RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted

[uk_dave]

I guess you couldn't imagine that I chose an intermediate floor well below the collapse zone so that we could then scale either way from there. As for the collapse zone, I guess you aren't reading what I am saying about that. I believe the collapse could have been initiated with thermal weakening and then on lower floors explosives could be used in the manner being discussed to keep the collapse moving. I really need to ask myself why I am even answering you.

So instead of proving that it was impossible for the collapse to progress without the aid of explosives/termites/elves, you seek to prove that explosives could cause damage to steel columns?

Way to go with yet another pointless exercise.

 

[pomeroo]

They also claim in the report that the amount of steel they got was too small a sample to be definitive. You should read the entire report.

Where does this claim appear?

 

[DGM]

RDX is fine. I think the explosive would be placed very close if not right on the surface. I wouldn't use more than one inch of standoff distance. I do think any operation like this would tamp the explosive, so unless there is a reason not to, I would say the equivalent of one 50 lb. sand bag over the explosive sounds reasonable. This is only theoretical and I would like to see just how feasible it is so if we can skip how the tamping would be done we can get a feel for how much explosive it would take.

If the explosive was on or very near the column we would see major deformation of the column. The charge would need to be much further away, Say 2 to 3 feet in order to displace it without actually cutting it.

 

[pomeroo]

Were the conclusions of the NIST report written by a thousand serious researchers? The answer is no. It was only a much smaller number who wrote those conclusions. Your logic is poor Ron.

Your logic is nonexistent. Who among those researchers is speaking out and challenging the report's conclusions? Tell us the names of scientists and engineers from other countries who have discovered errors. Show something specific that NIST got wrong. Show us where the conclusions are contradicted by the data.

You have been reduced to incorporating the nonsensical fabrications of an agenda-driven ignoramus--thermite used to "heat-weaken" the steel, indeed!--to bolster your discredited case.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If the explosive was on or very near the column we would see major deformation of the column. The charge would need to be much further away, Say 2 to 3 feet in order to displace it without actually cutting it.

Not if it was a flat ribbon charge. The load would be spread and would not come near the shear strength of the steel. There is deformation of these columns although it is slight. That is what a wide charge would do while still applying the force to cause the high bending moment on the weld.

I am thinking that a 200 to 300 square inch flat plastic explosive charge would have been used.

 

[pomeroo]

They also claim in the report that the amount of steel they got was too small a sample to be definitive. You should read the entire report.

Neither of us has read all ten thousand pages. Mark, on the other hand, has. Perhaps he will tell us where NIST complains about having insufficient steel to conduct the tests properly.

 

[pomeroo]

Not if it was a flat ribbon charge. The load would be spread. There is deformation of these columns although it is slight. That is what a wide charge would do while still applying the force to cause the high bending moment on the weld.

As Brent Blanchard constantly asks consiracy liars, where is the evidence of explosives? Where are the detonator caps? The bits of wiring?

 

[Gravy]

Neither of us has read all ten thousand pages. Mark, on the other hand, has. Perhaps he will tell us where NIST complains about having insufficient steel to conduct the tests properly.

No, this is good. I taught him that (okay, I had to beat him over the head with it repeatedly, but it shows he's capable of learning). However, he's only referring to the core columns that could be identified as being in the fire/collapse initiation areas, and NIST's point is that the moderate temperatures apparently experienced by those four (got it, Major Tom) identified core columns do not imply moderate temperatures for all core columns.

In the two buildings, there were 329 core columns (each three stories tall) traversing floors involved in fires. NIST has portions of four of these columns, and on average about half of each column was recovered. While these pieces allow some comparison of metal and paint condition with the predications of the fire model, the recovered steel represents less than one percent of all the core columns intersecting floors with fire. Thus, the forensic analysis indicating moderate temperature excursions in the recovered core columns does not, and cannot, give a picture of temperatures seen by the vast majority of the core columns. NCSTAR 1-3C, page xivi (PDF page 48)

 

[Corsair 115]

I am thinking that a 200 to 300 square inch flat plastic explosive charge would have been used.

Now you just need to find a way to prove your thinking is correct.

You have your theory; next up is for you to perform an experiment which will either verify or invalidate your theory. When can we expect to read the detailed parameters of your experiment?

 

[einsteen]

einsteen, why is it acceptable to you to run away from your claims, as you did in that WTC 7 thread, and to pick up elsewhere as if nothing had happened? Is that mature behavior? Are you, like Major Tom and Tony Szamboti, that afraid of reality?

What is scaring you 9/11 deniers so much?

Where are you talking about buddy ? I just checked the forum and this thread only, I've more to do than check each thread (I'm even not interested in each thread) but I remember that wtc7 thread very well, I'll have a look soon.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Where does this claim appear?

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C pages xlv and xlvi. Have fun.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf

 

[pomeroo]

No, this is good. I taught him that (okay, I had to beat him over the head with it repeatedly, but it shows he's capable of learning). However, he's only referring to the core columns that could be identified as being in the fire/collapse initiation areas, and NIST's point is that the moderate temperatures apparently experienced by those four (got it, Major Tom) identified core columns do not imply moderate temperatures for all core columns.

