OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Profanz]

1.There is no evidence for explosives. None.

None were looked for. There are evidently a lot of things that were missed and still missing from ground zero.

B]2.[/B] The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

No. The only thing that has ever before and since and ever will cause a collapse like that is explosives or incendiaries.

3. This belief is false. Dr. Bazant's papers prove this.

Bazant? Please. He came to a conclusion two days after the attacks based on no real investigation at all. Why do you keep trotting that lame crap out?

4. Therefore, his papers rule out a controlled demolition.

And the Bible rules out Atheism right?

Now that you understand, it's my turn to ask a question. You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?

No one can or could have completely followed the scientific method as far as the WTC crimes go. The evidence was destroyed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

None were looked for. There are evidently a lot of things that were missed and still missing from ground zero.

The audible record has been closely scrutinised for evidence of explosives, and the expected sound levels compared with actual sound levels. The result is that the audible record is grossly incompatible with the presence of explosives. Like it or not, that's evidence.

No. The only thing that has ever before and since and ever will cause a collapse like that is explosives or incendiaries.

Wrong; there has never been a collapse of a building that large before. Nor has there been a collapse like that caused by incendiaries, if by incendiaries you mean thermite; there is not even an existence theorem for thermite causing failure of steel structural members in a large building.

Bazant? Please. He came to a conclusion two days after the attacks based on no real investigation at all. Why do you keep trotting that lame crap out?

The speed with which Bazant was able to carry out his analysis, coupled with the fact that the validity of that analysis has never been challenged by anyone without major misconceptions about either the nature of the analysis, the structure of the buildings or the behaviour of steel, clearly suggests that the collapses were expected behaviour.

No one can or could have completely followed the scientific method as far as the WTC crimes go. The evidence was destroyed.

Clearly untrue, as it's that very evidence you're discussing.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

...
What you're doing, typical of the more inane Truthers, is performing an extremely slow, dull-witted, and well-telegraphed Shifting the Burden of Proof and Begging the Question logical fallacy. Dr. Bazant's papers do precisely what they were intended to do. You are trying to show they are inadequate for a purpose they were never intended, and is not needed in the first place. What a waste of time.

If not for the Internet poor Major Tom would not be able to think he has enough support to maintain his delusions of cd.

In my studies I have encountered many like-minded people who cannot accept the fall of WTC7 as a natural event, like you can.

He has the super knowledgeable support of

None were looked for. There are evidently a lot of things that were missed and still missing from ground zero. ...

Wow, he actually let his failure to understand the evidence slip and is kind of taking a stand with the insane world of CD, where no thermite products were found, no blast damage was found on any steel, and zero sounds of explosives on 911. If you are going to take a stand and make up a fantasy, it may as well be pure hogwash and used to support a nonsensical paper you don't understand anyway.

 

[Major_Tom]

I asked R Mackey: Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD?

He claims to answer, reasoning thus while talking down to me::

"Tell you what. I'll try again, and I'll use small words and simple sentences.

1. There is no evidence for explosives. None.

2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

3. This belief is false. Dr. Bazant's papers prove this.

4. Therefore, his papers rule out a controlled demolition."


R Mackey, I'll give you an example in BLGB:

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

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476 WTC collapse.pdf


The paper consist of 11 sections:

1) Inabsorbable Kinetic Energy

2) Generalization of Differential Equation of Progressive Collapse

3) Variation of Mass and Buckling Resistance along the Height

4) Velocity of Air Ejected from the Tower

5) Resisting Forces Due to Ejecting Air and Solids

6) Energy Dissipated by Comminution (or Fragmentation and Pulverization)

7) Energy Required to Produce All of Pulverized Concrete

8) Analysis of Video-Recorded Motion and Correction for Tilt

9) Comparisons of Calculated Motion with Video Record

10) Comparison of Collapse Duration with Seismic Record

11) Effect of Uncertainty of Mass Shedding Fraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Section 1 cannot be used to distinguish between a CD which intentionally initiates ROOSD and a natural collapse since both cases involve inabsorbable kinetic energy.

