The calculations I was basing my math on were actually Greening's, if I recall correctly. He calculates for the upper block falling through one storey. This is because the upper block must have had to fall through at least one storey. It probably fell more, in reality.
Bazant's model may be more accurate in this respect, as it has been so far, but I would have to check that again.
Well, you can't have it both ways. Why were Bazant and Greening not able to view the visual evidence?
Lookup Balzac-Vitry demolition or Balzac-Vitry verinage. Apparently it's a method of demolition using hydraulic jacks. But remember, the A&Es only have to provide reasonable doubt surrounding the official conspiracy theory for collapse initiation in order to warrant a real and transparent investigation. They don't have to actually do NIST's job for them and discover the real cause. That would require a real and transparent investigation and with people held accountable.
I'm just seeking clarification here. You say that all that is needed is to provide a reasonable doubt. Earlier, however, Jas said this:
we have, imo, now shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the working hypothesis has never worked.
These are two different burdens of proof. To illustrate...when you want to convict someone of a criminal offense, you must prove they did it, beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden of proof is extremely high...it must be certain. To defeat a conviction, you introduce a reasonable doubt. You don't have to prove who else did the crime, you just have to prove that there is at least a reasonable doubt that the accused actually did it. That is a very low burden of proof.
I agree that meeting the very low burden of proof of finding a reasonable doubt (you guys have to work out what is reasonable and what is not) is acceptable, if your goal is a further inquiry.
I do, however, disagree that the extremely high burden of proof (the entire official theory has been proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt) has been met, or is indeed even the goal.
What do you think?
Well, you can't have it both ways. Why were Bazant and Greening not able to view the visual evidence?
Do you know what a conservative estimate is?
And note that you cut off the rest of Garcia's compound sentence which went on to say: "...and F is the force of resistance by the lower structure." Impact occurs and moment changes from m*v(i) to m*v(f) within the upper and lower limits for duration of impact. Iows, you can't remove dt from the equation and demand to know where the expression dt itself accounts for momentum. That makes no sense. Delta t is part of the larger equation describing the impulse momentum form of Newton's 2nd Law.
Perhaps it would be best if you could show us how Griscom calculates delta-t, then?
I have already. Several times. And I contacted Dr Griscom through Facebook as mentioned above. I suggest you meet us half-way and do your own legwork. You can always ask Griscom through Facebook. Don't be lazy. Griscom and I both used simple trig. It's not hard math as I've shown.
Garcia's value for dt is 0.01s, if we can agree on this much. He is assuming some negligible angle of tilt that amounts to nothing substantial.I am not at all certain that Garcia's impact time has anything to do with tilt angle.
Your uncertainty is clear to us now after several threads of your telling us we don't understand math and physics. Do you remember claiming to be very good with physics?
If you work the trig backwards, you can prove it to yourself. Garcia's angle of impact is very small indeed, but Garcia knew enough not to assume a perfect impact with all points of the two concrete slabs mating perfectly and instantaneously after a 3 metre unimpeded free fall. Because that would be absurd, too.
Do you know what a conservative estimate is?
Yup. I also know what visual evidence is, and that both theorists would have had access to dozens of videos of the collapses, as we all do, and as NIST did. So which is it? Large impact zone and fewer floors, or smaller impact zone and more floors?
I have already. Several times. And I contacted Dr Griscom through Facebook as mentioned above. I suggest you meet us half-way and do your own legwork. You can always ask Griscom through Facebook. Don't be lazy. Griscom and I both used simple trig. It's not hard math as I've shown.
I'm sorry. I must have missed that. I looked through the previous two threads and was unable to find you showing Griscom's calculations. Do you have a link?
Your uncertainty is clear to us now after several threads of your telling us we don't understand math and physics. Do you remember claiming to be very good with physics?
If you work the trig backwards, you can prove it to yourself. Garcia's angle of impact is very small indeed, but Garcia knew enough not to assume a perfect impact with all points of the two concrete slabs mating perfectly and instantaneously after a 3 metre unimpeded free fall. Because that would be absurd, too.
Let me be perfectly clear: I think your trig thing is absolutely inapplicable to the discussion. So, I won't be using it as evidence that the tiltiing angle has anything to do with transfer of momentum.
