The Other Fatal Flaw in Bazant's WTC Analysis
Bazant's WTC analysis can be found here. The other fatal flaw in his model, besides his concrete pulverization analysis, is his "crush down, crush up" model.
His entire model of WTC collapse rests on the idea that an upper block of each WTC tower broke off and acted as a overwhelmingly powerful pile driver that "crushed down" the lower part of each tower, and that this upper chunk of tower was only destroyed at the very end, when it reached the debris pile and underwent a "crush up" reaction.
This model makes sense-- in the cartoon world of the Roadrunner, that is.
In the real world however, there are two problems with Bazant's "crush down, crush up" model:
1) it violates physics, as Newtons' third law of motion says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of building floors hitting other building floors, as in a collapse, both sets of floors will get damaged-- and in fact, the upper floors are more likely to suffer in this collision as they are by their nature, lighter and weaker than lower floors. This counters the "crush down, crush up" model.
2) it violates what was actually observed-- as it has long been clear that there was "crush up" of the upper sections of the towers as they fell.
If the paper by Bazant et al's is really the best the official story has to offer, there can be no doubt that the towers were fucking blown to kingdom come by the regime, and that the official collapse story is a load of horse swallop.
His entire model of WTC collapse rests on the idea that an upper block of each WTC tower broke off and acted as a overwhelmingly powerful pile driver that "crushed down" the lower part of each tower, and that this upper chunk of tower was only destroyed at the very end, when it reached the debris pile and underwent a "crush up" reaction.
This model makes sense-- in the cartoon world of the Roadrunner, that is.
In the real world however, there are two problems with Bazant's "crush down, crush up" model:
1) it violates physics, as Newtons' third law of motion says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of building floors hitting other building floors, as in a collapse, both sets of floors will get damaged-- and in fact, the upper floors are more likely to suffer in this collision as they are by their nature, lighter and weaker than lower floors. This counters the "crush down, crush up" model.
2) it violates what was actually observed-- as it has long been clear that there was "crush up" of the upper sections of the towers as they fell.
If the paper by Bazant et al's is really the best the official story has to offer, there can be no doubt that the towers were fucking blown to kingdom come by the regime, and that the official collapse story is a load of horse swallop.
posted by spooked at 9:09 AM
11 Comments:
The Tower Did Not Fall
"1) it violates physics, as Newtons' third law of motion says that for every reaction [sic], there is an equal and opposite reaction."
You can't even quote Newton properly, you dumb shit.
what a tool.. Reaction? Action? Einstein Who? Newton What?
Bazant's nonsense does violate laws of physics.
If the best you can do is find a typo, anon@12:14pm, then shall I consider my case proven?
yes, I have changed the post, thanks for the catch, but not for the attitude, anon@12:14pm
Now I also briefly cited that Bazant's nonsense violates Newton's 3rd law (in the absent "crush down" phase), but resurrects, and exaggerates Newton in his "crush up" phase) to falsely claim the tower contents are nearly all with in the "footprint).
But the whole "crush up, crush down" rubbish from Bazant et al, is an insidious distraction/hangout from the obvious OUTWARD EXPLOSIONS seen and heard, and the VAPORIZATION of people, furniture, structure etc.
It gets people to think of the vertical dimension, and ignore the obvious outward explosions. He desperately tries to limit the discussion to gravity-driven crap vs TNT, so as to ignore the vaporized people and building contents that only could have come from nuclear bombs.
Its like swart--when I used the govt's own findings on the dust size, and Bazant's own equations to prove his article is bogus--comes back with "dog years." Instead of commenting on my analyses of Bazant' equations, and parameters that I cited and used.
Anonymous Physicist
The "crush down" nonsense of Bazant also ignores that a "gravity-driven" event would never have such near perfect symmetry (even the leaning over top of the one tower was "taken care of" as I have previously written.)
Such near perfect symmetry violates the Second law of Thermodynamics, commonly referred to as entropy. Likwise the near-free fall time would never happen from a "gravity-driven" collapse because of both Entropy and Newton's third law.
In other words, the near perfect symmetrical "collapse" is not only spatially impossible due to Entropy, the rapid time of the near perfect symmetry is also temporally impossible due to both Entropy and Newton's Third law.
The truth is the RAPID, near-perfect symmetry of "collapse"-- all around the perimeter and the internal structure all at once--is proof of what is was--nuclear demolition with subsidiary help from conventional explosives as detailed here.
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
Anonymous Physicist
"Just" a typo? Crappy and bullshit "analysis" and you can't even apply basic attention to detail to quote a Newtonian fact properly?
You continue to amaze us, Sphincter! Keep up the good work!
Anon@6:45am-- instead of focusing on a typo and calling me names, perhaps you could provide a critique of more substance.
I am not the one who doesn't seem to understand Newton's laws, nor am I the one who promotes the ridiculous "crush down-crush up" model which isn't even supported by simple video evidence.
In my opinion everyone must look at it.
Post a Comment
<< Home