The Three Fatal Flaws in Bazant's WTC Concrete Pulverization Calculations and Why His Calculations Really Support Nuclear Demolition
Bazant's WTC concrete pulverization calculations can be found here. Basically, he calculates that 7% of the total "gravitational potential energy" (GPE) is required to pulverize all of the concrete in the WTC towers.
His three fatal flaws are:
1) he significantly under-estimates the size of the particles that result from concrete pulverization (as detailed here)-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to pulverize the WTC.
2) he does not take into account the complete pulverization of all interior contents of the towers-- interior walls, furniture, computers, filing cabinets and PEOPLE-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to completely pulverize the WTC.
3) he does not take into account the EFFICIENCY of the "gravitational potential energy" in pulverizing all of the concrete. There is no way this process is even close to 100% efficient! Think about the actual mechanics involved in a collapse: a heavy set of floors is dropping ten feet onto a lower floor filled with interior walls, furniture, and the bottom concrete slab is covered with some padding and carpet. There is simply no way that the floor slab concrete is going to be significantly pulverized in this way. Some concrete will be crushed by breakage of the floors slabs and by steel columns being forced downwards at irregular angles, but it is difficult to imagine that more than 10% of the concrete being crushed in this way, and much of this crushing will not result in micron-sized particles. A heavy weight dropping ten feet onto a furniture and carpet-covered floor is thus going to have an efficiency of concrete pulverization of 10% at most. Not to mention that after a few floors are crushed down, there is going to be a build up of crushed material from the previously crushed floors, which will act as a buffer and decrease the efficiency of further crushing. Thus, to simply equate "gravitational potential energy" with the energy required to pulverize concrete, as Bazant does, is incredibly flawed, bad science.
Some corrected energy calculations would be as follows:
1) extra energy to pulverize concrete from Bazant's alleged 10 micron smallest dust size just to 2.5 micron size, as found in the "EHP study", was calculated with Bazant's equations, by Anonymous Physicist, to have needed 14% of total GPE". This is a VERY conservative assumption because, as explained by Anonymous Physicist, it is very likely a vast amount of even smaller particles were created during WTC destruction, which would require several times more energy than Bazant's 7% (even assuming 100% efficiency of pulverization).
2) extra energy to pulverize interior building contents not including the concrete-- this will use less energy than pulverizing the concrete, as these materials were not as strong on average as concrete, but we can estimate this will still use another 7% of total GPE conservatively to convert these items into micron-sized particles.
3) extra energy required to overcome the inefficiency of concrete pulverization-- conservatively 10 times 14% of GPE-- thus 140% of GPE. For the sake of argument, we will assume that interior building contents are pulverized at 100% efficiency, which is probably not the case, but is the conservative argument. This gives a rough CONSERVATIVE total of 147% of GPE to pulverize the concrete and the interior building contents to micron-sized particles.
In fact, with these three factors taken into account, it should be clear, using conservative assumptions, that the energy required to pulverize the concrete and everything inside the WTC is much greater than the total "gravitational potential energy"-- and this does not even include the massive energy that would be required to destroy the steel super-structure of the towers!
So what would produce this amount of energy, without the impractical course of pre-loading of the towers with thousands of tons of explosives?
Nuclear energy.
His three fatal flaws are:
1) he significantly under-estimates the size of the particles that result from concrete pulverization (as detailed here)-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to pulverize the WTC.
2) he does not take into account the complete pulverization of all interior contents of the towers-- interior walls, furniture, computers, filing cabinets and PEOPLE-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to completely pulverize the WTC.
3) he does not take into account the EFFICIENCY of the "gravitational potential energy" in pulverizing all of the concrete. There is no way this process is even close to 100% efficient! Think about the actual mechanics involved in a collapse: a heavy set of floors is dropping ten feet onto a lower floor filled with interior walls, furniture, and the bottom concrete slab is covered with some padding and carpet. There is simply no way that the floor slab concrete is going to be significantly pulverized in this way. Some concrete will be crushed by breakage of the floors slabs and by steel columns being forced downwards at irregular angles, but it is difficult to imagine that more than 10% of the concrete being crushed in this way, and much of this crushing will not result in micron-sized particles. A heavy weight dropping ten feet onto a furniture and carpet-covered floor is thus going to have an efficiency of concrete pulverization of 10% at most. Not to mention that after a few floors are crushed down, there is going to be a build up of crushed material from the previously crushed floors, which will act as a buffer and decrease the efficiency of further crushing. Thus, to simply equate "gravitational potential energy" with the energy required to pulverize concrete, as Bazant does, is incredibly flawed, bad science.
