How does Bazant's new paper disprove demolition by heat-weakening?

[Max Photon]

Greetings everyone.

In the soon to be published paper

Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers:
What Did and Did Not Cause It

by Bazant, Le, Greening [Apollo20] and Benson

we find the following in the abstract:

"Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it has not been checked whether the recent allegations of controlled-demolition have any scientific merit. This present analysis proves that they do not."


Here is this thread's question:

How does Bazant's paper prove that controlled-demolition by heat-weakening - or MAX-MIHOP - has no scientific merit?


Max

 

[Mince]

Christophera....err....Max;

How does any scientific paper prove that the Earth isn't held up by a giant, invisible candy cane?*







*Yes, I know I'm being petty and juvenile. In others words, I'm giving this thread its due attention. You're doing the same thing, only you're masking it as ignorance of physics, chemistry and scientific principles.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Max, for cryin' out loud! Was there any need to start a new thread? We've got the gist of your idea from several other threads.

And Mince, Christophera had the decency to stick to one or two threads. Max is just being an attention whore.

Max, please stop it.

 

[Max Photon]

Max grade ahead. Tricycles not allowed.

Max, for cryin' out loud! Was there any need to start a new thread? We've got the gist of your idea from several other threads.

And Mince, Christophera had the decency to stick to one or two threads. Max is just being an attention whore.

Max, please stop it.

Skinny, if you can control your control issues for just a moment...

First, thread is free, so you can unclench.

Second, the topic was a bit off-topic on the other thread.

Third, this is a very important question and it deserves serious answers, especially from the two resident authors, when they are in a position to comment.


May I suggest that if the thread bothers you, simply ignore it.

 

[Mince]

And Mince, Christophera had the decency to stick to one or two threads. Max is just being an attention whore.

I was speaking more in terms of mental acumen. But your point is certainly accepted.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Skinny, if you can control your control issues for just a moment...

First, thread is free, so you can unclench.

How condescending. Max, I try to remain polite (OK, attention whore wasn't very nice) so please don't use that tone with me.

Second, this is an important question and it deserves serious answers, especially from the two resident authors, when they are in a position to comment.

Max, this thread is about your ideas, which are already being discussed in other threads. Don't pretend it's about the paper, particularly if the authors are not in a position to comment on it.

May I suggest that if the thread bothers you, simply ignore it.

I can try to. Can I suggest that you make it easier on me by not posting the same idea in multiple threads?

 

[DGM]

Greetings everyone.

In the soon to be published paper

Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers:
What Did and Did Not Cause It

by Bazant, Le, Greening [Apollo20] and Benson

we find the following in the abstract:

"Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it has not been checked whether the recent allegations of controlled-demolition have any scientific merit. This present analysis proves that they do not."


Here is this thread's question:

How does Bazant's paper prove that controlled-demolition by heat-weakening - or MAX-MIHOP - has no scientific merit?


Max

In don't think it does Max.

Of course we all know that heat weakening did occur (fires funny like that) so I'm not sure what your point is. Do you just need a little foot up over the conventional CD conspiracy theorists?

 

[Max Photon]

What is the scientific basis for Bazant ruling out demolition by heat-weakening

In don't think it does Max.

Of course we all know that heat weakening did occur (fires funny like that) so I'm not sure what your point is. Do you just need a little foot up over the conventional CD conspiracy theorists?

Well DGM, if you are not sure what my point is, let me clarify.

As you say, heat-weakening did occur.

Taking it farther, in Bazant's model heat-weakening caused collapse initiation. (Same with NIST's.)

Okay - heat-weakening caused collapse.

Now Bazant's paper claims to PROVE that controlled-demolition - any kind of controlled-demolition - has no scientific merit.

What was Bazant's scientific basis for ruling out controlled-demolition by heat-weakening?

(For the very slow: Since Bazant PROVED controlled demolition had no scientific merit, and since controlled-demolition by heat-weakening is but a subset of controlled demolition, Bazant PROVED controlled-demolition by heat-weakening had no scientific merit.)


It should be a simple affair for the authors to understand and answer this question.

 

[DGM]

Max:
The first line in my reply was my answer to your question.

(Me) I don't think it does Max.

(You)How does Bazant's paper prove that controlled-demolition by heat-weakening - or MAX-MIHOP - has no scientific merit?

I think they were pointing toward CD in the conventional meaning.

 

[T.A.M.]

Oh, I didn't see this thread coming.

Carry on people.

TAM

 

[Max Photon]

Hey, have you seen the new paper by Bazant and Photon?

Max: The first line in my reply was my answer to your question. I think they [Bazant et al.] were pointing toward CD in the conventional meaning.