He's having us on, Jas. He's had us doing tricks and bending over backwards for him through several threads and basically implying that we are stupid. And all along he's understood very little of what he's actually talking about himself. It's classic trolling.
Do you know what a conservative estimate is?
Yup. I also know what visual evidence is, and that both theorists would have had access to dozens of videos of the collapses, as we all do, and as NIST did. So which is it? Large impact zone and fewer floors, or smaller impact zone and more floors?
Do you see how the concept of a conservative estimate applies to your question?
Go chase your tail.
He's having us on, Jas. He's had us doing tricks and bending over backwards for him through several threads and basically implying that we are stupid. And all along he's understood very little of what he's actually talking about himself. It's classic trolling.
However, if the hydraulic jacks were in the areas where collapse originated, that would mean that they would have had to be in the impact zones.
This immediately brings up two questions: how did the pilots hit those spots so unerringly? And how did the hydraulic jacks survive the impacts of the planes?
Yup. I also know what visual evidence is, and that both theorists would have had access to dozens of videos of the collapses, as we all do, and as NIST did. So which is it? Large impact zone and fewer floors, or smaller impact zone and more floors?
Do you see how the concept of a conservative estimate applies to your question?
Can you answer the question?
Can you answer the question?
Iam trying to, but until I can be certain that you have followed the discussion so far, it would be pointless to continue.
Now, do you see how the concept of a conservative estimate relates to your question concerning models and visual evidence?
He's having us on, Jas. He's had us doing tricks and bending over backwards for him through several threads and basically implying that we are stupid. And all along he's understood very little of what he's actually talking about himself. It's classic trolling.
I think it would help to stick to the facts and the visual evidence rather than get lost in mathematical details about hypotheticals. It's in the former that his argument flounders most.
Pants, stop trying to lecture people about things they already know. Just answer the questions.
Which is it? Large impact zone and fewer floors, or smaller impact zone and more floors?
He's having us on, Jas. He's had us doing tricks and bending over backwards for him through several threads and basically implying that we are stupid. And all along he's understood very little of what he's actually talking about himself. It's classic trolling.
However, if the hydraulic jacks were in the areas where collapse originated, that would mean that they would have had to be in the impact zones.
This immediately brings up two questions: how did the pilots hit those spots so unerringly? And how did the hydraulic jacks survive the impacts of the planes?
The problem with NIST's model of fire induced collapse of floor trusses is that they did not reproduce the theory by modelling. And, they did not test any of the steel recovered for pyrotechnics which could have been used. Their own microstructure tests of recovered steel says that the steel did not experience the kind of temperatures they say weakened enough of the steel in order to cause collapse initiation. Of 236 pieces they retrieved, only three experienced temperatures of 600 degrees C, where steel loses half its strength, and which were exterior steel elements with most not having exceeded 250 degrees C, or the temp at which steel does not lose any strength. None of the three core columns they retrieved revealed temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C. Was it just bad luck on their part that so little of the steel was retrieved and tested and therefore making it difficult for them to support their own theory with physical evidence?
The problem with NIST's model of fire induced collapse of floor trusses is that they did not reproduce the theory by modelling.
My understanding was that they did model it, but that their inputs were so over the top, they may as well have been talking about conditions on the sun.
Or are you referring to the collapse progression? Which, indeed, they did not model.
No one has seen NIST's computer modelling and many doubt it.
Jas the date on that page is 2005. I'm going on what Tony Szamboti [url=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267&page=2]said here in 2008 at JREF[/url] of NIST's claims. Of course those discussions are anything but an educational forum. I do believe it's Szamboti though because he's admitted to participating on JREF, which is a total circus anyway.
Pants, stop trying to lecture people about things they already know. Just answer the questions.
Which is it? Large impact zone and fewer floors, or smaller impact zone and more floors?
Which one? The conservative estimate, or the one that is most like the observed data?
The problem with NIST's model of fire induced collapse of floor trusses is that they did not reproduce the theory by modelling. And, they did not test any of the steel recovered for pyrotechnics which could have been used. Their own microstructure tests of recovered steel says that the steel did not experience the kind of temperatures they say weakened enough of the steel in order to cause collapse initiation. Of 236 pieces they retrieved, only three experienced temperatures of 600 degrees C, where steel loses half its strength, and which were exterior steel elements with most not having exceeded 250 degrees C, or the temp at which steel does not lose any strength. None of the three core columns they retrieved revealed temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C. Was it just bad luck on their part that so little of the steel was retrieved and tested and therefore making it difficult for them to support their own theory with physical evidence?
