|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 8, 2013 15:26:33 GMT -5
Incorrect, read Bazant, he explains the progressive collapse mechanism and as entire spandrels (not just individual beams) were ejected outwards instead of falling straight down there had to be considerable resistance in the collapses of the twin towers to propel the spandrels outwards. Bazant's paper has been peer reviewed by the American Society of Civil Engineers for their much respected scientific Journal ASCE, whereas this load of tosh you've posted hasn't (and would be laughed at by ASCE if it's numpty author submitted it). We've been through this numerous times. Bazant wrote a paper a few weeks after 9/11. He had no access to any data that has been uncovered/discovered in the last 11+ years. Logically speaking, if there was "considerable resistance", and there should have been if it was a natural gravitational collapse, the collapse could not possibly have accelerated. In fact, the immense resistance should have prevented a total collapse. And BTW, yet another LIE from you. There is NO evidence that Bazant's paper was ever peer reviewed. When I asked you for that peer review evidence, you were never able to produce it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 8, 2013 15:34:11 GMT -5
Bazant wrote a scientifically correct paper about 9/11 which was peer reviewed by the Science Journal ASCE. The fraudsters you refer to depend on fake evidence and their papers do not stand up to scientific peer review which is why they have not submitted their rubbish to a real Science Journal such as ASCE and had to invent their own pretend science journal to fool people like you into thinking their controlled demolition conspiracy theory garbage was credible. Read Bazant & Zhou's paper ( which was published by the ASCE Journal in 2002 and is now on their website archive: ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282002%29128%3A1%282%29 ): www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
|
|