Gents, apologies for the pedantry, but heck, this thread isn't much else. Perdue is a chicken farming family in the states. Purdue University is known for its engineering school.
I agree with tsig. If Major_Tom finds something more mysterious the more he studies it, he's doing it wrong.
Your interpretations of what I meant by various sections of the post are breathtaking examples of you reading into things. Perhaps this is where some of your issues lie.
I didn't write "near exact". You have not shown conclusively that NIST was wrong, so once again....I fail to see your point. You do give us a lot of blurry photos and videos though.....
You've just bundled NIST and Bazant together. Not an insignificant error. It has already been highlighted that conclusions of Bazant et al are out of the scope to which their model applies, so are simply their opinion. Your opinion based on the opinion of others. Great stuff. Facts would be nice
I bundled them together in comparison with two individuals that I believe are incompetent (you and MT). So again, and as usual, you missed the point of the comment. Makes it difficult to debate you when you miss the point of most of what is typed.
If you choose to tentatively accept such conclusions opinions, that's entirely up to you. Stating that *that is what happened, fact* doesn't follow. Even *that's probably what happened* would be a step forward for you.
I never wrote "that is what happened, fact". Did you understand the point of the comment? Your somewhat cryptic reply implies you aren't quite getting it....I'm not sure what I need to do to make what I write more clear.
Understanding what you are reading and actually replying to that instead of whatever it is you are imagining would be a step forward for you.
Your comment above is rather strange considering the statement I made that you were replying to. Please do try and make replies that make sense to the specific comment you are replying to.
I mean who writes
femr2oddreply said:
So...detail the correct initiating mechanisms and sequence, newton3376" in reply to someone writing
The specifics might never be known.....but neither NIST nor Bazant claimed to have nailed down every specific without question. They made the best models and gave the best explanations they could within the scope of what they were attempting to explain.
I just threw it in there with the "rather than you" comment....once again you seemed to miss the point entirely and focus on some specific detail in an attempt to score some points. Keep doing it if you believe it's effective, but it produces a very large *YAWN* from me.
Application of the Bazant et al models beyond the base conclusion of enough energy available for propogation is erronious imo. Conclusions in BLGB stating *proof of...* are also erronious. If you choose to argue such ad infinitum, feel free.
I don't see many claiming "proof of" anything as you say....they are models and we all know that. Models have limitations. You aren't teaching anyone here anything.
As far as I know...Bazant and NIST understand basic physics concepts....something I have seen you fail on. So you will have to excuse me if I find most other sources more reliable then you are.
I tend to post the highest quality source material available. Much of it is the exact binary source that NIST used. Much of the data I present is at least comparable to that (not actually released) by NIST. Much of that data providing invaluable information about pre-release motion of the buildings in question. Your problem with that is... ?
I bundled them together in comparison with two individuals that I believe are incompetent (you and MT).
LOL. My responses don't necessarily directly relate to your exact word. Demanding that they should is funny. Ignoring the content of my responses on that basis, funnier still.
In the hope of getting something useful out of an ergo thread, ISTR someone recently posted a long, long list of peer-reviewed publications analysing the WTC and Pentagon crashes and collapses - does anyone have a link to that post? It's pretty clear evidence for the consensus, though that won't make a shred of difference to anything ergo says.
Consensus? Peer review? Where? I found maybe 3 or 4 papers in this list that might meet those criteria. The rest is mere filler. Much of it completely unrelated to the topic at hand. It's as if they scoured the internetz for any article, any at all that might mention WTC and threw it into their list of "peer-reviewed" papers. An utter joke.
Here are the scientific papers that bee dunkers cite that supposedly indicate scientific consensus regarding the Bazant/NIST WTC collapse models. See how many you can find that specifically corroborate NIST's/Bazant's findings. I found somewhere in the range of three to four. The rest is filler.
Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001 Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal
- An article about fire safety
World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31
- Does this sound like an article reviewing and corroborating the NIST findings?
A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
- Quintiere, who later went on to criticize NIST for a poorly conducted investigation that included serious omissions.
"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228
- Does this sound like an article reviewing and corroborating the NIST findings?
Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132
- Dr. Seffen's been debunked by several different authors.
Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421
- This was research used in the NIST report itself. It is not a corroboration.
Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s
- This was research used in the NIST report itself. It is not a corroboration.
The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716
- Written by one of the original NIST investigators. This is not an outside corroboration.
Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25
- Does this sound like an article reviewing and corroborating the Bazant/NIST findings?
The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8
- Overview of the NIST investigation by NIST investigators. Not an outside corroboration.
Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425
- An annotated bibliography on technical discussion of the "under-researched" and apparently rather rare phenomenon of "progressive collapse". Does this sound like a review and corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse model?
A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254
- An article by NIST fire researchers about the fireball created by the jet impacts. This is not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse model.
Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072
- An analysis of the jet impact. Is it a review and corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse model? No. It isn't.
High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671
- Very interesting, but not a review and corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse model. In fact it doesn't look like it's about the WTC at all.
Collapses of the world trade center towers [No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16
- Can't find this article anywhere, except on this very list which has been spammed across forums. Did find this though, which includes this gem:
Hence, it is seen that the flame temperature of fuel (1727oC) melted the steel columns (melting temperature of steel is approximately 1570oC). Even if the temperature was half the flame temperature, the steel would creep rapidly, losing its strength, resulting in buckling. When one floor collapsed, the weight of the floors above created an instantaneous ‘pancake
effect’, each floor collapsing on the floor below.
Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report [No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34
- You mean there was fireproofing and staircases in the World Trade Center?? That explains everything!
Funnily enough we have
Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing" ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26
- Where does the author reference, and support, the Bazant/NIST model of the WTC collapses?
Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15
-
The purpose of this study is to determine why the towers remained standing after impact
Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058
- Investigating the impacts on emergency services; transportation; information and communications; electric power; banking and finance; gas and oil production, storage and transportation; water supply; and government.
Utterly bogus entry. Unrelated to anything being discussed here.
Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187
- Zhou co-wrote the original Bazant paper. In any case, has nothing to do with an analysis of Bazant/NIST. Another bogus entry.
Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85
- An article attempting to validate the recently discovered phenom of "progressive collapse" which takes the notion of progressive collapse as a given.
Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78
- Does not reference Bazant or NIST. Therefore, cannot possible be assessing the current collapse explanation.
Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370
- Does not reference Bazant or NIST. Ditto.
World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392
This paper summarizes ... the following: 1) Structural damage sustained by the exterior frames of WTC 1 and WTC 2 due to the aircraft impacts, 2) Debris distribution resulting from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2. This includes an assessment of which tower’s debris damaged the remaining World Trade Center buildings and other nearby buildings, and 3) Structural damage sustained by WTC 1 due to the collapse of WTC 2.
- Um, how is this an analysis and corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse scenario?
How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533
number of different explanations of how and why the Towers collapsed have appeared since the event. None of these however have adequately focused on the most important issue, namely ‘what structural mechanisms led to the state which triggered the collapse’. Also, quite predictably, there are significant and fundamental differences in the explanations of the WTC collapses on offer so far.
- Authored in 2003. May have been influential in the later NIST reports, but not a corroboration of NIST findings.
Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551
- Yes? And?...
Brannigan, F.L. "WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
-Self-described "brain pickings" from a fire engineer. Cute, but not a peer-reviewd paper. Sorry.
Brannigan said:
The Learning Channel (TLC) presentation of "Anatomy of a Collapse" describes how the loss of the floor trusses in the WTC destabilized the columns.
but... Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing" ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382
- Authored in 2003. This doesn't look like it's a review and corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse model.
Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
- No reference to Bazant or NIST.
"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
- Not a peer-reviewed paper. No reference to Bazant or NIST.
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. "Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf) Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
- Bazant supporting his own analysis? How shocking!
Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
- Not a peer-reviewed paper, and no reference to the Bazant/NIST model.
"Dissecting the Collapses" Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
- A summary of the FEMA report. Not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
- Famous for his statement that the towers could fall "no other way but down" (since that was such a controversy at the time ) Not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (also available on-line)
- Not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis.
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A. "Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
- Probably an interesting article, but not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis.
"Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
- An analysis mostly of firefighting and evacuation. Not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis. Does not belong on this list. But they do say:
No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.
Marechaux, T.G. "TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
- This is a description of presentations at a symposium, including Chris Musso, and Thomas Eagar (see above). Not a peer-reviewed paper. Not an analysis of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis. Bogus entry.
