Bazant was right!! Imagine that

Mobertermy said:
Wouldnt the sand be more diffuse?
Click to expand...

Well a 50 pound solid object such as a lead ball would impart a greater impulse force. That is to say it would transfer its momentum in less time than the 50 pounds of sand. However if your neck could not withstand the load of 50 pounds of static load it would make little difference whether you were hit by the sand or the ball, with the added dynamic load your neck would snap quickly.
On the other hand you are a more solid object than the lower portion of the towers were. That is to say you have less gas filled spaces.

Secondly, in the case of the towers we have this rather coarse 'sand' impacting the floors within the confines of the perimter walls. We have a situation somewhat akin to dropping a load of 'sand' into a milk carton. Pour it in slowly and the carton will bulge but hold. Drop it in quickly and the carton will likely fail and split.
 
Mobertermy said:
I have read the paper. My comments so far have been my interpretation of that which are according to you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Did you miss this?

Zdeněk Bažant & Yong Zhou said:
The details of the failure process after the decisive initial trigger
that sets the upper part in motion are of course very complicated
and their clarification would require large computer simulations.
For example, the upper part of one tower is tilting as it begins to
fall (Appendix II); the distribution of impact forces among the
underlying columns of the framed tube and the core, and between
the columns and the floor-supporting trusses, is highly nonuniform;
etc. However, a computer is not necessary to conclude that
the collapse of the majority of columns of one floor must have
caused the whole tower to collapse. This may be demonstrated by
the following elementary calculations, in which simplifying assumptions
most optimistic in regard to survival are made.

For a short time after the vertical impact of the upper part, but
after the elastic wave generated by the vertical impact has propagated
to the ground, the lower part of the structure can be approximately
considered to act as an elastic spring. What is its stiffness C?
It can vary greatly with the distribution of the impact forces
among the framed tube columns, between these columns and
those in the core, and between the columns and the trusses supporting
concrete floor slabs.

For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go
into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely
though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the
most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the
building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution. According to
this hypothesis, one may estimate that C≈71GN/m (due to unavailability
of precise data, an approximate design of column
cross sections had to be carried out for this purpose)
Click to expand...
 
TexasJack said:
I think he's looking for CliffsNotes.
Click to expand...

I loaned them to Tony to make a photocopy, but never got them back. :D

Like 3 story steel exterior and core columns through the hourglass, so to our the days of our lives.

I'm not sure if sand and building debris in the form of 4 ton sections are really that good of an analogy. This always seems to come up and the basic physics is lost on some people.

Has anyone ever come up with an idiot proof analogy?
 
Mobertermy said:
I have read the paper. My comments so far have been my interpretation of that which are according to you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Your interpretation has been repeatedly shown to be false. You have repeatedly ignored explanations of what Bazant has done. You have ignored quotes of Bazant explaining what he has done.

Please stop acting like a troll.
 
Hokulele said:
Hey, we can always haul out the video of the excavator dumping a load of water on a car again.
Click to expand...

Really, I think that this is the problem. If someone on the 'truth' bandwagon sees water cutting steel, they are simply unable to relate it to 'aluminium wings cutting steel' and so on. These folks have (to paraphrase tfk) a flawed epistemology. They can't answer simple questions, can't reason. It bums me out.
 
carlitos said:
Really, I think that this is the problem. If someone on the 'truth' bandwagon sees water cutting steel, they are simply unable to relate it to 'aluminium wings cutting steel' and so on. These folks have (to paraphrase tfk) a flawed epistemology. They can't answer simple questions, can't reason. It bums me out.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Thank goodness that same lack keeps the vast majority of them out of the design industries.
 
triforcharity said:
That was fun!

Here you go!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo

Someone please embed this please. Thanks.
Click to expand...



It's incredibly easy to embed YouTube videos. You just place the video ID of the YouTube video you want between [yt][/yt] tags. The video ID is the string of characters after watch?v= in the URL of the video page.

For example, the above video was embedded with the following code: [yt]FM9FeEgI0Eo[/yt]
 
3bodyproblem said:
Deja vu-vu-vu.

Perhaps I spoke out of turn. If I see the same pics again I might come totally unglued. Then again I'm already a little unglued.
Click to expand...

Oh. I thought you were making a vague sexual innuendo implying that something like that would really turn me on. I mean come on, I'm not that desperate. It hasn't been that long since I've had a girlfriend, has it?
 
Mother of God... I just read through the second page of this thread. We have yet another guy who doesn't understand that Bazant never claimed his model reflected the real world? We have yet another genius who cannot understand the concept of "if it can happen in this case, it can happen in all other lesser cases"? Again?
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Mother of God... I just read through the second page of this thread. We have yet another guy who doesn't understand that Bazant never claimed his model reflected the real world? We have yet another genius who cannot understand the concept of "if it can happen in this case, it can happen in all other lesser cases"? Again?
Click to expand...

You're so quick to assume that they are two different people. I'm a skeptic. All new posters are socks of old ones until proven otherwise.
 
cd looks like gravity collapse due to gravity... 50#? right

... gravity is the primary energy source for the WTC 1, 2, 7 demise and CD.
The WTC gravity collapses do not look like CD, CD looks like a gravity collapse.

Intact vs not intact matters. I'd rather someone drop fifty punds of sand on my head than a fifty pound lead ball. On 911 upper portion doesnt appear intact.
Click to expand...
... classic, "failed to take physics" statement made before you are smashed by sand and lead ball for good measure.

Why not opt for a bale of hay, or feathers that weighs 50 pounds. ... avoiding science?

Intact u might miss, not intact means a better foot print to smash things more, not just put a hole through the target.

Models? Intact? It is a model! However; a good dry humor session is always appreciated as the "I-am-not-a-truther-but-could-be-a-sock" winter attack first wave hits JREF in time for Christmas and the holiday season.
I almost cut off some skin with the pressure washer, can't imagine letting 50 pounds of water from the pressure washer hit me on the head!
Water boarding for CARS! Confess early and often!
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
You're so quick to assume that they are two different people. I'm a skeptic. All new posters are socks of old ones until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the sarcasm I intended when I italicized the words "another" and ended with "Again?" was a bit too subtle. Yes, I'm aware of how few actually "new" people there are who defend conspiracy fantasy. And I'm equally aware of the lines of argument certain repeat offenders take. What I was trying to do was be sarcastic and ironic. Looks like I failed. Sorry. :(
 
ElMondoHummus said:
I'm afraid the sarcasm I intended when I italicized the words "another" and ended with "Again?" was a bit too subtle. Yes, I'm aware of how few actually "new" people there are who defend conspiracy fantasy. And I'm equally aware of the lines of argument certain repeat offenders take. What I was trying to do was be sarcastic and ironic. Looks like I failed. Sorry. :(
Click to expand...


As penance, you must explain, accurately and succintly, why the towers didn't topple over like a tree.

Go!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom