Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[Major_Tom]

Pgimeno, post #27: "Certainly, Bazant doesn't deal with collapse initiation, where there is certainly room for a deliberate action against the towers. However, the amount of demolition theory believers that sustain that point of view is so low that they can be readily dismissed. Thus Bazant's comment as quoted is accurate in its context (the clear intention of dismissing claims on the merit of floor-by-floor explosive demolition) even if not scalpel-accurate."

In a demolition masked as a natural collapse, collapse initiation and the events leading up to it may be the only factors that can diferentiate between CD and natural collapse.

Just about every researcher whose comments I have been studying for the last few years would agree.

How would any collapse progression features like fall time and destruction of concrete differ between the two cases? Listing natural collapse progression features to distinguish between CD and natural collapse cannot provide "proof" of no CD since we expect the same results in both cases.

One example is fall time.

One of the authors of BLGB, Frank Greening, has this to say about the WTC7 fall time (Notice how fast real demolitions are seen to collapse):

E. Yarimer at London University appears to be one of the few engineer/scientists who has studied real building demolitions by explosives. He has at least two papers on this subject, both written back in the 1990s, (and unfortunately hard to find on the web).

Here is a quote from the first (1994) paper:

“The current practice in controlled demolition (CD) by explosives is to pre-weaken the building on most floors, and to blast only a portion of the floors, for example one floor in two, or one floor in three. Even so, the number of charges to be placed in individual boreholes can be large: up to 6000 charges have been used depending on the size of the job. The blast floors will readily disintegrate, but the non-blast floors need the force of the impact in order to break-up. Even on the blast floors, the perimeter walls above the ground floor are usually not charged for safety reasons, and they are expected to break up by impact. The entire process is driven by gravity but the downward velocities are attenuated by the energy absorption at the point of impact, and the motion will accelerate less than a case of free fall; it may even decelerate. A spectacular case of decelerating motion was that of Northaird Point in London in 1985, which came to rest with 10 floors still intact.”

In his second, (1996) paper, Yarimer used electronic and photographic timing devices to study a number of real CDs. One of great interest to the present discussion was the 1995 demolition of a 20-story high-rise known as Sandwell East Tower. This demolition showed - as was observed for some other CDs studied by Yarimer - a latency period of ~ 1.5 seconds before significant bulk motions were detected.

I have taken Yarimer’s data to look at the accelerations for the Sandwell East Tower CD. Some time-drop data for the first 5 seconds are: 0 s, 0 m; 1 s, 0 m; 2 s, 1.8 m; 3.0 s, 10 m; 4.0 s, 22.3 m; 5.0 s, 35.9 m. These data show the collapse was well below free fall. Indeed, Yarimer states in his discussion of this data: “Near time t = 0, the calculated accelerations are influenced by the observed latency, thus lifting the estimate of the upwards reaction force.” It appears that even Yarimer had t(0) problems!

Nevertheless, I have analysed Yarimer’s data (with allowance for the t(0) problem) using the same approach many of us have applied to WTC 7 collapse data. What is most significant is that, even with a time shift of ~ 1.5 seconds, the Sandwell East building fell only about 40 meters in the first 4 seconds of bulk motion with an acceleration of no more than 5 m/s^2. And let’s remember that this was observed for a real-world CD on a 20-story building. Scaling this result to a 47-story, (WTC-7-sized building), I would predict a 50 % collapse to take at least 6 seconds and allowing for a latency period of about 1.5 seconds, a full collapse to take ~ 10 seconds or more.

D. Isobe et al. have carried out finite element calculations on a 20-story steel framed building subjected to a Kobe-wave type of seismic collapse. Isobe found that incremental collapse begins
after an initial 26-second period of vibration during which time plastic hinges are formed and column fractures occur near the ground level of the building. The modelled structure was 50 % collapsed about 10 seconds after the first bulk downward motion, and still only about 35 % collapsed after 14 seconds!

Thus we see experimental and theoretical confirmation that the global collapse of a 20-story building would take at least 10 seconds to partially collapse from deliberate man-made explosive or natural seismic trauma to lower portions of its structure.

One can only wonder what mysterious combination of forces brought down a 47 story building in less than 8 seconds....."

(Source: The 9/11 Forum)


Notice that even real demolitions are not measured to fall at freefall or anywhere close.

(Also note that Greening has serious questions about WTC7).

We see numbers like 0.6g average accelerations for known demos.

So how can anyone distinguish between CD and natural collapse for WTC1 by citing average acceleration and fall times? They can't.

 

[AZCat]

Must be worth noting that core column destruction did arrest for significant portions of the core of both WTC 1 & 2.

Has anyone ever estimated the height of the remaining section of the core?

 

[AZCat]

Notice that even real demotions are not measured to fall at freefall or anywhere close.

(Also note that Greening has serious questions about WTC7).

We see numbers like 0.6g average accelerations for known demos.

So how can anyone distinguish between CD and natural collapse for WTC1 by citing average acceleration and fall times? They can't.

Of course. You still have to account for momentum transfer, which makes up the bulk of the "slow down".

 

[femr2]

Has anyone ever estimated the height of the remaining section of the core?

As the remnants are not *level* there's quite a difference between the highest elevation, and lowest, but it's fairly clear that core destruction began to arrest around the upper mechanical floor region (WTC1). WTC 2 is similar, but slightly more even. Full width of WTC1 core survived lower down. Will grab some metrics later. Will have to wade through...
wtc-1-core-remnant-motion
and
wtc-2-core-remnant-motion

 

[AZCat]

As the remnants are not *level* there's quite a difference between the highest elevation, and lowest, but it's fairly clear that core destruction began to arrest around the upper mechanical floor region (WTC1). WTC 2 is similar, but slightly more even. Full width of WTC1 core survived lower down. Will grab some metrics later. Will have to wade through...
wtc-1-core-remnant-motion
and
wtc-2-core-remnant-motion

Cool - I'll read this later. Thanks for answering.

 

[pgimeno]

Pgimeno, post #27: "Certainly, Bazant doesn't deal with collapse initiation, where there is certainly room for a deliberate action against the towers. However, the amount of demolition theory believers that sustain that point of view is so low that they can be readily dismissed. Thus Bazant's comment as quoted is accurate in its context (the clear intention of dismissing claims on the merit of floor-by-floor explosive demolition) even if not scalpel-accurate."

In a demolition masked as a natural collapse, collapse initiation and the events leading up to it may be the only factors that can diferentiate between CD and natural collapse.

Just about every researcher whose comments I have been studying for the last few years would agree.

I don't know what people will you refer to when you say researcher. Eric Hufschmid calls himself a researcher and says that the towers fell in about 8-10 seconds and that that is proof of CD.

But you're making a strawman of my argument, by focusing on "the last few years" and a handful of people. The mainstream truther world and their theories is what Bazant is addressing. What am I talking about?


Typical truther claim 1: The towers fell at free fall or near free fall and that proves it was a CD.

Example 1: [nfurl]www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf[/nfurl]
Excerpt:

It appears therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story depends for the second stage of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with the use of explosives in a timed sequence.​

Example 2: [nfurl]www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050927220055973[/nfurl]
Excerpt:

The Commission also did not mention that the collapse of each tower had at least 10 features characteristic of controlled demolitions. For example, each collapse (1) began suddenly, (2) came straight down, (3) occurred at virtually free-fall speed, and (4) produced an enormous amount of dust, which happens when explosives pulverize concrete into tiny particles.​

Example 3: [nfurl]www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm[/nfurl]
Excerpt:

Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is conclusive evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.​

Example 4: [nfurl]www.erichufschmid.net/pdf/Painful_Questions_chapter_7.pdf[/nfurl]
Excerpt:

The video shows that the collapse occurred at the same rate as if somebody had dropped the steel beams in air from the top of the building. It aint possible for steel beams to bust through all of those floors without slowing down!​

Example 5: [nfurl]www.physics911.net/thermite[/nfurl]
Excerpt:

The observed near free-fall times of the WTC towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition.​

Typical truther claim 2: The seismic records are proof of CD.

Example 1: [nfurl]www.erichufschmid.net/pdf/Painful_Questions_chapter_7.pdf[/nfurl]
Excerpt:

According to the Columbia University Seismology Group, the North Tower created a shock of magnitude 2.3 (Figure 7-1), while the South Tower created a shock of 2.1. Their report also shows that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds and the North Tower collapsed in 8 seconds.​

Example 2: [nfurl]www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm[/nfurl]
Excerpt:

The Palisades seismic record shows that — as the collapses began — a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.​

Example 3: [nfurl]drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/Shake.html[/nfurl]
Excerpt:

So, if it takes at least 9.22 seconds for the roof to hit the ground, how could the ground quit rumbling after 8 seconds?​

Typical truther claim 3: pulverization of concrete is indicative of CD.

Example 1: See the second excerpt in Truther Claim 1, relevant part of the excerpt: "produced an enormous amount of dust, which happens when explosives pulverize concrete into tiny particles".

Example 2: [nfurl]www.physics911.net/thermite[/nfurl]
Excerpt:

Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. [...]

The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses.​

Example 3: [nfurl]www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/physics/[/nfurl]
Excerpt:

In trying to understand what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, perhaps the most glaring problem with the "official" models is their inability to explain the enormous dust clouds generated by the collapses.​

I have found many, many more, but it's a tough work to go through sites, select quotes and format them here. And you surely already knew, but I'm not writing only for you.

These are typical claims that Bazant addressed. He no doubt contributed in changing the mind of some truthers, who are now attacking him... for addressing them.

Some of these claims may be getting a bit weary now and getting out of fashion, but they were quite alive by the time [BLGB] was published and are still alive in many places as our recurring truthie visitors prove. Even Szamboti is cited to have freely fallen for that, in the first quote.

 

[cmcaulif]

Considering that Bazant Zhou postulates an axial impact - in their theory, not in the real world collapse - you'd think that they would have referred to the literature on axial impacts which existed well before their paper was written. I'm referring to a body of technical literature, some (probably most) of which has been experimentally tested.

I still don't know if using a more realistic, purely elastic theory, for an idealized, axial impact would result in the elastic limit being exceeded, or not. I tend to think so, based on calculations I've done, but I'm still not sure, since the situations weren't good enough matches to the BZ scenario. (As for absurdities of the BZ model which predispose it towards collapse, you can search my other writings on the subject. They mixed assumptions which both favored collapse, as well as favored survival, and made no attempt to quantify the relative implications of each. Thus, their paper is illogical! It proves nothing even remotely related to a real world collapse, because it can prove nothing. Kind of interesting that self-styled debunkers would fail to notice this, huh?)

However, an axial impact on a steel rod which exceeds the elastic limit doesn't automatically result in failure. Depending on the details of the problem, you could arrest the striking weight's motion, with energy being dissipated in plastic deformation. (This is what Gordon Ross attempted to calculate, though without benefit of the knowledge of the literature which already existed. Gordon was quite open to knowledgeable input and criticism, contrary to what some of the people who have smeared him have implied. I know this from personal communication. Unfortunately, I hadn't yet run across the body of knowledge about elastic/plastic deformations which follow axial impact, when we had these communications.) The plastic deformation wave travels at about 1/10th the speed of an elastic wave, in steel.

Ari-Gur, to name one researcher in elastic/plastic collision theory, has a relatively simple theory for this, which he has tested, and got fairly good experimental confirmation of his theory.

In the closure to Gourley's comments by Bazant and Le, they give the equations of motion for a two way crush, which includes variable crushing resistance rather than the constant energetically equivalent resisting force used in the papers.

Why not use these equations of motion, but substitute the curve F(u) that bazant used with a curve developed from pulse buckling theory?

Another approach, since the EoM is going to solved numerically (incrementally), you could calculate F at each time step using a stress update based on a rate dependent plasticity theory. This would probably make the model more general.

 

[pgimeno]

Care to explain what makes it illogical?

Use the search function, please. Here, at physorg, and the911forum.

It can't be "the most favorable scenario for collapse arrest" if it incorporates assumptions that both favor collapse, and that favor survival....

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

 

[Major_Tom]

Pgimeno, then perhaps the researchers I pay most attention to are not "typical truthers" because none of them advocate any of the arguments you have posted.

You are posting arguments by what I have called the "Tweedle-dee" side of the argument.