Section 2 is actually wrong as the study shows. Dr Bazant applies the equations of motion derived in BV and BL to WTC1. We now know you cannot do that because the 4 simplifying assumptions do not apply to WTC1.

Section 3 is shown to be irrelevant since column buckling and varying mass does not contribute to the ROOSD propagation. Columns are simply bypassed.

Section 4 cannot distinguish between a CD exploiting ROOSD and a natural collapse

Section 5 cannot distinguish between the 2 cases

Section 6 would be the same in both cases

Section 7 tells us nothing since the answer is the same for both cases

Section 8 is useless for distinguishing between the 2 cases

Sections 9, 10, 11 contribute nothing that help us distinguish between CD and natural collapse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We will also go through each section of the other 3 papers the same way.


I am obviously looking for the sections within each Bazant paper which can be used to rule out CD by intentionally creating ROOSD. His arguments may be good for showing the building wasn't blown "to kingdom come" or attacked by space beams,

but most every section in each paper is useless to help us prove natural collapse as opposed to a minimal explosive demolition exploiting ROOSD.


It looks impressive, but it's mostly useless to differentiate between natural collapse and CD in light of the study in the OP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

R Mackey asks: "Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

How would you classify the approach of Sherlock Holmes?

 

[R.Mackey]

Then you fail to understand.

If you cannot understand, at least answer my question: You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?

So far, what you've done does not follow the Scientific Method at all.

 

[carlitos]

That paper does look impressive. Similarly, I would not attempt to use it to rule out ROOST DEW. Really the paper is useless to help us prove that sharks with lasers caused the whole thing.

 

[Major_Tom]

R Mackey, in a post on page 3 you wrote: " Personally, I like how he seems to think Bazant and Le (2002) is supposed to be an accurate description of the collapse rather than a limiting case, or that he thinks that plus Bazant and Verdure (2006) cover the entire scope of the literature. As if we hadn't explained this to practically every Truther who ever lived a million times each."

Of course you were confusing Bazant and Le with Bazant and Zhao. Do you agree with Dave and Myriad that the crush up, crush down model developed in BV and BL was meant as just a limiting case, or does Bazant believe it really applies to WTC1?

 

[carlitos]

Which paper ruled out Mothra?

 

[TruthersLie]

My point EXACTLY!!!!

though the more I think about it the more I like the sharks with lasers...

oh oh oh...
mothra AND sharks with lasers!!!!

(did I just become a Mothra disinfo agent?)

 

[beachnut]

... How would you classify the approach of Sherlock Holmes?

It is called fiction, better fiction than your CD delusion. You think you are Sherlock Holmes solving the mysteries of 911; cool. Fictional character goes with your fictional insane CD theories.

If you were Sherlock Holmes you would have solved 911 in minutes like the Passengers on Flight 93 and not made up fantasies of CD.

 

[femr2]

What exactly is the problem with you folk ?

We have nowt of Bazant et al that deals with initiation, and yet we have folk like Mackey stating implicitly that the papers of Bazant et al prove no CD.

Absolutely ridiculous. CC creep anyone ?

If you only had the courage to be clear it would be a lot less painful to watch.

So you think there is no other evidence of CD. That's fine, and your opinion.

Bazant et al do NOT in ANY way disprove CD. More towards natural collapse than the major ity of what is termed the *truth movement*, sure.

ROOSD does not prove nor disprove CD.

Banal inference is laughable.

Flame on, but get a grip. Pathetic.

 

[beachnut]

What exactly is the problem with you folk ? ...

911 truth has delusions on 911; strange question to ask when you have zero evidence to support your CD delusions or thermite insanity.

What exactly happened to your evidence? Thank you.

You agree his reference to CD in the conclusion is nonsense? I recall your work is nonsensical on 911 and is filled with fantasy thermite and no planes.

I do not touch JREF, it is a futile exercise, due to the fact that when the 'debunkers' decide they have made their point (which is usually woefully incorrect) they swarm around like a bunch of vultures posing pictures of kitten and motorcycles.

911 truth posts fantasy, and others post reality. 911 truth can't find the truth as they ironically support a their failed truth movement filled with delusional lies for 8 years with nothing.