Please provide evidence for these claims.
Thank you.
My understanding was that they did model it, but that their inputs were so over the top, they may as well have been talking about conditions on the sun.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
Or are you referring to the collapse progression? Which, indeed, they did not model.
That's okay. Bazant did.
Which one? The conservative estimate, or the one that is most like the observed data?
The one that was calculated to explain what actually happened. So, yes, the one that reflects, not resembles, the observed data.
There was indeed a problem with lack of forensic considerations in quickly removing the debris after the fact, and very little of the steel had to fail from fire in order for the building to collapse (less than a floors worth) so it's not suprising they didn't find much.
My understanding is that once the first floor collapsed the resto of the collapse was obvious and unstoppable, so it was outside their mandate to nail down the minutiae of it.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
One thing at a time, Pants.
My understanding is that once the first floor collapsed the resto of the collapse was obvious and unstoppable, so it was outside their mandate to nail down the minutiae of it.
That's the mantra, not the reality. There is nothing to suggest the collapse would be obvious or unstoppable. Many openly questioned the speed and manner of the collapses. Why indeed would Bazant publish a paper 2 days after, explaining them, if the collapses followed accepted laws of physics and resembled those of other buildings?
How could he publish a paper if the collapse didn't follow the accepted laws of physics?
The collapse of the buildings was a surprise, but the surprising part was the initial failure. Given the initial failure the rest of the collapse is very easy to explain. I understand that you don't like the explaination but that's not because the explaination is false.
Jas the date on that page is 2005. I'm going on what Tony Szamboti [url=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267&page=2]said here in 2008 at JREF[/url] of NIST's claims. Of course those discussions are anything but an educational forum. I do believe it's Szamboti though because he's admitted to participating on JREF, which is a total circus anyway.
We seem to be discussing two different things. Perhaps I misunderstood your original post. I was referring to their computer modelling for floor sagging leading to collapse initiation. No worries.
Which one? The conservative estimate, or the one that is most like the observed data?
The one that was calculated to explain what actually happened. So, yes, the one that reflects, not resembles, the observed data.
You would probably want Bazant's model, then.
How could he publish a paper if the collapse didn't follow the accepted laws of physics?
This question makes no sense.
The collapse of the buildings was a surprise, but the surprising part was the initial failure.
Source?
Given the initial failure the rest of the collapse is very easy to explain. I understand that you don't like the explaination but that's not because the explaination is false.
Please explain it to me, then. In a nutshell, if you like. And please account for the fact that we are now dealing with an upper block, in one case, of approximately only 7 storeys. How do 7 burnt storeys crush through 80 and 90 non-burnt, intact storeys of concrete and structural steel at a rate of 8 non-burnt storeys per second?
How could he publish a paper if the collapse didn't follow the accepted laws of physics?
This question makes no sense.
The collapse of the buildings was a surprise, but the surprising part was the initial failure.
Source?
Given the initial failure the rest of the collapse is very easy to explain. I understand that you don't like the explaination but that's not because the explaination is false.
Please explain it to me, then. In a nutshell, if you like. And please account for the fact that we are now dealing with an upper block, in one case, of approximately only 7 storeys. How do 7 burnt storeys crush through 90 non-burnt, intact storeys of concrete and structural steel at a rate of 8 non-burnt storeys per second?
Well it's easy if 250 massive steel columns simply buckle and fail at each floor level and all at the same time regardless of varying exposures to temperature and impact forces, and beginning with initial collapse for no apparent reason. It's like the ghost of Sir Fig Newton willed them to jump out of the way in concert or something. It's Nike's version of collapse events - they just do it.
I have already. Several times. And I contacted Dr Griscom through Facebook as mentioned above. I suggest you meet us half-way and do your own legwork. You can always ask Griscom through Facebook. Don't be lazy. Griscom and I both used simple trig. It's not hard math as I've shown.
I'm sorry. I must have missed that. I looked through the previous two threads and was unable to find you showing Griscom's calculations. Do you have a link?