Tweedle-dee is not hard to debunk. But Tweedle-dee does not represent me or any of the researchers I frequently read in any way.

The most interesting arguments have been basically ignored while Tweedle-dee "debated' Tweedle-dum.

Bazant proves Tweedle-dee is wrong. I could do that too.

 

[pgimeno]

Pgimeno, then perhaps the researchers I pay most attention to are not "typical truthers" because none of them advocate any of the arguments you have posted.

Maybe, or maybe not. There are about as many conspiracy theories as truthers. There's a million versions to pick from. They may have chosen to distance from these nonsensical claims just because they exceed their rationality threshold, but be adhering to other nonsensical claims, like the demolition one, because it somehow fits within that threshold, yet it still being, just like the ones I posted, merely a faith-based idea with an absolute lack of evidence.

Bazant proves Tweedle-dee is wrong. I could do that too.

In an engineering journal with engineering arguments? Let me express my reserves.

 

[Major_Tom]

About 2 years ago I wrote: "Note: We must always view the problems of collapse progression and collapse initiation as 2 entirely different physics problems.

Coming up with a useful basic model of unassisted collapse progression once the building starts to move downward says nothing about the physics problem of collapse initiation."

Frank Greening, one of the authors of BLGB, replied: "Major Tom: I agree!

In fact, after an upper block has dropped a few floors, a "natural" collapse is essentially indistinguishable from a controlled demolition.

So yes, it is all about collapse initiation.....".
(Source: The 9/11 Forum)

That was in 2008. Basically every decent researcher I have encountered seems to agree on that point.


Dave Rogers also recognized this and states it eloquently here:

I've had a quick look through the paper, and I don't see anything particularly contentious about the hypothesis that the collapse progressed, broadly speaking, in the way you describe. I don't see anything contentious, either, about the statement that this mechanism does not prove that the collapse was unassisted by demolition devices; indeed, I suspect that no feature of collapse propagation could conceivably prove any such thing, because even a controlled demolition using explosives exhibits a natural collapse progression. It's collapse initiation that's the key differentiator in this instance.

Looking at collapse initiation and the events leading up to it is not my idea alone, and it shouldn't be confused with claims of no planes and space beams.

It shouldn't be confused with my person at all. It is not my idea.

Every decent 9/11 researcher from both sides of the fence can agree that the original initiation of each collapse and the events leading to it are perhaps the only time period in which an intentional demolition and a natural collapse are distinguishable.


It is foolish to miss this point and associate a careful study of the collapse initiation sequences of each building with claims of space beams, freefall for all 3 towers and no planes.

 

[DGM]

Looking at collapse initiation and the events leading up to it is not my idea alone, and it shouldn't be confused with claims of no planes and space beams.

It shouldn't be confused with my person at all. It is not my idea.

Every decent 9/11 researcher from both sides of the fence can agree that the original initiation of each collapse and the events leading to it are perhaps the only time period in which an intentional demolition and a natural collapse are distinguishable.


It is foolish to miss this point and associate a careful study of the collapse initiation sequences of each building with claims of space beams, freefall for all 3 towers and no planes.

Look as much as you want, who's stopping you? In fact I personally give you my blessing (for all it's worth).

The only thing I ask is you don't draw conclusions based on speculation.

Have at it.

 

[pgimeno]

Looking at collapse initiation and the events leading up to it is not my idea alone, and it shouldn't be confused with claims of no planes and space beams.

Looking for traces of CD in the collapse initiation, on the other hand, is easy to be confused with such claims, as they are all crazy ideas which don't count with a shred of evidence.

 

[ozeco41]

About 2 years ago I wrote: "Note: We must always view the problems of collapse progression and collapse initiation as 2 entirely different physics problems.

Coming up with a useful basic model of unassisted collapse progression once the building starts to move downward says nothing about the physics problem of collapse initiation."...

Yes!! And do I need to add "of course"?
The two phases of:
(1) "initial collapse" - which was when the top block started to drop; AND
(2) "global collapse" - which is what followed as the top bit smashed its way down destroying the lower tower;
..are distinctly separate and separable phases.
The global collapse can be explained relatively easily. It was truly inevitable as NIST concluded and stopped investigating at that point. Similarly Bazant and some others showed that the global energy available was sufficient to maintain that progressing global collapse - despite making some very conservative assumptions. Then, within the energy envelope of Bazant et al it is fairly straightforward the look at the details of how the collapse progressed. Then, because the real mechanism was far less energy absorbing than the Bazant approximation, consideration of the details also "Proves" that collapse was inevitable.

So much for the later, global collapse, stage.

The earlier stage of the lead-up to the initial collapse is harder to "prove" given that the mechanisms of this stage are mostly hidden. It is relatively straightforward to envisage how sagging floor joists could pull outer columns inwards; also how heating of the lower chord members of the floor joists could cause sagging and pull-in on the columns. From there how a "cascade" failure could develop. There is at least one clear picture of the two components and another showing many columns pulled inwards. The difficulty for "proof" is that there is no way to show that sufficient columns were affected by this mechanism OR to identify other mechanisms involved in the overall build up of the cascade failure.

Sure it is easy to rebut the usual "truther" bits of claims and the lack of any pro-truther coherent overall explanation of the initial collapse mechanism. But to the outsider "proof" of the sufficiency of the collapse mechanisms without demolition still depends on the logistic impossibility of the use of demolition in the impact zone only and without discovery before during or after the event.

But, on your original point, the two stages of what I term "initial collapse" ands "global collapse" are separate AND proof or disproof of demolition depends solely on the "initial collapse" phase. Reasons why the "truther" side may choose to confuse the two are obvious. It is not clear what benefit, if any, accrues to the debunker side by allowing or creating confusion of the two stages.

 

[ozeco41]

Looking for traces of CD in the collapse initiation, on the other hand, is easy to be confused with such claims, as they are all crazy ideas which don't count with a shred of evidence.

From my perspective the problem is one of discussion process.
Two or three years back it was possible to hold a reasoned discussion of specific issues and with parties from the opposing extremes.

Since all the legit topics have essentially been dealt with many times today's "discussions" tend to be polarised in to two extreme camps with personal denigration taking priority over discussion of the topic. For example my immediately preceding post and Major_Tom's point that the two phases of collapse are separate.

Without doubt a valid point. However the relevance to this thread being that the initial collapse is outside the scope of Bazant's model. So, beyond identifying that it is "out of the ball park", discussion of the initial collapse belongs in another thread. Mea culpa on that point to the extent that my previous post summarises the comparative ease/difficulty of proof for the two stages.

 

[leftysergeant]

We should be talking about how those 85% apparently simultaneously ceased to exist as columns.

Only an utter idiot thinks that they would have to simultaneously fail to initiate collapse. They progressively failed, if in a short span of time. You still have thousands of tons of steel, including a nasty great steel girder umbrela at the top, being borne sort of catawampus as the fires start. At this point, some of the burden of holding up the umbrella has been shifted to two or three columns, subjecting theem to new lateral stresses in addition to the axial stress they were supposed to bear until eternity or rust made them stop supporting it. Then you have the fires heating the steel and causing it to expand unevenly, putting more strain on the columns in several different directions. Sooner or later, this causes a joint to break, then another, then another and all of a sudden they are failing in files.

Snap and THUD! Look out below.

 

[bill smith]

Only an utter idiot thinks that they would have to simultaneously fail to initiate collapse. They progressively failed, if in a short span of time. You still have thousands of tons of steel, including a nasty great steel girder umbrela at the top, being borne sort of catawampus as the fires start. At this point, some of the burden of holding up the umbrella has been shifted to two or three columns, subjecting theem to new lateral stresses in addition to the axial stress they were supposed to bear until eternity or rust made them stop supporting it. Then you have the fires heating the steel and causing it to expand unevenly, putting more strain on the columns in several different directions. Sooner or later, this causes a joint to break, then another, then another and all of a sudden they are failing in files.

Snap and THUD! Look out below.

When only 15% or less of the columns near the top of a tall building are gone or damaged you do not talk about a 'top block' and a 'bottom block'....you talk about a hole in the building.

But if some kind pf magic eliminates the remaing 85% of the columns in the area of the hole THEN you can talk about a 'top block' and a 'bottom block'.

But first you must talk about where the 250 or so massive columns disappeared to and how they all disappeared at the same time.

You see there is no way that they could all have given way simultaneously. Even a progressive collapse like you postulate would see the building visibly distort and lean prior to collapse.

It's such a relief to throw Bazant out the window..

 

[Major_Tom]

Pgimeno and others,

On the question of applicability, we need to honestly recognize examples of people clearly crossing the line by applying the results of the Bazant 1-D stick model to real 3-D buildings.

True or false? In the following quote R Mackey clearly crosses the line, ascribing attributes of the Bazant 1-D stick model to a 3-D description:

Think of it in terms of impulse -- the total change of momentum at a particular impact. Impulse is equal and opposite, by conservation of momentum. Impulse is equal to F delta-T (force times the time over which the force is applied), or M delta-V (the raw change of momentum in its familiar definition P = m V).

When we look at the "upper block," it's delta-V is smaller than the delta-V experienced by the newly broken part of the lower block. As you say, the upper block decelerates by an average 1/3 g, while the lower block accelerates by an average 2/3 g. This is because the participating part of the lower block masses less than the participating part of the upper block -- it really is the compacted mass and upper block versus a small number of floors at a time, not the entire lower block.

The reason only part of the lower block participates at any given time is because the lower block is still a mostly intact sparse structure of braced columns. When it's hit, the columns lose bracing, get loaded eccentrically, shear their welds and bolts, and in some cases are totally overwhelmed and fracture entirely. These pieces break at a stress much too low to actually support the descending mass. This also has nothing to do with the strength of the perfectly intact building -- the descending rubble heap isn't contacting the lower structure at its strongest points, and it's introducing brand new failure modes, so the effective opposing strength of the lower structure is far lower than its ideal carrying capacity. Furthermore, where the lower structure does resist at or near its ideal strength, it can only do so for a very brief delta-T -- until reaching its failure strain, which takes only about ten milliseconds at the speeds of collapse -- and this is not enough to amount to all that much total impulse.

The upper chunk, in contrast, is cushioned by a thick layer of rubble. This is compacted about as far as it can, thus it doesn't have those complex failure modes and it doesn't suffer much more "damage" even at much higher stresses. So the rubble pile remains, and the lower structure gives way. This is for the same reason you don't sink into the ground, even though you can push your finger easily through a cupful of soil.

The "upper block," what remains of it, rides on top of this cushion of debris. It is supported pretty well. It also only decelerates at that lower rate, thanks to the much greater inertia of the upper block + debris. So the only real force it suffers is the inertial force, i.e. its own self-weight times its deceleration, again about 1/3 g. It can be expected to survive this deceleration. It's only when the rubble pile has nowhere else to go and the upper block has to suddenly stop, dissipating all of its momentum in mere milliseconds, that it totally fails.

Again, this is slightly idealized, but you get the point. Unless you're a Truther.

I think this is a good example of how not to apply the crush down, then crush up attributes of the 1-D stick model to 3-D cases. Do others agree?

 

[bill smith]

Absolutely. It's a pleasure to see the Bazant distraction being frogmarched out of the real-world event.

 

[beachnut]

Pgimeno and others,

On the question of applicability, we need to honestly recognize examples of people clearly crossing the line by applying the results of the Bazant 1-D stick model to real 3-D buildings.

True or false? In the following quote R Mackey clearly crosses the line, ascribing attributes of the Bazant 1-D stick model to a 3-D description:



I think this is a good example of how not to apply the crush down, then crush up attributes of the 1-D stick model to 3-D cases. Do others agree?

You continue to produce nothing but talk and attack a model you can't refute, or match because you have no knowledge or skills to do engineering work. Publish your tripe and see what other engineers think of your failed attempts to back in CD while being obsessed with NIST and Bazant. You are paralyzed to do anything because of your biased CD delusion and lack of knowledge in engineering, math, and physics.

You are acting like Balsamo with your 1-D rant and exposing your lack of engineering skills by showing you don't understand models. Wow, you found the quote function! Progress. Prove your claims, stop exposing your lack of knowledge attacking NIST and Bazant; this is good advice, you can't prove your points attacking NIST and Bazant. But you can't help it.

Publish your work. At least bill smith support you with all her engineer skills and idiotic 911 delusions.