RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted

[DGM]

Explosive blasts decay exponentially so one would not expect any columns to have been destroyed in the 1993 WTC bombing with the distance of the explosion and the surface area and strength of the columns.

However, one would think that tamping could be used to loosely direct the force of a wide but relatively light ribbon charge at close range and create a large bending moment at the weld. This would be different from a shaped charge which would be used to highly focus the energy for cutting. Take a look at the chapter on explosives from a NAVSEA handbook that I provided.

Tony:
Can you tell us why you would reference an article for underwater demolition. Water contains and focuses explosive forces better than air. Does it not?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony:
Can you tell us why you would reference an article for underwater demolition. Water contains and focuses explosive forces better than air. Does it not?

This article isn't just about charges in water. You need to read the whole thing.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Second time, Tony Szamboti: for a change, take a look at reality and tell us exactly when the detonations occurred:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...85611926#1m10s

Afraid to do it, Tony? Of course you are. Because you've also seen clips like these:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5611926#11m55s

Of course, I forgot that you are now the self annointed commissar of whether or not explosives are used in a situation. The science behind your claims "well we would hear them if they were there" no matter that a very loud collapse was occurring. Nobody can compete with you for sheer brazenness.

 

[uk_dave]

ahhhhhh I see...the explosions occured during the collapse...right.

ummmmm in that case, what were they for?

 

[DGM]

This article isn't just about charges in water. You need to read the whole thing.

I know, but using a small charge to introduce a large bending moment is only effective underwater. The resistance of the water enhances the effect allowing the charge to be smaller. In air to get the same effect the charge needs to be orders of magnitude larger due to the air offering less resistance that the piece you are trying to bend.

Anyway you look at it you still have a very large BOOM!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I know, but using a small charge to introduce a large bending moment is only effective underwater. The resistance of the water enhances the effect allowing the charge to be smaller. In air to get the same effect the charge needs to be orders of magnitude larger due to the air offering less resistance that the piece you are trying to bend.

Anyway you look at it you still have a very large BOOM!

Not if the charge is up against the target and tamped. The resistance from air or lack of would not play a part. These charges could have also been sized for each target.

As far as the noise is concerned I believe the noise from small charges could have been masked by the collapse. I believe it is feasible that thermal weakening, as proposed by Max Photon, could have been used to initiiate the collapse and once started small explosives used to take out the outer core columns to ensure the collapse kept moving reliably. The corners of the perimeter wall could have been thermally weakened also to remove the stiffness of the perimeter. This would cause the peeling effect discussed by Major Tom. The molten (non-aluminum) metal coming from the corner of WTC2, just prior to collapse, provides some level of credence to that notion.

 

[pomeroo]

Not if the charge is up against the target and tamped. The resistance from air or lack of would not play a part. These charges could have also been sized for each target.

As far as the noise is concerned I believe the noise from small charges could have been masked by the collapse. I believe it is feasible that thermal weakening, as proposed by Max Photon, could have been used to initiiate the collapse and once started small explosives used to take out the outer core columns to ensure the collapse kept moving reliably. The corners of the perimeter wall could have been thermally weakened also to remove the stiffness of the perimeter. This would cause the peeling effect discussed by Major Tom. The molten (non-aluminum) metal coming from the corner of WTC2, just prior to collapse, provides some level of credence to that notion.

You've been reduced to citing the obsessive and uninformed ravings of an agenda-driven ignoramus? This is better than folding up your tent and acknowledging that your evil movement is dead? You have a background in engineering?
Tell us again about the role played by those terribly inconvenient planes.

 

[DGM]

Not if the charge is up against the target and tamped. The resistance from air or lack of would not play a part. These charges could have also been sized for each target.

As far as the noise is concerned I believe the noise from small charges could have been masked by the collapse. I believe it is feasible that thermal weakening, as proposed by Max Photon, could have been used to initiiate the collapse and once started small explosives used to take out the outer core columns to ensure the collapse kept moving reliably. The corners of the perimeter wall could have been thermally weakened also to remove the stiffness of the perimeter. This would cause the peeling effect discussed by Major Tom. The molten (non-aluminum) metal coming from the corner of WTC2, just prior to collapse, provides some level of credence to that notion.

Tony:
Your reaching here. Your still talking about charges in the order of 20 to 30 pounds (very low end estimate). Do you have any idea how much BOOM that makes not to mention the shock wave.

When did they setup all of this "tamping"? Do you realize how large of a thing your talking about. I've been involved with controlled demolitions and what your talking about would not be hidden by the sound of the collapse.

 

[Gravy]

Of course, I forgot that you are now the self annointed commissar of whether or not explosives are used in a situation. The science behind your claims "well we would hear them if they were there" no matter that a very loud collapse was occurring. Nobody can compete with you for sheer brazenness.

Had you bothered to watch the closeup of the south wall buckling inward, you'd know there's no audio. That's because I want you to see it. Get it? See the smoke coming out of all the open windows? Show us where it's perturbed by these detonations, before the collapse.

You – a grown man – aren't still afraid of a little reality, are you, Tony Szamboti?

No running, no hiding, no excuses. Show us.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#1m10s

 

[Major_Tom]

how many core columns were able to be matched with as-built locations in the collapse initiation zones?

How many photos of these columns were photographed and shown to the public?





The very "602" column shown before, the lone photo that anyone was able to provide thus far, is interesting. I believe I have located it in the rubble.

Not too hard to find as it was sitting on the top of the rubble.

Please tell me you have more photographic evidence of core column buckling during the collapse initiation.



Just to make this exchange more interesting, perhaps I should temporarily switch sides of the argument, just to help you folks out?


Perhaps I can find more columns from the collapse initiation zones in photos of the crime scene than you can using the NIST bibles?

 

[beachnut]

Not if the charge is up against the target and tamped. The resistance from air or lack of would not play a part. These charges could have also been sized for each target.

As far as the noise is concerned I believe the noise from small charges could have been masked by the collapse. I believe it is feasible that thermal weakening, as proposed by Max Photon, could have been used to initiiate the collapse and once started small explosives used to take out the outer core columns to ensure the collapse kept moving reliably. The corners of the perimeter wall could have been thermally weakened also to remove the stiffness of the perimeter. This would cause the peeling effect discussed by Major Tom. The molten (non-aluminum) metal coming from the corner of WTC2, just prior to collapse, provides some level of credence to that notion.

You believe wrong. Max Photo, glad you hooked your false information wagon to the pure fantasy train, you will get to your destination faster.

As in your paper, there is no support for your ideas. How can an engineer suspend logic and rational thinking to make up false ideas proven wrong by events.

The sound of your RDX is hidden by the falling building? Did you even think of what that means; even a 1st grade kid with some poking can solve that stupid statement of insanity.

Tony, by using Max's work, and Maj Tom, you have shown why your paper and your ideas are pure junk science, hearsay, 9/11 truth peer review quality.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You've been reduced to citing the obsessive and uninformed ravings of an agenda-driven ignoramus? This is better than folding up your tent and acknowledging that your evil movement is dead? You have a background in engineering?
Tell us again about the role played by those terribly inconvenient planes.

They would have been a causal ruse to have us believe they caused the collapses due to impact damage and fire. The fires would have also masked the thermal weakening used to initiate the collapse.

You do know that the fireproofing was upgraded on pretty much just the failure areas in the year or so before Sept. 11, 2001 don't you?

Have you ever wondered why NIST only got a small amount of steel from the fire affected areas?

You would probably make a bad detective.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony:
Your reaching here. Your still talking about charges in the order of 20 to 30 pounds (very low end estimate). Do you have any idea how much BOOM that makes not to mention the shock wave.

When did they setup all of this "tamping"? Do you realize how large of a thing your talking about. I've been involved with controlled demolitions and what your talking about would not be hidden by the sound of the collapse.

You would need to show me your calculations for the charges and the induced bending moments. I think the amount of actual explosive needed is far smaller and much less noise producing than what you state.

I have shown by calculation here that the welds on the core columns were stronger than most thought, although not as strong as the actual columns they connected.

 

[beachnut]

They would have been a causal ruse to have us believe they caused the collapses due to impact damage and fire. The fires would have also masked the thermal weakening used to initiate the collapse.

You do know that the fireproofing was upgraded on pretty much just the failure areas in the year or so before Sept. 11, 2001 don't you?

Have you ever wondered why NIST only got a small amount of steel from the fire affected areas?

You would probably make a bad detective.

The under the floor fireproofing, you seem to lack research capabilities. Yes, you can lift the ceiling tile an inspect your work area! You could see Max's shock tube, your RDX charge wires! And all! The under floor fireproofing was very friable, and would fall off if you blew on it! It was up graded as needed! The fire department actually inspect buildings, and has no restrictions on finding out why there are Sock tubes form and insane person in the WTC, or why wires go into the wall for no reason.

