Humint Events Online: More Fatal Flaws in Bazant et al's WTC Analysis

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

More Fatal Flaws in Bazant et al's WTC Analysis

Bazant et al's analysis supporting the official WTC collapse theory can be found here. I have described other fatal flaws in his model here and here.

FIRST-- his entire paper rests on differential equations for the time of the "collapse", notably equation 2-- the "crush down" equation. He gives this equation on page 3, but for some reason it takes him until page 7 to note that "... Eq. (2), the equation of motion, has been set up under the assumption that the accreted mass gets moving after impact with the same velocity as the top part, which implies perfectly inelastic collision (a zero coefficient of restitution)."

A perfectly inelastic collision is where a body A moving at velocity V strikes a body B, typically at rest, then both bodies stick together (the "accreted mass"), and then both bodies move together after that at the same final velocity. If both bodies are similar masses, then the final velocity will be 1/2 of the original velocity. If body A is much larger than body B, then the final velocity will be closer to the original velocity.

So there are three obvious problems with this:

1) a perfect inelastic collision assumes that no mass is lost during the collision, which we know is not the case as, during each "collision", concrete was pulverized and and ejected AND outer columns were ejected -- resulting in a loss of mass for each floor.

2) a perfect inelastic collision assumes that the collided floors stick together, which is highly improbable. Further, we know that this is not the case as, during each "collision", concrete and interior contents were pulverized, creating a significant barrier of debris between floors.

3) most fatally, by its very nature, a perfect inelastic collision model cannot take into account the resistance from the supporting columns below when calculating the final velocity.

Another problem is that Bazant does not show any calculations revealing the mass he is using for the upper colliding mass and what mass he is using for the lower mass. In fact, as far as I can tell, the collapse equations are derived indirectly, by a series of equations that calculate an overall collapse energy balance and that rest on dubious propositions (for example as described in part 2 below).

Now, Bazant should be doing collision calculations using two equal masses, as the two floors that initially collide are similar masses! But as far as I can tell, the model he uses the complete mass of the upper tower here, which will give a much faster final velocity, in order to obtain a rapid collapse time and a complete crush-down.

In reality, floor A colliding with floor B at velocity V should result in a final velocity of V/2-- and this is under perfect conditions! This halving of momentum would slow down any collapse greatly. Now, I should note that for a real world collapse, the analysis would get complicated as, after the initial collision of floors, the floors above the first collided floor will still be moving at the original velocity, which will lead to more floor-by-floor collisions-- particularly in the upwards direction. So there should be a great deal of crush UP during the "crush down" phase-- a fact that Bazant et al completely ignore in their unrealistic analysis that favors a fast collapse time. And of course, "crush up" is what is actually seen in the videos-- the top part of the tower basically completely breaks apart as it moves downwards. So Bazant et al. not only ignore basic logic but as has been pointed out before, ignores the visual record of what happened.

It is worth adding that Judy Wood's "Billiard Ball example" for the WTC collapse was criticized by many people for assuming (essentially) perfect elastic collisions for each floor. In fact, for reasons I noted above, an elastic collision is a much more reasonable assumption than an inelastic collision for floors striking each other. Obviously in the real world, though, a collision is not going to be perfectly elastic or inelastic-- so models need to really take this into account better. But overall, I find it shocking how UNREALISTIC the official collapse models are-- they barely make an attempt at making a reasonable sequence of events for the collapse. Jeesh-- I sometimes think I could do a better job of explaining the official story.

SECOND-- there is a problem with Bazant et al's equation 4, which they claim specifies all the resisting forces to collapse:

Fc = Fs + Fa + Fb

where Fc is the total resisting force, Fs is the energy required to pulverize the concrete, Fa is the energy required to expel air, and Fb is the energy required to buckle all the columns.

The key problem here is that he completely neglects two important energy sources:

1) the energy required to eject outer facade columns hundreds of feet in all directions around the towers.

2) the energy required to expel pulverized concrete for thousands of feet all around the WTC complex.

