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

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


look forward to your reply and salutations to you also....always good to have some decent point counter point going on rather than a bunch of bashing...I mean this is all opinion and when opinions don't jive it is all a debate.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press
9/13/01, Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01)

My concern here with Bazant...is with in 2 days after 911 he has a paper written on the collapse senario....and yes since that time he has updated it twice.....I have not actually found anywhere NIST officially in any capacity has referenced Bazant...and they really have no need as they only took the investigation upto the point of initiation....and left it at that....assuming that once initiated the collapse would automatically progress to completion.....but why would one assume anything such as this....especially with skyscrapers with a steel central core....

Now why would Bazant be so quick on the uptake,,,,would he just not go hey the buildings were hit by a plane and they collapsed....or did he go oh...these buildings were hit by planes and hmmmm.....it seems odd they did collapse.

I am not sure which senario would you choose.the time these building took to fall after initiation was also extremely quick in my honest opinion.....as Energy would have to be somewhat conserved as the upper block encounters resistance from the lower block....Simply put....all things would require energy....as previous stated...the snapping of bolts....the plastic and elastic deformation of steel....the pulverisation of concrete....the horizontal ejection of material.

It would appear instead of conservation of energy in the collapse it just gained exceptional amounts of energy....yes i know that as the upper block continues on it's downward journey it will be gaining mass through the collapse of each successive floor....BUT...heres the but...that is if the block remains rigid....but this is not the observed ...is it.....the observed is tons upon tons of material is being ejected....and some describe that as being like a banana peel....The Exception....the central core being the larger load bearing part of the structure....becomes more and more resistant...as the core becomes more and more robust as we progress down the structure.

it is the core that is never discussed.....and that is the main load bearing part of the structure...it is also the section of the structure that would be least susceptable to plastic and elastic deformation....Due to the extensive amount of cross bracing.


we work our way into the structure





So now we look at the core plan on 6th floor....and well as you can see this is not some minor part of the structure as people are lead to believe.....it takes up a high percentage of the floor area.




Then we shoot up to the 40th floor core plan and it is still the same....except the steel at this point for main support has been reduced by 1/4inch thickness.


just as it has been reduce by about 1/2 in thickness by the top



now we have on the 75 and 76 floor the mechanical rooms.......this is an area that should have even required more energy to progress through.....but it seems as though it did not exist during the collapse.

but we have mechanical rooms on 7-8th floors
mechanical rooms on 41-42nd floors
mechanical rooms on 75-76th floors
mechanical rooms on 108 floor

This is all north tower being discussed.

reply to post by plube


Apologies for the delay in my reply and thank you for the cordial response.

I sometimes forget that humor can be difficult to express and the intent is often lost via the steril format of social media chat-boards, please don't mistake my poor attempts at dry wit to be anything more personal than good natured ribbing.

In response to specific points of your post...

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 diagrams.....it 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 showing...it would help....how do you think i come to my conclusions.....it is through observation....now look at your own pastings.....you see the drawing of the examples of crush down....

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

As we are debating the merit of Bažant's collapse model I don't see the problem with copy/pasting the relevant text. You have made the assertion that his work is flawed or fails to account for certain factors, in reply to which I have provided the pertinent material, copied verbatim, which I believe adequately addresses the questions you have raised.

I have a working comprehension of the math and physical principals involved and have thourougly read Dr. Bažant's paper and the myriad of rebuttals (the vast majority of which are textbook examples of the logical fallacy of an argument from Personal Incredulity i.e. they do not understand so therefore the argument is false).

The ideas presented are straight forward and relatively basic but necessary to the conversation, I would suggest that anyone honestly baffled by Dr. Bažant's presentation does not have the academic foundation required to offer anything beyond uniformed speculation.

I would sincerely question your statement that " it is not all about the maths here as the maths become erroneous from the outset."

An old engineering axiom says...

"There are rules and there are laws.

Rules were made by people who think they know better.

Laws are made by mother nature.

You can (and sometimes should) suspend the rules but you can never suspend the laws."

The same math that dictated the design of the WTC governed its demise as well. The math is an absolute. Granted, the mathematical analysis is only as accurate as the quality of the data in this application however I have yet to see anyone who is questioning the legitimacy of the 9/11 OS find fault within the mechanics of the suggested collapse mechanism.

All anyone needs to mount a tangible challenge to the validity of the 9/11 OS is to simply show where the engineering numbers that were used to build the structure prevent the collapse from happening as described by the OS.

why is this the case...it is because when you look at the way Bazant is presenting this whole senario...it 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 expelled....so right there the maths do not stand up...

Other than your assertion, where is it implied that block C (from figure 2) must remain rigid or cannot lose mass?

This is why I was careful to post Bažant's calculations. The expelled mass is clearly accounted in Bažant's work describing the "crush down phase".

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, which was

After your accusations of cut and paste and people not reading the relevant source material I have to ask, have you truthfully read Bažant's paper?

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 mind.....at 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 showed....so again....this would cause a slowing of the falling object.......do 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

Sigh...

Again, this is expressed and accounted for within Bažant's Differential Equation of Progressive Collapse...

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.

According to Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the crushing front initiates at the 96th in the North Tower, and the 81st
story in the South Tower. The effective compaction ratio   0.18, as estimated in. The mass ejection ratio, out, is harder to estimate. A crude estimate can be based on the profile of the rubble pile after the collapse . Baˇzant and Verdure estimated that about 20% of the rubble volume resided outside the footprint of the tower, and so out  0.20.

