Question for Apollo20

[Gravy]

Still waiting, Golden Bear.

 

[beachnut]

Fair enough. I'm still a bit confused as to your (or your co-authors') justification for listing revision dates on the cover page, but nowhere actually identifying what revisions were made. Perhaps I will try and contact Bazant on this issue, as it appears he's the one driving the bus.

Who would know? You are confused on 9/11 also, what is new?

Who is driving yours? 9/11 truth a runaway bus, confused and fact less. Great question to Greening, he answers twice and you still quibble and rant mindlessly towards what end? At least he answered your question.

 

[pomeroo]

I love a discussion about Greening etal releasing details on a paper (comments or otherwise) while S. Jones will release practically nothing of his for verification...

TAM

The contrast is between a real scientist and an agenda-driven charlatan.

 

[Max Photon]

...and M a x caaame ... ["...and Max came tumbling after." Okay honey, bedtime.]

You know, I emailed Bazant, the President of Northwestern University, and the President of the ASCE regard the paper mentioned in the OP, and gently suggested that perhaps - just perhaps - they should stop the press, and make sure that...well, you know the rest.

So, I think a likely explanation for the paper's delay is that they are slow readers.

 

[A W Smith]

You know, I emailed Bazant, the President of Northwestern University, and the President of the ASCE regard the paper mentioned in the OP, and gently suggested that perhaps - just perhaps - they should stop the press, and make sure that...well, you know the rest.

So, I think a likely explanation for the paper's delay is that they are slow readers.

you need to get over yourself

 

[Apollo20]

Max, you claim that you "emailed Bazant, the President of Northwestern University, and the President of the ASCE regard the paper mentioned in the OP"

Well, funny you should say that because Ace Baker assures me he did the exact same thing!

So, you can't take all the credit! (You guys aren't in cahoots by any chance?)

HOWEVER, I can tell you the REAL reason for the extended review of the paper is much more mundane ... but is something I have seen happen in academic/scientific circles many times before.

One day I will tell you all about it!

 

[Max Photon]

Just for fun, anyone care to speculate?

What is the mundane reason for the review delay?

Thus far we have:

• Max Photon's pestering
• Ace Baker's pestering
• The cross product of Max Photon's pestering and Ace Baker's pestering
• Typos
• Meritorious ribbon delivery snafu

But the pestering is situation-specific;
Even engineers can use spell check;
There is such a glut of meritorious ribbons that you can scoop them off the ground...

...so these can't be the reasons.


Anyone?

 

[T.A.M.]

oh no...well what will they do now that a couple of people have emailed them and told them to "hold the press"...lol

TAM

 

[Max Photon]

How does Bazant disprove controlled demolition by heat-weakening?

By the way, here was and still is my complaint...

From the abstract of Bazant et al.: Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers:...


"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."


I find this section of the abstract catastrophically misleading.

Am I not correct that Bazant is trying to say that this collapse analysis - which takes into account various modes of energy consumption - is more consistent with observations than is the notion that explosives cut the towers, contributing to near-free-fall collapse times? Well cutting is but one possible mode of demolishing the towers!

Now, the vast majority of people who read this paper are only going to read the abstract. They will naturally take this paper to mean that the world's Column God said NO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of any type or mode whatsoever!

But does this paper PROVE that incendiaries were not used to get the towers moving, by helping cause the floors to sag, and columns to experience visco-elastic buckling?

Does Bazant's analysis (and his previous analysis) consider that the 600C steel temperature referenced might have been thermite-induced?

Bazant's analysis fits observations of the towers' movement. Does the analysis fit the observations seen in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C: the 7 major smoke releases - all 1 minute +/- a few seconds; the pressure pulses; the coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs; the white glows; a 10 minute metal fire; numerous metal flows; the white flashes; the hanging objects changing their positions over time? NIST says these phenomena are correlated!!! Does Bazant's analysis explain these correlated phenomena that reached a crescendo right before collapse?


Is it really warranted for someone with so much gravitas to strongly imply:

Column God proved that controlled-demolition has no scientific merit whatsoever, period.


It seems as bullying and irresponsible today as it did the first time I read it.


Does anyone see what I am talking about?

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

(Good grief! I use his paper to support controlled-demolition by heat-weakening.)


Max Baker

 

[Max Photon]

The crickets are now getting overtime.

 

[Mince]

The crickets are now getting overtime.

Maybe you're annoying them in a kid sister kind of way. Maybe they believe you have no idea what you're talking about and won't waste any effort on a commoner. You know, they might think it's "cute" how Jonny Electron tries to talk on their level after having recently taken freshman physics, but they really don't have time for his antics.

Hey, I'm just guessing what their perspective might be...since you're apparently so worried about it.

 

[T.A.M.]

Max:

The author is not responsible to research every single damn CT on how the explosives may have been used, where they were put, who put them there, what type they were etc...

You are assuming a truther audience, where as Bazant and Greening are expecting a reasonable, rational audience.

Besides, as no papers have been published in any REAL JOURNAL, concerning Controlled Demolition, I am surprised they even give the theories credit enough to merit mention.

Beyond all that, it is unlikely that complaints from you, or one hundred truthers, will get such a statement removed from the abstract.

TAM

 

[Major_Tom]

Consider the following statement:

"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."

This is a false and misleading statement.

It is probably intentionally misleading.


The paper in question addresses an overly simplistic "physics problem".


To the degree that the mathematical argument has merit, it certainly doesn't address the question of whether the "allegations of controlled demolition have any sceintific merit".


The claim that it does is not true if unintentional, and an explicit lie if intentional.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Consider the following statement:

"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."

This is a false and misleading statement.

It is probably intentionally misleading.


The paper in question addresses an overly simplistic "physics problem".


To the degree that the mathematical argument has merit, it certainly doesn't address the question of whether the "allegations of controlled demolition have any sceintific merit".


The claim that it does is not true if unintentional, and an explicit lie if intentional.

Why do the theories of controlled demolition have Scientific merit if they do not match the available empirical evidence?

Thermite does not survive the fires and impacts, explosives degrade in fires I have personally tested them they do not work, I even tested Ammonium perchlorate.

Heat weakening has the most merit but there should be considerable amount of evidence from that.

There is no evidence of Monroe effect on any beams or shock waves from explosives.

I mean Scientific theories should have some science behind them, oh yes I do know that there are ways simple ways it could have been done, but that is just me jumping to assumptions without evidence.

Controlled demolition in every theory that I have seen is falsified by the problems in the theories.

Most of which were actually proposed by the truth movement and Controlled demolition theorist themselves.

Even when one of the theorist in controlled demolitions gives evidence it turns out to be just some random reactions or contaminants I mean they do not even know what to look for.

At least I know what would and what would not be evidence of Thermite, It would be a solid sphere of iron with aluminum, and other trace compounds with mineral formations not present below a certain temperature.

IT would not be Fe 3O4 that can form at much lower temperatures do to lewis acids.

I mean did anyone see the northern lights over New York city, or a laser beam?
How many people were fried by microwaves that day?
Give me something anything at all for which there is evidence, and which is reasonable, Please?

You could demolish the buildings with a hammer, damage enough insulation, and the crash a plane into it, water will work as well, I can tell you a thousand ways however there is no proof no scientific empirical data, or verifiable evidence that any were used.

 

[Gravy]

Consider the following statement:

"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."

This is a false and misleading statement.

It is probably intentionally misleading.


The paper in question addresses an overly simplistic "physics problem".


To the degree that the mathematical argument has merit, it certainly doesn't address the question of whether the "allegations of controlled demolition have any sceintific merit".


The claim that it does is not true if unintentional, and an explicit lie if intentional.

If the calculations in the paper are correct to a reasonable degree of certainty, then the paper does disprove the conspiracist claim that explosive demolitions caused the observed collapse effects.

Here's a video I made for laymen like you and me, Tom. It's about how obviously wrong the leading conspiracist's claims are.

Do either the paper in question or the video get anything wrong? If so, what? Do the conspiracists get anything right? If so, what evidence supports their claims?

You'd best be careful when you throw around the words "explicit lie" here. That's what your people do constantly, not us.

 

[Mince]

Ground Control here:

Consider the following statement:

"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."

This is a false and misleading statement.

It is probably intentionally misleading.


The paper in question addresses an overly simplistic "physics problem".


To the degree that the mathematical argument has merit, it certainly doesn't address the question of whether the "allegations of controlled demolition have any sceintific merit".


The claim that it does is not true if unintentional, and an explicit lie if intentional.

Your circuit's dead; there's something wrong. Can you hear me Major Tom?

 

[Max Photon]

Did Bazant ever even consider controlled-demolition by heat-weakening?

Max:

The author is not responsible to research every single damn CT on how the explosives may have been used, where they were put, who put them there, what type they were etc...

You are assuming a truther audience, where as Bazant and Greening are expecting a reasonable, rational audience.

Besides, as no papers have been published in any REAL JOURNAL, concerning Controlled Demolition, I am surprised they even give the theories credit enough to merit mention.

Beyond all that, it is unlikely that complaints from you, or one hundred truthers, will get such a statement removed from the abstract.

TAM

TAM, you are either missing or avoiding my point.

My point is simple:

Bazant's model does not eliminate controlled-demolition by heat-weakening - the most valid CD model going at the moment.

Yet that is exactly what is strongly implied, from THE world's expert on column failure.

Why? Like Blanchard and Gravy, did Bazant not differentiate controlled-demolition into two main modes: cutting and heat-weakening, and account for both?


Has Bazant ever publicly explicitly stated that he studied controlled-demolition by heat-weakening, and PROVED that it has no scientific merit?

Did Bazant ever even consider demolition by heat-weakening at all? (Good God, please say yes!)

 

[Max Photon]

MAX's model fits available empirical evidence - NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C better than NIST's

Why do the theories of controlled demolition have Scientific merit if they do not match the available empirical evidence?

CC, the evidence gathered by NIST for WTC2 is NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

That report describes many anomalous phenomena that occurred spatially and temporally near collapse initiation.

My heat-weakening model fits the "available empirical evidence" - as you put it - far better than NIST's or Bazant's.

So, based on your assertion, why does MAX-MIHOP not have scientific merit?

 

[A W Smith]

Max the reason they don't respond to you is because if there was thermite at the splice plates or column connections near the access panels then you would see concentrated bending at those specific areas in the videos. Which is not evident. There is no empirical evidence of concentrated heat at those locations.

 

[Max Photon]

There IS evidence of concentrated heat at WTC2's connections

Max the reason they don't respond to you is because if there was thermite at the splice plates or column connections near the access panels then you would see concentrated bending at those specific areas in the videos. Which is not evident. There is no empirical evidence of concentrated heat at those locations.

Consider the correlated events:

• Coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs
• 7 major smoke releases that lasted 1 minute +/- a few seconds
• Flames at the tops of windows (i.e. at the bottom of spandrels)

Are these not consistent with thermite fuse igniting thermite planted at gussets seats, not to melt the seats, but to burn the visco-elastic dampers?

Are you aware this would cause the floors to sag?

Is not the 10 minute aluminum fire right at the bolt access hole opening to Column 301/81 not consistent with burning thermite at the opening? (Remember, you can see in video Column 301fail, initiating the collapse!)

I could go on.


Has anyone here ever even read NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C?