You are the one who needs to get a life and wake up to the fact there is not a silent RDX bomb with radio control from Maj Tom!

This is getting funny as the nut case ideas gather to form realcddeal, Max, Maj Tom, and a few other characters who all have different ideas of how the WTC failed.

This is a classic case of false ideas being mixed to support a bigger dumb idea.

 

[DGM]

You would need to show me your calculations for the charges and the induced bending moments. I think the amount of actual explosive needed is far smaller and much less noise producing than what you state.

I have shown by calculation here that the welds on the core columns were stronger than most thought, although not as strong as the actual columns they connected.

Actually Tony you are the one that needs to show the amount necessary. Nice try at shifting the burden of proof though. It's your theory try backing it up. It's not my responsibility to prove you wrong. Why can't you "truthers" get that.

 

[pomeroo]

They would have been a causal ruse to have us believe they caused the collapses due to impact damage and fire. The fires would have also masked the thermal weakening used to initiate the collapse.

So, your evil movement is capable of demonstrating that the planes could not have caused the collapses in the manner the real scientists and engineers claim they did? Why haven't you succeeded in doing so? I constantly see conspiracy liars getting their heads handed to them by people like Ryan Mackey, Dr. Greening, Newton's Bit, and other qualified researchers whenever they try peddling their snake oil.

You do know that the fireproofing was upgraded on pretty much just the failure areas in the year or so before Sept. 11, 2001 don't you?

Have you ever wondered why NIST only got a small amount of steel from the fire affected areas?

Let's not pass over this question too hastily. You see, when I wondered about the steel NIST used for its tests, I did something that wouldn't occur to you: I phoned NIST and spoke to Mike Newman, who explained that NIST had obtained all the steel it required.

You would probably make a bad detective.

Hard to say. I'm logical but lazy. You, on the other hand, would make a terrible detective. You have contempt for evidentiary reasoning; you start with your conclusion and shoehorn the evidence into it; you are incapable of distinguishing the significant from the trivial; perhaps most importantly, you overlook important clues that are right under your nose.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Actually Tony you are the one that needs to show the amount necessary. Nice try at shifting the burden of proof though. It's your theory try backing it up. It's not my responsibility to prove you wrong. Why can't you "truthers" get that.

You are claiming 20 to 30 pounds so you should back that up.

With a quick look at it it is much less but I'll do more than that over the next few weeks. Talk to you later about it.

 

[DGM]

You are claiming 20 to 30 pounds so you should back that up.

With a quick look at it it is much less but I'll do more than that over the next few weeks. Talk to you later about it.

I will do the calculations to support my stated estimate. Do you want to tell me what column size we're dealing with (location of the charges)?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Let's not pass over this question too hastily. You see, when I wondered about the steel NIST used for its tests, I did something that wouldn't occur to you: I phoned NIST and spoke to Mike Newman, who explained that NIST had obtained all the steel it required.

Oh, so that is why they later claimed that the amount they got was not sufficient, and they needed to use computer simulations to determine the temperatures seen by the steel, since there was very little physical evidence of high temperatures on the actual steel. What are you smoking?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Explosive blasts decay exponentially so one would not expect any columns to have been destroyed in the 1993 WTC bombing with the distance of the explosion and the surface area and strength of the columns.

However, one would think that tamping could be used to loosely direct the force of a wide but relatively light ribbon charge at close range to generate the force and create a large bending moment at the weld. This would be different from a shaped charge which would be used to highly focus the energy for cutting. Take a look at the chapter on explosives from a NAVSEA handbook that I provided.

You can equate different sized explosives with different distances from elements by

scaled distance = R / [W^(1/3)]
W = weight of explosive
R = distance from object

Let's take a bomb of 1500lbs planted 2 feet away from the column in the basement. The column is roughly 6 feet deep so the bomb is 5 feet away from the centerline of the column.

It has a scaled distance of 5/[1500^(1/3)] = 0.437

What size of explosive would be needed to meet this equivalent and non-lethal effect placed against the face of a 5 foot deep core column? Let's use a distance of 2.5 feet

0.437 = 2.5 / [W^(1/3)]

W^(1/3) = 5.722

W = 187lb. That's 187lb of explosives that still doesn't do anything. Of course this is for a non shape charged. A shape charge would be vastly different, but that requires serious prep time and leave effects that would be easily noticed, namely in that the locations were the columns were severed there would be blast scoring, etc. The only thing we see in the pictures is columns broken at their welds, or built up box columns that have dissociated at their longitudinal welds.