Tony harasses Bazant

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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.


Exactly and my preferred long term policy.

Tony's base error is as bad as building a house with the roof on bottom, and the foundation on top.
Doubt he will show up in this thread again, as it has gotten too hot for him. His misconceptions have all been shown here.

 

[ozeco41]

Tony's base error is as bad as building a house with the roof on bottom, and the foundation on top.

Don't we all know it.

Doubt he will show up in this thread again, as it has gotten too hot for him. His misconceptions have all been shown here.

It will be the first time if he does stay away. His normal practice is to take a break and go to some other and easier for him forum. The talent here is somewhat better. Come back here when he thinks we have forgotten and start again as if nothing has changed , (Which is true from his side - same nonsense he has been posting for years.)

BTW this recent spurt of activity broke one of T Sz's SOPs - first time I remember him coming into extended discussions without a "Tag Team " partner.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Don't we all know it.

It will be the first time if he does stay away. His normal practice is to take a break and go to some other and easier for him forum. The talent here is somewhat better. Come back here when he thinks we have forgotten and start again as if nothing has changed , (Which is true from his side - same nonsense he has been posting for years.)

BTW this recent spurt of activity broke one of T Sz's SOPs - first time I remember him coming into extended discussions without a "Tag Team " partner.

I was referring to this specific thread, maybe if we keep it on top it would act as Garlic to a vampire, and Tony would not return with more nonsense. However then we would lose the entertainment value.
Perhaps Johnathan Cole was tied up designing another experiment, for our amusement since that seems to be the only purpose too them.
Or perhaps Tony's wife really was scared, it does seem however that Tony was unable to find a side kick this time.
I worry that Tony will engineer and build something that people will want, and what will occur as a result, an intellectually dishonest engineer, who will not admit his mistakes could be a danger to the public.
There should be an engineering review board, to determine when someone can qualify as an actual engineering professional.
Engineer needs to be a protected term.

 

[jaydeehess]

It is ironic that Tony demands that Bazant correct his "errors" when Tony's errors have been roundly ignored by Tony.

As mentioned above and innumerable times in the past, Bazant studied a limiting case. Even non-engineers can grasp the implications that TSz seemingly cannot or chooses to ignore.

 

[ozeco41]

It is ironic that Tony demands that Bazant correct his "errors" when Tony's errors have been roundly ignored by Tony.

Agreed naturally - it is the obvious bit of hypocrisy.

However - coming at the letter from a different perspective - have you read that letter of Tony's carefully?

Most of the detail elements he asserts seem to be true. The mendacity in in how he builds those bits up into false implications.

If I was in a stirring mood I could liven discussion up by posting my assessment of the many bits he gets right.

...and risk some members thinking I'm supporting Tony.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Agreed naturally - it is the obvious bit of hypocrisy.

However - coming at the letter from a different perspective - have you read that letter of Tony's carefully?

Most of the detail elements he asserts seem to be true. The mendacity in in how he builds those bits up into false implications.

If I was in a stirring mood I could liven discussion up by posting my assessment of the many bits he gets right.

...and risk some members thinking I'm supporting Tony.

Posting truth should never be avoided because of others sensibility's.

Do it if you wish.

 

[beachnut]

Agreed naturally - it is the obvious bit of hypocrisy.

However - coming at the letter from a different perspective - have you read that letter of Tony's carefully?

Most of the detail elements he asserts seem to be true. The mendacity in in how he builds those bits up into false implications.

If I was in a stirring mood I could liven discussion up by posting my assessment of the many bits he gets right.

...and risk some members thinking I'm supporting Tony.

You are right, it does not matter if Tony has points right, they are not related to his failed fantasy of CD, the realcddeal.

Tony makes statements and offers no proof for his BS, he is right on some points which expose his lack of logic and lack of knowledge the purpose of the model.

He is attacking models, which state the conditions. The values for the model are correct, it is Bazant's model (does it make a difference). What if they don't match the values of the WTC towers? lol, we don't need a model of the WTC towers to know they failed on 9/11, we can see it in detail in video; not just plain old MajorTom, all of us can see it. Tony says CD, Bazant explains how his model would collapse due to the conditions Bazant makes up. If Bazant's model is far off from the WTC tower's conditions, it does not matter. Bazant's model is not needed to understand the WTC towers failed due to fire, we see it on 9/11, it is a fact.
Tony needs to stick to his fantasy CD, and explain why there is no evidence for CD. What did the FBI say, Tony?

