This post has no basis in reality like your paper!
So how did they fool everyone to think they saw a plane hit?
RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted
- Thread starter GregoryUrich
- Start date
So how did they fool everyone to think they saw a plane hit?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Did you happen to notice my reply to Einsteen where I suggested exactly the same thing?
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here, MT. You've pointed out repeatedly that the core columns failed at the weld planes, which as far as I can see is a very important observation in understanding why the towers fell. However, all you can seem to infer is that the failures suggest something nefarious, rather than the obvious conclusion that the system failed at its weak points. As I've already said, this suggests that the collapse was more energitically favourable than Bazant's simplification suggests, so there is less, not more, need to invoke additional weakening mechanisms.
Dave
That was easy. Subject is how they fooled everyone to think that the initiation zone, IZ, suddenly disappeared an hour later and allowed the tower above to drop on the tower below.
Or, who convinced everyone that the potential energy of the mass above IZ exceeded the strain energy of the structure below and that this combination would cause the whole tower to disintegrate into 1000 000's of pieces.
It was Mr Bazant that within 48 hrs produced a scientific paper to this effect! No peer review, of course, in that short time ... and I wonder if the paper wasn't written 48 days before?
Anyway, the Bazant paper is just rubbish; assuming the mass above to be rigid to start with. It is not. Clearly seen on all videos. And then assuming that IZ disappears suddenly allowing free fall of mass above. The contrary is evidently seen on all videos.
And then these strange formulas about overload due to a rigid, instantaneous impact during one millisecond, when it is obvious that the mass above would just hang on to the top after having deformed IZ a little taking much longer, if it ever would happen.
I like the millisecond assumtion. Only an explosion could have produced the relevant energy in that time, which is 1000 times bigger than the release of potential energy from above = 40 kgs of diesel oil.
So you see beechnut - reality is sometimes painful. You see something on a video and you believe it is something else because it suits you.
That's why the efforts of G Urich should be applauded. It is only 64 months too late.
peteweaver
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,006
Bazant has a long history of researching creep, structural design and structural failiure.
He has enough knowledge and experience to write a speculative thesis on the collapses in 24 hours.
It just so happens that whilst he wasn't 100% right in every detail, his method was flawless, his logic and reasoning were correct, and the main point of his paper, that structural damage and fire brought about the collapses of the twin towers, is factually correct.
IF his paper was rubbish, it would have been rubbished by his peers (who possess the same level of SUBJECT RELAVENT qualifications, and similar hands on experience in the subject).
He has enough knowledge and experience to write a speculative thesis on the collapses in 24 hours.
It just so happens that whilst he wasn't 100% right in every detail, his method was flawless, his logic and reasoning were correct, and the main point of his paper, that structural damage and fire brought about the collapses of the twin towers, is factually correct.
IF his paper was rubbish, it would have been rubbished by his peers (who possess the same level of SUBJECT RELAVENT qualifications, and similar hands on experience in the subject).
Could you restate? I don't think 'hang on to the top' makes much sense.
Corrected that for you.
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
Heiwa admits his paper is wrong
No, Heiwa, I bolded your words specifically:
No, Heiwa, I bolded your words specifically:
Now, you claim:
Thus you admit your paper is wrong, Heiwa. Tell us how you can claim in your paper that planes hit the towers and now tell us there is NO evidence that planes hit WTC 1 and WTC 2. How are you going to get out of this mess you created for yourself?
??? I do not claim in my paper that the planes hit the towers - I just quote Nist stating that various plans apparentely impacted the towers ar various times. Why should I claim the opposite? If Nist claims it ... fair enough. It is not the topic we discuss = Gurich paper.
The important matter is, in this respect, that long time after impacts both towers suddenly collpsed for exactly the same - copy/paste - cause.
Two different towers, planes, impacts, different locations/angles, different fires, times but the cause is the same. Logical?
Of course not. Each incident must be analysed on its merits.
And as far WTC1 is concerned Nist conclusions do not tally with observations and science as Urich observes. Probably the same with WTC2 where the impact damage was much smaller.
As I have written a paper for children about WTC1 I participate in this discussion, because I find Urich findings useful ... and maybe I can improve them? Anyway, Urich has improved my paper.
Lets be fair, in your modelled scenario with your modelled failure modes it would appear there's not enough KE (I don't know why you say PE) to fail the next floor's columns. However in reality the top section did not directly descend and many columns were not involved in the collision. It sounds like you are making real life predictions off a rather dubious model?
So Heiwa, I believe you've been asked, and I hope I'm not missing something, but what about the people in the area who saw the planes hit the towers? We are not talking videos which are now available (which perhaps you think were doctored) but actual human individuals?
What about the people who have not been seen since that day? Where did they go? I knew two of them, personally, quite well; one in "Windows on the World," the other in a plane. I've spoken with the wife of the first, and the mother of the second, since. They have mourned.
Sorry to interject human concerns. But you keep talking about the children whom you've written for, so I figure I can bring up the victims.