Okay, let's say you are correct, and Bazant ONLY meant controlled demolition in the conventional sense - with high-explosive (or, to be generous, thermal) cutting, and was speaking nothing of - and meant to imply nothing about - controlled-demolition by heat-weakening.

Bazant's model is that heat-weakening initiated the collapse of the towers! (And yet you Simpletonians constantly argue that there has never been and could never be CD by heat-weakening.)

Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask Column God if he ruled out or disproved that the heat-weakening could have been accentuated by deliberately plant incendiaries.

If his answer is yes, how did he prove demolition by heat-weakening was scientifically meritless?

If his answer is no, perhaps he might re-word the troublesome sentence in his abstract, since it conveys yes.


Shouldn't the abstract read something like:

The findings from this analysis:

• Support the hypothesis that gravitational energy was more than sufficient to drive collapse;
• Are consistent with video observations and estimated fall times;
• Are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the towers collapsed aided by high explosive or thermal cutting;
• Are neutral with respect to [or do not address] the hypothesis that the towers collapsed because of deliberate, catalyzed heat-weakening.

Bazant, Photon, Le, Greening & Benson

 

[T.A.M.]

NO, us "simpletonians" argue that there is no evidence that collapse initiation via weakening of the steel was the result of thermite.

TAM

 

[Totovader]

How do you heat weaken a building into a controlled demolition?

Get a bunch of people together and ask them to rub the supports with a bunch of rocks really really really fast?

 

[Good Lt]

How do you heat weaken a building into a controlled demolition?

Get a bunch of people together and ask them to rub the supports with a bunch of rocks really really really fast?

Obviously.

 

[Max Photon]

How to demolish the WTC towers by heat-weakening the steel.

How do you heat weaken a building into a controlled demolition?

Simple. Heat the steel around impact floors to reduce the strength of the steel, to induce deformation - you know, a little sagging here...a little bowing there...

At some point, the weakened, deformed steel can no longer support the load.

Once the tower gets moving, gravity does the rest. Done.


Incendiaries were used to ensure that the towers migrated from global stability to global instability - to ensure collapse after the impact and fires. Incendiaries simply "pushed the towers over the edge".


Totovader, if you don't get this by now, you are one slow critter.

 

[Reality Believer]

Max, how about proving that your hypothesis is physically possible? No one here thinks it is. If you are a man of the scientific method, then move on to the next step. You seem to be caught in an infinite loop of yakety yak. How about a scale experiment proving that thermite heat weakening is even possible? The Mythbusters are in your neighborhood. Give them a jingle.

You can't be wrong, can you?

 

[twinstead]

How can anybody claim something as true that cannot be shown to be even physically possible?

 

[uk_dave]

Once the tower gets moving, gravity does the rest. Done.

But not in a controlled manner

Incendiaries were used to ensure that the towers migrated from global stability to global instability - to ensure collapse after the impact and fires. Incendiaries simply "pushed the towers over the edge".

Try thinking of the planes as your incendiaries.

Oh and BTW Max, welcome to the world of the official account.

 

[D'rok]

Incendiaries were used to ensure that the towers migrated from global stability to global instability - to ensure collapse after the impact and fires. Incendiaries simply "pushed the towers over the edge".

How did these incendiaries survive the plane impacts?

 

[pomeroo]

Okay, let's say you are correct, and Bazant ONLY meant controlled demolition in the conventional sense - with high-explosive (or, to be generous, thermal) cutting, and was speaking nothing of - and meant to imply nothing about - controlled-demolition by heat-weakening.

Bazant's model is that heat-weakening initiated the collapse of the towers! (And yet you Simpletonians constantly argue that there has never been and could never be CD by heat-weakening.)

Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask Column God if he ruled out or disproved that the heat-weakening could have been accentuated by deliberately plant incendiaries.

If his answer is yes, how did he prove demolition by heat-weakening was scientifically meritless?

If his answer is no, perhaps he might re-word the troublesome sentence in his abstract, since it conveys yes.


Shouldn't the abstract read something like:

The findings from this analysis:

• Support the hypothesis that gravitational energy was more than sufficient to drive collapse;
• Are consistent with video observations and estimated fall times;
• Are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the towers collapsed aided by high explosive or thermal cutting;
• Are neutral with respect to [or do not address] the hypothesis that the towers collapsed because of deliberate, catalyzed heat-weakening.

Bazant, Photon, Le, Greening & Benson

This concept you invented--demolition by heat-weakening: why do people who work in the demolition industry think that you don't know what you're talking about? Are they lying? What you know that they don't? Is there a demolition specialist who thinks you might have something? How do you know things that people who have strong credentials in science and engineering have never heard of? Why should we take your baseless, uninformed speculations seriously?