This is mostly for Azarael and MM. I finished up my reply to Gordon Ross. Incidentally, his paper now shows that collapse continues and is not arrested.

linky: http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/07/gor...rogression.html

It's rather math heavy, but it shows that Ross made bad assumptions in his original paper on momentum and even used some physic concepts improperly.

Hi NB,

I'm not sure what you would like to tell, but is it not the per-story collapse that should be proved ? Bazant assumes that energy is only dissipated at the crushing front, read again: assumes that that occurs and I understand why, because that explains the observed behavior of the collapse, but the physical meaning is something to be discussed. In fact imo there is a contradiction into this assumption because this implies that the whole building provides an equal and opposite reaction force to crush that story which already implies that energy is transferred to the lower stories, otherwise it couldn't provide that huge opposite reaction force. In an equal mass-per-floor energy-per-story system that behavior is very suspicious and unphysical. If this behavior can be proved I will join the debunker club, if it cannot an other source of energy must be used.

I think you are raising the same point I've been pursuing einsteen.

Bazant is basing his belief on an inability for the immediate floor below to absorb the kinetic energy and I'm of the belief that most of this energy would have been conducted downward and not arrested at that intial floor.

MM

Bazant does allow energy to be conducted down through the whole building, he models an elastic spring for the lower floors which absorbs energy. Ross does the same thing but in a slightly different way. In my letter, I've shown that with Ross's base model, the collapse is not arrested. There is no energy deficit.

What Bazant doesn't do, is use a spring for the upper block as well, he just assumes it's a rigid block. Ross "kind of" models this, and comes up with a very small number compared to the total kinetic energy.

Could you clarify more about what you are looking for einsteen?

Yes but you also profess a belief in progressive collapse following a single column failure.

MM

Not for WTC1&2. Systems were in place for those two buildings that would definitely prevent collapse from single or multiple column failures. A big part of that is the hat truss at the top of the building. WTC7 (interior columns), the Murrah building, pretty much anything I've worked on, are vastly different structures.

Way to twist words my friend. Is there anything you wanted to actually say or were you just making a baseless attack that has nothing to do with the topic?

After your "nasa engineer" couldn't answer a math heavy question, I'm not particular interested anymore. But thanks anyway.

Want something more, I'll give it to you. You win. Congratulations. Bye. (Leave me out of your discussions; this is not a "game")

Twist words?

I am entitled to challenge the legitimacy of your posts based on your previous statements.

You've made some rather outrageous comments regarding your expectation of "progressive collapse after a single column failure" and I feel that casts significant doubt on your credibility when challenging the theories of people such as Gordon Ross.

MM

Nasa engineer?

It's more like you're attacking me based upon your ignorance. Most buildings aren't designed to resist the loss of a single column. Hence, most buildings cannot resist the loss of a single column. I've never said that the whole building would come down, you twisted my words to say that as well. I have said that there would be global progressive collapse and large-scale damage (think murrah building).

For you to be right, you need to show me that most buildings WILL resist collapse of columns without any extensive damage to floors above or below. I'll be waiting for examples.

I don't know who you are quoting?

The NASA engineer would be R.Mackey at JREF but I don't know from your post who it was that asked him the unanswerable question..or what the question was for that matter?

MM

Never mind then. If you don't know what I'm talking about skip the following.

In maths we try to simplify things.
What letter couldn't you parse in the word: bye.

Was it the 'b', or 'y', or 'e'?

The question was posted in the skeptics forum and it asked what was isomophic with semi-linear non-singular transformations.

Bazant uses springs ? I've read the latest BLBG paper 3 times and the only thing I saw that they used homogenization of the energy crushed per story in order to set up their differential equation. Of course I have no access to all references but the answer of the questions we have seem to be (in one way or another) related with plastic bifurcation whatever that might be.