You seem to fail to take into account or understand the mechanics of how the structure fails that as the energy is transferred. This is why the analogy of stacking paint cans is incorrect. The WTC were complex designs using a myriad of composite engineering techniques. Once the mass is set in motion it is the truss seats, fasteners and shear connections that are overloaded and progressively fail, hence progressive collapse.

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 see exactly what is being said here, I would say that yet again there is an obvious disconnect between what was written by Bažant and what is being claimed.

During the crush-down phase, the moving upper part of tower (C in Fig. 1 bottom), with a compacted layer of debris at its bottom (zone B), is crushing the lower part (zone A) with little damage to itself, except before a thick enough layer B of debris forms).

Do you understand now how the crushing front of debris does the work while the mass is in freefall while leaving the upper part of the tower relatively intact?

You do realize what peer review implies? I cant help but get a chuckle that you have yet to produce anything with merit yet ask me to provide further sources coo borating a peer reviewed paper?


Regardless, perhaps start here...

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma mpge.ou.edu...

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts www.ecs.umass.edu...

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
kudu.ucsd.edu...

Henri Gavin, Duke University
www.cee.duke.edu...

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
www.ce.umn.edu...

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
whitepages.tuwien.ac.at...

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
lambros.ce.ust.hk...

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
www.engin.umich.edu...

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
www.civil.upatras.gr...

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
www.ucalgary.ca...

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
www.uic.edu...

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
www.bygg.ntnu.no...

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
www.pubs.asce.org...

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
www.cee.lsu.edu...

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
ceae.colorado.edu...

Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
home.olemiss.edu...

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
www.its.caltech.edu...

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
ame-www.usc.edu...

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
www.eas.caltech.edu...

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
cee.mit.edu...

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Care to return the courtesy and show how many accredited academics are signing off on Gordon Ross's Gordon Ross's NIST and Dr. Bazant/ A simaltaneous failure?

I need to cut this short, I will post more shortly....

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


The Ross paper is seriously flawed in 2 ways:

1- He uses the same limiting case as does Bazant does in his first 2002 paper on the subject. That is, he assumes that ALL the columns are being buckled/crushed/whatever all the way to the ground. That didn't happen.

It is undeniable that the core column "spire" that is seen in both collapses proves that not all the core columns were buckled/crushed/whatever. And it is undeniable that there are large sheets of ext columns falling outside the building during the collapse, and this proves that they weren't buckled/crushed/whatever either.

Therefore, it is also undeniable that even if Ross is correct in his analysis and gets the numbers right, it is NOT proof that the collapse couldn't progress. It can ONLY be used as a limiting case that shows that a further analysis needs to be done that incorporates observables.


BUT, HIS NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG

2- his paper is seriously flawed in several areas, but the biggest and most obvious is when he adds in 600+Mj of energy to crush concrete.

He himself states that ~128Mj of energy is "consumed" during the inelastic collision of the descending part and the first stationary floor. And then "adds in" this 600+Mj of energy to break up the concrete.

This flies in the face of simple physics and the "equal and opposite reaction" law that truthers like to quote.

The problem here is that the 128Mj consumed in the inelastic collision is all that can be attributed to breaking up the concrete.

The paradox of how this is, is easily shown by this physics question:

A 1 Kg rigid mass traveling at 10 m/s collides with a stationary 1 Kg rigid mass.

We assume a perfectly inelastic collision, so following the impact, the masses travel at the same velocity.

As momentum is conserved...

Pre-impact momentum (1*10+1*0) = Post-impact momentum (2*v)

...the post-impact velocity is 5 m/s

The pre-impact KE was (0.5*1*10^2) = 50 J
The post-impact KE is (0.5*2*5^2) = 25 J

Both masses are perfectly rigid, and so cannot deform.
There is no resistance.

Where did that 25 J go ?


The answer to what energy is "used" to crush the concrete is explained once truthers are able to understand just where that 25J went to......

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

The Ross paper is seriously flawed in 2 ways:

1- He uses the same limiting case as does Bazant does in his first 2002 paper on the subject. That is, he assumes that ALL the columns are being buckled/crushed/whatever all the way to the ground. That didn't happen.

So you agree that Bazants paper is flawed also?

It is undeniable that the core column "spire" that is seen in both collapses proves that not all the core columns were buckled/crushed/whatever. And it is undeniable that there are large sheets of ext columns falling outside the building during the collapse, and this proves that they weren't buckled/crushed/whatever either.

That was one column out of 47. Not even close to the majority of the steel. So no that is not evidence that most of the steel weren't buckled/crushed/whatever.

An object can store energy as the result of its position.

See my other reply to you in that other thread.

We assume a perfectly inelastic collision, so following the impact, the masses travel at the same velocity.

It would be good if you understood the physics.

Why would the objects be traveling at the same velocity after impact because it was an inelastic collision?
Did you forget the equal and OPPOSITE reaction law?

As momentum is conserved...

Pre-impact momentum (1*10+1*0) = Post-impact momentum (2*v)

...the post-impact velocity is 5 m/s

The pre-impact KE was (0.5*1*10^2) = 50 J
The post-impact KE is (0.5*2*5^2) = 25 J

You seem to misunderstand what momentum conservation is also. It does not mean objects maintain their momentum after collision, it means they will try to, but resistance stops this, and it is why objects are deformed.
If two objects with unequal mass collide, the one with the most mass will conserve its momentum better than the smaller mass, so the smaller mass will receive more deformation.

Both masses are perfectly rigid, and so cannot deform.
There is no resistance.

Yes there is. Whenever two objects come in contact you have resistance. Resistance is friction.

Where did that 25 J go ?
The answer to what energy is "used" to crush the concrete is explained once truthers are able to understand just where that 25J went to......

There is no 25J.

Originally posted by ANOK

So you agree that Bazants paper is flawed also?

Nope.

It is a perfectly acceptable bounding analysis.

That was one column out of 47. Not even close to the majority of the steel. So no that is not evidence that most of the steel weren't buckled/crushed/whatever.

Lie

Why would the objects be traveling at the same velocity after impact because it was an inelastic collision?

Cuz that is the very definition of an inelastic collision.

After the collision, both objects are "stuck" together and are traveling at the same velocity.

You are uninformed.

You seem to misunderstand what momentum conservation is also. It does not mean objects maintain their momentum after collision, it means they will try to, but resistance stops this, and it is why objects are deformed.
If two objects with unequal mass collide, the one with the most mass will conserve its momentum better than the smaller mass, so the smaller mass will receive more deformation.

LMAO.

You are unable to understand the conditions of the problem as set forth.

Yes there is. Whenever two objects come in contact you have resistance. Resistance is friction.

resistance can take many forms, since resistance is just another way of saying a process that "uses up" ke.

There is no 25J.

LMAO.

Energy is always conserved.

It can't just disappear into the ether.

It had to go somewhere. Where?

I'll help you out a little here. The problem, as set out contains a glaring falsehood that is so simple that anyone should be able to see it after a cursory glance.

But you couldn't see it.

That says all I need to know about your knowledge of physics.

At this point, your hilarious responses must begin to give credence to the notion that there are indeed, disinfo agents on these types of message boards trying to make truthers appear as ignorant.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


After a thorough review of the Gordon Ross "paper" .NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE critiquing Dr. Zdeněk P. Bažant's What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York I am calling shenanigans.

Far from being a legitimate research paper, Gordon Ross's NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE is a bad piece of propaganda clumsily disguised as research. Ross is clearly pursuing an agenda that is aimed at the the lowest common denominator, i.e. misinformed psuedoscientific conspiracy theorists.

This guy is marketing a biased argument built on misrepresentation and logical fallacy and sadly, a few people are buying into it.

That he doesn't show any of his own work to support his position and is comfortable building his case from Faulty generalizations and Informal fallacies should be a red flag to anyone interested in fact and truth.

CONCLUSIONS
Dr. Bazant has stated in his analysis, that his energy ratio would be increased in the event
of early failure of the column end connections. This is correct and examination of the
debris pile with specific regard for the numbered and identifiable columns from the area
in and around the aircraft impact area could have given more precise information from a
physical rather than a theoretical source.
The short cut taken by NIST in relying upon this theoretical work, allowed them to avoid
a continuation of their examination to include the physical evidence available from the
collapse. Such a continuation would have shown many points of evidence which cannot
be readily explained by a collapse whose initiation and progression was caused as a result
of aircraft impact and subsequent fires. It does however allow the authors of the NIST report to pass responsibility to Dr. Bazant for this, the most important part of the
investigation.
A theory which can be so easily refuted is not an adequate foundation on which to
rest the conclusions of a report on an event with such far reaching global
consequences.
But since NIST relies upon the work of Dr. Bazant to justify their assertion that
collapse, once initiated, would inevitably progress to ground level, this refutation of
Dr. Bazant's work and theory also serves as a refutation of this most crucial part of
the NIST report.

One one hand, the physical evidence and visual record , the structural analysis results from the computer modeling as well as a group of the worlds most prominent engineering doctorate are all in agreement with Dr. Bažant's peer reviewed findings as reported in the NIST report.

On the other, an obscure proponent of a widely dismissed conspiracy theory writes six page's of bad speculation, calls it an engineering analysis without showing any work or sourcing precidents, uses bolded phrases with no supporting evidence like...

This is physically impossible under any and all circumstances.

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

Truth movement indeed.

Originally posted by ANOK
It would be good if you understood the physics.

You might think twice about that, Joey Canoli is correct...

Why would the objects be traveling at the same velocity after impact because it was an inelastic collision? Did you forget the equal and OPPOSITE reaction law?

Some arguments are won by philosophical debate and subject to interpretation, however the laws of nature are immutable and classical mechanics are not subject to the whim of individual argument.

There is never anything wrong with not knowing and learning something new however after reading parts of this thread the adage " If you cant dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull-**** " does come to mind.

Perhaps a bit more explanation may help...

Elastic and Inelastic Collisions

A perfectly elastic collision is defined as one in which there is no loss of kinetic energy in the collision.

An inelastic collision is one in which part of the kinetic energy is changed to some other form of energy in the collision. Any macroscopic collision between objects will convert some of the kinetic energy into internal energy and other forms of energy, so no large scale impacts are perfectly elastic.

Momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions, but one cannot track the kinetic energy through the collision since some of it is converted to other forms of energy. Collisions in ideal gases approach perfectly elastic collisions, as do scattering interactions of sub-atomic particles which are deflected by the electromagnetic force.

Some large-scale interactions like the slingshot type gravitational interactions between satellites and planets are perfectly elastic. Collisions between hard spheres may be nearly elastic, so it is useful to calculate the limiting case of an elastic collision.

The assumption of conservation of momentum as well as the conservation of kinetic energy makes possible the calculation of the final velocities in two-body collisions

Elastic and Inelastic Collisions



Elastic collisions/ Target initially at rest



Head-on Elastic Collisions



Head-on Elastic Collisions

A lot of people have an incorrect understanding of the consequence of the equal and opposite part of Sir Issacs third law, you might want to take a closer look and reconsider your statement..

The reaction is one of the least understood of the basic physical concepts, perhaps because it is often poorly taught or incorrectly described in many publications, including textbooks, or because Newton's laws of motion may appear counter-intuitive.

A modern statement of the third law of motion is
If a force acts upon a body, then an equal and opposite force must act upon the body that exerts the force.
It is essential to understand that the reaction applies to another body (the body that exerts the force) than the one on which the action applies.

For example, in the context of gravitation, when object A attracts object B (action), then object B simultaneously attracts object A, with the same intensity and an opposite direction.

The physical nature of the reaction is identical to that of the action. If the action is due to gravity, the reaction is also due to gravity.

A particularly subtle common mistake is to confuse the forces that cause action and reaction with the actual action and reaction.

Newton's third law is frequently stated in a simplistic but incomplete or incorrect manner through statements such as Action and reaction are equal and opposite To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

These statements fail to make it clear that the action and reaction apply to different bodies. Also, it is not because two forces happen to be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction that they automatically form an action-reaction pair in the sense of Newton's Third Law

Reaction (physics)

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Where did that 25 J go ?
The answer to what energy is "used" to crush the concrete is explained once truthers are able to understand just where that 25J went to......

Originally posted by ANOK
There is no 25J.

You may want to rethink that one as well...

Hint...conservation of the total momentum

Hint..conservation of the total kinetic energy

Hope this helps....

I am glad there are people on here who understands physics and architecture along with chemistry and the other sciences. I certainly do not understand those things and cannot add anything to the discussion regarding those sciences. So forgive me for not being able to contribute in those areas.

What I can contribute is this, video production. That is what I have been trained in and understand. I also construct stories for plays and films. And to do this, I have to have an understanding of how the human mind works and human nature, along with the ability to be able to make up a story. What I cannot do is be dishonest when writing, it is disrespectful to the audience because there is such a thing in film called "suspension of disbelief".

When I think about how conspiracy theorists have constructed a story that involves so many people and plot lines it becomes lost in telling. The whole story from the theorist side has become a convoluted mess that has so many loose ends. Perhaps in the milieu of the conspiracy theory, anything and everything is possible. But 9/11 was real. Those were real planes that hit real buildings. Those were real fires that killed a lot of people.

May I now address this from my expertise on the subject?

The theorists have said the planes were holograms and the video was edited live. This is impossible and I have asked many times what editing program is capable of doing this. No one has ever answered this. They have heard people say things like "it sounded like explosions" or "it sounded like bombs". Those are similes, whenever someone uses the word like in that context it means simply what they were hearing sounded similar to that. I could say also a backfiring car sounds like a gunshot or fireworks sound like a gunshot. That does not mean it was a gunshot, only the sound was like it. But dishonest storytellers use this to persuade someone that is a truth but actually is a falsehood.

I could say the firemen were sweating that day and then could persuade someone the temperature of the day was 100 degrees, therefore the weathermen lied about the actual temperature. I could say the policemen were making everyone leave the vicinity and then persuade someone it was because the policemen knew ahead of time therefore they were involved. Do you see how simple it is to persuade someone into believing a falsehood?

9/11 Conspiracy would not even make a good movie with all the loose ends these theorists throw in. Dylan Avery and Michael Moore has found the thing that works to get people to believe them, they ask you to provide the answers to their open-ended questions. They ask "how is this possible" then leave it to the audience to fill in the blanks. They suggest things to the audience and when you fall for it they lead you to believe the theory. That is brainwashing and propaganda for their cause. And what is their cause? To manipulate facts to get people to buy their movies and books.

They have made a lot of money off peoples' gullibility. They have taken facts and manipulated them for their own benefit, they have edited videos leaving out truths and then telling you they have the truth. If they were honest, they would not have to take the truth out. If you claim your story is true, then it is dishonest to take truth out of a story.

Once again all i see that all you have done is pasted a whole bunch of things to baffle people with BS....It is very impressive indeed...and then you also try to slander Gordon Ross...with how great Bazant is in his accolades....and the rest of people are to be discredited...well i attended Gordon ross' presentation in London...and it is very informative...and explanatory....

His credentials are very creditble...so please do not go down the road of saying how great Bazant is while discrediting others.....I have said Bazant is highly regarded in his field...but as i have said...If one works with erroneous data ones whole report fails.....I completely understand what Bazant is trying to get across with the leading debris field progressing down the collapse....and the rigid upper section would just follow the path of destruction...but this is not what the observed was,was it.

You have not yet once explained why the upper section is collapsing on itself before the lower section crushes down...even taking into account the leading debris.....I can see you are still trying to baffle people with this theory of Bazants......just Explain in your OWN words.....Why the upper section collapses first.....this is the most important Item that is required for Any of Bazants work to be Valid in his analysis.



I have more respect fot this man than Bazant...who has not yet publicly come forward to dispute any claims against him....he does not answer his Emails...he does not come forward with rebuttles and he condescends people for their responses and says they only need to go back to school....that is someone whom hides and he will NOT come out and be publicly debated....I have asked him too.

You know why he wont....because he cannot back it up.

I do commend you on all your efforts here....but you have not answered any question...you have only tried to make others out be less intelligent in some stanege way through the use of crud.....

The core was yet again ignored in your presentation....you showed the floors and their truss seats.....which was not once what i was stating i said that the structure was 60% supported by the core...and 40% by the perimeter columns.....Did you adress that.....nope....in all the wonderful presentation you did address it......

I asked you to explain the collapse of the Upper RIGID block before progressive collapse of the Lower block.....did you address that.....nope.

All i see is the presentation of the wonderful Bazant.....so until you can actually provide answers to the questions i have about those two points.....How the core straight down collapses on itself........and how the upper collapses before impactin the lower block .

I personally cannot use the Bazant paper as even in his own work it does not work....it is theorectical that does not compliment the observed.

Originally posted by Joey CanoliNope.

It is a perfectly acceptable bounding analysis.

No it is not, it is based on assumptions and doesn't account for the loss of mass and Ke during the collapse, assuming all the mass was available, and no Ke was lost due to conversion to other energy.

Lie

How is that a lie?

Cuz that is the very definition of an inelastic collision.

You have it backwards...

Perfectly elastic collisions are those in which no kinetic energy is lost in the collision.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

...Like two balls hitting and bouncing off each other at the same speed they impacted.

The concrete floors did not bounce off each other. It was mostly an elastic collision, Ke was lost to deformation, friction, heat, sound.

You are uninformed.

You are more than uninformed you are completely wrong.

You are unable to understand the conditions of the problem as set forth.

Again genius you have it backwards.

resistance can take many forms, since resistance is just another way of saying a process that "uses up" ke.

No, resistance is friction and yes it does cause a loss of Ke, anything that effects the falling object will effect the Ke, as Ke is simply a measurement of the work done when the object is moving.

Energy is always conserved.

It can't just disappear into the ether.

It had to go somewhere. Where?

It converts into other energy. Deformation takes energy, sound and heat is energy.

I'll help you out a little here. The problem, as set out contains a glaring falsehood that is so simple that anyone should be able to see it after a cursory glance.

But you couldn't see it.

That says all I need to know about your knowledge of physics.

At this point, your hilarious responses must begin to give credence to the notion that there are indeed, disinfo agents on these types of message boards trying to make truthers appear as ignorant.

From the person who can't even get the main point of his post correct.

A reminder....

Perfectly elastic collisions are those in which no kinetic energy is lost in the collision.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Another point to ponder that contradicts some OSers claim that the collapse was not an isolated system, and gravity is a given....

Inelastic Collisions in One Dimension

In an inelastic collision, two (or sometimes more, but let's not get carried away) objects collide and stick together. We generally ignore any outside forces on the colliding objects, so the two-object system is an isolated system. This is reasonable in practice if we examine the objects during the time interval immediately before the collision and then immediately after - before friction, gravity, etc., have time to exert any appreciable impulses on our system.

Are you embarrassed yet Joey?

Originally posted by ANOK

How is that a lie?

Well, since the first few frames of that gif show the core columns, and they appear to be about 8-12 there, the only option avai;able to a rational person is that you looked at that gif, saw that there are indeed several columns there, and are lying about it.

Very poor trolling too, dude.....

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Is it my imagination or is that an edited picture? Watch the bottom of the picture as it shows, the windows at the bottom are not lined up.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Is it my imagination or is that an edited picture? Watch the bottom of the picture as it shows, the windows at the bottom are not lined up.

It's edited in 2 ways:

1- it is motion stabilized - meaning that there is an attempt to keep a certain object centered on the same pixel throughout the gif. No deception there, just good technique.

2- there is an obvious time jump at about the 3rd or 4th frame, just watch the smoke/dust suddenly jump positions and then move slowly again. This is obviously a Judy Woods made gif, whereby she jumps through the time period in the video that shows the core columns swaying and then falling. Undoubtedly to give credence to her delusions of dustifying steel.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Well whoever did it sure did a poor job because if you look at the bottom windows, they are out of line at one point. They superimposed the picture. And who is Judy Woods? I will look her up now.

Ok, after looking her up, the woman believes free energy did this and people were vaporized by some sort of energy....

Yes, thermal energy from the heat of the fires.

f you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening to the evidence until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.
Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.

wheredidthetowersgo.com...

So theory must MIMIC the truth? So to make a theory seem like truth, you have to manipulate facts and evidence until it fits? Geesh, that is what conspiracy theory is...a mimic of truth. Wow, so she is basically saying it is all a theory designed to mimic truth and theorists don't catch on to what she is saying?

reply to post by plube


Plube, In the hope that you are sincere and not purposefully being obtuse I will clarify again...

We are specifically discussing Dr. Zdeněk P. Bažant's WTC 1&2 collapse analysis, to discuss his conclusions it is necessarily to show his work. You have made numerous misrepresentations of Bažant's work and asked a number of times to show where specific parameters were included which when I have quoted the relevant section of Bažant's work verbatim (per ATS rules) you have either ignored the correction or followed with glibly supercilious rhetoric...

Originally posted by plube
Once again all i see that all you have done is pasted a whole bunch of things to baffle people with BS.....

I generally avoid these discussions and am regretting jumping into this one.

I have little interest in most 9/11 orientated conspiracy discussions beyond various western governments seemingly proactive ineptitude pre 9/11 and those same governments extreme geo-political actions post 9-11.

I have yet to see anything to suggest the NIST 9/11 report should be suspect beyond poorly researched circumstantial evidence supporting wild speculation, buoyed by poor scientific understanding and kept alive along the fringes of the internet with a host of dishonest misrepresentations by snakeoil salesman peddling their wares to the gullible masses.

You have represented yourself as being an industry professional familiar with the academic tools necessary to understand the mechanics involved.

My formal education was focused towards aeronautics and I had only read Bažant's complete paper for the first time when I joined this thread recently.

If such is the case and my rebuttal to you has been nothing more than cut and paste smoke and mirrors repeating a flawed premise, you should have had little trouble deconstructing my posts and displaying any error contained within regardless of the source or format.

You should have no problem burying my argument, that you cannot beyond accusations of posting to "baffle people with BS" and that the "maths become erroneous" is very telling in regards to who understands the problem and who is over their head and struggling to fill in the blanks with slick B.S hoping nobody will notice.

Remember, the title of the thread is Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out. I would venture that representing yourself as an Architectural or Structural Engineering (student?) in an attempted appeal to authority to give your argument more weight is dishonest behavior in the 1st degree.

Regarding Gordon Ross and speaking of dishonesty, I was able to find his paper Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1.

Talking about shredded , a quick google search quickly reveals public academia has not been kind to Gordon Ross at all.

I think this is my personal favorite..

Gordon Ross does not have a clear understanding of structural engineering, and this is evident in his paper. His idea of the concept of buckling is incorrect.

This in turn has led him to write a paper that completely over-exaggerates the structural capacity of the WTC towers and completely mislead a group of people who depended on him, as a professional engineer, to know what he was talking about. This is not his fault, or the fault of the education system which trained him.

He is not a structural engineer; these concepts are not readily available to him. Even I have made mistakes on this concept before. We all make mistakes. This is one that could probably be corrected. This, however, is not about mistakes.

or perhaps this one...

Mr. Ross, your conclusions and sums and methods have been proven wrong. In my previous letter I offered you the chance to fix and update your calculations out of professional courtesy.

Out of respect for your abilities, I said it would be easy for you to do. I had hoped that you would take a harder look at that issue, and take another look at the rest of your paper, but you have chosen not to do so.

Your response was nothing more than, “fake but accurate”. This is a disgusting manner for any engineer to respond. Sir, retract your paper or fix your calculations.

Gordon Ross Shows Collapse Progression



You have consistently asserted the validity of Gordon Ross's credentials.

Have you bothered to vette his creds? Im guessing not.

The only mention that I can find of Gordon Ross's alleged engineering credentials is his own webpage where he lists (Excluding the unmediated gaggle of 9/11 truther websites that repeat the same information as his webpage)...

The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984.

suspiciously, another quick search of Google casts reasonable doubt on his claim of even modest education...

Liverpool John Moores University is a British 'modern' university located in the city of Liverpool, England. The university is named after John Moores and was previously called Liverpool Mechanics' School of Arts and later Liverpool Polytechnic before gaining university status in 1992, thus becoming Liverpool John Moores University

Correct me if I'm wrong as Polytechnic has a different meaning in the U.S. but did Polytechnic schools in the U.K. issue degrees? Wasn't there some sort of academic standards foundation issuing equivalency degrees for Polytechnic schools and such pre 1990's?

Regardless, how does one graduate from a University 8 years before it was a University?

Of note as well, LJMU does not offer a structural engineering curriculum. LJMU currently offers a single Mechanical Engineering MSc with the focus being...

The programme has been designed with particular emphasis on advanced manufacturing technologies and the application of advanced materials...

...Skills, acquired during this programme, will allow graduates to make an immediate contribution to a company's capability and operation, and to ultimately progress into senior management positions

In other words the only Mechanical Engineering MSc available from LJMU trains its proud post graduates to be factory foreman. You wont have a clue about structural engineering or architecture but you'll be able to design a world class conveyor belt

Listing Dr. Zdeněk P.Bažant's academic credentials a second time is unnecessary however it may be of note to some on the fence that when Google Scholar is searched with the keyword Zdeněk Bažant there are 1170 returns.

Gordon Ross

Unless Gordon Ross is also a PHD microbiologist, Gordon Ross the Engineer comes up with exactly zero...

In an earlier post you wrote...

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

...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.....

....so 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..

Would you mind explaining your intent with this statement again?

It is painfully clear that Gordon Ross has not published anything for pier review, the only reference I can find to Bažant's WTC paper being "torn to shreds" is on 9/11 truther sites where the posters "know what they saw" but are unanimously clueless to the simplest mechanics needed to try and understand a structural collapse.

Sound familiar? I believe that is what you were saying here as well, was it not?

Originally posted by plube

 

....how do you think i come to my conclusions.....it is through observation....

...it is not all about the maths here as the maths become erroneous from the outset.

I've searched the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE archives twice now and found nothing remotely similar to "Bažant's paper taking a beating".

Your reference following my first inquiry...

Originally posted by plube

 

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press
9/13/01, Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01)

only brings up Bažant's initial paper and the subsequent addendum's...

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis ???

I am starting to suspect you may be disingenuously fabricating quite a bit of your argument.

Fortunately, I could care less about the reputations of either Gordon Ross or Dr. Zdeněk Bažant.

All that concerns me is the sum of the math and the fidelity of the data.

The math does not lie. People, however, do all the time.

In this instance it is an absolute empirical fact that WTC 1&2 were both capable of collapsing exactly as observed due to the damage inflicted by the jet aircraft alone.