911 truth points are delusions formed with lies, hearsay, and failed ideas. What will you do for the next 8 years to ensure 911 truth remain evidence free and supports the failed fantasies they have?

In the world of 911 delusions which are indicative of 911 truth and your work, the faithful cult members would say something like this which is useful if you turn it around as a critique for the failed paper that is the topic at hand.

Given the clear motives of many of the JREF users, my heartfelt response is...

LOL@JREF. Now, unless you have anything of substance to contribute, I bid you farewell.

Did you ban his paper? Need help on turning this around?

 

[femr2]

Capable of addressing the post content Beachnut ?

Seems all you are capable of is *riding* *twoofers*. Great stuff. Not my fetish I'm afraid, but carry on if you like. TLI is painless.

 

[funk de fino]

What exactly is the problem with you folk ?

We have nowt of Bazant et al that deals with initiation, and yet we have folk like Mackey stating implicitly that the papers of Bazant et al prove no CD.

Absolutely ridiculous. CC creep anyone ?

If you only had the courage to be clear it would be a lot less painful to watch.

So you think there is no other evidence of CD. That's fine, and your opinion.

Bazant et al do NOT in ANY way disprove CD. More towards natural collapse than the major ity of what is termed the *truth movement*, sure.

ROOSD does not prove nor disprove CD.

Banal inference is laughable.

Flame on, but get a grip. Pathetic.

I go with Brent Blanchard on this one. How about you?

 

[beachnut]

Capable of addressing the post content Beachnut ?

Seems all you are capable of is *riding* *twoofers*. Great stuff. Not my fetish I'm afraid, but carry on if you like. TLI is painless.

You understand engineering as well as you do RADAR, and Flight 175's real flight path.

Your contents failed to make the cut of being of substance to comment on; you would have to ban yourself from your own forum if you had substantial skills as an engineer to understand your failure. I cheated, I have a masters degree in engineering and can see your work on 911 is pure hogwash without much effort; whereas you put in a lot of effort to make up total nonsensical conclusions based on hogwash you worked hard to perfect.

I like your work and use it as an example of failure; it also makes my work look so much better.

I can't say it better but this is my comment on your content as I borrow your words.

unless you have anything of substance to contribute, I bid you farewell

You said,

I do not touch JREF

, another lie like CD. Are you the nano-thermite insane claim maker/supporter?
911 truth has made insane claims for over 8 years. If they had the evidence to back them up they would have had Pulitzer Prizes all over the place. Why are we bombarded by failed insane claims sporadicly each time you, tony, Jones, Balsamo, Gage or tom get excited your ideas might be real?

Why do you support papers with the purpose to back-in CD? Trying to make CD a possible scenario? Where are your silent explosives that leave no blast damage or products?

Got that Pulitzer Prize yet? Why not? Did a dog eat your evidence? Need a photo of a cat? JREF rocks, you understand this is a skeptics forum? Got some proof of your claims yet? I found your claims or weak support or posting of idiotic 911 truth junk like nano-thermite is based on lack of knowledge and shallow research; just my expert engineering take based on running labs and participating in studies which results made it in real journals.

Not at all. It means that in the WTC1, 2 design a runaway destruction potential has always existed in the OOS spaces completely surrounding the cores which a demolition team can exploit by setting up sufficient initial conditions higher in the towers.

Why is demolition in a paper about a gravity collapse? You guys are always trying to back in support for your failed CD fantasy.

So you think there is no other evidence of CD. That's fine, and your opinion.

It is a fact, a fact that you can't figure out after 8 years of messing up 911 issues. Lost your evidence to support CD?

[img cat photo] to celebrate your lost evidence, the evidence you never had, the evidence you think your opinions are[/img cat photo]

 

[Major_Tom]

Femr says: "We have nowt of Bazant et al that deals with initiation, and yet we have folk like Mackey stating implicitly that the papers of Bazant et al prove no CD."

There are a few sections that deal with initiation in the papers, but they are only a tiny fraction of the total. That's the problem.

The papers may impress with a lot of math which is over the heads of most posters here, but very few of the arguments are capable of distinguishing between a natural collapse and a CD which cleverly takes advantages of weak seams within the building.

95% of the papers are useless for distinguishing between an intelligently planned CD which takes advantage of the natural weaker seams and paths within the structure and a natural collapse.

For the purposes of discussing ROOSD they are 95% hot air. We will see that whole sections of the papers are shown to be incorrect simply by using the information provided in the study in the OP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just so all readers have access to each paper, the 4 papers are:



(BZ)Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf



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

Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

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



(BL=BVReply)Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade
Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdene?k P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

Zdenek P. Bažant and Jia-Liang Le

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25 WTC Discussions Replies.pdf



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

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476 WTC collapse.pdf

 

[beachnut]

Femr says: "We have nowt of Bazant et al that deals with initiation, and yet we have folk like Mackey stating implicitly that the papers of Bazant et al prove no CD."

There are a few sections that deal with initiation in the papers, but they are only a tiny fraction of the total. That's the problem.

The papers may impress with a lot of math which is over the heads of most posters here, but very few of the arguments are capable of distinguishing between a natural collapse and a CD which cleverly takes advantages of weak seams within the building.

95% of the papers are useless for distinguishing between an intelligently planned CD which takes advantage of the natural weaker seams and paths within the structure and a natural collapse.

For the purposes of discussing ROOSD they are 95% hot air. We will see that whole sections of the papers are shown to be incorrect simply by using the information provided in the study in the OP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just so all readers have access to each paper, the 4 papers are:



(BZ)Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf



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

Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

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



(BL=BVReply)Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade
Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdene?k P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

Zdenek P. Bažant and Jia-Liang Le

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25 WTC Discussions Replies.pdf



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

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476 WTC collapse.pdf

Oops, no CD.

Thus, the recent allegations of controlled demolition are
baseless.

the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.

Do you have an engineering degree? What school? Good luck with the paper, and when will some of the math be ready?

 

[Reactor drone]

So, to recap-

Bazant + x and NIST

-After initiation, building will collapse naturally (no CD necessary)
-Aircraft impact and fires sufficient to cause collapse initiation
-No evidence found for any CD

Conclusion:Aircraft impact and fires caused structural failure resulting in rapid progressive collapse.

Major Tom ROOSD

-After initiation, building will collapse naturally (no CD necessary)
-Wild speculation about some method of CD causing collapse initiation.
-No evidence presented for CD

Conclusion-Since no evidence of CD is presented, speculation about CD is pointless as you can place any other demolition scenario you like in there without changing the result (Space beams, mini nukes, sharks with laser beams, Mothra, holographic plane/missiles etc).


If you want to say there is CD you need to show evidence of CD, not just evidence that you can take either way. Since the generally accepted timeline for September 11 contains all that is necessary to explain the collapses it is considered to be correct.

Please present all your evidence that says, "Only a CD can cause this."

I'll wait

 

[R.Mackey]

R Mackey, in a post on page 3 you wrote: " Personally, I like how he seems to think Bazant and Le (2002) is supposed to be an accurate description of the collapse rather than a limiting case, or that he thinks that plus Bazant and Verdure (2006) cover the entire scope of the literature. As if we hadn't explained this to practically every Truther who ever lived a million times each."

Of course you were confusing Bazant and Le with Bazant and Zhao. Do you agree with Dave and Myriad that the crush up, crush down model developed in BV and BL was meant as just a limiting case, or does Bazant believe it really applies to WTC1?

I don't see an answer to my question anywhere in there.

In typical Truther fashion, you answer my question with a question, and your question is nonsense to boot. You may as well say the paper used Newton's Second Law, so is Newton's Second Law just meant as a limiting case or does it really apply to WTC 1. Your logical fallacy this time is the Fallacy of Many Questions, which is slightly more interesting than your previous dodges, but still just plain stupid.

I'm not inclined to explain any further without some reciprocity from you. Third time: You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?

You have no good reason for not answering. It's a simple question.

 

[Hokulele]

Good grief. Doesn't anyone who supports the CD nutbars understand the difference between "rules out CD" and "makes CD unnecessary"?