high-strength steel has a much lower ductility, which must have caused fractures (with a drop of axial force to zero) very early during buckling, and must have been the cause of formation of large multistory fragments seen to fall from the lower part of tower. Consequently,the energy dissipated (which is equal to the area under the load-displacement curve of column) was probably about the same for high- and normal-strength columns.

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
edit on 1-10-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: Sp

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:49 PM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Well i have written so much on Bazant and also written to him about what he states and...the whole failing of Bazants paper...which he has not ever replied to...and also not responded to papers that are for peer review in the journal of 911 studies...and if you read the paper correctly yourself you will understand that crush down phase requires the mass of the block to saty intact....and if you read what i had stated about the vid at the beginning i even stated in those cases his paper worked as the upper block stays intact...also you will note in Bazants paper.....Crush up phase cannot proceed until crush down phase has been completed by the INTACT upper block.

You see you can beg to differ...but it is not the case....also if you look at the analysis i did on the Sauret Video you will see the failure of what was said in the paper..


now if your going to use the Bazant paper one should understand what it is saying completely should they not.

but nice try on the Bazant stuff....but i think you might want to reconsidered using the Bazant model as it is repeatedly getting torn to shreds.

also if you go to the JEM(journal of engineering and mechanics) you will find Bazant paper has been taking a beating and all these papers have been subjected to peer review.....

and if you look at my analysis you will see how i myself analyzed the show what had occured in the real world and not speculated about it without even looking at the real footage(Which Bazant had not even bothered to do) which would have changed how Bazant might have presented.

now in this thread truthers have been called out...but if you read the posts...the ones here that seem to be posting misleading information is the ones calling us out in the first place.

i will saying it again.....BAZANTS model does not apply as was shown.

Did you think that i would just state something without looking into it first...i would hope not....

As the website pointed out, "Bazant must be a super-genius to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behaviour for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days."


now you will go here and say such things....but read it...and check the sources...and you might learn a few things.....i have check the sources...and have gone to the JEM read the papers....and have read through all the things you just cut and pasted so many times....WHY....BECAUSE it is in my field of work.

Bazant has stopped answering any emails...replies and or questions about his paper...and does not counter the reviews...and also Greening will not back up anything he states on the until they start to come back with reasonable responses to the papers presented for peer review i guess it would mean they are stumped...and cannot answer what has been put forward to them.

so now it is your court to explain the paper you proudly presented and explain how the upper block which was losing mass the entire time manged to stay intact through the crush down order to complete the crush up phase of the block.

just remembered this might be helpful to you in your Bazant endeavor.

edit on 033131p://f52Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 033131p://f53Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 043131p://f02Saturday by plube because: added a nice vid for understanding
edit on 043131p://f53Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:04 PM
reply to post by plube

In the interest of honest discourse I will withhold further comment until after I have had a chance to follow more of your rebuttal in the thread you linked.

I will say that in 10 years I have yet to read anything more substantial than misinterpretation and innuendo to suggest anything more conspiratorial than gross incompetence to contradict the official story.

For anyone unfamiliar with the conversation, Zdeněk P. Bažant is a well known structural engineer and proponent of the 9-11 OS.

His position is thus..

Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

However, it has not been checked whether the allegations of controlled demolition by planted explosives have any scientific merit.

The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse agrees with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but disproves the free fall hypothesis (on which the aforementioned allegations rest).

Although, due to absence of experimental crushing data for the lightweight concrete used, the theory of comminution cannot predict the size range of pulverized concrete particles, it is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls (while at least 158 tons of TNT per tower, installed into many small holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall, would have been needed to produce the same degree of pulverization).

Regarding the mechanism postulated by Bažant, both direct observation and mathematical prediction seem to be satisfied. The mechanics are clearly defined as described by Bažant in the following...

Differential Equation of Progressive Collapse

The collapse, in which two phases—crush-down followed by crush-up—must be distinguished, is described in each phase by a nonlinear second-order differential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of a compacted block of accreting mass. Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given.

The governing differential equations [5] are:

They were derived by continuum homogenization of the energy dissipation per story [5]; t = time, z = vertical (Lagrangian) coordinate = distance of the current crushing front from the initial position of the tower top; the superior dots denote time derivatives; m(z) = cumulative mass of the tower above level z; Fc = resisting force = energy dissipation per unit height,

where Wd = energy dissipation per story due to buckling; Fb = energy per unit height consumed for buckling of steel columns; Fs = energy per unit height consumed by fragmenting (or comminuting) concrete floor slabs and core walls; Fa = energy of expelling air (laden with dust), per unit height (in [5], Fs and Fa were neglected).