It's mathematically of course a proper paper but it is the assumption that matters, wrong input , wrong output. Further there are some strange things in that paper, the sonic booms are assumed to occur if the floors press the air out and are very parallel. At JREF Dr Greening even said that a perfectly non-tilting collapse would theoretically be arrested but the same paper assumes that those supersonic booms of air only occur if the floors are parallel and collapse on each other. Then you can't have it both. And should the building not be unpopulated and stripped ? And I don't know which booms they mean, I always thought that OCT'ers mention "the sound of silence" during the collapse. Further at the end of the article they mention a generalization to 3d for futured papers, but what would it differ ? All detached floors will really not tilt in the same way as the initial falling block.
I can write much more points but I have to leave now.

Umm... I fucked up. I thought I was talking to e^n instead of newtons bit. To his credit he was always polite in his replies to me.

Why thank you, as an aside I asked a Physics PhD and I think a maths PhD student. The maths student says he requires more context :)

Right!
You're the one I'm seeking.
Tell the math student he knows shit and might use his degree as toilet paper :)
(This is BASIC math)

If your "math" student can give an answer of how many isomophisms there are for semi-lin... etc.. I might accept your bluff.

Really, what context do you need?


edit: pretty please with sugar on top bring back your "nasa engineer" he seemed to think he knew the answer. (yes, I'm pissed off and won't accept an easy answer to this anymore)

You can also tell which uni the "math" student is attending. I'll email his professors about his knowledge.

edit2: of course you are bluffing and I will never hear which uni this phd math is attending. Even if it is only to email them to update their curriculum past the stone age.

The only thing that I still know is that a non-singular transformation (when speaking about coordinates) in fact means that the determinant is nonzero. Lineair algebra wasn't my favourite subject... But I guess with some googling around the answer can be found. Isomorphic had to do with a kind of invariance, rotational I think, can't really remember.

Hello everyone,


Wow you guys are lost.


May I suggest:

A Message From Max Photon to the Meritorious Engineers of the World - Mind Your DEQs

and, so I don't need to retype everything, please see my first post in the new members thread:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...797&st=50&#last


It really blows me away that you guys fiddle around with what you don't even understand.

I bet some people even look at your math-ramblings and think you actually know what you are talking about. Good grief.


Thermite was poured into box columns to induce heat-weakening.

That is what caused the towers to collapse.


Respectfully,

Max Photon


---

Ok fine, two questions

• 1. How was access gained to the inside of box columns in order to plant the thermite?
• 2. How did this cause the perimeter columns of WTC1 and 2 to bow inwards up to 30 mins prior to collapse?

Thanks.

Thanks for your response.


Answer to your question #1:

Photo of a Worker Reaching Into a Perimeter-Panel Box Column, Through the Bolt-Access-Hole


Answer to your question #2:

Many perimeter-panel columns splices along the east face impact floors were heat-weakened from thermite in the box column splices and spandrel splices.

(Bazant showed that about 1/2 of the perimeter-panel columns bowing inward from visco-elastic creep would bring about a catastrophic collapse. He just doesn't address where the heat comes from to induce visco-elastic creep. The heat comes from thermite poured inside box columns. Bazant's conclusion - No Controlled-Demolition - is wrong.)

The thermite reactions probably lasted only a few seconds to a minute.

Remember, the thermite only had to heat the splices to about 1/2 of steel's melting temperature, and only for a moment.

Many of the columns splices were heat-weakened right before, during, and right after Flight 175's impact.

The following thread will address some of the initiation flashes of the shock-tube-linked system:

MAX MIHOP Video Analysis: 2nd Hit - North Face Cropped


Furthermore, I believe the floors near where the panels are bowing inward were dynamically loaded with extra weight.

See: MAX-MIHOP Says - The Aluminum Components of Flights 11 and 175 Were Used as Aluminum Powder for Phreato-Thermatic Explosions


----

Azarael: I was very confused!

einsteen: Check out the paper by Bazant and Zhou (the first one), it's sort of a primer to how things work in the lastest one. You can see how he models the lower block below the impact as a spring which deflects elastically from impact.

edit: I was entirely wrong here and had misread your post! Please see below.

Thermite would melt these columns and allow them to deform without fracturing. Fracturing is one of the modes of failure clearly evident on videos of the east of WTC2, furthermore creep was not the only reason for perimeter column bowing.