Attacking work which stands alone is silly when you are doing it to support a delusional fantasy of CD. Tony never said how much a floor weighs... or did I miss it. CD, Bigfoot and Santa, we will debate... lol

Attacking other people's work is the only thing Tony can do, his CD fantasy has no valid points. Guys, today is Sunday, NWO shill paid bloggers day off, stop posting... are you happy in your work Tony?

Don't forget NWO super shills, we are part of Tony's fantasy CD world, we are paid to keep the truth from being heard... has Tony told the FBI he has overwhelming evidence from Gage for CD?
Have a great week, don't forget to take out the trash.

 

[ozeco41]

You are right, it does not matter if Tony has points right, they are not related to his failed fantasy of CD, the realcddeal.

Exactly my point. He is comfortable playing with the bits of fact but cannot assemble them into coherent argument. And if he did assemble them they would NOT support his conclusion.

I'll risk an analogy. Give him an IKEA cabinet kit of parts - he would agree that every piece is a part of the whole. BUT couldn't assemble them into the whole cabinet.

So - taking a bigger risk and stretching the analogy - Tony looks at all the parts for an IKEA cabinet. Agrees that they are parts. THEN claims "I could build this office desk"

Tony makes statements and offers no proof for his BS, he is right on some points which expose his lack of logic and lack of knowledge the purpose of the model.

Yes again - a different example of the same and persistent Tony error.

He is attacking models, which state the conditions. The values for the model are correct, it is Bazant's model (does it make a difference). What if they don't match the values of the WTC towers?

That last point is the one he keeps missing - I think pretending to miss because he made one big balls up with Missing Jolt and he dare not back down from that error.

lol, we don't need a model of the WTC towers to know they failed on 9/11, we can see it in detail in video; not just plain old MajorTom, all of us can see it. Tony says CD, Bazant explains how his model would collapse due to the conditions Bazant makes up. If Bazant's model is far off from the WTC tower's conditions, it does not matter. Bazant's model is not needed to understand the WTC towers failed due to fire, we see it on 9/11, it is a fact.
Tony needs to stick to his fantasy CD, and explain why there is no evidence for CD.

Yes - he set the trap himself and fell for it. Now he cannot afford to back out.

Guys, today is Sunday, NWO shill paid bloggers day off, stop posting...

OK for you US Quebec thru Tango Time zoners. I'm KILO TZ here - Monday.

 

[ozeco41]

Posting truth should never be avoided because of others sensibility's.

Do it if you wish.

Here - try a couple of samples - "Bits" of fact that Tony seems to get right BUT then comes up with false conclusions. Actually in the "Open Letter to Bazant" his false claims are mostly "lies by false inference".

Paragraph #1

This open letter is being sent to you to request that you correct your four papers on the collapse of the WTC Towers, which were published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

OK - that one looks like it is true.

Paragraph #3

By your use of free fall through the first story of the collapse it would seem that you had not measured the descent from video.

Others have measured it, and the velocity after a fall of one story is approximately 6.13 meters/sec and not the 8.52 meters/sec velocity, resulting from a free fall through one story, used in your papers.

This leads to a near doubling of the velocity component in the kinetic energy of the upper section, since it is squared with 6.13 2 = 37.58, and 8.52 2 = 72.59.

...I suggest that all three of those are correct.


So the "bits" are true - the mendacity is in how he implies false conclusions. And in those three from paragraph 3 he is yet again relying on his false base premise by taking Bazant's 'limit case' as actually happening.

Of course Bazant didn't measure the fall of the REAL event when he was working on an ABSTRACT "limit case" model.


More if you want them. They get worse.

 

[DGM]

Here - try a couple of samples - "Bits" of fact that Tony seems to get right BUT then comes up with false conclusions. Actually in the "Open Letter to Bazant" his false claims are mostly "lies by false inference".

Paragraph #1
OK - that one looks like it is true.

Paragraph #3



...I suggest that all three of those are correct.


So the "bits" are true - the mendacity is in how he implies false conclusions. And in those three from paragraph 3 he is yet again relying on his false base premise by taking Bazant's 'limit case' as actually happening.

Of course Bazant didn't measure the fall of the REAL event when he was working on an ABSTRACT "limit case" model.


More if you want them. They get worse.

Continue, I see no issues.

Take off the kid gloves. I think you'll find most if not all here agree with you. Tony's right on many aspects but his application to meet his need is all wrong.

 

[Myriad]

...I suggest that all three of those are correct.

I agree. The incorrect part is making a "correction" to the model that changes only the velocity following the one story drop without updating the energy balance accordingly.

As Tony observes, the decrease in velocity makes an almost twofold difference in the kinetic energy of the falling mass at that instant. But it makes no difference at all to the potential energy that has been converted. M, g, and delta h are all unaffected.

Bazant's model describes a simplified but unrealistic scenario: the upper block free-falls unimpeded and undamaged through one story, gaining kinetic energy equal to the decrease in potential energy from the drop, and then meets an intact structure below. One might indeed expect quite a jolt, in that case.

If you change the model to alter the unimpeded-ness of the fall, you also have to alter the intactness of the remaining structure. Otherwise the revised model will posit half the potential energy disappearing, not turning into kinetic energy and also not affecting the condition of the falling mass or the condition of the structure below.

If you make both changes (lower velocity after the first story of drop, and more damage to the structures after the first story of drop) to keep the energy conserved, the model arguably becomes more realistic. Including that it no longer predicts an easily detectable jolt that couldn't and didn't happen.

 

[FalseFlag]

Has Bazant responded yet? I would like to see what he has to say. Can someone please post a link to the public response? Thanks.

 

[FalseFlag]

If you make both changes (lower velocity after the first story of drop, and more damage to the structures after the first story of drop) to keep the energy conserved, the model arguably becomes more realistic. Including that it no longer predicts an easily detectable jolt that couldn't and didn't happen.

Can you perform and then post a real-world experiment that supports your claim?

 

[FalseFlag]

I'll risk an analogy. Give him an IKEA cabinet kit of parts - he would agree that every piece is a part of the whole. BUT couldn't assemble them into the whole cabinet.

No one could - at least not without a second trip to get the missing parts.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Your comment assumes that those on this forum who accept the present nonsensical story we have been given by NIST and others are sane to begin with.

It is very likely they at least suffer from a low level of cognizance and may in fact be less than sane. If they are sane, it is likely to be their job to disagree with anyone questioning the present nonsensical story, no matter how strong the argument, and they suffer from moral turpitude. I would say Zdenek Bazant would be in the latter category if he does not correct the errors in his analyses now that he has been made fully aware of them. If he does correct them I would laud him as an honorable man.

I don't know if you're aware of this simple fact, but belief in a controlled demolition is absurd. How did you ever convince yourself that such a ridiculous claim could be plausible? Seriously, I don't recall ever facing a dumber hypothesis, so how do you reconcile the absurdity of the claim with reason?

Please don't shrug this off with the usual truther response, that is, 'how could you believe the OCT?', or 'how could you believe the NIST report?' That is just wankery, and I'm not interested in such low level crap. All reports aside, how can anyone think that CD is a viable hypothesis, especially in light of the lack of physical evidence? I truly want to know how people can convince themselves that this sort of hypothesis is plausible, as I find this sort of thing somewhat fascinating.

 

[jaydeehess]

Agreed naturally - it is the obvious bit of hypocrisy.

However - coming at the letter from a different perspective - have you read that letter of Tony's carefully?

Most of the detail elements he asserts seem to be true. The mendacity in in how he builds those bits up into false implications.

If I was in a stirring mood I could liven discussion up by posting my assessment of the many bits he gets right.

...and risk some members thinking I'm supporting Tony.

I read it. Will go through it again on Tuesday perhaps.
Gotta pick up my granddaughter at the airport tomorrow. Havent seen her in three years.

 

[jaydeehess]

Any response as yet?
Do you expect one? If so, by what venue?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Has Bazant responded yet? I would like to see what he has to say. Can someone please post a link to the public response? Thanks.

Apperently not.

 

[Myriad]

Can you perform and then post a real-world experiment that supports your claim?

Of course I can.

You don't have the standing to review it, though. So to avoid redundant effort, I'll just present it as my testimony when the new official-yet-independent investigation starts.

Can you tell me when that will be, so I can keep the time open on my calendar?

 

[beachnut]

...
Of course Bazant didn't measure the fall of the REAL event when he was working on an ABSTRACT "limit case" model.

More if you want them. They get worse.

Tony used the average velocity real world from video to "correct" Bazant's model. Mix real world with the model world. (exposes a major problem in comprehension)

When will Tony learn it was a model. Bazant will say, "So".

 

[ozeco41]

Continue, I see no issues.

Take off the kid gloves. I think you'll find most if not all here agree with you. Tony's right on many aspects but his application to meet his need is all wrong.

I agree. ...Bazant's model describes a simplified but unrealistic scenario: the upper block free-falls unimpeded and undamaged through one story,

OK - we are mostly agreed that Tony is wrong to use the Bazant model as if it really happend. Even though he gets some of the basic factors right BEFORE he loses the plot.

Here are some of the points I think he gets right:

Paragraph #1

This open letter is being sent to you to request that you correct your four papers on the collapse of the WTC Towers, which were published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

OK - that one looks like it is true. Score 1/1 for Tony.

Paragraph #2

In these papers, the values used for the below three items:
- The velocity of the descending upper section of the building
- The mass of the descending upper section of the building
- The column strength of the underlying story at the impact floor
have been shown in the intervening years to be significantly unrepresentative of the actual situation concerning the North Tower (WTC 1) at the time of its collapse.

I suggest that all three of those assertions are true. Score 4/4 for Tony.

Paragraph #3

By your use of free fall through the first story of the collapse it would seem that you had not measured the descent from video.

Others have measured it, and the velocity after a fall of one story is approximately 6.13 meters/sec and not the 8.52 meters/sec velocity, resulting from a free fall through one story, used in your papers.

This leads to a near doubling of the velocity component in the kinetic energy of the upper section, since it is squared with 6.13 2 = 37.58, and 8.52 2 = 72.59.

...I suggest that all three of those are correct. Score 7/7 for Tony.

Paragraph #4
I'll take a rain check on this lead up explanation - too complicated to be sure either way:

Your papers show a mass of either 58 x 10 6 kg or 54.18 x 10 6 kg for the descending upper section, which seem to correspond to 15 or 14 stories at the 3.87 x 10 6 kg per story mass given in two of your papers. The collapse initiation in the North Tower actually occurred at the 98 th story and the actual in-service load of the 12 story upper section can be calculated, based on story masses from the NIST report, as 33 x 10 6 kg. This would equate to an average of 2.75 x 10 6 kg per story. Interestingly, in the second page of the addendum to your first paper (Bazant and Zhou 2002) you used the vibration period of the tower (14s) to estimate the mass of 44% of the 117 stories of the tower as 141 x 10 6 kg. If this partial mass is divided by 0.44 it gives a full mass of 320.45 x 10 6 kg for the whole tower. When this full mass is then divided by 117 stories it gives 2.74 x 10 6 kg per story. This is very close to what can be discerned from the NIST report and thus your own calculations tend to confirm it. It is thus confounding as to why you used a 3.87 x 10 6 kg per story mass in your papers.

I think he may be right on one, is definitely wrong on one and the others are moot - too much gobbledegook for me to parse. Anyone care to try? So let the score stand at 7/7.

But this last two sentence bit:

This per story mass seems like a maximum design load and not the actual in-service load.

...and

Use of a maximum design load, when that is not what was present during the failure, will prevent any forensic analysis from being accurate.

Both bits seem to be true. Score 9/9 for Tony (Not forgetting we have left 3 in abeyance.)

Paragraph #5

The overestimates of velocity and mass of the descending upper section in your papers cause it to have a kinetic energy which is several times what it actually would have been.

Of course, this would make a collapse propagation more likely.

...and both of those look to be true.

Which scores 11 out of 11 for Tony - with 3 left in abeyance.

With so much going for him how does he manage to imply the opposite of what his own selected evidence shows?

Maybe it is time SOMEONE told him that he is using the model wrongly........

.....err.....

I thought one or two of us had told him. Once or twice.