Yes I posted some links to some math, and which you promptly avoided at least twice. It won't matter to you though because you've already proven in this and other threads that you don't understand what either Garcia or Griscom are discussing in their essays.
Your uncertainty is clear to us now after several threads of your telling us we don't understand math and physics. Do you remember claiming to be very good with physics?
If you work the trig backwards, you can prove it to yourself. Garcia's angle of impact is very small indeed, but Garcia knew enough not to assume a perfect impact with all points of the two concrete slabs mating perfectly and instantaneously after a 3 metre unimpeded free fall. Because that would be absurd, too.
Let me be perfectly clear: I think your trig thing is absolutely inapplicable to the discussion. So, I won't be using it as evidence that the tiltiing angle has anything to do with transfer of momentum.
Transfer of momentum? My-my, and where would Garcia account for that in his force balance equation? And no, if neither Bazant nor Garcia mention tilting(or resistance by either air or 250 steel columns), then you surely won't be mentioning it either. That's the way unscientific non-truthers deal with the issue - they simply gloss over it. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA]WTC2 collapse video[/url] shows obvious and significant tilting during collapse.
Fidel, you haven't stopped calling Pants a troll after being told by oldgoat to cease. You have a 3-day vacation.
1) The claim that the collapse didn't follow the accepted laws of physics makes no sense.
2) Personal recollection.
3) 7 stories of the WTC landing on the floor of the next story down causes that floor to fail rapidly. The complete collapse follows by induction.
How could he publish a paper if the collapse didn't follow the accepted laws of physics?
This question makes no sense.
The collapse of the buildings was a surprise, but the surprising part was the initial failure.Source?
Given the initial failure the rest of the collapse is very easy to explain. I understand that you don't like the explaination but that's not because the explaination is false.Please explain it to me, then. In a nutshell, if you like. And please account for the fact that we are now dealing with an upper block, in one case, of approximately only 7 storeys. How do 7 burnt storeys crush through 80 and 90 non-burnt, intact storeys of concrete and structural steel at a rate of 8 non-burnt storeys per second?
To be fair, Maysie, I don't see where Fidel has called Pants a troll in his most recent posts.
1) The claim that the collapse didn't follow the accepted laws of physics makes no sense.
2) Personal recollection.
3) 7 stories of the WTC landing on the floor of the next story down causes that floor to fail rapidly. The complete collapse follows by induction.
1) Given that we have never seen buildings collapse like this, and we have never seen in any other example of nature or engineering a smaller portion of something crush through a larger portion of the same something via gravity alone and at that speed, how does the claim you cite "make no sense"?
2) Heh. Recollection of something you said to yourself, or what you heard people murmuring on the street? Can I use that one sometime too?
3) Well, they crush through the impact zone, which has 85% of its columns remaining. So it's not like they're "landing" from a height. That's a hypothetical, and a bit of a picture that Pants likes to paint, but it's not a very accurate one. And then, what do you mean by "the rest of the collapse follows by induction"?
1) No other buildings have been hit by large aircraft. It's a unique event, why not a unique outcome?
2) OK, I was being flip. But the whole point of the heavy duty NIST investigation was that the result was a surprise.
3) The columns standing are irrelevent to material falling from floor to floor. And of course, when floor breaks it falls from a height onto the floor beneath it. What else would happen?
ETA I'm losing patience again, I will leave you in the saintly hands of pants.
Hi again, just found the thread too bad the seminal event of our time, the reason given for why our armed forces are dying and killing on the other side of the planet and billions of dollars are earmarked for killing machines doesn't rate its own preset.
Anywhooo the word collapse is employed correctly when referring to what is recorded in the demolition of WTC 7. (The building housing the NSA, CIA and SEC (along with the NYC EOC (emergency command center) whose destruction was started in part before either tower fell, as described by the deceased Barry Jennings) It can be described as a collapse in as much as in the aftermath one could see floor upon floor stacked up.
To describe what happened to the two twin towers as collapsing implies that after the mind boggling amount of dust cleared one is left with 110 stories stacked up one on top of the other. There is simply no evidence of this to be the result of what happened to these two 110 story buildings in a period of time not exceeding ten seconds in which they are turned to dust. In point of fact virtually all of the solid material of the towers and virtually everything inside (besides paper) was transmogrified into dust so fine that no conventional physics can account for it (Remember all the itty bitty pieces of bone that was all that was left of our fellow human beings?)
My point is that we find our selves in a situation where mad men have apparently usurped control of western civilizations' armed forces and "rearranging the deck chairs (ie. conflating conventional controlled demolition style collapse with some new form of "death ray" (death ray is just a descriptor for this unknown process which we can observe happened but is beyond our conventional understandings to explain) on the titanic" is wasting time.
Burning rugs and kerosene fires do nothing to steel (period). To argue that they could is, at best, to be a child.
Anywhoo I guess I don't have anything constructive to say beyond the idea that to actually look at the events surrounding 9/11 and connect the dots back to all the false flag instigations of war and all the political leaders' assassinations before and since will allow us to at least begin to recognize who are the enemies of peace that have us (nothing short of all civil societies everywhere in the world) in their cross hairs.
bob
1) No other buildings have been hit by large aircraft. It's a unique event, why not a unique outcome?
2) OK, I was being flip. But the whole point of the heavy duty NIST investigation was that the result was a surprise.
3) The columns standing are irrelevent to material falling from floor to floor. And of course, when floor breaks it falls from a height onto the floor beneath it. What else would happen?
ETA I'm losing patience again, I will leave you in the saintly hands of pants.
1) Good, then you're saying that it was unusual.
2) Which is what I said.
3) Are the columns "irrelevant" to the building being able to stay vertical for 40 years? And, is it your understanding that the floors "broke"? If they did, they would fall onto the next 240 perimeter columns and 47 massive, core box columns. They wouldn't simply "pass" through them as if through sand. The columns buckling might explain an initial floor collapse--around the core. It does not explain subsequent floor collapses, and total core disintegration, despite what Pants tries to claim. You cannot have all columns (or beams!) failing simultaneously even on one floor, let alone on numerous floors at once, in fractions of a second. Nothing natural could explain this. And, as has also been pointed out, with that kind of failure you would see a slower, punctuated kind of collapse. That would also arrest. Because the building, like most buildings, is designed to withstand gravity's pull, and to bear increased loads of up to 2000% of "design live loads", according to Kevin Ryan, who cites the building designers.
But I'm getting tired of this too.
Well it's easy if 250 massive steel columns simply buckle and fail at each floor level and all at the same time regardless of varying exposures to temperature and impact forces, and beginning with initial collapse for no apparent reason. It's like the ghost of Sir Fig Newton willed them to jump out of the way in concert or something. It's Nike's version of collapse events - they just do it.
That is not what any of the gravitational collapse models are claiming.
Let us go back to an earlier discussion about the difference between a column and a beam.
Columns go up and down. The are vertical. Beams are horizontal.
Now, the beams are not the only horizontal structural members. There are also floor joists (though they seem to call them trusses in the WTC reports) and the floor deck itself. To make things a little easier, I am going to speak in terms of horizontal structural members and vertical ones.
Think of a table. The legs of the table are the verticals, and the tabletop is the horizontal structure. You put the load (your food or books or whatever) on the tabletop, which pushes down on th etable top. The table top then pushes down on the legs, an dthe legs push on the floor.
Let's start stacking tables. But let's do it in a specific way. We are going to stack them so that the legs of the table on top line up with the legs of the table underneath. Just like columns in a high rise building.
Now, what happens if we drop something (a rigid block of tables, say) that is moving fast enough that it can break through the tabletops but not the table legs.
It falls on the tabletops and breaks them, not necessarily all at the same time. The attached legs are no longer attached to anything, so they fall over, again not necessarily all at the same time.
No buckling required. Nor do they all have to fail at the same time.
Yes I posted some links to some math, and which you promptly avoided at least twice. It won't matter to you though because you've already proven in this and other threads that you don't understand what either Garcia or Griscom are discussing in their essays.