Monahan, B. "World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
-
Background for the civil engineering design is given, and failure possibilities are provided. Various structural components, including the foundation slurry walls, the design of the column support system, and the performance of the floors are briefly described. The 110-story Twin Towers were constructed 30 years ago and utilized the latest engineering principles; they were stable, and workers as well as visitors often commented that the upper floors were comfortable and any sway was not noticeable during storms.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D. "Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?" Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
- Authored 2002. Is it an analysis of the Bazant/NIST model?
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center” Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
- A statement at congressional hearings by a director of NIST. How is this an outside peer-reviewed paper?
Pinsker, Lisa, M. "Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site" Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). The print copy has 3-D images.
- WTF? Has absolutely no relevance to any discussion of the collapses. Probably an interesting article. Not a peer-reviewed paper. About anything.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
- The famous NOVA video describing pancake collapse which fails to explain how the core disintegrates. Debunked.
Post, N.M. "No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report" ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Calling for more active involvement of the structural engineer in fire protection design and "extensive" additional study of the performance of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, an American Society of Civil Engineers' building performance study will not recommend changes to building codes at this time.
- Obviously a rousing affirmation of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects. A resource site.
- A "resource" site. Not a peer-reviewed paper.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives" ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
- Yes, the buildings held up well to the airplane impacts. What does this have to do with anything?
Application of the Bazant et al models beyond the base conclusion of enough energy available for propogation is erronious imo. Conclusions in BLGB stating *proof of...* are also erronious. If you choose to argue such ad infinitum, feel free.
... Application of the Bazant et al models beyond the base conclusion of enough energy available for propogation is erronious imo. Conclusions in BLGB stating *proof of...* are also erronious. If you choose to argue such ad infinitum, feel free.
...
(There are numerous things that I have proven conclusively, but I doubt this thread is the right place for such a discussion, and so irrelevant here)
Nonsense which leads to failure, the big CD conclusion delusion.
You attack Bazant's model to back in CD. There is no need to attack the flat earth model, we present reality. There is no need to attack Bazant's model which is applicable in the real world; you have to prove CD. You can't, so you attack Bazant's model and post claims of "proven conclusively", but you only have the CD delusion.
In light of all the evidence available to Bazant and the world, you are wrong. I think your blind drive to your predetermined CD conclusion is interfering with your ability to comprehend reality as it pertains to 911. You should start a thread on what CD mechanisms your delusions has.
So ? Makes no odds. Your error is the silly assertion that you'll get a decent approximation to the speed of the fall of an apple falling from the roof of a building without including air resistance.
You're doubting the value for what reason ? Bizarre.
You plug in these silly numbers:
"radius" of apple = 3.75 cm
density = 461.76 kg/m^3
mass = 101.9996 gm
And you report this silly result:
terminal velocity = 26.4875 m/s
t = 17.6167 seconds
Demonstrating conclusively that your grasp of physic, engineering & numbers extends no further than blindly plugging silly numbers into uncomprehended equations, and posting silly results for the clueless…
Pssst, femr, if you were to actually run the experiment with a bunch of real apples, and if you were to understand calculations, you would expect to get answers ranging from 16 to 19 seconds. And it would not be surprising in the slightest to get times as low as 15 or as high as 20 seconds.
So, "17.6167 seconds" is NOT the "right" answer. It's not the "best" answer, either.
It is a WORSE answer than "about 18 seconds", for reasons that have been explained to you in detail, but remain outside your well defended wall of ignorance.
But that's a horse that was beaten to death a long time ago. Too bad his death was in vain…
A little role-reversal is, in this case, enlightening.
I am going to "disprove" YOUR "apple fall in air" model & conclusions in PRECISELY the same manner that you bozos have "disproven" Bazant's model & conclusion about "crush down & crush up".
All set? Here we go.
Hold onto your slide rules, kiddies…
Ta da.
Done!
See, I've disproved your "theory".
They aren't spheres. There is no radius.
A radius is a fundamental component of your "theory".
What's more, I can even disprove the "theory of your theory".
According to your so-called "apple fall in air theory", your apple will never reach terminal velocity. It's right there in your math.
Your highest velocity is vimpact = vt SQRT[1 - e(-2gh/vt2)].
This only reaches vt if e(-2gh/vt2) = 0. It can never equal 0 for any value of h.
Ergo, IF it can be shown that any falling body in air DOES, in fact, reach its terminal velocity, then I've proven that even the math basis for your "so-called apple falling in air theory" is fatally flawed.
