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

Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?

  • Total voters
    153
beachnut said:
It means? nothing

Which means your CD claims remain fantasy. Bazant has nothing to do with the failed fantasy of CD. Too bad 911 truth can't do the math.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly you and many others here touted Dr. Bazant's WTC papers as the authoritative reference on what happened until his work came under severe criticism from me and a few others in the last couple of years.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I believe insulative material was only used on columns and not floor beams and girders until fairly recently with the advent of spray on foam (SFRM).
Click to expand...
So? What point are you trying to make? Surely not that steel frame buildings don't need fireproofing. :confused:

The newer the design the more reliance on fire proofing/protection. Do you agree with this statement?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If I remember correctly you and many others here touted Dr. Bazant's WTC papers as the authoritative reference on what happened until his work came under severe criticism from me and a few others in the last couple of years.
Click to expand...

Bazant shows it can happen to buildings. It, collapse. Simple math for an engineer which you ignore and make up the fantasy of CD, some inside job done by people you can't name. Oops, maybe the math has you lost. Can you point out any math errors in the model?

There is nothing wrong with Bazant's work that you can expose. The math model remains a model you can't refute. I don't think you respect engineering models, and 911 truth has failed to model the CD BS.

Attacks on Bazant's model failed to do more than expose the ignorance of the attackers. It is a model, you can read his model, and decide.

You offer a fantasy of CD, no model, no math, no evidence.

I did not need Bazant's model to understand fire destroyed the WTC - I used the full up model of the WTC towers. I understand steel fails in fire, and with the impacts and failed fire insulation, what happened is easy to comprehend. You use the same evidence you have for JFK CTs for 911, BS.

It does not matter if Bazant is wrong, a floor of the WTC fails past 29,000,000 pounds, and when the floor fails, the WTC tower system fails, and the building falls down. A simple model anyone can comprehend.

The CD model has yet to be explained - as you use BS attacks on other engineers work as support for the lie of CD. Failed logic, no evidence.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If I remember correctly you and many others here touted Dr. Bazant's WTC papers as the authoritative reference on what happened until his work came under severe criticism from me and a few others in the last couple of years.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough you still chose to construct two papers using his work as reality.

You need to move on like we all have. You're problem is you need the model to argue what you claim is the "official story".
 
jay howard said:
But they did test the effects of heat. And they turned out to be negligible at the intensity and rate available in the official narrative.

Does this mean you're done trying to defend the official story? If I were you, I'd rather chew rust than apologize for NIST's ****** attempt at explaining the collapses.

The facts remain: there are numerous high temperature phenomena in need of explanation. As it stands, NIST considers all these bodies of evidence insignificant or just dismissed altogether.

The questions remain:

  • If the peak temperatures of about 1100C lasted only 20 minutes, how hot could bare steel have gotten?
  • If heat caused the "cascade failure" we saw on 9/11, why can't more intense heat cause this effect to manifest on identical structures tested in the lab?

    and after 3 seconds of deliberation, we come to the most important takeaway from the failure of the NIST explanation:
  • If office fires couldn't have caused the destruction of the towers, what did?

The NIST explanation, as it's vaguely set out in the report, is inadequate by any measure available. The dyed-in-the-wool defenders cannot reference the theory to answer the most basic questions of how hot it got or by what mechanisms this "cascade effect" took hold. These are not "givens". This, as you point out when it's convenient, was an unprecedented event at this scale.

But not only do you take NIST's word for what happened, in contradiction to their own lab tests, you want everyone else to take their word (and yours by proxy) for the truth.

Even people who are not by nature skeptical should feel a little uneasy about this logical progression. But here we are, being SOLD a lump of poop, with zero corroborative testing, by a group of self-proclaimed "skeptics."

You are defending pure pseudoscience. And you don't even deny it. Plenty of misleading, ("they measured the temps of the SFRM, not the steel"--Dave), denying, ("NIST doesn't need a theory"--NoahFence), and straight lying, ("the fire got to 800C in the lab tests, not the steel"--GlennB).

I will keep pointing out how useless the NIST theory is until someone can show me otherwise. And I suppose you will keep plying your grift in hopes that the readers will stay uneducated about this topic.
Click to expand...