Here are all the links you have posted that show any math equations or discussed Griscom:
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Snewton3.htm (this one has math equations, but not Griscom's)
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html (Griscom's blog. No math)
http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp (this one has a trig calculator, but not Griscom's derivation of delta-t)
http://www.lon-capa.org/~mmp/kap4/cd082.htm (this one has a vector calculator, but not Griscom's derivation of delta-t)
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm (is it here somewhere? This is Bjorkman's website, so I don't expect Griscom's math to be here)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityo... (Szamboti barely provides any of his own math. let alone Griscom's)
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf (Ross actually shows his math, but not Griscom's)
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm (this one has a trig calculator, but not Griscom's derivation of delta-t)
http://911blogger.com/node/19384 (is it here somewhere? This is another Bjorkman website, so I don't expect Griscom's math to be here)
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm (Trumpman)
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html (Hoffman)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf (Szamboti again)
http://911blogger.com/node/9154 (Ross does a critique of Bazant.No math)
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20... (Gourley)
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-91... (here is where I would expect to find his math. No such luck)
I left out links to the Wiki article for Newton's 3rd law.
Those are all the links you have posted in our ongoing discussion that deal with either Griscom or math. There is no link to Griscom's math.
Transfer of momentum? My-my, and where would Garcia account for that in his force balance equation? And no, if neither Bazant nor Garcia mention tilting(or resistance by either air or 250 steel columns), then you surely won't be mentioning it either. That's the way unscientific non-truthers deal with the issue - they simply gloss over it. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA]WTC2 collapse video[/url] shows obvious and significant tilting during collapse.
There is obviously tilting. That is why Ross is wrong, remember? What you have failed to show is how tilting affects the duration of impact in terms of transfer of momentum.
....In point of fact virtually all of the solid material of the towers and virtually everything inside (besides paper) was transmogrified into dust so fine that no conventional physics can account for it (Remember all the itty bitty pieces of bone that was all that was left of our fellow human beings?)...
This is incorrect. Bazant and Greening have both shown how the collapse released enough kinetic energy to account easily for the pulverisation of building elements.
Burning rugs and kerosene fires do nothing to steel (period). To argue that they could is, at best, to be a child.
This is also incorrect. Steel loses a significant percentage of structural strength at temperatures found in common house and office fires.
Dear PoD; Ace Baker's 9/11 Research - WMD at the WTC: Bazant Completely Blows It
dlaliberte's Journal - Bazant is bizarre
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/04/put-up-or-shut-up-year-in-review.html
attributed to Voltaire : Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
(and also) A witty saying proves nothing.
The idea that kerosene and carpet fires can damage steel is an absurdity. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one, (be careful around your barbeque 
).
Bob
Dear PoD; Ace Baker's 9/11 Research - WMD at the WTC: Bazant Completely Blows It
dlaliberte's Journal - Bazant is bizarre
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/04/put-up-or-shut-up-year-in-review.html
attributed to Voltaire : Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
(and also) A witty saying proves nothing.
The idea that kerosene and carpet fires can damage steel is an absurdity. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one, (be careful around your barbeque
Bob
None of that shows how Bazant is incorrect in his analysis of concrete pulverisation.
As for the evidence concerning steel strength and temperature, please see Figure 4 on page 5 of this PDF:
http://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/joint/35/paper/71sakumo.pdf
Dear PoD, Stunning. Of course we are discussing a crime scene where innocent people were slaughtered and we are exchanging our own thoughts with the due respect this requires, right?
Anywhoo to view video evidence from that day and imagine that kerosene and office furniture fires can cause 110 story concrete and steel buildings to be turned into dust in 10 seconds is beyond reason.
bye bye
Bob
...
Anywhoo to view video evidence from that day and imagine that kerosene and office furniture fires can cause 110 story concrete and steel buildings to be turned into dust in 10 seconds is beyond reason.
...
You keep repeating this claim. This is not the claim put forward by NIST, Bazant, Greening, or any other person. The towers were brought down by a combination of fire, impact damage and overstressing of the remaining structure.
This is incorrect. Bazant and Greening have both shown how the collapse released enough kinetic energy to account easily for the pulverisation of building elements.
You keep making this claim, but all you have to support it is guesswork math based on incorrect or fantasized assumptions.
You keep making this claim, but all you have to support it is guesswork math based on incorrect or fantasized assumptions.
Please show how Bazant (or Greening) used incorrect or fantasised assumptions in their math.
Thank you.
To borrow a phrase that you love so much: I have already explained this.
And I really have already explained this.