What about the people who have not been seen since that day? Where did they go? I knew two of them, personally, quite well; one in "Windows on the World," the other in a plane. I've spoken with the wife of the first, and the mother of the second, since. They have mourned.
Sorry to interject human concerns. But you keep talking about the children whom you've written for, so I figure I can bring up the victims.
Haste makes waste = rubbish, which Urich demonstrates well.
And you have still not understood what we discuss. Structural damage and fire didn't brought any collapse of the WTCs!!
So what brought collapse according Nist/Bazant? Apparently released potential energy at unknown time that exceeded strain energy in the structure at some other unknown time = some mysterious 'overload' a little later.
Bazant seems to have overstimated the potential energy several times and underestimated the strain energy in the structures and ignored all the times required for various events, etc. And assumes that the bodies involved are rigid when they volum wise are 95% air.
Bazant has not got anything right ... except that his result suited his Masters perfectly. Within 48 hrs. It stinks.
Last edited:
OT - we discuss what can have happened and be seen when the potential energy is released that caused the collapses according Nist. We discuss WTC1. Any witness of that is very welcome. It is a very short time frame. I base my analysis on videos. What happened before release of potential energy at time (cause) or after initiation of collapse of the structure below at time (effect) is OT in this thread.
Urich is only interested in this short time frame.
My interest is that children are being informed correctly.
As others have said, the matter of the planes is absolutely not OT. If you remove the planes, your whole engineering paper is bogus. Heck, it isn't engineering, it's fantasy. And as long as you keep justifying your fantasies with the kids... Your work is every bit as much fantasy as "Alice in Wonderland" only a lot less educational.
Except, perhaps, as an inoculation against the Stupids.
Except, perhaps, as an inoculation against the Stupids.
You refer to my paper? Max PE is 340 kWh if the WTC1 top drops 3.7 m in vacuum and contacts the structure below. For that all structure in the initiation zone, IZ, have disappeared, how I do not know. I just assume it isn't there.
Then I assume it is there, and that 0.5 PE is used up to crumble it and sweep it out of the way.
So 170 kWh is available when the WTC1 top above impacts the tower below. It is KE. Actually it is not an impact - it is a bump. You would now expect that there is a jolt indicating impact, but the videos doesn't show any jolt.
Anyway KE = 170 kWh can only compress the structure below a little - 0.2%. Should be elastic. And then the top above should bounce up again and remain in position. Some lose parts may fall down below beside the tower below.
Most people still in the top above would probably have survived that. And then NYFD could have extinguised the fire.
BUT - if you look at all videos, the top above actually disintegrates before any potential energy is released. No top part above ever impacts or bounces on the structure below the initiation zone. I am sorry to say. Clever planted disinformation actually.
So the people in the top above was apparently murdered a fraction of a second before the tower below also disintegrated. OT of course. We just discuss the alleged release of potential energy (that never took place) and its effects on the structure below (that would not collapse even if the release of potential energy took place).
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
"My interest is that children are being informed correctly."
Wait a second. And you are telling them No Planes hit the towers?
Wait a second. And you are telling them No Planes hit the towers?
It doesn't matter if planes or birds or butterflies impacted the towers.Those impacts (fantasy?) didn't cause the release of potential energy (engineering) much later. It is quite obvious and not Alice in Wonderland.
If you can prove that the potential energy released, as alleged by Nist, caused the collapse of the building below, you are welcome. In my paper for children I just show the opposite. And it is not fantasy.
Grow up!
OK, Heiwa, you have stated that the people near the top of the building were, somehow, murdered.
How about the people on the planes who have never been seen again? Murdered, given a new identity, what? Again, you are speaking to someone (me) who knew one of the people on the plane -- flt 75, if I recall correctly.
And I wasn't a witness of the events, except in the same way W. was -- TV. (I was at work, in Detroit.)
And again, this is not OT, because it's obvious to the meanest intelligence (and you meanest intelligences all know who you are) that planes hit the buildings and did some serious damage.
Assuming you are in Sweden, well, I weep for the Swedish children.
How about the people on the planes who have never been seen again? Murdered, given a new identity, what? Again, you are speaking to someone (me) who knew one of the people on the plane -- flt 75, if I recall correctly.
And I wasn't a witness of the events, except in the same way W. was -- TV. (I was at work, in Detroit.)
And again, this is not OT, because it's obvious to the meanest intelligence (and you meanest intelligences all know who you are) that planes hit the buildings and did some serious damage.
Assuming you are in Sweden, well, I weep for the Swedish children.
Pls read the thread + my paper where it is quoted that planes impacted the towers. No big deal. But it could have been a butterfly!
Alice drops through a hole in the ground and arrives in Wonderland.
And in Wonderland many strange things happens.
One of them is that a child is jumping in a bed ... and, instead of bouncing up and down, the bed is destroyed and the child falls down, down, down and the bed goes into thousand of pieces and the child dies.
Many children get terrible dreams of such things. I tell them they do not happen in the real world. I tell them evil persons make up such bad things.