Why would heating steel above it's critical temperature and then leaving it to cool weaken it? This would (if my knowledge is accurate) make the steel harder and more brittle, more prone to fracture?

Well there was the standard live load, do you believe some conspirators deliberately overloaded those floors?

Oh you mean the one where Bazant and Zhou calculated all the answers within 48 hours of 9/11...sorta trying to being No1 and not too worried about accumulating all the relevant data first?

Apparently NIST spent 20 million dollars and several years proving what Bazant theorized in a few days.

Maybe, just maybe, you can't calculate those collapses so fast and possibly those calculations that NIST endorses are seriously flawed.

MM

So when NIST take their time you take issue, when Bazant works quickly you take issue. Perhaps you should stop being so bloody fickle when it comes to the timespan MM? Bazant's first paper has been peer reviewed by a respectable journal and no scientist has yet to publish a paper in any respectable journal which disputes it. The only engineer I know of to publish a paper was Gordon Ross which is what this topic is about of course.

--

e^n

You ask fine questions above, but we need address the general, before we address the specific.

Do you accept that thermite was poured in perimeter-panel box columns?

As someone who has done serious research, using all the available evidence, I am absolutely certain thermite was poured into perimeter-panel box columns.

Those who do not see that thermite was poured into perimeter-panel box columns, and packed in spandrel splice gaps, are now WAY behind the curve.

Are you a serious investigator of the NIST and FEMA photo sets, the NCSTAR reports, the FEMA reports, and all the relevant video available? (I am not trying to be provocative...I am just asking.)

Those who have done serious research of the available evidence will instantly see great merit in my finding. Thermite in box columns explains a zillion anomalies.

I strongly suggest to all reader to visit my website, and read about my findings:

The Adventures of Max Photon, at maxphoton.com

Regards,

Max

--

Fickle?

Two different issues.

NIST, especially in the case of WTC 7, with a their latest announced report release date moved to the end of 2007, are not only taking too long, they are clearly stalling!

Bazant reached a collapse conclusion, based on 'sitting-at-his-desk calculations', a mere few days after the event, and is obviously theorizing with nothing but a lot of assumed data.

How is my questioning this "fickle"?

MM

--

MM,

I agree that Bazant got to work with a lot of assumed data.

A key assumption for Bazant et. al. was that a number of fires reached 1/2 to 2/3 of the melting temperature of steel, and that these fires affected a significant number of perimeter-panel columns.

Bazant et. al. ignore WHAT caused these fires, or WHERE the fires were actually located.

The WHAT is thermite - or some incendiary - placed inside perimeter-panel box-columns.

The WHERE is out of the columns' bolt-access holes, located a little higher than mid-window. The fires you see on the perimeter of the WTCs are flames shooting out of box column bolt-access-holes, into the building.

If windows are broken, the intensely hot gases want to shoot out of the open windows.

The fires you see are synthetic fires, caused by thermite placed in perimeter-panel box-columns.

See my thread: Max Photon Solves The Mystery Of Nist Fig. 9-45


I wrote to Bazant et. al. to point out to them that their zippers were down.

See: Max Photon's Open Letter to Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson - authors of "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?"


I still haven't received my fruit-basket and handwritten note, thanking me, but it's coming.


Max

---

I'm sure the sincere members of the 9/11 Truth Movement appreciate your efforts Max Photon.

MM

Max Photon:
I suggest you take a step back and reread the first paper by Bazant and Zhou. They say that the columns at impact were at 800 degree C. And then they also say that they treated all steel as if it was at room temperature.

Reading comphrension is important.

So is comprehensible writing.

Yours made no sense Newtons Bit.

Your post translates as;

Bazant and Zhou said the columns were at a temperature of 800C when they were impacted by the Boeing 767-200. Which of course makes no sense at all..but it's what you wrote.

Then you say; Bazant and Zhou "treated all steel as if it was at room temperature", but you don't place this statement in any kind of context, or account for how a "room temperature, (20C) avoided conflict with the previous statement of 800C?

MM

Since just about everything in this page is about the upper block impacting the lower block MM, I think it's safe to assume that I was referring to that. Not the plane impact.