Considering the masses of the outer wall columns, and the immense mount of concrete that was expelled, no one can seriously argue that these are trivial sources of energy-- particularly when Bazant is saying AIR gave enough resistance to collapse to bother calculating!!!

And, as has been discussed here before, Bazant et al badly under-estimate the energy required to pulverize the WTC concrete (see links above).

The bottom line, again, is that the official analyses of the WTC collapse (such as Bazant et al's) are so fatally flawed that they essentially prove demolition by default!

In other words, if expert scientists must resort to such rigged mathematical models to explain what happened, there can be little doubt they are covering up a very ugly truth.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bazant is full of shit.

the "crush down" equation.

as if.
here is wtc2 about 5/8 of the way thru it's destruction:
what the f is "crushing it down"?
as if.

6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what the f is "crushing it down"?

Explosions are "crushing it down".

8:37 PM  
Anonymous Plaguepuppy said...

One other, even bigger problem with that "inelastic collision" model:

"the accreted mass gets moving after impact with the same velocity as the top part, which implies perfectly inelastic collision"

Not only are the collisions a long way from being perfectly inelastic, but he is ignoring the energy that is needed to accelerate the previously stationary floor. Where can this energy come from, other than the kinetic energy of the floor/mass above, and how can that energy be extracted without slowing it down?

So not only does the (supposedly solid) falling top manage to break all the attachments of the floor below without slowing measurably, it also instantly accelerates the newly falling floor to its own speed without slowing down.

These aren't "perfectly inelastic collisions" as taught in Physics 101 at all, but a fantasy interaction that can only exist in computer visualizations.

10:25 PM  
Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

If he had used some cinder blocks and chicken wire as a model, I'm sure he would have gotten it correct...

11:36 PM  
Anonymous Plaguepuppy said...

Not to flog a dead horse, but this is also a good example of why the "fancy equations" that look so meaningful to the uninitiated are only as good as the underlying model of the physical event. If the model fails the test of basic "physicality," no amount of massaging with differential equations will give meaningful conclusions.

The instantaneous acceleration of a floor without consuming energy is a very clear example of such a non-physicality. For that matter so is breaking loose all the attachments of a floor without consuming energy. Full stop, end of story: with or without equations you have exactly nothing, and no computation is necessary to "disprove" it.

11:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bazant's equations are nonsense - sure, the math in and of itself is spot-on, but they do not reflect what is observable in the many videos of wtc destruction.
In short: an explosion is not a collapse.

11:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What explosion? There's no evidence of any explosions. Anywhere. If you could point out some evidence - real evidence, not some cockamamie made up evidence like what we see today from the Conspiracy idiots - of explosions, perhaps you may have a case.

5:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Sphincter! I got an idea! Why don't you take these BRILLIANT observations mainstream! Publish them as a technical paper in an appropriate journal so it can get peer-reviewed and you can put this thing to rest permanently!

Unless you are too scared to do so and want to keep on writing this shit in a crappy blog. Methinks its the former.

After all, you ARE a "scientist", right?

6:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What explosion?"
Sure, you just keep telling yourself that.
The entire destruction was explosions. Just watch any video of it or ask any 9/11 fireman.

8:15 AM  
Anonymous Plaguepuppy said...

Don't worry about trying to convince the trolls to use their own "steenkin' eyeballs," it aint gonna happen.

As W.C. Fields famously said, you can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think.

11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Publish his "brilliant" analysis in a peer-reviewed journal = convincing one to use their own "steenkin' eyeballs"?

No wonder this movement is so incredibly and hilariously ridiculed throughout the world, if that is your approach to gaining scientific credibility.

You're even a dumber fuck than your website portends, pp!

3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

Oral Histories From Sept 11

Peer review this!

An Explosion Is Not A Collapse

3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Musta been a train that tore the building down!

Nicholas Borrillo -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) on 23rd floor of North Tower:
Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall.

Paul Curran -- Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) North Tower:
I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) T]he ground started shaking like a train was coming. You looked up, and I guess -- I don't know, it was one that came down first or two? Which one?

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118] You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.

4:51 PM  
Blogger Plaguepuppy said...