The 1100 C temperatures can be substained for over an hour on a multifloor building.

Gravity can not be scaled, and the trusses assembly was not attached to columns surporting massive gravitational loading.

Ps. I made an error based on your description of the test that was vague.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The North Tower upper section mass figures of 58 x 10e6 kg in the Bazant and Zhou paper and the 54 x 10e6 kg in the later Bazant papers were wrong.1
Some of this may have been due to the number of stories in the upper section being mistaken as 14 or 15 stories (it was actually 12 stories as the failure initiated at the 98th floor),2 but it seems most of it was an exaggeration by him3 using the maximum design load, not the in-service load.

The actual in-service load mass for the actual 12 story upper section can be calculated using values given in the NIST report as 33 x 10e6 kg, which equates to 2.75 x 10e6 kg per story.4
Interestingly, the correct mass per story was actually discerned by frequency analysis in the addendum to the Bazant and Zhou paper where on the upper right of page 7 they determine that 44% of the mass was equivalent to 141 x 10e6 kg. Considering 44% of 117 stories it gives a total mass of 320 x 10e6 kg or 2.74 x 10e6 kg per story, which is very close to the value found in the NIST report. See http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf5
The question is why did Bazant inflate the mass?6 Unfortunately, I think it is the same reason he used free fall through the first story7 and that would be to increase the kinetic energy of the upper section.8
Bazant also wildly underestimated the impacted story mass at just 0.627 x 10e6 kg in his conservation of momentum equation.9 He was easily caught there, as in his earlier papers he used a value of 3.87 x 10e6 kg per story.

I seriously doubt that it was Zhou,10 who was responsible for these exaggerations as they appeared in all four of Bazant's papers11 on the WTC where he was the only common author.12
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response Tony. Some comments on the points I have indexed:

1That is the error I raised and for which I am awaiting proof. Confirmation of the maths in that paper. Your assertion that is is true agrees with my interpretation of what was claimed - but is of little value as confirmation since it is bare assertion. From one of the authors who’s work I am seeking to validate. A slight conflict of interest if nothing more. ;)
2 I'm aware of your new (to me) agenda to relocate "initiation" - actually it make no major difference to my assertion we are discussing but - if you are right a ~30% decrease supports the point I am making about the irony of "NIST right for wrong reasons".
3 The objective fact is his numbers were too big. Whether or not it was deliberate exaggeration OR simply the errors from hurried publishing 9/13 does not change the objective fact. Either way.
4Noted!
5Interesting. Noted. Not the subject of my comments.
6 My interest and the point of my post was the objective issue of fact - the values were too big. I doubt your inference of deliberate manipulation BUT the ad homery is irrelevant to the points I made. You agree with me the numbers were too big. At this stage we haven't agreed "how much too big" and even that does not directly matter for the points I made.
7 I'm not concerned with motivation for good or bad. The objective fact is he used free fall. The actual collapse mechanism did not. Thereby setting a trrap for many who were to follow and who took his abstract model as literally what happened. And - tho I seem to be the only one who persists in identifying it - it is the one of his allegedly conservative decisions which is the wrong way. You may not recall that some time (years) ago I illustrated the problem for engineers playing safe when ensuring FAIL is the requirement. It throws their thinking because it puts all the normal conservative thinking in reverse gear. And so many get it wrong. (I have a real life experience of several errors of safety shear pin design which I wont repeat at this stage. Shear pins are supposed to shear and making them stronger is not "conservative".)
8 Agreed - which is the main point I was suggesting has ironic consequences for NIST's original basis of "global collpase was inevitable"
9, 10. 11 & 12 All go to source of error and issues of motivations. My interest in the objective fact.

However I suggest you review the Professor <> PhD student relationship in terms of probable author - I still think Zhou but I won’t fight you over it. And the later papers show many signs of going further down the same erroneous track without ever putting brains in gear and asking "WTF did we assume and were we right" The result some papers which are "houses of cards" erected on shaky foundations.

I haven’t pulled my punches since 2010 with this one "Application of Bazant's column crushing modelling including crush down v crush up to the actual WTC Twin Towers collapses is WRONG" Unequivocally.

..no matter how many Bazantophiles are not prepared to commit lèse majesté and to this day persist in hedging their bets. :rolleyes:

One day it could be interesting to fully study the G Szuladzinski long series of battles against Z B. I'll bet he got at least a few bits right - and possibly more right than he got wrong. Most critiques are from extreme anti positions where "anyone peaking against Bazant or the accepted story must be wrong". That is an insecure foundation for objective reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
The 1100 C temperatures can be substained for over an hour on a multifloor building.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of pointing this kind of thing out to him, but decided it was pointless. He seems to see figures for "1100 peak gas temperature for 20 minutes" as meaning "room temp -> instantly up to 1100 for 20 minutes -> instantly back to room temp"
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If I remember correctly you and many others here touted Dr. Bazant's WTC papers as the authoritative reference on what happened until his work came under severe criticism from me and a few others in the last couple of years.
Click to expand...

Gregory Urich's work, posted here and on his 9/11 forum, was the main rebuttal of Bazant's excessive mass estimate I recall, and I seem to remember his numbers being ultimately generally accepted here. They certainly reduce the excess of potential energy over required energy, but come nowhere near eliminating it. Whatever the shortcomings of the Bazant model from the point of view of mechanism - and, to be sure, it's quite clear from gross observations such as the core spires and the peeling away of perimeter sections that the real mechanism is vastly more complex than the model - as an initial thermodynamic argument in favour of collapse, the fundamental inequality requires modification but is still valid.

Dave
 
jay howard said:
Yea? And what's that? Heat? Could you tell me what the answer is, because I read the report(s), and I don't see it in there.

You didn't read the reports. Please.
Click to expand...

Ground Zero was pretty hot until that December when the underground fires were extinguished.

Workers have removed more than 710,000 tons of debris and more than 135,000 tons of steel from the site.
Click to expand...
http://www.edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/20/rec.athome.facts/index.html

I've recently asked what evidence for CD would look like.

Severed columns, detcord or remote-controlled detonators, remains of cutter charges ... physical stuff like that, found in the ruins.
Click to expand...

Is one of the answers I received.

I followed up with:
And none of this was observed, recorded or found?
Click to expand...

The response I got was a unanimous 'Yes'.

So "710,000 tons of debris and more than 135,000 tons of steel" were removed from Ground Zero in 100 days. Who cataloged all of this material being transported away from Ground Zero? Are there thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of pictures by those who cataloged the shipment of all of this material?

To absolutely say that there is no CD evidence whatsoever relies on absolute clearance of all relevant evidence. Was that accomplished and can someone source it?

BTW: Is this important at all about the thoroughness of the investigations?
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Gregory Urich's work, posted here and on his 9/11 forum, was the main rebuttal of Bazant's excessive mass estimate I recall, and I seem to remember his numbers being ultimately generally accepted here. They certainly reduce the excess of potential energy over required energy, but come nowhere near eliminating it. Whatever the shortcomings of the Bazant model from the point of view of mechanism - and, to be sure, it's quite clear from gross observations such as the core spires and the peeling away of perimeter sections that the real mechanism is vastly more complex than the model - as an initial thermodynamic argument in favour of collapse, the fundamental inequality requires modification but is still valid.

Dave
Click to expand...

Bazant's upper section kinetic energy is grossly exaggerated and his column energy absorption capacity is grossly underestimated.

How you can so easily say his model is still fundamentally valid is beyond me.
 
Jango said:
Who cataloged all of this material being transported away from Ground Zero? Are there thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of pictures by those who cataloged the shipment of all of this material?

To absolutely say that there is no CD evidence whatsoever relies on absolute clearance of all relevant evidence. Was that accomplished and can someone source it?
Click to expand...

Smaller parts were laboriously put over conveyor belts at Fresh KIlls and inspected by hand by teams of people. Material was retrieved down to the level of door keys.

If you really expect thousands of photos then, I'm afraid, the level of physical evidence you require can never be met.

Meanwhile your highlighted statement above isn't strictly true, is it? Here you've limited it to physical remains. People also responded by pointing out that CD would inevitably require flashes and bangs that did not happen. There is overwhelming evidence of no CD.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Bazant's upper section kinetic energy is grossly exaggerated and his column energy absorption capacity is grossly underestimated.