Some corrected energy calculations would be as follows:
1) extra energy to pulverize concrete from Bazant's alleged 10 micron smallest dust size just to 2.5 micron size, as found in the "EHP study", was calculated with Bazant's equations, by Anonymous Physicist, to have needed 14% of total GPE". This is a VERY conservative assumption because, as explained by Anonymous Physicist, it is very likely a vast amount of even smaller particles were created during WTC destruction, which would require several times more energy than Bazant's 7% (even assuming 100% efficiency of pulverization).
2) extra energy to pulverize interior building contents not including the concrete-- this will use less energy than pulverizing the concrete, as these materials were not as strong on average as concrete, but we can estimate this will still use another 7% of total GPE conservatively to convert these items into micron-sized particles.
3) extra energy required to overcome the inefficiency of concrete pulverization-- conservatively 10 times 14% of GPE-- thus 140% of GPE. For the sake of argument, we will assume that interior building contents are pulverized at 100% efficiency, which is probably not the case, but is the conservative argument. This gives a rough CONSERVATIVE total of 147% of GPE to pulverize the concrete and the interior building contents to micron-sized particles.
In fact, with these three factors taken into account, it should be clear, using conservative assumptions, that the energy required to pulverize the concrete and everything inside the WTC is much greater than the total "gravitational potential energy"-- and this does not even include the massive energy that would be required to destroy the steel super-structure of the towers!
So what would produce this amount of energy, without the impractical course of pre-loading of the towers with thousands of tons of explosives?
Nuclear energy.
posted by spooked at 7:52 PM
14 Comments:
2) he does not take into account the complete pulverization of all interior contents of the towers-- interior walls, furniture, computers, filing cabinets and PEOPLE--
not to mention the 47 extra-massive steel core columns each 1/4 mile tall that each tower contained - very few pieces of these extra-massive steels remained after.
imagine the real energy it would take to turn those into dust in only 10 seconds.
gravity...ha!
His two fatal flaws are:
1) he significantly under-estimates the size of the particles that result from concrete pulverization (as detailed here)-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to pulverize the WTC.
Where are your calculations that show this?
2) he does not take into account the complete pulverization of all interior contents of the towers-- interior walls, furniture, computers, filing cabinets and PEOPLE-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to pulverize the WTC.
Where are your calculations that show this?
3) he does not take into account the EFFICIENCY of the "gravitational potential energy" in pulverizing all of the concrete. There is NO WAY this process is even close to 100% efficient! Using "gravitational potential energy" as an equal measure the energy required to pulverize concrete is simply incredibly bad science.
Still no calculations from you.
I am making logical assertions SOT, and calculations are not required for this.
Now this is another part of what I wrote where you could ask for my calculations, but you did not not do so, this indicating perhaps you do not understand these matters at all.
You are asserting that his calculations are wrong.
So show us yours, bitch.
You are such a tool, SOT. I didn't say his MATH was wrong, only his logic.
certainly the mighty power of gravity can cause a massive 1/4 mile steel/concrete tower to be rendered completely into powder in only 10 seconds!
The dust sampling done during and right after 9-11 did not bother to make use of the available technology for sampling of particles 2.5 microns and below. It was almost by accident that Thomas Cahill from UC Davis was in the area, though he did not arrive until Oct. 2, 2001.
But even that late on, air sampling a mile away showed continuing production of significant quantities of particles from 2.5 microns down to the level of detection at 0.09 microns.
Quoting from Cahill:
The samples were collected continuously in eight separate-size modes from coarse (12 micrometers diameter) to ultra-fine (0.09 micrometers diameter), and were analyzed for dozens of substances that are likely to be associated with burning office buildings.
Coarse particles are typically filtered by the nose or coughed out of the throat and upper lungs, but they can irritate the mucous membranes and aggravate pre-existing breathing problems such as asthma. Very fine particles, however, can travel deep into human lungs, and are typically removed from the lungs through the bloodstream and heart, increasing the possibility of more serious health impacts.
In the largest spike, the DELTA Group analysis found 58 micrograms per cubic meter of very fine particles in one 45-minute period "an extremely high peak," Cahill says. "Even on the worst air days in Beijing, downwind from coal-fired power plants, or in the Kuwaiti oil fires, we did not see these levels of very fine particulates."
Virtually all the air samples from the trade center site also carried high concentrations of coarse particles. "These particles simply should not be there," Cahill says. "It had rained, sometimes heavily, on 6 days in the prior 3 weeks. That rain should have settled these coarse particles." The finding suggests that coarse particles were being continually generated from the hot debris pile.
Some metals in the very fine mode, such as vanadium, were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States.
http://calag.ucop.edu/0203MJ/briefs.html
Forget about the energy balance, sombody propose to me a plausible physical mechanism that could break all those damn molecular bonds so quickly during the actual collapse, and then continue for weeks to cook off a plume of ultra-fine particles. That's one hellacious gravity driven collapse...
"sombody [sic] propose to me a plausible physical mechanism that could break all those damn molecular bonds so quickly during the actual collapse, and then continue for weeks to cook off a plume of ultra-fine particles."
It is strange, and likely ominous, that someone could say such a thing here. When, at this blog, I have written many articles and massively cited evidence and eyewitness testimony to the nuking of the WTC, and the subsequent China Syndrome aftermath. These are mostly archived at these two blogs:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com
Indeed my dust article itself cited a wiki nuclear fallout piece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout
that states 10 nm size (.010 microgram) particles are created in fission blasts. I also cited evidence of similar fine particles emanating from Chernobyl and the Iraq War.
Then the Cahill piece has him saying, "In the largest spike, the DELTA Group analysis found 58 micrograms per cubic meter of very fine particles in one 45-minute period "an extremely high peak…"
To me, the most plausible explanation is the following. This could be related to "cleanup"--of which I have written, it took about 3 months to remove all the radioactive fragments in the hot rubble pile, and about 6 months to remove the hotter still fragments trapped underneath the tower remnants. The 45 minute spike may well relate to uncovering something “hot.” Hot as in both temperature, and radioactivity. Such an event may well have been something like uncovering the molten piece in the “teeth” of the crane in the well-known “cheeto” photo derided, in cartoon fashion, by the anti-Scientist, Judy Wood. Likely an order from her handlers to counter all nuclear, and China Syndrome evidence, while promoting what I now call the DDT—DEW Disinfo “Theory.” Or the spike, of very fine particles, could have resulted from a large-scale hosing down of the hot rubble pile and the resultant steam emanation (laughably called “molecular dissociating clouds” in the anti-Science DDT); or perhaps from agitating the hotter still molten piles underneath the tower remnants.
I also note that the Cahill study apparently did not include, as far as I can tell from the short piece, radioactive analyses.
Everything in my dust article, and what is new here, and all the articles I have written before, lead to the inescapable conclusion that nuclear bombs were used--by our own regime--in New York City, on 9/11/01. Or else, someone provide an iota of evidence for something that fits the event and its aftermath a small fraction as well as the above does. The DDT, t[h]ermites, OCT pristine pancakes (gravity-driven) disinfo theories need not apply, as they have all been proven to be evidence-free, or physically impossible.
So there is NO DAMN MYSTERY HERE ANY MORE, after my work, and a few others! And we know from the Kennedy Assassination, and numerous other regime perpetrated events, that pretending that the matter is unknowable is the regime’s intel agencies’ final limited hangout.
Anonymous Physicist
Wasn't trying to be strange or ominous, just pointing out the impossibility of a gravitational collapse explaining these kinds of particles. Your nuke hypothesis seems quite compelling, and does explain the late production of ultra-fine particles without invoking mysterious unknown physical processes.
"Your nuke hypothesis seems quite compelling, and does explain the late production of ultra-fine particles without invoking mysterious unknown physical processes."
Well thank you for going on record with that!
A.P.
One other point about the size of the dust particles: the fact that there was no sampling at all of sub 2.5 micron particles until October 2 suggests that very large amounts of these went unrecorded, and dissipated over larger distances than the coarser stuff. This helps explain the "mass deficit" in the amount of debris of all kinds, but particularly concrete and gypsum, left in the footprint of the WTC site.
The idea of some kind of mystery ray may work as a plot device in badly written science fiction, but invoking an "unknown unknown" does nothing to advance investigation in the real world. Parsimony (I'll spare Occam this time) demands that we accept an explanation based on established, public domain science if it accounts for all the salient features of the collapse.
And no, I don't really believe in Tom Bearden and his tales of scalar wizardry - there's just something a little too slick about the avuncular back-woods persona and the way his stories always worked to support Cold War paranoia. Hell, if the Rooskies really had all that stuff how could they not be ruling the world by now?
The continued high temperatures had puzzled me, but your idea of pockets of criticality makes sense. Whatever process created those sub-micron particles had to involve very high temperatures, enough to not just melt but vaporize metal so that the particles could condense out. Nuclear chemistry fits the bill, unless someone has a Tesla death ray they'd like to show me. The old chestnut about extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims applies here as never before.
Months ago, I wrote here two articles on how and why DEW, or now, my DDT, (DEW Disinfo Theory), was brought out. Not all my articles are archived at the 2 blogs I cited earlier.
But it is crystal clear that the evidence-free DDT was created to claim all nuclear, or "exotic" phenomena for itself, and to denounce evidence of the China Syndrome, such as the "Cheetos" photo. Some of the DEW disinfo agents even make the agenda crystal clear when they have said "DEW is nukes without radiation!" The regime does not want people to know the ultimate truth of 9/11, for they fear mass revolt if it were known. The WTC was nuked, and the China Syndrome resulted. The rare (but common in radiation-exposed people) blood, lymph, and thyroid cancers occurring now in responders, is just one piece of evidence. So DEW's ludicrous claims of nuke-like, or nuke-light, are desperately made for reasons obvious to some of us.
I have already found evidence of Bearden being Army Intel. His stuff is mostly a combintion of gibberish, disinfo, with some genuine, underlying Physics.
I like the way he claimed the Rooskies downed the Challenger--with "Space Beams", of course--when the great physicist Feynmann demonstrated the low temperature launch led to cracked O-rings in that rocket. NASA was ordered by Reagan to launch despite the usual avoidance of launch if the temps were that low. Feynmann "contracted" a rapid cancer after not towing the part line in the Challenger "Commission.") So Bearden, the regime's disinfo operator came out with his Rooskies hangout. (I have written elsewhere here that the whole Cold War was bogus.)
Likewise what Bearden says about UFO's and Energy is disinfo. The PTB always insert their disinfo agents into the "alternatives" to head the "alternatives."
As for Tesla, it is just another name desperately thrown out there by the DDT people. Tesla's time likely has come and gone, a while back. Scalar, Tesla, U.S. Space Beam Weapons research are all meaningless and irrelevant to what all the evidence and eyewitnesses to 9/11, and its aftermath, clearly show.
The nuking of the WTC, in this country's largest city, by its own regime, and the China Syndrome aftermath. I hope, after your evaluation, you will help promote this on your own blogs by linking to the 2 blogs where some of my articles are.
Anonymous Physicist
AP,
I must agree that what took place was no less than a nuclear attack, whatever other elements may eventually be found to be involved, and that this needs to be central to any discussion of the demolitions.
Unfortunately my original "Plaguepuppy's Cafe" page is in Comcast hell right now - doesn't display right and can't be edited until their new webpage builder program is up and working, if ever. I do have a secondary page on another domain that I can still edit, so after I have had more time to digest your info I will post something there, and send a link once I do.
PP:
Fair enough. Thank you.
A.P.
Post a Comment
<< Home