six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
Hi beachnut,
When KreeL has done all that, I'd like a hand with a problem - if you have the time...
I have a rock in my garden from which I'd like to extract a litre of A+
Why a one-way Crush down is not possible
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
- Status
When KreeL has done all that, I'd like a hand with a problem - if you have the time...
I have a rock in my garden from which I'd like to extract a litre of A+
Bazant states (with zero evidence) that the cores got red hot (800C) for a sustained period of time (he doesn't say how long). Please help him out with this simple statement. Does NIST say all the core columns were a sustained 800C? How does Bazant know this?
edited to add -- he must be psychic...OR he's trying to make his model seem 'plausible' (faithbased, of course).
edited to add -- he must be psychic...OR he's trying to make his model seem 'plausible' (faithbased, of course).
Last edited:
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
For those of us who aren't psychic, please specify where you read this
A quote would be good
As would a hyperlink to the relevant document
TYIA
Sources?
You are just talking again and failed to reference you dozens of times.
The failure of debunking Bazant has happened once in a real journal the dolt was sent on his way proved wrong by Bazant.
Your dozen is a lie you just made up or plagiarized from 911Truth; a lie just the same.
There are zero peer review papers that debunk Bazant and published in a real journal. Please produce the dozen paper you have!
I think he finally looked at the paper just now from Bazant; I will have my garden reading it soon. Where is the rock and when do you need it...Hi beachnut,
When KreeL has done all that, I'd like a hand with a problem - if you have the time...
I have a rock in my garden from which I'd like to extract a litre of A+
he read something from the paper; wow
The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… ( Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2. )
But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:
Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…”( Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2. )
Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).
They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)
-- simple fact fuzzups between NIST and Bazant as researched by David Ray Griffin
But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:
Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…”( Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2. )
Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).
They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)
-- simple fact fuzzups between NIST and Bazant as researched by David Ray Griffin
Last edited:
Great you have known liar as your source.
What kind of engineer is he? Oh, he engineers lies on 911. Great source but he did not write your cut and paste junk science; and alas it is not published in a real journal.
That is one of your dozen shot down; next.
But you failed to source your plagiarized post properly.
I don't think you understand Bazant's papers.
You quoted a paper that uses Bazant to support his own failed ideas. Irony; can you tell me who the real author of your cut and paste is and what elements of Bazant's work (actually giving credit it is a correct model by using it to defend his failed paper) he uses to support his work. Typical 911Truth they use the very stuff they deny to support their fake science efforts to fool you.
Last edited:
It is impossible for you to bring the facts. You lied; I can point out the lies if you wish.
911Truth lied and fooled you into repeating blindly like a cult member failed papers.
You presented a failed paper which used Bazant as a source.
Ironic: you gave credit to DRG, he is a theologian; you need an engineer. Blind faith is your problem; you need science and engineering and you bring woo.
You said a dozen papers and you failed to source properly the paper you found in a journal of woo.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The paper you sourced used Bazant to support his ideas. You missed it as you cut and paste and credited the wrong person!
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
You failed to cite your source properly and you failed to see how the author who had to make up his own journal on line to publish his tripe used Bazant to support his failed ideas.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
Which paper did your source use to justify his ideas on 911?
Who did you mess up and forget to credit?
Where are the other 11 papers of woo to help you?
Last edited:
Faith based? DRG is a theologian, you are ironic as you post the woo of 911Truth as some sort of gospel from your cult you freely post without checking what is said or understanding what it says.
Bazant never said "red hot". You forgot to read the paper(s).
Bazant explains his first paper does not depend on 800C.
I gave you the information, 3 papers really published in real journals of engineering not made up journals and vanity journals, to save you from posting tripe from idiots who are not engineers, but you went for the woo of 911Truth. You messed up and credited DRG the 911Truth hearsay master expert instead of the real author. I hope your research can credit the correct person who made up the moronic tripe.
Last edited:
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
If he's a "government shill" why does he disagree with the NIST in the slightest degree?
Nothing in the alleged discrepancies brought to us by the Twoof Movement can be fixed by the addition of man-made demolition material.
KreeL,
First off, where did you get your degree? What specialty? How many years experience? (For me: Cornell U, BS Mech Engr., 34+ years)
"... one dimensional model is a fraud..."?? Please enlighten me. I've only got about 15 years experience in FEA modeling, and I'm a bit confused. I principally use my own seat of a product called Cosmos. But every program I've ever used has one dimensional models (aka, "elements") for long, slender 3 dimensional objects. You know, objects like the Twin Towers.
Are all of those programs "shill programs", too.
Please, KreeL. Enlighten me. Why do they provide these fraudulent "models"??
Again, I must have missed it. Please point me to these debunkings. Please explain to me (I'll struggle to follow along, I promise) EXACTLY how his papers "failed".
Just out of curiosity, did any of those debunkers teach at Northwestern? MIT? Stanford?
Did they belong to the National Academy of Engineering?
I was happy to see his temp predictions. They matched the ones that I made about 5 years ago. Why don't you tell me the criteria by which you came to YOUR conclusions about those temps. Your OWN work, please. Not NIST's. Then I'll tell you how I came to my conclusions.
BTW, do you understand the difference between "some columns got up to 800°C" and "all the columns were a sustained 800°C"??
BTW, I am sure that, being the talented engineer that you clearly are, you're aware that Dr. Bazant has shown, uh excuse me, has PROVEN that the fatal damage to the columns in the towers could have happened at temps as low as 250 - 300°C.
Of COURSE you are.
You do realize that "exposed to temperatures of" is not the same as "achieve temperatures of". Office fires burn at 1200 - 1300°C. Beams are "exposed to" those temperatures. Without sprinklers or insulation, an enormous body of engineering data proves that, in large fires, the beams will quickly heat up to temps in the 800 - 1000°C range.
Of course you realize that "about 20 minutes" is an estimate, and "a given location" is rather nebulous.
BTW, how do you explain the 18 - 20 HOUR fire in the Windsor Towers fire if fires "burn out in 20 minutes in a given location"? Did they keep importing new "locations"? Did they have 60 different locations? It sure looked to me like a whole bunch of those locations were all burning simultaneously for awile.
Perhaps you could also give us YOUR assessment as to how the WTC fire differed from typical office fires.
Of course Bazant & Zhou didn't explain that. Do you NOT understand how that happened? With your engineering expertise?
I am shocked, KreeL. Shocked.
Allow me to provide you with a hint: NASA never explained how all those millions of pieces of the Shuttle Challenger knew to "disassemble at the same moment" either.
Think about it...
They didn't.
You don't get it, KreeL. The temperature did not cause the failure. A loss of geometry in the supports and the loads caused the failures.
Physical damage caused the loads to shift, to become asymmetric, increasing dramatically in some areas. But not to immediate failure. The fires warmed the steel which allowed them to creep. Creep allowed the loads to shift from purely compressive or shear to bending.
Damage -> Asymmetric Loading -> small bending loads -> Fires -> Creep -> more tilting of the top & sagging of the floors -> higher bending loads -> higher stress -> higher creep -> higher tilting & sagging -> highest bending loads -> highest stress -> unsustainable tilting & sagging -> BUCKLING & FRACTURE...!
Lots of parts failed before the collapse began. In each case, some other component still had the ability to take up the lost load. But that margin was shrinking & shrinking. Finally, there was no more margin. Then one more piece failed, and everything else failed immediately after it. Because there was nothing that could take up the lost strength of the one failed piece.
NOW do you see how they all failed "simultaneously"?
Wrong. Review the Cardington Fire studies & you'll see that the steel temps can rise VERY rapidly. 20 minutes is more than enough. Especially for long thin beams. Let me ask you a question: If you have a column on the 93rd floor that is being heated by fire, but the 92nd & 94th floor parts of the same column are ALSO being heated by fire, where do you think the heat input on the 93rd floor are supposed to flow TO??
It strains credulity. And is wrong.
Two buildings had planes fly into them. Two buildings collapsed by this mechanism.
WTC7 collapsed due to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT mechanism.
But, gee, you've only been told this about 50 times, I suppose...
Again, you give me YOUR thermal analysis on the core & peripheral columns. Then I'll show you mine.
As researched by the religious studies guy...
No faith.
Engineering.
I'm waiting to see yours.
Neither Bazant not NIST lied. YOUR lack of understanding does not constitute THEIR lies.
Let's see if you can match their honesty.
tom
First off, where did you get your degree? What specialty? How many years experience? (For me: Cornell U, BS Mech Engr., 34+ years)
"... one dimensional model is a fraud..."?? Please enlighten me. I've only got about 15 years experience in FEA modeling, and I'm a bit confused. I principally use my own seat of a product called Cosmos. But every program I've ever used has one dimensional models (aka, "elements") for long, slender 3 dimensional objects. You know, objects like the Twin Towers.
Are all of those programs "shill programs", too.
Please, KreeL. Enlighten me. Why do they provide these fraudulent "models"??
Again, I must have missed it. Please point me to these debunkings. Please explain to me (I'll struggle to follow along, I promise) EXACTLY how his papers "failed".
Just out of curiosity, did any of those debunkers teach at Northwestern? MIT? Stanford?
Did they belong to the National Academy of Engineering?
I was happy to see his temp predictions. They matched the ones that I made about 5 years ago. Why don't you tell me the criteria by which you came to YOUR conclusions about those temps. Your OWN work, please. Not NIST's. Then I'll tell you how I came to my conclusions.
BTW, do you understand the difference between "some columns got up to 800°C" and "all the columns were a sustained 800°C"??
BTW, I am sure that, being the talented engineer that you clearly are, you're aware that Dr. Bazant has shown, uh excuse me, has PROVEN that the fatal damage to the columns in the towers could have happened at temps as low as 250 - 300°C.