How you can so easily say his model is still fundamentally valid is beyond me.
Click to expand...

By actually looking at the numbers, rather than handwaving. The upper section mass is overestimated by a factor somewhat less than two, and the energy absorption from the upper structure by - according to the number estimated and then promptly discarded with minimal justification in your JPS paper - about 40%. The excess of dynamic loading over resistive capacity in B&Z is somewhat over 8x. Even after modifying the dynamic loading according to subsequent analysis, the conclusion is that there is still about a 2-3x excess of dynamic loading over resistive capacity. Therefore, even in the unrealistically optimistic B&Z scenario, collapse still propagates.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
By actually looking at the numbers, rather than handwaving. The upper section mass is overestimated by a factor somewhat less than two, and the energy absorption from the upper structure by - according to the number estimated and then promptly discarded with minimal justification in your JPS paper - about 40%. The excess of dynamic loading over resistive capacity in B&Z is somewhat over 8x. Even after modifying the dynamic loading according to subsequent analysis, the conclusion is that there is still about a 2-3x excess of dynamic loading over resistive capacity. Therefore, even in the unrealistically optimistic B&Z scenario, collapse still propagates.

Dave
Click to expand...

You forgot the free fall through the first story used by Bazant. It alone doubles his kinetic energy. Use the actual velocity and see what you get.

You also don't have his underestimate of column energy absorption right. He at least halves what it actually is. You can see that in his January 2011 paper where he used a plastic moment of 0.32 MNm and it is provably at least 0.64 MNm.
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
So "710,000 tons of debris and more than 135,000 tons of steel" were removed from Ground Zero in 100 days. Who cataloged all of this material being transported away from Ground Zero? Are there thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of pictures by those who cataloged the shipment of all of this material?
Click to expand...

You could try looking at Wikipedia as a source of links to more authoritative sources, if you're really interested in learning more about this. There's a link from the Fresh Kills Landfill page to a description of the New York State Museum's travelling exhibition on the finds at Fresh Kills, which shows the sort of size of artefacts recovered and studied.

Jango said:
To absolutely say that there is no CD evidence whatsoever relies on absolute clearance of all relevant evidence. Was that accomplished and can someone source it?
Click to expand...

A certain level of inference is required, unfortunately. Short of looking through about a million tons of material yourself, which is of course no longer even possible, you will never have the absolute certainty you require. Somewhere along the line you're either going to have to accept a level of authority (in the sense of the credibility of a source, I mean) that you're prepared to accept, or give up on ever reaching any conclusions. In this case we know that the debris was searched in very fine detail by people who were looking for anything of importance, and most of us can infer that any remnants of blasting equipment would have been discovered and remarked upon. However, this is a negative that can never really be proven, and those who are determined to reach an alternative conclusion can simply claim that all those people were part of the conspiracy.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, I didn't. That's covered by the energy absorption from the structure.

Dave
Click to expand...

Bazant's overestimate of kinetic energy is nearly 4 times what it actually is, since he doubles the component from velocity and nearly doubles the component from mass. His underestimate of column energy absorption is at the very least half of what it actually was. That is 4 x 2 = 8. So he has overestimated by at least 8X.

This means his 8X available energy vs. energy absorption capacity ratio is completely without merit and does not exist.

In reality, the column energy absorption capacity was several times Bazant's estimate.

To stay with what Bazant said in any way would be to hang onto an erroneous analysis and essentially a lie.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
You forgot the free fall through the first story used by Bazant. It alone doubles his kinetic energy. Use the actual velocity and see what you get.

You also don't have his underestimate of column energy absorption right. He at least halves what it actually is. You can see that in his January 2011 paper where he used a plastic moment of 0.32 MNm and it is provably at least 0.64 MNm.
Click to expand...

Agreed the free fall was a wrong assumption, however the core strength does not appear to be, because the mechanism of failure was weld failure.
It took 1,000,000,000 Ft. Lbs to sheer one weld in a direct strike, now that sounds like a lot, however with an off center strike it takes 100,000 Ft. Lbs, so the way the vector of the work
Is applied greatly affects the energy values needed to accomplish the work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom