Tony harasses Bazant

[ozeco41]

... We have tilting, that should cause cracking and fulcrum formation on the welds, debris falls on those venerable welds, they fracture and the top fails.

That is just my theory, please rip it apart if I am wrong, please falsify it if it is fallacy.

Just one point - "tilt" is a consequence NOT a cause per se.

Take care to avoid the error of sequence.

1) Some columns failed - either cut by initial impact OR failing in axial compression overload assisted by heating.

2) Those failures of columns led to - were followed by - visible evidence of already failed columns in the form of "tilt" (It would have been "lowering" if it hadn't been asymmetrical biased to one side to cause "tilt".) So "tilt" is a consequence of failed columns - not a cause.

3) Because the columns have already crushed to allow the drop which caused the tilt the ends of the crushed and bucking columns MUST have already missed. Because on the "low side" the space no longer exists for the original length of column. And it is many feet less space - so whether buckled, bent or folded the ends have already missed.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Just one point - "tilt" is a consequence NOT a cause per se.

Take care to avoid the error of sequence.

1) Some columns failed - either cut by initial impact OR failing in axial compression overload assisted by heating.

2) Those failures of columns led to - were followed by - visible evidence of already failed columns in the form of "tilt" (It would have been "lowering" if it hadn't been asymmetrical biased to one side to cause "tilt".) So "tilt" is a consequence of failed columns - not a cause.

3) Because the columns have already crushed to allow the drop which caused the tilt the ends of the crushed and bucking columns MUST have already missed. Because on the "low side" the space no longer exists for the original length of column. And it is many feet less space - so whether buckled, bent or folded the ends have already missed.

Agreed, honest forces me to admit you are right, I only wish Tony was able to do such a simple thing as be intellectually honest for a change.

 

[ozeco41]

Agreed, honest forces me to admit you are right, I only wish Tony was able to do such a simple thing as be intellectually honest for a change.

 

[GlennB]

Mass times acceleration gives you the momentum, the momentum the tendency to keep moving, gives you the energy to do work, thus the force.

Slip of the brain there, CC?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Slip of the brain there, CC?

True it should have been mass times velocity, not accelerationI was , tired and worn out from work when I posted that.

 

[jaydeehess]

We have tilting, that should cause cracking and fulcrum formation on the welds, debris falls on those venerable welds, they fracture and the top fails.

That is just my theory, please rip it apart if I am wrong, please falsify it if it is fallacy.

Although they may well be worthy of veneration, I do believe you meant "vulnerable".

ETA: whoops,,, not intended as a pile-on about your tired eyes posting CC

 

[jaydeehess]

Just one point - "tilt" is a consequence NOT a cause per se.
Take care to avoid the error of sequence.

1) Some columns failed - either cut by initial impact OR failing in axial compression overload assisted by heating.

2) Those failures of columns led to - were followed by - visible evidence of already failed columns in the form of "tilt" (It would have been "lowering" if it hadn't been asymmetrical biased to one side to cause "tilt".) So "tilt" is a consequence of failed columns - not a cause.

3) Because the columns have already crushed to allow the drop which caused the tilt the ends of the crushed and bucking columns MUST have already missed. Because on the "low side" the space no longer exists for the original length of column. And it is many feet less space - so whether buckled, bent or folded the ends have already missed.

Actually its both, each at different times.
Tilt is a consequence of initial, pre-collapse, column failures.
It is one cause of non-alignment of columns as collapse initiates.

 

[ozeco41]

Actually its both, each at different times.
Tilt is a consequence of initial, pre-collapse, column failures.
It is one cause of non-alignment of columns as collapse initiates.

I think we are saying the same thing. Or trying to.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'different times'. I can see two possibilities.

....and I agree with both of them.

 

[jaydeehess]

I think we are saying the same thing. Or trying to.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'different times'. I can see two possibilities.

....and I agree with both of them.

First some columns fail, then tilt begins as a consequence of those failures.
Later, at collapse initiation, one cause of column misalignment (which is to say why the 'knees' aren't hitting each other upon buckling) is the fact that the columns that haven't failed yet are bent due to tilt.

The above as opposed to Tony's assumption that buckling columns are still vertical, which is one reason I suspect he chooses to concentrate on WTC1 which tilts less.

ETA: on rereading your post, yes, we are saying the same thing I do believe.

 

[Mark F]

I see you are still speaking from a fact-free bloviation zone Ozeco. I have to wonder how long it takes before a new reader's eyes glaze over when they first attempt to read one of your posts. After that experience it seems ignoring them is the option taken, as I don't see many responses to your posts other than from a faithful few wherever I see you post.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation

Do you need to work hard to go there or does it come naturally to you?

When you attack the messenger and ignore the message,...

 

[beachnut]

I see you are still speaking from a fact-free bloviation zone...

Projection - your fantasy of CD is the fact-free zone of woo. Keep up the fantasy, after this many years of the realcddeal, reality is not going to break the delusion.

Where did you get the silent explosives? At least people like the Boston bombers would fall for your failed theory. You have people dumb enough to fall for CD, you are not alone.

 

[ozeco41]

....ETA: on rereading your post, yes, we are saying the same thing I do believe.

We are very close but not quite the same.

The difference doesn't matter - we are agreed on the main points and either your version or mine prove why Tony is wrong. In fact other members probably have their own way of understanding why Tony is wrong. Same conclusion "Tony is wrong".

 

[ozeco41]

I see you are still speaking from a fact-free bloviation zone Ozeco. I have to wonder how long it takes before a new reader's eyes glaze over when they first attempt to read one of your posts. After that experience it seems ignoring them is the option taken, as I don't see many responses to your posts other than from a faithful few wherever I see you post.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation

Do you need to work hard to go there or does it come naturally to you?

When you attack the messenger and ignore the message,...

Insults from Tony are a reliable indicator of when an argument is too good for him.

Its about three years since Tony dared to try me on on this forum and over a very simple bit of applied physics.

On that occasion enik tried to help Tony and I said:

If I put it down to 10 year old understanding level:
.....If this nonsense continues I may try it on my six year old grandson and see if he agrees. Then take photos and post them.

So I engaged 6yo grandson's help to: prove the point that Tony (and enik) was denying.

Nothing like having fun whilst proving a point.

 

[ozeco41]

I see you are still speaking from a fact-free bloviation zone....

Projection - your fantasy of CD is the fact-free zone of woo. Keep up the fantasy....

Yes blatant projection beachnut.

Tho you and I recognise it also as obsolete Naval tactics - when confronted by an opponent who is too strong - "make lots of smoke and withdraw under the cover it provides". Still used by Army as part of Infantry Minor Tactics and armoured manoeuvres.

AKA he ran away.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes blatant projection beachnut.

Tho you and I recognise it also as obsolete Naval tactics - when confronted by an opponent who is too strong - "make lots of smoke and withdraw under the cover it provides". Still used by Army as part of Infantry Minor Tactics and armoured manoeuvres.

AKA he ran away.

Tony's theories are full of smoke and mirrors to fool true believers, he will not even
Discuss the other tower because he knows the energy values of that collapse, falsified his
theory of CD.

 

[skyeagle409]

Tony's theories are full of smoke and mirrors to fool true believers, he will not even
Discuss the other tower because he knows the energy values of that collapse, falsified his
theory of CD.

And yet, he cannot supply a single video that depicts CD explosions as the WTC Towers collapsed.

His argument plays left field so deep, it will need a taxi to get back to the stadium of reality.

 

[rwguinn]

And yet, he cannot supply a single video that depicts CD explosions as the WTC Towers collapsed.

His argument plays left field so deep, it will need a taxi to get back to the stadium of reality.

I am SOOOO Stealing that...

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

And yet, he cannot supply a single video that depicts CD explosions as the WTC Towers collapsed.

His argument plays left field so deep, it will need a taxi to get back to the stadium of reality.

That game ended long ago, he just doesn't understand when the score is one billion for logic, and zero for truthers the truthers lose.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Insults from Tony are a reliable indicator of when an argument is too good for him.

Insults? Or Ignoring? Far as I am concerned people have identified for years that he's misapplied Bazantian writings to the real world. It's as simple an error as completely ignoring the first opening paragraphs. Countless people on this forum and others have identified this problem, over a decade.

Until he addresses that issue I think people shouldn't even bother to entertain the technical component of the discussion. His error is at the baseline.

Moreover ever since he made clear that he "believes" fire can't do anything to a building to cause catastrophic failure ever... I don't even know why there's reason to even entertain his protest on the relevant reports. His argument might as well be the NIST et al are wrong because fire never causes catastrophic failure. He eliminated all past, present, and future scenarios from any possibility of ever happening. In doing so he's elimated all technical discussion from the table that could explain what did or did not contribute.

On one hand I hate jumping on the hate bandwagon and "group think"... on the other hand... simple mistakes that remain uncorrected, and ignored when brought to his attention for the length of time he has, really removes the sympathy I have over the volume of hate his ideas get. THe problems with his arguments have been ID'd.... the way to "solve" the problem is to attack it at the roots.

 

[ozeco41]

Insults? Or Ignoring? Far as I am concerned people have identified for years that he's misapplied Bazantian writings to the real world. It's as simple an error as completely ignoring the first opening paragraphs. Countless people on this forum and others have identified this problem, over a decade.

Until he addresses that issue I think people shouldn't even bother to entertain the technical component of the discussion. His error is at the baseline.

Agreed - which I why I rarely bother to post detail level technical rebuttals at Tony. Plenty of others can do that.

However on this occasion I wasn't responding to a technical post. As you say Tony has been informed of BOTH the baseline errors of his wrong starting premises AND the consequential errors of technical detail.

But this insult didn't follow from a technical comment by me. It arose because back at Post #31 Crazy Chainsaw identified exactly the procedural point you are making - Tony responded dishonestly at Post #32 and at Post #60 I supported Crazy Chainsaw using argumentation that was obviously too strong for Tony >> He retaliated and by evasive derailing as per his SOP and posted the "bloviating" insults and false accusations which have amused or offended several members.

So I plead "Not Guilty" to engaging in technical discussion with Tony and "Guilty" in persuading Tony to cause some amusement for other members.

I'll rest my case awaiting your judgement of the alleged offence subject of my "Not Guilty" plea and your assessment of the penalty appropriate to the offence subject of my "Guilty" plea.

... the way to "solve" the problem is to attack it at the roots.

Exactly and my preferred long term policy.