In other words, NIST contented itself with a cautious, conservative estimate of steel temperatures in the core columns. The agency bent over backwards to avoid extrapolating from small amounts of evidence and overstating its case, right?

 

[Gravy]

Now you just need to find a way to prove your thinking is correct.

You have your theory; next up is for you to perform an experiment which will either verify or invalidate your theory. When can we expect to read the detailed parameters of your experiment?

Well, his theory changes whenever he's questioned about it.

Just in the last couple of pages, Mr. Szamboti has claimed that the detonations could have been muffled. He took great offense when he thought he was being asked to point out when the detonations could be heard.

Yet in his paper "The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers," which is posted at the JONES, he says this:

"Witnesses, photos, and taped audio from that day, have attested to molten metal, demolition rings, sliced steel, and sounds produced by explosions."

..."There is very credible witness testimony of seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions, in many areas of the towers, both before and during the collapses."

So somehow these "damped," small detonations, which cannot be detected by audio equipment*, were heard and felt by witnesses before and during the collapses!

And now Mr. Szamboti is claiming that the collapses may not have started with detonations, but with "thermal weakening," and the sound of the subsequent helper detonations was masked by the sound of the collapses...yet was clearly audible to witnesses!

But wait: there's more! Now "thermal weakening" started the collapses? Then why does he say this in his paper:

"The physical evidence for the third theory, controlled demolition, is due to the characteristics of the twin tower collapses. In one of his many writings on the subject of Sept. 11, 2001, Dr. David Ray Griffin lists the eleven characteristics of controlled demolition, which both of the towers exhibited in their respective collapses.

Sudden Onset Dust Clouds Molten Steel Straight Down Horizontal Ejections Sliced Steel Almost Free-Fall Speed Sounds Produced by Explosions Demolition Rings Total Collapse Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials


"The NIST report wants to tell us that it was the perimeter columns that buckled and caused the collapses. The report says this was due to their deflection and bowing, caused by fire affected sagging floor trusses pulling on them, and the central core itself sagging due to plasticity and creep. The probable collapse sequences, as hypothesized by the NIST report, were issued at a press conference in NYC in April 2005. That press release, which also has aircraft impact simulations and a slide show, is available here.

http://www.nist.gov:80/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm

It appears the press release and report want to say that the entire interior structure was sagging."

But now Mr. Szamboti is claiming that the collapse started by sagging!

But wait: there's more! In his December paper, co-authored by Frank Legge, Mr. Szamboti says that because the yield strength of steel increases as its degree of distortion caused by thermal weakening increases, the collapses shouldn't have happened at all!

But wait, there's more: in the earlier paper, Mr. Szamboti says this:

"It is instructive that the first visible signs of failure on the North Tower are when the antenna mast moves downward by ten to twelve feet before the perimeter roof line moves. This is indicative of the central core suddenly and completely failing first."

Sudden onset! Except, no, the antenna didn't fall first at all, as this video shows:



Mr. Szamboti, please reconcile these remarkable contradictions!



ETA: *Or can they be detected by audio? I note that Mr. Szamboti writes, "Witnesses, photos, and taped audio from that day"

Okay, produce the taped audio with the – ahem! – damped detonations, Mr. Szamboti!

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave," indeed!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

In other words, NIST contented itself with a cautious, conservative estimate of steel temperatures in the core columns. The agency bent over backwards to avoid extrapolating from small amounts of evidence and overstating its case, right?

Baloney Ron. You just said a few posts back that they got all of the steel they needed. Well in the report it is obvious that they felt they didn't.

Additionally, they made the same type of statement with regard to perimeter columns also. See NIST NCSTAR 1-3C pages xlv and xlvi.

I think people like you who want to call themselves rationalists when making these types of arguments should consider a new handle. I think something along the lines of gulliblists might do.

 

[DGM]

Not if it was a flat ribbon charge. The load would be spread and would not come near the shear strength of the steel. There is deformation of these columns although it is slight. That is what a wide charge would do while still applying the force to cause the high bending moment on the weld.

I am thinking that a 200 to 300 square inch flat plastic explosive charge would have been used.

Won't work. Most of your blast wave would be along the face of the column not perpendicular. You need to think about the blast wave propagating along the thickness of the charge not radiating out equally in all directions. What you describe would give you a nice black mark on the column and a big noise.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, his theory changes whenever he's questioned about it.

Just in the last couple of pages, Mr. Szamboti has claimed that the detonations could have been muffled. He took great offense when he thought he was being asked to point out when the detonations could be heard.

Yet in his paper "The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers," which is posted at the JONES, he says this:

"Witnesses, photos, and taped audio from that day, have attested to molten metal, demolition rings, sliced steel, and sounds produced by explosions."

..."There is very credible witness testimony of seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions, in many areas of the towers, both before and during the collapses."