Here V0 = initial volume of the tower, V1  volume of the rubble on the ground into which the whole tower mass has been compacted; / (z) = effective compaction ratio = (1/h)× the thickness of the layer of debris to with each story is compacted; kout = fraction of mass that is ejected outside the tower perimeter before it receives significant downward acceleration, and Wd(z) = total energy dissipation up to level z (for the idealized special case of  = Fc = out = 0 and constant μ = dm/dz, Eq. (2) reduces to the differential equation (zz˙)˙ = gz, .

Eq. (2) may be rewritten where Fm = force required to accelerate to velocity z˙ the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front, and ¯μ = d[m(1−)]/dz = non-ejected part of the accreting mass per unit height. This force causes a greater difference from free fall than do forces Fb, Fs and Fa combined.

(repeated from previous post)

Regarding video corroboration of propagation of a crushing front of a compacted block of accreting mass (Crush up/Crush down

Some critics believe that the bottom of the advancing dust cloud seen in the video represented
the crushing front. However, this belief cannot be correct because the compressed air exiting
the tower is free to expand in all directions, including the downward direction, which causes
the dust front to move ahead of the crushing front (the only way to prevent the air from jetting
out in all directions would be to shape the exit from each floor as a diverging nozzle of a rocket,
which was obviously not the case).

as well as..

Comparisons of Calculated Motion with Video Record

The main point to note is that the curve identified from the video record grossly disagrees with the free fall curve, for each tower.

The belief that the towers collapsed at the rate of free fall has been the main argument of the critics claiming controlled demolition by planted explosives.

The video record alone suffices to prove this argument false. For the South Tower, the difference between the free fall curve and the curve calculated from Eq. (2) is less pronounced than it is for the North Tower.

The reason is that the initial upper falling mass of the South Tower is nearly twice that of the North Tower, causing the resisting force to be initially a much smaller fraction of the falling weight.

Comparison of Collapse Duration with Seismic Record

Calculations show that the duration of the entire crush-down phase exceeds the free fall duration by 57.6% for the North Tower, and by 41.9% for the South Tower (Fig. 6b). This is a significant difference, which can be checked against seismic records registered at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University [23], shown in Fig. 6b. The first tremor, which is weak (and is marked as a), is assumed to represent t = 0, i.e., the moment of impact of the upper part of tower onto the lower part (a correction of 0.07 s is made for the delay due to the travel time of the sound wave along the steel columns to the ground). The sudden displacement increase at instant b (Fig. 6b) is attributed to ejected large structure segments that hit the ground outside the tower perimeter. Their travel durations,9.74 s for the North Tower and 8.4 s for the South Tower, are much shorter than the crushdown
because there is no mass accretion, although they must be a bit longer than a free fall in
vacuum because of air drag (which is, however, relatively small for massive pieces). The free
fall times for ejected mass are 8.61 s and 7.91 s for the North and South towers, respectively
(they are not the same as the free fall times shown in the Fig. 6b, because the ejected mass is
hitting the ground, while the free fall time shown in Fig. 6b corresponds to the upper falling
mass hitting the top of debris pile which is above the ground level).

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions

(videos for reference added by current poster)

Zdeněk P. Bažant's academic credentials are honestly impressive, a noticeable contrast to the Architects for 9-11/Truth roster..

Zdeněk P. Bažant's biography on Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS is the official journal of the United States National Academy of Sciences) describes him as...

Engineer Zdeněk P. Bažant is best known as a world leader in scaling research in solid mechanics . His research focuses on the effect of structure size on structural strength as it relates to the failure behavior of the structure. He also has made outstanding advances in structural stability , fracture mechanics, the micromechanics of material damage , concrete creep , and probabilistic mechanics

He is credited with publishing over 400 refereed articles" target="_blank" class="postlink">PUBLICATIONS OF ZDENˇEK P. BAˇZANT

Born in Prague to a geotechnical engineering professor and a sociology Ph.D., and the grandson of a professor of structural mechanics and former university president, Bažant was the winner of the 1955 Mathematical Olympics.

He studied civil engineering at Czech Technical University (ČVUT), where he was first in his class. He was awarded the C.E. degree with the highest distinction in 1960. While working as a bridge engineer for the state consulting firm Dopravoprojekt in Prague, he studied for his Ph.D. in structural mechanics at the Czech Academy of Sciences, which he received in 1963.

In his dissertation on concrete creep theory, he developed a new method to analyze fracturing and cracking in concrete structures.He went on to earn a postgraduate diploma in theoretical physics from Charles University in 1966 and attained docent (Associate Professor) habilitation in concrete structures from ČVUT in 1967.

Biography of Zdeněk P. Bažant

He is an ISI highly cited researcher in Engineering, which places him among the 250 most cited authors in all engineering fields worldwide. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996, the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2008, and is a registered Structural Engineer in the state of Illinois. He has supervised 60 Ph.D.s in addition to receiving six honorary doctorates of his own (ČVUT 1991, TU Karlsruhe 1997, CU Boulder 2000, Politecnico di Milano 2001, INSA Lyon 2004, and TU Vienna 2005).

Zdeněk Bažant
edit on 1-10-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: Sp

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:53 PM

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

After having perused the information you have offered for impeachment of Dr. Bažant's collapse analysis I have to admit to being somewhat dissapointed with both the quality and content of your rebuttal.

I understand that you feel his collapse model is flawed and you are upset that Dr. Bažant has not returned your correspondance but to be frank your protest seems to be little more than a thinly veiled ad hom.

After having referenced the Journal of Engineering Mechanics archives, the only reference to Zdeněk P. Bažant other than his published work are numerous researchers citing multiple Bažant papers as reference material.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to provide an authentic JEM link that expounds on where I "will find Bažant's paper has been taking a beating"?

Do you have a source other than vitriolic sarcasm?

Bazant must be a super-genius to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behaviour for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days
is not an aceptable critique to dismiss empirical research.

now you will go here and say such things....but read it...and check the sources...and you might learn a few things.....i have check the sources...and have gone to the JEM read the papers....and have read through all the things you just cut and pasted so many times....WHY....BECAUSE it is in my field of work.

Talks cheap, lets see that calced out with a slide-rule at 20 paces killer.

I understand ATS has its limitations as a venue we are conversing in is often a mere few degrees of separation from 4Chan however I feel abliged to make note that the math involved with this particular exercise is basic and mundane, I would expect anyone who makes the comment

"and have read through all the things you just cut and pasted so many times....WHY....BECAUSE it is in my field of work."

to in the least back up their own position with something more than still frames from a youtube video processed through MS Paint, specifically do you have any work of your own to dispute Dr. Bažant's findings or does rhetoric and hyperbole without fact or substance satisfy the burden of proof "in your field of work".

You seem to want people to believe you are confident in your knowledge on the subject, I hope you can provide something of substance to support your assertion that you have undermined a multi doctoral engineer.

One of the beautiful things about this kind of work, you can either do it or you cant.

As you say, the ball is in your court...

edit on 1-10-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: Sp

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:28 AM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

you see if you want i can send you the three pdf's of Bazants papers from the 2002 one through to the 2007 one and would save you a lo of cutting and pasting....but it would be nice if you would try not to baffle people with it
can you do the differential equation for me.....I can

use your own eyes and look at the is not hard..and i will make this very easy for people to understand ......and if you looked in the post i had put forward in which i was would do you think i come to my is through look at your own see the drawing of the examples of crush down....

I am sure you is not all about the maths here as the maths become erroneous from the outset.

why is this the is because when you look at the way Bazant is presenting this whole is, listen to this......Crucial...Absolutely crucial the upper block remain RIGID......IT CANNOT LOSE mass.

now if you looked at the frame by frame breakdown of the real world happening....mass was right there the maths do not stand up...

Dr. Bazant attempts to explain the balance of energies at a point in time immediately after
collapse initiation. He states that,
" To arrest the fall, the kinetic energy of the upper part, which is equal to the potential
energy release for a fall through the height of at least two floors, would have to be
absorbed by the plastic hinge rotations of one buckle, i.e., Wg/Wp would have to be less
than 1. Rather, Wg /Wp ?= 8.4 (3) if the energy dissipated by the columns of the critical
heated floor is neglected."
In other words, the energy available to progress the collapse was 8.4 times greater than
the energy required to progress the collapse.

now this energy is of course strictly from the falling block and in order to progress it needs to be maintain...keeping in mind also that the transfer of energy will be transmitted into the lower section as well as the upper section.

Bazant seems to be of the opinion that all of the energy just goes into the immediate floor below....and does not allow for this transfer of energy.....explain please

The first error which Dr. Bazant has made is his assumption that all of the available
energy would be utilised exclusively in the destruction of the uppermost storey of the
lower section. This is physically impossible under any and all circumstances.

also keeping these things in the point of the impact there will be a loss energy as the energy is transfered into the surounding structure...snapping of connectors...buckling of steel apparent compression of the core....which i think you failed to address from the video i again....this would cause a slowing of the falling we see that occuring....again look at my frame by frame analysis....the upper block which is no longer a rigid block continues at accelerating into the path of greatest resistance ....again...Explain

Nor is this deformation of the columns in the upper and lower sections limited to their
elastic range. It must be noted that the columns in the upper section could not deliver
a greater force than they themselves were able to transmit. In a situation where the
columns in the upper section were asked to deliver loads at magnitudes sufficient to cause
plastic deformation of columns in the lower section, then they themselves would
simultaneously suffer plastic deformation at levels proportionate to their ability and
applied loads.

do you see what is being said here....and if you just come back with more copying and pasting of the Bazant report...then that is not going to cut it as i think you need others whom back up the report also...since it is the report that is in dispute.

i will summarize...the uppper block it self was collapsing before it was even impacting the lower structure as i have shown with my own work....therefore the maths Bazant is using does not fit the real worlrd cannot just blindly believe a piece of work just because it shows maths...because the work itself is theoretical.

but we have real world visuals to compare the theoretical work and can apply it to the observed.....Well the observed does not fit the this negates the maths in Bazants work....also when looking at Bazants illustrations....the upper block is always a rigid block....well as we have seen...the real world does not support this analysis.

source of offsite content......Gordon Ross

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 04:52 AM

WTC Technical Information Repository
Attn: Stephen Cauffman,
NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8611,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610.

Dear Sirs:

I have examined the documents¹ you provided on your theory of the collapse of WTC 7 due to fires by way of thermal expansion. It is apparent that you have spent a great deal of time, effort, money and thought on this project.

However, like Ptolemy’s Theory of Epicycles, you begin with a faulty and unproven assumption. It is also the least likely assumption based on the evidence. Therefore, although your computer modeling may be intricate, your results are completely speculative and have no connection with the reality of what happened to that building. You are simply “adding epicycles” to a theory based on a false premise.

Your theory essentially rests on two physical observations:

There were office fires in WTC 7 that burned for some hours.
The building completely collapsed.
Observation 1 is not in dispute, except as to the location, extent, and effect of the fires. You never observed these fires from inside the building, and you have no actual measurements of the thermal expansion and deformation of the structural steel beams whatever. You never examined any of the steel.

Observation 2 runs contrary to 100 years of experience with the behavior of steel-framed buildings that have caught on fire. Every one of them was subjected to thermal expansion, but never before has there been such a collapse. To now postulate that a collapse did occur due to office fires is the height of scientific recklessness.


the reason i post this is because it shows a trend....The OS used erroneous facts...they made assumptions...and assumptions do not go over well in Engineering Circles ...and with good reason one would think.

you took the slam my work approach....I used gom player to break down the vids...i then used jasc pro a fair equivelant to adobe which NIST used....I used the Same Sauret Video...and I used the co-ordinate system for plotting all lines....i used plans of the WTC of which i have to work out approximate floor heights for the video...

so you see you try to use the bash the person techique justify a paper that is using completely theoretical numbers.....and not basing them on the observed.....(Bazants Report)

you can post his credientials all you want but if he is working off false numbers then it makes no difference if he was god.

now what was observed......observed was that the upper block dropped a numerous number of floors 7 floors to be somewhat precise...but we do not observe 7 floors of damage to the lower structure .....we see the upper block disintegrating before the collapse of the floors in the lower block.

also we see the spire is dropping first....which as i had shown is mounted atop the hat for it to drop...keeping in mind the hat truss ties together the perimeter walls it would need to be compromised would someone not ask...WHY?

why would the core ...the strongest part of the structure.....give way first.....knowing the core carries 60% of the load while the perimeter walls were designed to carry the remaining 40%.

now i will not go down te road of bashing someones that has already been done and i see no point in it....I don't know what your knowledge is in this and it does not matter as we are discussing bazants paper alone....not the man.

but as for yourself.....can you draw your own conclusions....that are the questioned here.....

you want to bash my please by all the differential equations that show how bazants paper works,,,,because you will have to find some other derivatives to account for the loss of mass during the collapse of the upper block to represent real world observations....

and tell you can use a derivative calculator as i wont make you use a slide rule....i think we have progressed beyond that.

so that Bazants rigid block and mass holds true.

Show that the rigid block completed crush down phase and that crush up did not commence until completion of crush down phase.

Do you see the difficultly here....I for all of Bazants maths to work the upper block does not need to just, initiate the is needed to progress the collapse.

edit on 043131p://f57Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by plube

Salutations Plube and thank you for taking the time to put togather the information in your posts.

I will respond later this evening when I have a few more minutes of free time (PST/GMT-7 here)

new topics

top topics

<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in