I can absolutely guarantee you that real apples, dropped from sufficient heights (and WTC 1, 2 or 7 are all sufficient), will not only reach terminal velocity, it will periodically exceed it.
By analogy:
Just as you have brought up the "non-rigid upper block", I have presented the "non-spherical apples".
Just as you have ignored entire fields of structural engineering (including mechanics, stress analysis, failure analysis, failure modes, etc), I have ignored entire fields of math & physics (including force vectors, solutions of nonlinear differential equations, etc).
Show me ANY essential difference between my alleged (and failed) disproof of "falling apples model" and your alleged (and failed) disproof of Bazant's "collapse model".
tk
PS. You wanted simple answers. I see that MT has finally said … uh … something. I don't expect that it'll be anything meaningful, but I don't have time to get to it right now.
Here are my 2 "simple" answers.
With absolutely zero surprise, considering your & Bazant's background & expertise, Bazant is right.
1. He is right about his model.
"Right" in this context means that he defined it explicitly.
It's a model. It has strengths & weaknesses. He discusses both of those in detail.
He is right about his math.
He is right about his conclusions.
He does not make the mistake (as bozos do) of confusing his model for reality.
That's my conclusion about Bazant.
Now turning to the local ankle-biters.
2. You bozos don't know what you're talking about. You've disproved nothing.
in exactly the same way that "not perfectly spherical apples" and "speeds not perfectly asymptotic to terminal velocity" do not disprove or undermine the validity of the falling apple model …
… "non-perfectly rigid upper blocks" do not undermine the validity of Bazant's models.
There's my simple, straightforward, honest answer. That you knew all along you would get.
The JREF forum is an excellent example of how the "debate" is 95% hot air and illusion.
So is AE911T.
The illusion here is the belief in the Wizard of Oz, that scientific authority has combed through the evidence and identified the initiation mechanism of all 3 buildings.
This is a dream, but if you are immersed in this dream, why would you carefully examine the available evidence yourselves?
This is why it is so important to recognize common myths for what they are before you can examine evidence in earnest. It is impossible to discuss the visual evidence with people who believe that the experts have done it already.
You must loose the immersion in myth before you can examine objectively. There is no other way. This has been the process of separating false knowledge from true knowledge for a long, long time. Excellent literature has been in circulation on the separation of true knowledge from false knowledge, and the power myth has over the mind for at least a few thousand years.
The art of observation has outstripped available theory in WTC research about 1 to 2 years ago on a different forum, but few have noticed. Head-strong in the illusion of certainty and expertise (belief in The Wizard), many visual features went unnoticed by those who thought they knew everything already.
Show me ANY essential difference between my alleged (and failed) disproof of "falling apples model" and your alleged (and failed) disproof of Bazant's "collapse model".
I'll get to addressing your "best effort" at at explaining Bazant soon.
And I'll give you my response regarding the question of "are the different theories?"
The JREF forum is an excellent example of how the "debate" is 95% hot air and illusion.
So is AE911T.
The illusion here is the belief in the Wizard of Oz, that scientific authority has combed through the evidence and identified the initiation mechanism of all 3 buildings.
This is a dream, but if you are immersed in this dream, why would you carefully examine the available evidence yourselves?
This is why it is so important to recognize common myths for what they are before you can examine evidence in earnest. It is impossible to discuss the visual evidence with people who believe that the experts have done it already.
You must loose the immersion in myth before you can examine objectively. There is no other way. This has been the process of separating false knowledge from true knowledge for a long, long time. Excellent literature has been in circulation on the separation of true knowledge from false knowledge, and the power myth has over the mind for at least a few thousand years.
The art of observation has outstripped available theory in WTC research about 1 to 2 years ago on a different forum, but few have noticed. Head-strong in the illusion of certainty and expertise (belief in The Wizard), many visual features went unnoticed by those who thought they knew everything already.
Originally Posted by dave thomasDave Rogers In the hope of getting something useful out of an ergo thread, ISTR someone recently posted a long, long list of peer-reviewed publications analysing the WTC and Pentagon crashes and collapses - does anyone have a link to that post? It's pretty clear evidence for the consensus, though that won't make a shred of difference to anything ergo says.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
I tend to post the highest quality source material available. Much of it is the exact binary source that NIST used. Much of the data I present is at least comparable to that (not actually released) by NIST. Much of that data providing invaluable information about pre-release motion of the buildings in question. Your problem with that is... ?
) Not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis.