I will come back with a more detailed reply...but i must point out one thing quickly. I f one is against the OS....the first thing that happens is a mass slander of the people speaking out against the OS...and it is a very vigorous procedure....and well done one...so when you ask me to show the same against Bazant....It is harder to do....not becuase there is not credible opinion against his...and the NIST documents....it is when you speak out against them there is a systemic backlash on ones personal beliefs and we all get out to made nutjobs for thinking in such a way.....

Now the people whom have the best ability it seems to speak out against the Us are in fact people from out of country....which makes it even more difficult to get anything across....You people from outsdie the US do not so willingly trust what world governments tell them and also do not recieve the same brainwashing Media tactics which is so prominant in the US....

Sadly this is changing and people are being more and more dumbed down by the media....

do i think the towers were struck by planes....yes.

do i think the planes and fires brought down the towers alone....NO

the NIST report even says the fires did not get more than 600c in their own testing.

and the fires that appraoched 1000c was in a localized area which to me says it would not lead to global collapse.

I asked Bazant would even write such a paper two days after the collapse and then prosceed to further it with two more papers to correct it to fit the model.

you keep referring to his credentials....but but mo matter how many credentials one has...if the numbers do not fit the model then the model is false.....the upper block did not remain rigid.

but i will address your issues shortly....I must say you at least are one of the most sincere OSer's by presenting well with great information...and it is a pleasure to read through it.

Shills are hard at work on ATS i see, and the poster of this thread os obviously one. I have 1500 architects and engineers backing me up, who have you got?

I suppose you are happy that the US was responsible for killing so many people including women and children. Mate, you obviously have some kind of mental disorder. You should seek help right away as you are probably a danger to the public. This is truely a sick and disturbed post and should be deleted.

I feel allowing this thread to continue degrades the lives lost on 9/11, which is obviously what OP is trying to do.

Sick.

Originally posted by TheMindWar
Shills are hard at work on ATS i see, and the poster of this thread os obviously one. I have 1500 architects and engineers backing me up, who have you got?

I suppose you are happy that the US was responsible for killing so many people including women and children. Mate, you obviously have some kind of mental disorder. You should seek help right away as you are probably a danger to the public. This is truely a sick and disturbed post and should be deleted.

I feel allowing this thread to continue degrades the lives lost on 9/11, which is obviously what OP is trying to do.

Sick.

How many of the architects and engineers that you believe are sources witnessed the planes on that day? How many of them were in Manhattan on that day? I suppose then they trump the eyewitnesses of the airplanes. Is that right? The thousands of witnesses who actually saw the planes? It is easy for a theorist to call others shills when they actually are the shills for the conspiracy theorists.

Originally posted by plube
Once again all i see that all you have done is pasted a whole bunch of things to baffle people with BS....It is very impressive indeed...and then you also try to slander Gordon Ross...with how great Bazant is in his accolades....and the rest of people are to be discredited...

Already touched on in previous post....

well i attended Gordon ross' presentation in London...and it is very informative...and explanatory....

Unless you went for the comic irony I would say you deserve a refund on the door fee...

His credentials are very creditble...so please do not go down the road of saying how great Bazant is while discrediting others.....I have said Bazant is highly regarded in his field...but as i have said...If one works with erroneous data ones whole report fails.....

Dr. Zdeněk P.Bažant's credentials are unimpeachable, Gordon Ross's credentials (plural) don't exist and his credential (singular) is highly suspect.

The two are not remotely similar academically. If you don't like the comparison then quit challenging the work of a world renowned engineer with the flawed pseudoscience and bad math of an opportunist cashing in on the gullible.

I completely understand what Bazant is trying to get across with the leading debris field progressing down the collapse....and the rigid upper section would just follow the path of destruction...but this is not what the observed was,was it.

I have no idea what you are inferring?

The upper section was no more rigid than the lower and no matter how many times you say that it needed to be it wont make it true. If you are on about what I think you may be, Bažant simplified the model initially by treating the upper section as a rigid single mass. How some mistakenly believe the distinction between a rigid and an elastic upper section significantly effects the outcome of the collapse is the problem.

Whether the upper section were made of solid granite or goosedown, as long as the mass is the same, the kinetic energy is the same and the the lower section still collapses identically whether rigid or elastic.

Otherwise, yes, the upper section fell into the lower section.

What do you believe to have observed?

You have not yet once explained why the upper section is collapsing on itself before the lower section crushes down...even taking into account the leading debris.....I can see you are still trying to baffle people with this theory of Bažant's......just Explain in your OWN words.....Why the upper section collapses first.....this is the most important Item that is required for Any of Bazants work to be Valid in his analysis.

The next mention of "still trying to baffle people with this theory" or another snide "just Explain in your OWN words" and I will make it a point to take the conversation to a level of technical verbosity specifically to highlight individual participants fluency (or lack of) regarding the subject at hand.

Do you understand?

In regards to your asking for yet another explanation of why the upper section fell before the ( mezzanine? subterranean parking levels? what part do you believe should have collapsed first?), if you didn't understand the first three times I have tried then undoubtedly the fourth wont make a difference. I find that that your assertion to "completely understand what Bažant is trying to get across" dubious at best and most likely not true.

Lets try this, it wasn't the upper section that collapsed first, it was the 93rd floor of WTC 1 and 78th floor of WTC2 respectively that collapsed first, followed very shortly afterward by the remainder of floors 94-110 and 79-110 that was still interconnected.

Why the upper section collapses first.....this is the most important Item that is required for Any of Bazants work to be Valid in his analysis.

Again, the upper structure collapsed first because a quarter million lb airplane had just flown into the building at 500 knots seriously compromising the vertical load capacity of the structure and simultaneously igniting a many thousand gallon conflagration of jet fuel which further weakened the impact area to the point that the already compromised structure failed due to gravity alone.

Ditto for the second tower.

Until the day comes when I see an institutionally referenced youtube video I will continue to believe that youtube is the chosen media of short attention spans and borderline illiteracy.

If your point is Gordon Ross made a youtube video, all I can think to say is that he couldn't have chosen a more appropriately suited medium to his message.

If I can just get it to shuffle play now between Zecharia Sitchin's Sumerian translations welcoming Niburu and the video for free hydrogen energy in my car I'll have it made.

I have more respect fot this man than Bazant...who has not yet publicly come forward to dispute any claims against him....he does not answer his Emails...he does not come forward with rebuttles and he condescends people for their responses and says they only need to go back to school....that is someone whom hides and he will NOT come out and be publicly debated....I have asked him too.

You know why he wont....because he cannot back it up.

Do you honestly believe that the reason Bažant has not returned your correspondence is because you or Gordon Ross have seen through Bažant's wily subterfuge, or could it be something much simpler, such as Bažant is tired of arguing with irrational people with little understanding of the subject matter that are not interested in learning but rather forwarding their own fantastical accounts of what they wish had happened?

I do commend you on all your efforts here....but you have not answered any question...you have only tried to make others out be less intelligent in some stanege way through the use of crud.....

Thank you for the backhanded compliment, I have made a respectable effort besides what I have posted to keep the conversation honest and the facts straight. Again, I have answered the bulk of what you have asked (quite a few multiple times).

The fact that you don't understand or the answer given is not the one that you wanted to hear does not imply that your questions have gone unanswered.

I made my point about the cheap digs earlier but I admit that I have no idea what this quote below means?

make (sic) others out be less intelligent in some stanege way through the use of crud

The core was yet again ignored in your presentation....you showed the floors and their truss seats.....which was not once what i was stating i said that the structure was 60% supported by the core...and 40% by the perimeter columns.....Did you adress that.....nope....in all the wonderful presentation you did address it......

I posted the detail of the floor trusses, their various connections to the core and outer walls along with their load bearing specifications in the hope of educating both yourself and a few others who seem to be struggling to understand the mechanics of the collapse initiation and energy transfer in the context of anything more complex than a stack of paint cans.

Obviously I was not successful in my endeavor.

I asked you to explain the collapse of the Upper RIGID block before progressive collapse of the Lower block.....did you address that.....nope.

I somehow don't see explaining a fifth time to be of any more help than the first through fourth. (Typing RIGID in caps doesnt make it any more the truth than the first dozen times time, remember the thread title... Just because you want it to be true isn't good enough to change reality.

All i see is the presentation of the wonderful Bazant.....so until you can actually provide answers to the questions i have about those two points.....How the core straight down collapses on itself........and how the upper collapses before impactin the lower block .

I'm going to go way out on a limb and ask if you have the slightest idea what momentum means in this context?

Lets try with more pictures, we'll start easy...



A basic example of a perfectly elastic collision between equal masses in 1 dimension demonstrating conservation of total momentum.

Next we have a little tougher one, same idea but different variables...



An example of an perfectly elastic collision between objects of different mass in 1 dimension demonstrating conservation of total momentum.

Anything ringing a bell yet?

Next,



Perfectly Elastic collision between equal mass in 1 dimension demonstrating both conservation of total momentum and the conservation of kinetic energy....

Lastly we have...



An perfectly inelastic collision between equal mass in 1 dimension demonstrating both conservation of total momentum and kinetic energy associated with some energy loss.

Look familiar yet?

I personally cannot use the Bazant paper

Finally we can agree on something..

as even in his own work it does not work....

Remember the part earlier where just because you don't understand doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong?

That applies here as well.

I have spent a fair bit of time working Bažant's creation recently and I am in agreement with Bažant, where does that leave us?

it is theorectical that does not compliment the observed.

Plube, String theory is theoretical, the Higgs boson is theoretical. Bažant's collapse mechanism is tangibly borne out by the math, the simulations and the observational record.

You cant get much more complimentary than that.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Well DrunkenParrot, it proves one thing, at least they learned about the physics of falling objects. You would think with all the talk on here about physics, that many people would be professors in universities with all their knowledge of physics. They should all go work for NASA.

The problem is this, not one architect, engineer, physicist or chemist ever had to deal with the unique event that occurred on 9/11. It had not happened before in the history of the planet and science has had to understand it so they know what to do in the future. Experience is the best teacher so now they should learn how to construct buildings so it does not happen in the future.

We also learned the sociopolitical ideologies that make people do what they do. All the theorists study is how the buildings fell, not why. They have said the government did it without presenting one piece of evidence the government actually did it. So arguing about how a building falls is really a moot point without answering why. If they say it was an inside job, they have to prove it was an inside job. That is the crux of the discussion. Thousands of witnesses saw actual planes hitting the building. It was a Tuesday morning in Manhattan, one of the busiest corporate business districts in the United States. People were going to work that morning, people who were standing in viewing distance of the buildings saw planes. What marked their attention is the fact that Manhattan had a no-fly zone.