So somehow these "damped," small detonations, which cannot be detected by audio equipment, were heard and felt by witnesses before and during the collapses!

And now Mr. Szamboti is claiming that the collapses may not have started with detonations, but with "thermal weakening," and the sound of the subsequent helper detonations was masked by the sound of the collapses...yet was clearly audible to witnesses!

But wait: there's more! Now "thermal weakening" started the collapses? Then why does he say this in his paper:

"The physical evidence for the third theory, controlled demolition, is due to the characteristics of the twin tower collapses. In one of his many writings on the subject of Sept. 11, 2001, Dr. David Ray Griffin lists the eleven characteristics of controlled demolition, which both of the towers exhibited in their respective collapses.

Sudden Onset Dust Clouds Molten Steel Straight Down Horizontal Ejections Sliced Steel Almost Free-Fall Speed Sounds Produced by Explosions Demolition Rings Total Collapse Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials


"The NIST report wants to tell us that it was the perimeter columns that buckled and caused the collapses. The report says this was due to their deflection and bowing, caused by fire affected sagging floor trusses pulling on them, and the central core itself sagging due to plasticity and creep. The probable collapse sequences, as hypothesized by the NIST report, were issued at a press conference in NYC in April 2005. That press release, which also has aircraft impact simulations and a slide show, is available here.

http://www.nist.gov:80/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm

It appears the press release and report want to say that the entire interior structure was sagging."

But now Mr. Szamboti is claiming that the collapse started by sagging!

But wait: there's more! In his December paper, co-authored by Frank Legge, Mr. Szamboti says that because the yield strength of steel increases as its degree of distortion caused by thermal weakening increases, the collapses shouldn't have happened at all!

But wait, there's more: in the earlier paper, Mr. Szamboti says this:

"It is instructive that the first visible signs of failure on the North Tower are when the antenna mast moves downward by ten to twelve feet before the perimeter roof line moves. This is indicative of the central core suddenly and completely failing first."

Sudden onset! Except, no, the antenna didn't fall first at all, as this video shows:



Mr. Szamboti, please reconcile these remarkable contradictions!

No Mark, I didn't say sagging. I said thermal weakening. You apparently think that has to be very slow and would be akin to sagging. I do not think the thermal weakening which would have been done in the fire affected areas was a slow process. In fact I think it happened in seconds and was masked by fires. This is entirely consistent with the core going down first, and pulling the perimeter columns inward.

 

[uk_dave]

Realcddeal,

Was progressive collapse of the towers as described by NIST impossible?

ETA : I'll rephrase because the obvious retort will be that NIST cannot model the actual collapse.

Was progressive collapse from the impact damage and fires impossible?

 

[Myriad]

I know that some rather intelligent people do post in this forum and in all fairness I would like to give you gentlemen a little time to show me that the entire basis of your argument is not simply belief in people you may consider "authorities" and "experts".

Considering that the "authorities" and "experts" in question are the same people who design and construct tall buildings, and inspect those designs and those buildings for safety, I must ask in return:

What is the evidentiary basis for doubting their expertise?

And, if you do indeed doubt that structural engineers know what they're talking about, then does the question not shift from "why did the buildings collapse" to "how in the world did towers that were designed, built, and inspected by know-nothing incompetents manage to stand for so long in the first place?"

If structural engineers don't know their stuff, then that alone is sufficient reason to expect buildings to unexpectedly collapse for no known reason from time to time. Why shouldn't we conclude that's what happened on 9/11?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Gravy]

No Mark, I didn't say sagging. I said thermal weakening. You apparently think that has to be very slow and would be akin to sagging. I do not think the thermal weakening which would have been done in the fire affected areas was a slow process. In fact I think it happened in seconds and was masked by fires. This is entirely consistent with the core going down first, and pulling the perimeter columns inward.

Oh, Tony! Deeper and deeper you dig! I refer you to your own paper,

9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

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. 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.

Please explain this contradiction!

Next,

1) How was this thermal weakening, which occurred in seconds in the fire and aircraft impact zones, accomplished???

And again:

2) Please reconcile your claims about the detonations being clearly audible both by witnesses and on audio, versus your current claim that they were damped and inaudible.

3) Please point out in the video I just posted exactly when you see the antenna falling 10-12 feet before the exterior wall. Give me the minutes and seconds when the antenna drop starts.

They're your claims and your contradictions, Tony. Back them up or adjust your beliefs to accord with reality.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Realcddeal,

Was progressive collapse of the towers as described by NIST impossible?

ETA : I'll rephrase because the obvious retort will be that NIST cannot model the actual collapse.

Was progressive collapse from the impact damage and fires impossible?

I believe it was impossible as there would not have been a dynamic load if the initial collapse was due to fire. One would need a huge dynamic load to cause anything close to a progressive collapse. It just wouldn't be there without other influences like explosives or incendiaries.

The subject of this thread explains that Bazant and Zhou do not have the dynamic load they claim.