And this relates how to Bazant's paper?

"Like a freight train" is just a figure of speech, none of these people think they heard a real train, but a whole lot of people heard (and in some cases recorded) what they strongly believed were real explosions.

12:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus definitely belong here, PP! Without a doubt.

6:18 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

I just love when the shills cannot mount even one slightly coherent argument in favor of the official story-- but then again it is hard to coherently argue in support of a fairy tale such as Bazant's paper.

8:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I just love it when you refuse to answer a simple question about why you don't publish this bullshit in a respectable journal to legitimize your "research"? Why not, if you are so fucking sure about your claims, don't you call a press conference and explain to the world your findings and why the leading scientists and engineers of the world are wrong???? Why don't you bind together with the other idiots and morons from this movement, purchase a full-page ad in the New York Times and state your case? After all, according to you, this is the worst mass murder and cause for genocide in the history of the world - and you are content to sit on your stupid little blog and not do anything about it?

You are nothing but a fucking pile of shit, hiding in this digital make-believe world of yours, hurling accusations around like so many puff balls.

What a waste of oxygen.

8:49 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

Well, anon@8:49am, I think the more pertinent issue is whether my critiques are sound or not? If you can't rebut them, why don't you start to question the official story yourself? The idea with this blog is to start at the grass roots level, since the mainstream media and the political elites won't deal with this stuff-- for obvious reasons, as it threatens their way of life.

And generally it is hard to get a paper published in a journal simply refuting another work. If I was a peer-reviewer for this paper, I would surely have trashed it. But in fact, perhaps the scientific community has chimed in as it looks like Bazant's paper was rejected from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

IF the paper IS published somewhere, I will be happy to send a letter to the journal stating my objections.

10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good weasel, weasel. Truth is you don't know what the fuck you are talking about or else you would move heaven and earth to get your "truth" out.

Truth further is that you are content to snipe from the sidelines, from this crappy little blog, rather than lay YOUR ass on the line in the public square or in the public eye to stand up for what you believe in.

As far as rebutting this shit, it has been rebutted a million times before in a million different ways by people and real scientists and real engineers and real experts who know what the fuck they are talking about and do real experiments using real computers and real simulations and real computations rather than a fat foot on a paver with a cup of kerosene and coat hangers or wooden airplanes shoved into a lego tower.

10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice weasel yourself 10:43 - the real truth is Bazant's foolish paper has not been accepted for publication anywhere now even itself peer reviewed.
as spooked has said, the instant it is objections will be sent - from all corners.

"real scientists and real engineers and real experts"

ya real ones - that's what makes it all the more pathetic when so-called real experts twist real science into knots trying to cover up official lies.

but you should just keep on telling yourself that you are not full of shit, 10:43 sword of a fool.

11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bazant's foolish paper has not been accepted for publication anywhere NOR even itself peer reviewed.

11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yo...Dipshit! Yeah, you! I'm not an advocate of Bazant's paper - could care less about it. It is either solid physics or it isn't. I'm not a physicist so I won't pretend to opine with any academic authority on it, unlike Sphincter, who seems to fancy himself (along with his foot and his wooden airplanes and rabbit wire) he is some sort of "scientist".

No, I could care less about Bazant.

What I DO care about is the absolute bullshit thst Sphincter and that Anonymous Asshole butt-buddy of his and teh crap THEY put out. It HAS to be crap else they would try to sell the world on their ideas and their "proof". Instead, he seems to enjoy being a fish in a very, very small polluted and stinkingly fetid pond - this web page.

According to you morons, Bush was responsible for 9/11, for the towers and WTC 7 falling, for the 3,000 deaths, for faking the airplanes all over the place, for using the intelligence and security organizations to accomplish this, for somehow bringing every single freaking media outlet on the planet into his plan, for making sure that in a city of 10 million, NOBODY could record an image on a cam corder or camera of a plane flying into the towers without being part of THE PLAN, nuclear weapons were used, not once but TWICE, and God knows what else.


Sphincter has criticized the NIST findings plenty - and THOSE publications are as official as they get. If you don't have the guts to go public in a BIG way against some prof from Northwestern, the strap on the elephant balls and go after the NIST.

He won't, though, because I know deep down he doesn't believe his own bullshit. He likes the adoration and butt stroking from his band of merry morons, but he'll never go beyond this stupid little blog. Hell, he can't even get anyone to listen to him without laughing so hard milk comes out of their nose over at DU.

So I challenge you, Sphincter. if you really believe this bullshit that you vomit up here, then go after NIST, PUBLICLY. Join in Judy Moron's FOIA suit or Morgan Moron's FOIA case and lay some of this Sphincter 911 Goodness on the world.

Else, fuck you and the morons who stroke you.

12:07 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Go away, shill.

I have my reasons for how I go about spreading the truth. I don't need to give any explanations to you.

Either you take what I write into your brain and try to rebut it or you accept it as true criticism and try to integrate it into your world view, or you can ignore this stuff and just don't come here. I fail to see what you are so hot and bothered about.

1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to you morons, Bush was responsible for 9/11

bush isn't even responsible for the foolish words that come out of his mouth.

NIST? ha ha.
phony "Science" At The Service Of An Empire

beat it fool @ 12:07!
all you care about is perpetuating the official cover-up....and you are not even close to being adequate for that task.
go get sword of "truth" - at least he pretends to address the issue at hand.

1:48 PM  
Anonymous fish said...

Hey this Bazant's WTC destruction report has prompted quite a few comments on this blog.
There are plenty of comments that point out why it is wrong but no comments supporting it!
I am now finding it hard to accept this report, is it beyond support?

8:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Fish,

If you are that gullible to accept what Sphincter and his butt buddies are putting out - if you are so weak to accept the word of these uneducated bullshitters over the information put forth by, among others, the McCormick Institute Professor and W.P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials
Science at Northwestern University and a Professor Emeritus, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at Washington State University, then you *deserve* to be here and worshiping this crap.

And as far as Sphincter is concerned, go ahead and weasel all you want - you can't afford to let this crap be published in the light of day because you *cannot* defend it from an academia perspective.

So fuck you.

11:13 PM  
Anonymous fish said...

Hey 11:13, what are you talking about?
Do you have any links for any of this?:

the McCormick Institute Professor and W.P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials
Science at Northwestern University and a Professor Emeritus, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at Washington State University

Do these institutions support Bazant's report?

Hey fuck you instead.

11:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yo fish!
@ 11:13 will most likely not respond with any links to his supposed *engineer smart guys* -
if you look closely at what he said you will realize that his little list of *smart guys* is actually nothing more than nonsense.
i wouldn't wait around for 11:13's validation.

yo 11:13 - better luck next time!

1:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey 11:13.

It is clear that you are the one who is the "sphincter" here.

First, Anonymous Physicist has said several times here--and you know it-- that he has taught Physics at several Universities.

Second, the articles A.P. has written here about Bazant's ludicrous articles have cited the pages and/or equations from Bazant's detritus, and have then cited the actual findings say of the dust size, which Bazant lied about! This is all clear cut!

There is no other issue at play here, CIA vermin. All your childish anal references only show how stupid and desperate you and your employer are! It is up to you to also cite the equations and criticisms that A.P. did, and to try to find fault with his analysis.

This you do not do, and cannot do, both becuase you are an ignoramus and because A.P.'s analysis is correct. The more you try to "reply" by insulting with your stupid cussing, the more it is clear that your employer, CIA or whatever bunch of filth, has nothing and can say nothing, and that A.P. has well proven his points.

Good job, Anonymous Physicist!

And Spooked has likewise also pointed out some of the ludicrous assumptions in Bazant's paper, which are proven wrong by all the evidence including the photos and videos of the explosive destruction. And the vaporized people, and tower structure.

Good job Spooked!

But hey 11:13, I like your earlier comment about those shills doing "real simulations."

If only you comprehended how stupid you are, and likewise for your employer for sending a low level jerk like you here.

9:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger