Archive for July, 2009

More Fatal Flaws in Bazant et al’s WTC Analysis

July 18, 2009

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 may be moving at the original velocity (though more likely at a slower 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 amount 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.

The Other Fatal Flaw in Bazant’s WTC Analysis

July 18, 2009

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.

The Three Fatal Flaws in Bazant’s WTC Concrete Pulverization Calculations and Why His Calculations Really Support Nuclear Demolition

July 17, 2009

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.

The OCT’s & Bazant’s Bogus Dust Analysis is Doomed to the Dustbin of History

July 17, 2009

By The Anonymous Physicist

The size of the pulverized dust created during the destruction of the WTC towers can play a crucial role in proving what caused their destruction. Desperate, bogus science has been employed, by some in the OCT camp, to claim that the energy to pulverize the towers into dust originated from the Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) of the towers. I will show that the entire issue of the dust has been treated unscientifically.The papers of Z.P. Bazant have been used as a pillar of the OCT throughout the last 6 years. Bazant’s most recent paper is here.  Regarding what Bazant, et al, called “pulverized concrete particles,” they say, “the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls….” Now the paper does not contain any reference whatsoever for his alleged dust particle range of .01 mm [millimeters] to .1 mm.  Note, this particle range can also be written as 10-100 microns (micrometers or millionths of a meter).The crucial relation of the energy of tower destruction to dust particle size is somewhat analogous to crushing a tablet with a mortar and pestle. Little energy is needed for you to make two large fragments. More energy is needed for creating 10 moderate sized fragments. Vastly more energy is needed to create many of the tiniest particle size possible with this type of tool. A different apparatus, say a massive mechanical press device, would expend much greater energy and could create much smaller particles than you could with the pestle. Bazant’s article only compares gravity driven collapse, and TNT as possible mechanisms of tower destruction. The bogus dust particle range– devoid of any reference–that he claims, is part of the official ruse.Now one reference, some researchers have used, for the dust particle size is here.  (Hereafter called the “EHP article.”) In this article, the authors state they collected dust samples “from three undisturbed protected locations to the east of the WTC site. Two samples were taken on day 5 (9/16/01) and the third sample was taken on day 6 (9/17/01) after the terrorist attack.” Their findings include “Material less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter was 0.88-1.98% of the total mass. The largest mass concentrations were greater than 53 microns in diameter.” A significant percentage of the dust was in their category of range of  “2.5-10 microns.“  They say dust did include “construction materials.”  Their apparatus was not capable of detecting how much smaller than 2.5 microns the approx. 1-2% of their sample was. This is crucial because if there were nanometer size particles, vastly greater energy was needed to create this. However their entire dust collection methodology appears meant to avoid collecting the smallest, lightest dust– or, at least, has this effect. Despite the claim of collecting from “undisturbed, protected locations,” the 3 samples were taken from “external ledges around the entrance of a building,” and “the tops of two automobiles” of which “it is possible that each could have been moved.” The samples were collected, not within hours, or a day, but 5 and 6 days later when winds could have displaced especially the smallest, lightest dust elements. The authors also claim that the “rain that occurred on Friday, 15 September 2001” did not affect the samples either. The farthest away from the WTC that samples were taken from, was about 1/2 mile. Now I know people that live 2 miles from the WTC, and they said there was several inches of “ash” in the streets there. The point is that the smallest, lightest particles created during tower destruction, traveled highest, and farthest away from the site, and also were the most likely to be affected by wind, rain, car movement, etc. There is corroboration of this from another govt study, the U.S.G.S. (U.S. Geological Survey). Although the separate USGS dust study did not analyze the dust they collected– 3-4 days after 9/11, from 35 locations in a radial pattern up to 0.7 miles away– for particle size, they had more honest statements on how the weather in the interval before collection affected the samples. They said, “In many cases the samples formed compact masses suggestive of having been dampened by rain and having dried in the intervening 3-4 days… All but two of the samples were collected outdoors and had been subjected to wind and water during a rain storm the night of 9/14/01.“  And “Sample 36 was recovered from an indoor location near the Trade Center complex and had not been affected by rain as were the outdoor samples.” This physicist would assert that the action of falling raindrops would be most likely to cause loss of the smallest, lightest dust particles. Regarding WTC pulverized dust particle size– especially in regards to the smallest particles– there is only one conclusion. No honest, complete, scientific study was ever done; and it’s too late now. We can surmise why.How far away should honest dust sampling have been undertaken? This Space Station photo from 9/11, indicates how high high up and far out the smoke went. Here is another view from space of Ground Zero and another of a day later.Now I have published numerous articles here in the last year indicating that only small nuclear bombs explain all the tower destruction evidence, and eyewitness testimony, and China Syndrome aftermath. See here and here. And we’ve all seen the central, mushroom-shaped clouds that arose during tower destruction. See the left picture on top here. These clouds, and other plumes, contained the smallest, lightest particles that then traveled high and far, via prevailing winds, and perhaps eventually into the jet stream. Wiki states that a nuclear fission bomb creates particles down to 10 nanometer (nm) size. (1 nm is one billionth of a meter.) If the nukes used were pure fusion, or contained fusion components, as most nuclear 9/11 proponents believe, the temperature of the hypo-centers would have been even higher, possibly resulting in even smaller, lighter particles. And how far could 10 nanometer particles travel?  Older folks might recall how radioactive nuclides in fallout from nuclear tests were detected world-wide. More recently, detectors in Sweden, some 800 miles away, blew the cover on the Chernobyl explosion, two days afterwards. That explosion– though it contained radioactive isotopes– was itself conventional, and not nuclear. And Depleted Uranium (D.U.) was detected– and uncovered years later through Freedom of Information laws– 9 days after the start of the War on Iraq, at 5 locations in England— a distance of over 2500 miles.  In fact, Chris Busby, PhD, chemical physicist, and his co-author, state here that “each person in the area (England) inhaled some 23 million uranium particles of diameter 0.25 microns.” Note the sub-micron particle size, found 2500 miles away. Again these small D.U. particles were created in conventional, not nuclear, explosions of ordinance. Nuclear explosions in the towers, created far smaller and lighter particles that would have traveled high and far, and these certainly were not sampled. Why? In all likelihood, those in charge knew that the very small particle size is sufficient proof alone of the power and type of explosive actually used– nukes. The two blogs linked above also contain my writings on the findings of both fusion and fission components, or resultants, in the WTC area and dust– including Tritium, Strontium and Barium.Let us return now to the articles of Z. P. Bazant. They are masterpieces of deception and circular “logic” via 1) ignoring and denying what all the videos and photos prove occurred,  and 2) the insidious insertion, into his equations, of parameters based on the prior acceptance of the very mechanism he needed to prove– and not assume. I will now go over these bogus insertions and assumptions, and some of the math and pseudo-Physics of Bazant’s papers. His, “Dust particle size ranged from 10-100 microns” has no reference cited!  Even the above EHP article (which itself was deficient in finding the smallest particles) found 1) that up to 2% dust mass was under 2.5 microns with no analysis of just how far smaller these particles may have been; and 2) A presumably larger percentage of dust was in the range of 2.5 to 10 microns. So no way was 10 microns the smallest dust particle size, as Bazant asserts. If the smallest dust size were 2.5 microns (which was just the upper limit on the smallest filter size in the EHP experiments), the energy needed for pulverization, in Bazant’s equations, would double to 14% of the total GPE.Then Bazant states, in his equation 5, page 3, “V1, the volume of the rubble on the ground into which the whole tower mass has been compacted” and “Bazant and Verdure estimated that about 20% of the rubble volume resided outside the footprint of the tower, and so K-out (mass ejection ratio) is about 0.20.” (RE: Eq. 5, 6 and ff, page 4) And on page 12, “K-out cannot be higher than the value deduced from the mass of rubble found on the ground (the rubble pile) outside the tower perimeter.” These statements mean Bazant used the following assumption in his “calculations”: the entirety of each tower’s contents went into the small rubble pile, with 80% of the volume of the rubble pile being within the footprint of each tower. His K-out is bogus, due to the obvious massive outward explosions, vaporizations, and missing mass, from the rubble pile. Thus all his equations that use it, are bogus. So Bazant proves his papers are nothing but their own “rubble pile”– rubbish. Because we have ample video and photos of the massive outward explosions (with some “chunks” said to weigh hundreds of tons that were expelled hundreds of feet beyond the “rubble pile” into other buildings, and many other beams etc. expelled far beyond the rubble pile), photos from space of the volume of small particulate matter from “collapse” that went high up and far out, and some sample collections of building material up to 0.7 miles away, and countless eyewitnesses of much building mass in the streets miles away! Indeed simple rough estimations of one single column chunk weighing 200 hundred tons expelled at high speed to reach and impact the other building would itself have required a significant amount of the total available GPE. Likewise, the many smaller tower elements and beams seen being exploded outwards consume a large amount of the available total GPE. Couple this with the energy needed for the complete crushing of the structural steel framework of the tower and the energy needed for the creation of micron-sized particles from concrete and other tower contents, one can see that an energy source greater than the GPE was employed during the destruction of the towers.The only thing that Bazant states was expelled beyond the rubble pile was the air in the towers! But, in a desperate attempt to explain the many obvious explosions in the towers, he used the “air ejection” as follows. “The exit speed of air ejected from the building by the crushing front of gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, 465 mph (208 m/s) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and glass fragments.” Here he contradicts himself! His equations had claimed that all “pulverized concrete” was 80% within the towers’ footprints, and the other 20% was very close by in the small rubble pile just beyond the footprint of the towers. Here again, he assumed the force for “air ejection” arose from “gravitational collapse,” and ignores the blatantly obvious outward explosions seen from the very beginning of tower destruction. Bazant claims that ejected air had “fluctuations” moving at supersonic speeds. The latter, he claims, accounted for the explosions heard. There are two problems here though. First, his solutions depend on his other bogus assumptions, and second, there is abundant proof of explosions BEFORE “collapse.” This includes eyewitnesses, recordings, and smoke clouds arising on video.Elsewhere, Bazant’s equations 12-20 are masterpieces of smearing claimed (but bogus) experimentally found values of the minimum and maximum pulverized dust size with his theoretical calculations for the same. And his calculations ASSUME the force that pulverized the concrete came from gravitational collapse! E.g., his Eq. 14 involves a ratio of the maximum to minimum dust sizes. And then he relies on reference #11 which is an article titled, ““Single particle impact breakage characterization of materials by drop testing.” Thus proving that all his “work” assumes that the force that created the dust was gravitational collapse which he was supposed to prove, and not assume! His using a “drop testing”experiment, ipso facto, precludes an honest investigation into whatever force may have pulverized the concrete– which includes the very different physical forces and incredible temperatures and pressures from the nuclear bombs, all the evidence indicates, were used therein. Virtually every equation in every section, including air expulsion, assumes and uses factors derived from either gravitational impact, or other CONVENTIONAL forces, and, ipso facto, precludes an unbiased discussion which includes the nuclear probability. So we have subterfuge, and circular logic at its ugliest best in his papers.Now using his Eq. 22 (assuming it has some validity) for the energy needed to produce the smallest dust particle size, it is clear that if there were 10 nm. size particles created during nuclear pulverization, we would have an energy needed that is about 32 times greater than his value found which was, he claimed, 7 % of the total GPE, converted to Kinetic Energy. Clearly this would be over 200% of possible available total GP energy.

Note also that Bazant claims that only “concrete slabs and core walls” were pulverized. He ignores the over 1000 people whose smallest body parts could not be found, and were thus vaporized or pulverized. Likewise for all the furniture, and other tower contents that were pulverized. All that required great energy. And, of course, he ignores all the energy needed for the expulsion (explosion) of many steel beams and large, and very large, building “chunks.” Some of which, I have highlighted in my earlier papers on the nuclear demolition of the WTC, are shown to have parabolic arcs (also highlighted in Siegel’s Eyewitness video) emanating from (arcs traced back to) the center of the tower; and which I cited for proof of several mini-nukes being used through-out the towers, during demolition.

Other ludicrous assumptions Bazant used include, from page 7, his “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)” and similarly “is crushing the lower part (zone A) with little damage to itself” [page 3]. This ignores Newton’s third law of motion.

There are many other false statements and denials of evidence that I will leave to others to point out.Returning to the pulverized dust, Bazant ignores other differences seen in videos of conventional controlled demolition, or building collapse. None caused pulverized dust miles from the site, or plumes going up into space and far away. None have massive chunks of edifice flung up to hundreds of feet away. All this was ignored by Bazant, so as to obtain his “results.”In conclusion, examination of Bazant’s assumptions, circular logic, false parameters, denials of evidence, and other chicanery regarding the pulverized dust and other tower destruction matters, demonstrate that desperate, and clear cut, fudging or “bad science” was used to attain the results desired. All these interdependent falsifications– Bazant, NIST, Seffen–collapse into their own rubble pile, the dustbin of history. It is hoped that should the people arise and overcome the present fascism, these corrupt engineers, scientists and mathematicians will be charged with being accomplices to mass murder and high treason.

Zdenek P. Bazant: Alpha Shill for the Official WTC Collapse Story– Part III

July 6, 2009

In this paper, “Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?” by Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson, they write:

Although, due to absence of experimental crushing data for the lightweight concrete used, the theory of comminution cannot predict the size range of pulverized concrete particles, it is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls (while at least 158 tons of TNT per tower, installed into many small holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall, would have been needed to produce the same degree of pulverization).

I will unpack their calculations in a post in the near future, but just as a prelude to that, who HONESTLY believes their conclusion (in italics) is possible?

Zdenek P. Bazant: Alpha Shill for the Official WTC Collapse Story– Part II

July 2, 2009
His first paper on the WTC:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

Zdenek P. Bazant, F. ASCE, and Yong Zhou

Abstract: This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers ofWorld Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.

The original version with Eqs. 1 and 2 was originally submitted to ASCE on September 13, 2001..

Zdenek P. Bazant: Alpha Shill for the Official WTC Collapse Story– Part I

July 2, 2009

I’ll let Gordon Ross get the ball rolling on describing how bad Bazant’s science is.

Further examples will be coming in the next few days.

Until I looked at his papers, I didn’t realize how shockingly flawed his work is.

Seffen’s Article On “Pristine Pancakes” Is Blatantly Bogus As Predicted Here

July 2, 2009

By The Anonymous Physicist

The article by British mathematician, Keith Seffen, PhD is to be published in the February, 2008 issue of the  Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM), a monthly publication of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). I have previously written here how there were two ways to fudge both what actually happened to the WTC towers, and to counter the Laws of Physics (including the Conservation Laws of Momentum and Energy, and Newton’s three Laws of Motion). You can read Seffen’s article here.  Watch for this mathematician/blogger’s updates here.

After the expected, fanciful mathematics section, Seffen blatently reveals, in his conclusion section (exactly as I predicted), just how he fudged his “article”.  Here is Seffen’s conclusion and note the areas I have added bold to, and will expound upon:

Many simplifications have been made in this analysis for the sake of transparency. For example, the constructional properties of original WTC towers are not homogenous over the entire height, but only over discrete portions and differently so. The collapse mode is highly idealised: none of the falling mass moves laterally;  any impulsive action between successive floor impacts is neglected; and the final stage of collapse after the crush-front reaches the base is discounted. However, the incorporation of these features into a subsequent model would rely on estimations apportioning their relative contributions, which are not straightforward. Such refinements may negate the ability to obtain closed-form solutions, which are essential in ascribing the generic character of behaviour and for distilling key formulae, especially in view of designing buildings to withstand progressive collapse. Importantly, this study has shown that progressive collapse and its features are concomitant to the full, up-down-up deformation response of the structural unit, and that its properties are finely balanced–that collapse can be total or not at all, and that, in the former case, the rate of collapse tends to a uniform acceleration not dependent on the residual capacity of the building. These comments attest to the similarities between the collapse sequences of both WTC towers despite their quite different initial conditions. And it is noted that progressive collapse, when wrought, is quite ordinary and regular and not due to extraordinary, possibly conspiratorial, influences.

Let me now show you how his revelations in this conclusion section prove how deliberately bogus his entire article is. First his “none of the falling mass moves laterally” denies what was observed–the massive outward or LATERAL explosions–such as are seen here! Clearly the mass moves laterally, that is, it’s exploded outward, some components have the initial UPWARD parabolic arcs, as Siegel’s Eyewitness video demonstrates, and as I have repeatedly written match the parabolic arcs seen on photos of underground nukes being exploded, such as the top photos here.  This “simplification” as he calls it, reveals that he deliberately ignored what actually happened to the majority of the mass of the towers, being exploded or vaporized, as the videos and photos prove. This means that he simply used the math of a gravitational, magical, pristine pancaking “collapse” and not what actually happened. Whether you call it fudging, or circular logic; it is claptrap and impossible propaganda.

Secondly, his, “any impulsive action between successive floor impacts is neglected”, is precisely what I earlier wrote—namely that he would need to counter or ignore, the Laws of Physics. I didn’t think he would have the gall to do the latter! But in the spirit of the magic, pristine bullet of Arlen (Future Senator for Life) Spector, HE DID COMPLETLEY IGNORE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, AND BRAGS ABOUT IT. He is admitting that his model has no slowing down of the collapse, because he left out the forces that colliding floors impart to each other! Thus his paper is just mathematical fantasy— and not the Physics of an actual “collapse”. It is mathematical fudging at its worst, and it has no bearing on anything in the real world. Here he has admitted that his paper is a paper on the math of an impossible, pristine pancaking, whereby there are no forces occurring when a floor impacts another floor! All the math is not needed, because you have to end up with free fall time, if you leave out the Laws of Physics, including those related to floors’ forces (his “impulsive action” that he took out) on “collapsing” floors on to them, that—in the real world—would have slowed down or halted “collapse.”

Now his reason for leaving out the Physics is the epitome of a circular logic admission. He basically ADMITS (as follows) to needing to fudge it the way it has to come out (for the PTB)! His, “Such refinements may negate the ability to obtain closed-form solutions, which are essential in ascribing the generic character of behaviour and for distilling key formulae, especially in view of designing buildings to withstand progressive collapse.” This ludicrous statement is blatantly anti-scientific. He is saying that he needs to obtain simple formulae that can be useful to prevent future “collapses.”  He is admitting to being intolerant of including the actual laws of Physics, and the actual phenomena observed (see above) just to end up with simple, solvable equations. This is the opposite of Physics and Science. Indeed the entire field of computers originally came about because Physicists needed to solve (to use his terms) NON-“closed-form” equations.  His simple, non-physical “closed-form” equations will not prevent duplicate “collapses.  Ridding the world of the mass murdering—here nuking—PTB is the only thing that can prevent the future nuking of skyscrapers! His clever ruse though can now be used by the PTB to bogusly claim that future pristine pancaking “collapses” have to occur in free-fall time. This paper is to be used to “explain” the free-fall  time.

He admits his goal at the end,  “And it is noted that progressive collapse, when wrought, is quite ordinary and regular and not due to extraordinary, possibly conspiratorial, influences.”  The inclusion of “when wrought” is fascinating. He does not say–as a scientist MUST, that his finding proves that whenever the initial conditions are achieved, the same result must happen. He  is saying that when you find that a free fall time “collapse” occurred [“was wrought” by the PTB via nukes], don’t dare question it, AFTER it has occurred. And the purpose of his paper is to counter the extraordinary (nuclear) explosions seen, and the conspiracy involved.

Some final notes. Seffen ignores–as did the OCT–the demolition of WTC7. His paper also relies on another, earlier bogus paper in the same journal.So the long-awaited, “Pristine Pancaking Paper” is just impossible propaganda from a regime’s shill. It is devoid of Physics, devoid of the reality that we have all seen on video and photos. As earlier noted, it is a repeat of the impossible magic, pristine bullet of the Kennedy assassination. Whether the British-American Regime shoots a President, or nukes thousands of innocent citizens, said regime believes it can hoodwink the people with impossible, Laws of Physics-violating, or ignoring, scenarios. Getting the masses to believe such impossible claptrap induces deeper states of denial and schizoid reality. It also causes the masses to become what Deek Jackson,  of the Fuk’n Newz,  calls “Six billion collaborators.” But we know that the induced feelings of helplessness are terminated by taking the first action against those who nuked 3000 innocent human beings and are waging perennial war on Mankind.

The “Pristine Pancake” Theory

July 2, 2009

Pristine Pancakes: On the Explosive Destruction of the WTC Skyscrapers Now Claimed to be Magical, Interaction-Free Pancakes

By the Anonymous Physicist

During the past week, the BBC reported a British engineering professor, Keith Seffen PhD, has claimed to have analyzed the WTC tower “collapses,” and claims to have worked out how a “progressive collapse” occurred in free fall time. The BBC article actually calls these “collapses” at “Ground Zero”, “chain reactions” [hint?] and says, “[Seffen’s]  calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.” Seffen says the “collapses” were “very ordinary thing[s] to happen” and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings.”