Context is important, something you've ALWAYS had problems with.

Oh Newton, This is too funny.

I should point out to everyone in here that Newtons Bit came over to the SLC Forum to prove to me that WTC collapsed how ever or which ever official report says it collapsed.

At 1st I thought he maybe genuine, however, I noticed like most debunker, he was ignoring flaws and faults that I was finding and lying...very badly!

I had a theory of why WTC should not have collapsed, it just so happens that Gordon Ross produced a paper which supported what I always thought.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...seAnalysis2.pdf

Newtons Bit came onto the SLC and started telling me that Gordons paper is wrong, so when I asked him to show how, he replied to me. Now I'm not an engineer, so I emailed Gordon and passed over Newtons critisisms, he replyed back to me and said I could print his letter.

So Newton instead of addressing the claims of Gordon, he insisted that Gordon was STILL wrong, so instead of me debating the issues as I'm not en expert, I suggested that he contacted Gordon and write a rebutal.

Newtons Bit ended up writing this....
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...oGordonRoss.pdf

So Gordon replied back.....
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...toAnonymous.pdf

Then Newton wrote back this....
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index....type=post&id=41

However, there were plenty of critical response to it from the true skeptics (Mostly fence sitters and CTers!) at the JREF. A member called Metamars who seems to be clued up on engineering, pointed out numerous flaws in Newtons 2nd rebutal. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86422

So I'm posting this post to highlight that Newtons Bits as reading problems and to highlight that he is not interested in where the evidence takes him, he just here to make everyone believe in his expertise that the official story is correct.

Just have a look at this post on the SLC forum. http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1882

Here is one of my last chats with Newton, after I exposed him trying to lie to me. As usual, I have to explain it too him piece by piece, post by post to show how what he is lying about.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index....indpost&p=24202

Just in case he comes back with more bunk physics/engineering.

Thank you for the information stundie.

Newtons Bit is another ego tripper not really giving a damn about the lies he supports that coverup the murder of the WTC victims.

MM

No Problems MM,

Your right about Newton, he perpetuates lies which are covering up the deaths of thousands. You would think a logical person would go where the evidence takes you and thats what I was hoping for.......

Can't say I was disappointed though, as I didn't hold out much hope for him. He came over from the JREF forum to the SLC Forum like many others before him, to try and put me straight....shame it didn't work though!! lol :rolleyes:

Still using other peoples words because you can't understand the points I was making?

Oh, and to answer the quote from Metamars, yes, 1389MJ dissappears. Energy is not lost in an inelastic collision. It goes into internal sources. But then Ross counts internal strain energy again. He double-dips. It's a fairly simple concept.

Edit: Here's some fact checking for you:

My join date on JREF is 11th April 2007.
My join date on SLC forums is 17th March, 2007.

That's a complete fabrication on your part.

Do you always become a forum member on your first visit Trevor or do you lurk for a while like most people?

Join dates mean very little.

MM

Oh, so now it's because he thinks I lurked on JREF first? How the fuck does Stundie know that? Stundie needs to call James Randi and get his million dollars, because you think Stundie is obviously clairvoyant.

I didn't even hear about JREF until after I joined SLC. That's fairly well backed up based on my join dates. Even when presented with a simple fact, easily proven, you STILL can't admit a truther can be wrong and have lied about something.

Get a clue. People (including you) can lie and make shit up. Just like what Stundie just did.

Be careful when tossing accusations of lying around Trevor, as I don't intentionally misstate the truth.

All I did was just made a valid point.

You understand valid points don't you?

Join dates, aren't the same as the date of first visit and involvement.

I'm sure there are many folks visiting the Loose Change Forum that have not joined.

Many of these people are JREFers lurking to find post material to take back to their home base.

Then of course, there's the whole issue of multiple identities.

We all know how easy it has been for members to clone themselves in forums.

MM

Stundie fabricated something about me. I am calling him a liar. I joined SLC long before I heard about JREF. Is it possible for you to admit that he lied or will you defend him until hell freezes over?

Edited: for clarity.