R Mackey how about this statement:
"What BZ proves
BZ certainly does show that a cascading failure is most probable once condition "A" is met for any tall office building, but why would we be surprised at this finding? It proves that tall office buildings cannot be expected to bounce, before or after 9-11-01.
A standard tall office building shouldn't be expected to bounce. What does that have to do with the question of controlled demolition?
What BZ doesn't prove:
It offers no provable explanation for the collapse initiation mechanism of WTC 1 or 2 (the "how" of condition "A" for WTC1 and WTC2).
It provides a narration of what he believes happened during the collapse initiation sequence, yet states it as fact. It provides no proof for this narration.
For these reasons, BZ cannot even remotely be considered as providing proof that no CD occurred on 9-11-01."
No mention of WTC7. Just WTC1 and 2. I'd say these words may not make you happy, but the statements in quotes are true.
R Mackey, are we in agreement that BZ addresses the "bouncing building" question well, but is a pretty useless tool to determine whether CD did or did not occur on 9-11-01?
Remember R Mackey, I am not the person who cannot admit the papers contain any errors. You are.
I am not the one who thinks they prove no CD occurred on 9-11-01. You are.
There are so many holes in these papers I could drive a truck through them. You can call me "stupid and "an idiot", but I can answer every question I have posted to you whereas you haven't answered much of anything.
How much longer can you avoid that by calling me names? BV is next to be reviewed where Dr Bazant introduces "crush down, then crush up". You will have a lot more avoiding to do.
R Mackey writes: "It has been abundantly clear from the beginning that you don't understand it, or indeed the body of literature as a whole. But I never dreamed that your illogic was this fundamentally screwed up. I never would have guessed it possible."
Please enlighten us little people by answering these questions:
1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?
2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BV, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate for WTC1 considering the information in the ROOSD study?
3) Does Dr Bazant believe crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1? (or as just a "limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse")
4) Are the findings in the OOS study consistent with the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?
5) Where in the BLGB arguments is the possibility of a CD based on ROOSD, exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives, addressed?
If it is not, is it not true that the the arguments in BLGB are largely irrelevant when considering this type of controlled demolition?
6) When Bazant makes the following statement in BL, what does he mean?:
"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."
Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Condition "A" is explained in the BZ review available here
http://www.the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-zhou-t375.html