Of course, this is risible on many fronts. While I have not seen this alleged article purported about to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (apparently an American Journal), I will come back soon to reveal what he had to do in his “mathematical models.” But people have to know that when espousing a theory for the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers, they must account for ALL the phenomena observed or proven to have occurred, and not have a “theory” designed to match just one type of observation (commonly called fudging), when it is negated by many other observed or proven aspects of the WTC destruction. And many have already pointed out how  the “pancaking” theory ignores what happened on 9/11. The fires were low temperature (black smoke) and were going out when destruction was initiated, alleged jet fuel does not reach temperatures high enough to have melted support structure, analysis shows that even the first floor would not have buckled as claimed (obviating the creation of the first “pancake”).

No “pancaking” can explain the massive outward explosions seen to have ejected structure weighing many tons as far away as several hundred yards, and that explosions can be seen going off well BELOW the highest extant level that coincides with free fall time of  gravitational “pancaking”.

Neither does “pancaking” (“progressive” or otherwise)  explain over a thousand (apparently) vaporized human beings, and furniture, micro- or nano-fine particle size, vaporized steel (Prof. Dr. Barnett), vast missing building mass, the many explosions that occurred before the “collapses,” and the ensuing China Syndrome of six months long high temperatures and molten metal massively documented here.

Though I have not seen Seffen’s alleged article and its “mathematical models” purporting to explain THE IMPOSSIBLE— due to the laws of Physics, namely conservation of momentum and energy– it is clear there are only two ways to fudge things and get the result desired: 1. Omit the interactions, and forces, a bottom floor imparts back on to any alleged “pancaking” floor coming down on top of it. This would be far too obvious, so more likely; 2. Invent fictitious forces and interactions surreptitiously created to exactly counter the actual forces that would have impeded/slowed or halted such fictional pancaking. Thus having the ludicrous effect of the top and bottom floors instantly disappearing (vaporizing?) after impact, and then being “resurrected” in the next instant, and continuing on downward! But such imaginative mathematical models of “magical, interaction-free pancakes” that purport to negate the laws of physics would be seen for what they are, by any professional journal editors, and returned to its shill sender. So if a “Journal” actually publishes this detritus, it has forever destroyed its own credibility. Because a scientist, or engineer, in this age of fascism laughably masquerading as democracy, must resist, at all costs, the desire to buckle under to the regime when asked. But some will not resist.

There is a clear historical analogy. When the conspirator-laden Warren Commission was faced with a similar, impossible task, it created one of history’s great fictions. When faced with the proof of President Kennedy being flung straight back from a frontal head shot, and eyewitness, and earwitness, testimony, and body wounds matching about 10 bullets, including the fatal head shot entry being above the right eye, they came up with following, official story. They said that the shots came from behind (violating the law of conservation of momentum), and that three shots [only] were fired by perhaps the worst marksman in U.S. military history [Oswald, who was either in the cafeteria at the time, or now thought/shown to have been at the front door of the TSBD), through trees with a weak, ancient, bolt-action rifle that had a mis-aligned sighting scope, and was done faster than any FBI marksman could ever duplicate. And that the fatal bullet went through two people hitting up to five bones, hung out in mid-air for a second and a half, and made turns on its own without external forces, AND was in pristine condition when “found” at Parkland Hospital. This fiction would become known as the Pristine Bullet, or the Magic Bullet; because the bullet, despite its alleged interactions with bone and other tissue, was undeformed and was not missing any appreciable mass.

This fiction’s creator was young Warren Commission attorney, Arlen Specter. He would be made Senator for life. Sometimes winning re-election even when the polls, just before, showed him significantly behind! (Yes, a harbinger of the Bush elections.)

Likewise, Keith Seffen will now likely get ahead financially and “professionally.” But will this reward from the regime be worth the price? Seffen’s colleagues will forever snicker after he walks past them, his students will drop out of his classes, if they can,  because they too will know enough to know what he did. He is now the Arlen Specter of 9/11. A fate any self-respecting human being, let alone engineer or scientist, would die to avoid. For Keith Seffen will now forever be known as the creator of thoroughly impossible, effectively, interaction-free “Pristine Pancakes” or “Magic Pancakes.”

Hello world!

July 2, 2009

Welcome to This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!