9/11 Free Fall 7/18/13: Dr. deHaven-Smith and "conspiracy theory"

[William Seger]

93. You can run but you can't hide

I'll just keep posting this until you a least attempt to respond to it:

2. Are the Internal Forces in Upper and Lower Parts of Tower Equal?

Contrary to the discusser’s claim which is based on his understanding of Newton’s third law, these forces are not equal, as made clear by Fig. 2 (g and h) of the original paper. Their difference is equal to the weight of the intermediate compacted layer B plus the inertia force attributable to the acceleration of layer B (for additional accuracy, one may also add the energy per unit height needed for the comminution of concrete and the expelling of air, which are secondary phenomena not taken into consideration in the original paper). When the compacted layer attains a sufficient mass, which occurs after the collapse of only a few stories, this difference becomes very large.

Here Bazant takes into account an important detail that Gourley completely missed, and once again I've bolded it so you can't pretend that you missed it again. You got caught parroting Gourley's "3rd law" bullshit and rather than admit that he was wrong and you fell for it, you think you can just hide behind a wall of denial and obfuscation. Nope, there's a reason you can't refute what Bazant says very clearly in that paragraph: It is based on sound facts, valid logic, and real physics. Furthermore, the Verinage videos shows exactly what Bazant describes: After the first couple of stories, we see the top of the buildings "crush down" and then "crush up" when the collapse front hits the ground.

> Bazant has to assume maximal energy transfer to get the behavior he wants--100% efficiency in the transmission of force to the structure.

There are so many things wrong with that nonsense that it's hard to know where to start, but in the first place, Bazant calculates that there was more than 8 times more energy available than it would take to crush all the columns, so 12% of it would have done the job. Second, I apparently need to repeat that Bazant does not "assume" that all the columns were actually crushed -- he explicitly says otherwise -- rather he takes that as a limiting case in his analysis, i.e. the maximum amount of energy that the structure could possibly absorb. And third, I apparently need to repeat why that matters: If the collapse is to be halted, then the kinetic energy of the falling mass must be absorbed. You can't make that energy disappear by ignoring it, and the point does not disappear just because you don't comprehend it.

I believe everything I've said in this post is perfectly clear, "Ace," for the second or third time. Can you respond to it, or is hypocritically accusing me of blowing smoke and creating confusion all you've got?