Heiwa,
Now we're finally getting somewhere, Anders. It's amazing how much progress can be made if you actually say something other than "ditto last piece of nonsense" and "read my papers".
Of course, since the progress is showing you to be lying about Bazant's paper and now reversing everything that you've said previously, you might not consider it progress...
Hm, I use BLGB Fig 2 bottom second left - Crush down phase + text in article, where everything is as I copy it.
First, let's make sure we are using the same paper. I am referring to BLGB "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?"
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/p...TC Collapse - What Did & Did Not Cause It.pdf
Here is Bazant's figure. It is his Figure 1, not Fig. 2.
If this image doesn't post, you can see it here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/album.php?albumid=176&pictureid=803
And Bazant says:
Bazant said:
During the crush-down phase, the moving upper part of tower (C in Fig. 1 bottom), with a compacted layer of debris at its bottom (zone B), is crushing the lower part (zone A) with little damage to itself, except before a thick enough layer B of debris forms).
[Emphasis added.]
It is perfectly clear from this figure and the text above that he does NOT include Zone So or Zone B in the lower Zone A.
It is perfectly clear from this figure and the text above that he does NOT include Zone So or Zone B in the upper Zone C.
So, your statement that "everything [of BLGB] is as I copy it" is patently false. You should correct your misstatement.
___
Your second, repeated misportrayal of Bazant's statements is saying that Bazant claims that "Part C suffers no damage as it crushes Part A".
Note the bolded words in Bazant's paper above. This sentence explicitly says that Bazant recognizes that damage WILL be done to Part C. Especially early in the crush down process.
Your claim to the contrary is shown to be false. You should correct your erroneous portrayal of Bazant's stated opinion.
Part C (top part), 'zo', tall crushes a slice thickness 'so' of intact part A below and compresses this part of A into part B 'lambda so' thick (density of part B 4X density of A and C). Part C remains intact, 'zo' tall, all time.
[Emphasis added]
And now, you are intentionally saying the exact opposite of what you have asserted all along.
You have CONSISTENTLY and erroneously included the damaged floors in upper Part C. You do it in your "papers", you do it in your illustrations, and you do it in your text.
For example, in your "911 & WTC collapse" paper (
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ), your previous version of that page has the section entitled "Part I - NIST explains Something", you explicitly include the damaged floors in the upper Part C.
If this image doesn't post, you can see it here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/album.php?albumid=176&pictureid=804
You state: "The upper part of WTC 1 is above the yellow line applied on the photos of the WTC 1 tower at say floor 93 and the lower structure is below." The damaged floors were from 93 to 98.
"You can slide the video fwd/aft and see how the upper part is destroyed first, while everything below remains intact as shown below"
In the current version of this same webpage, you state the same thing:
First that Bazant claims that they are indestructible: "The upper parts of WTC 1, 2 are the problems. They are according Bazant/Seffen ... supposed to be rigid, stiff, solid, of uniform density, indestructible, with infinite strain energy, SEa".
And second, that the upper Part C fails first: "All videos of the destruction show that the upper part in fact telescopes into or shortens itself for 2-4 seconds, while the steel structure below is still intact!" and "At WTC 2 the upper part disappers in a dust cloud before the lower structure is affected." and "No intact upper parts (4) are seen during the destructions that followed. In the case of WTC2 the upper part explodes outside the footprint of the tower. It was not very rigid!"
In EACH of these sentences, and in all your illustrations, you have CLEARLY included the damaged floors in the upper Part C of the towers.
But NOW you are reversing yourself. You are now saying, in the bolded text in your reply above, that the damaged floors (that will become Part B) are part of the lower Part A segment.
___
In conclusion:
1. You have repeatedly misstated Bazant's description of his model. He has 3 initial segments. You have claimed that he had only 2.
2. You have misstated Bazant's statement of the damage that occurs to Part C. He explicitly says that Part C WILL suffer damage. You have claimed that he said the opposite.
3. You are now reversing everything that you have said previously about the location of the damaged floors in your model. In all your previous analyses, you placed those floors in Part C. Now you are placing them in Part A.
Get your story straight, please. Clean up your analysis by acknowledging a separate Part D, as NIST and Bazant do.
And issue a retraction regarding your erroneous mis-portrayals of NIST's and Bazant's positions.
tom