Of COURSE you are.
You do realize that "exposed to temperatures of" is not the same as "achieve temperatures of". Office fires burn at 1200 - 1300°C. Beams are "exposed to" those temperatures. Without sprinklers or insulation, an enormous body of engineering data proves that, in large fires, the beams will quickly heat up to temps in the 800 - 1000°C range.
Of course you realize that "about 20 minutes" is an estimate, and "a given location" is rather nebulous.
BTW, how do you explain the 18 - 20 HOUR fire in the Windsor Towers fire if fires "burn out in 20 minutes in a given location"? Did they keep importing new "locations"? Did they have 60 different locations? It sure looked to me like a whole bunch of those locations were all burning simultaneously for awile.
Perhaps you could also give us YOUR assessment as to how the WTC fire differed from typical office fires.
Of course Bazant & Zhou didn't explain that. Do you NOT understand how that happened? With your engineering expertise?
I am shocked, KreeL. Shocked.
Allow me to provide you with a hint: NASA never explained how all those millions of pieces of the Shuttle Challenger knew to "disassemble at the same moment" either.
Think about it...
They didn't.
You don't get it, KreeL. The temperature did not cause the failure. A loss of geometry in the supports and the loads caused the failures.
Physical damage caused the loads to shift, to become asymmetric, increasing dramatically in some areas. But not to immediate failure. The fires warmed the steel which allowed them to creep. Creep allowed the loads to shift from purely compressive or shear to bending.
Damage -> Asymmetric Loading -> small bending loads -> Fires -> Creep -> more tilting of the top & sagging of the floors -> higher bending loads -> higher stress -> higher creep -> higher tilting & sagging -> highest bending loads -> highest stress -> unsustainable tilting & sagging -> BUCKLING & FRACTURE...!
Lots of parts failed before the collapse began. In each case, some other component still had the ability to take up the lost load. But that margin was shrinking & shrinking. Finally, there was no more margin. Then one more piece failed, and everything else failed immediately after it. Because there was nothing that could take up the lost strength of the one failed piece.
NOW do you see how they all failed "simultaneously"?
Wrong. Review the Cardington Fire studies & you'll see that the steel temps can rise VERY rapidly. 20 minutes is more than enough. Especially for long thin beams. Let me ask you a question: If you have a column on the 93rd floor that is being heated by fire, but the 92nd & 94th floor parts of the same column are ALSO being heated by fire, where do you think the heat input on the 93rd floor are supposed to flow TO??
It strains credulity. And is wrong.
Two buildings had planes fly into them. Two buildings collapsed by this mechanism.
WTC7 collapsed due to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT mechanism.
But, gee, you've only been told this about 50 times, I suppose...
Again, you give me YOUR thermal analysis on the core & peripheral columns. Then I'll show you mine.
As researched by the religious studies guy...
No faith.
Engineering.
I'm waiting to see yours.
Neither Bazant not NIST lied. YOUR lack of understanding does not constitute THEIR lies.
Let's see if you can match their honesty.
tom
Typicallucas
I AM AN F... B... I... AGENT!!
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 623
KreeL plagiarized a document written by Dr. Steven E. Jones. In post #1106. Word for word.
Tsk tsk tsk, KreeL. You have been a very naughty boy.
Link http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_24c.htm#11. Steel Column Temperatures of 800°C Needed: A Problem in the Argument of Bazant and Zhou
Tsk tsk tsk, KreeL. You have been a very naughty boy.
Link http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_24c.htm#11. Steel Column Temperatures of 800°C Needed: A Problem in the Argument of Bazant and Zhou
Last edited:
Typicallucas
I AM AN F... B... I... AGENT!!
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 623
Funny thing is, the way I found it was I noticed he wrote the degree symbol as a lower case letter O.
All I did was search for a sentence that contained 800oC and I found it! In the webpage he ripped off uses a superscript lower case O instead of the ° symbol.
All I did was search for a sentence that contained 800oC and I found it! In the webpage he ripped off uses a superscript lower case O instead of the ° symbol.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
As near as I can understand Heiwa's "thinking", once the bottom floor of the upper part of the building and the top floor of the lower part of the building have been broken into pieces, they disappear from the universe.
Of course, in the real world, even though it's been broken into pieces, the debris does not disappear from the universe, but is part of the falling mass that continues to crush the structure all the way to the ground. Of course some of the debris falls over the side, and maybe some is pulverized to small enough particles that wind resistance slows it down significantly, but certainly a large amount of it continues falling onto the lower floors.
Peer reviews? Really? Tell us more.
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 2,979
So far, you haven't described your problem with Bazant's paper; why is that?
This gives the obvious impression of dodging on your behalf.
Because he rushed his paper before NIST released their report?
This is why he has to continually update his theories.
So who lied? Bazant?....or NIST?
Last edited:
- Status