• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

femr2 said:
tfk,

You still don't seem to have made any attempt to contact Enik.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=445
Click to expand...
Poor Enik - will he publish in a real journal and expose 911! Or be like other super 911 investigators, keeping their failed attacks on NIST and Bazant a secret study, making it up as they go, never to be published in a real engineering journal. Where is Heiwa when you need to publish in a real journal? Poor Enik, does not understand models and has to ask questions. Not exactly a good omen for solving or understanding 911 issues.

When I wanted to solve engineering issues, I went to school and earned engineering degrees; when 911 truth wants to solve engineering issues they make up nonsense, create moronic conspiracy theories and fail for 9 years.

Be like Bazant; Publish! It took Bazant hours, not years to publish. Yes, it is true, Bazant can do the math, and understands differential equations, something 911 truth can't do.
 
beachnut said:
Poor Enik - will he publish in a real journal and expose 911! Or be like other super 911 investigators, keeping their failed attacks on NIST and Bazant a secret study, making it up as they go, never to be published in a real engineering journal. Where is Heiwa when you need to publish in a real journal? Poor Enik, does not understand models and has to ask questions. Not exactly a good omen for solving or understanding 911 issues.

When I wanted to solve engineering issues, I went to school and earned engineering degrees; when 911 truth wants to solve engineering issues they make up nonsense, create moronic conspiracy theories and fail for 9 years.

Be like Bazant; Publish! It took Bazant hours, not years to publish. Yes, it is true, Bazant can do the math, and understands differential equations, something 911 truth can't do.
Click to expand...

Do you with all of your engineering degrees, understand Finite Element Analysis?
 
beachnut said:
Be like Bazant; Publish! It took Bazant hours, not years to publish. Yes, it is true, Bazant can do the math, and understands differential equations, something 911 truth can't do.
Click to expand...
Differential equations to model a theory based on flawed assumptions have little value. 9 years later, still waiting for an FEA model to show that Bazant's equations have any applicability to the real world. I'm very glad Enik is doing some of the legwork here, but this should have been done years ago by proponents of Bazant.
 
tfk said:
Yup.

What is your degree & years of experience? In what specific field?

tom
Click to expand...

MSME, BSME, PE, 20 years in Nuclear Construction, Automotive, and now oil and gas.

TFK, can you demonstrate your abilities using FEA?
 
lozenge124 said:
Differential equations to model a theory based on flawed assumptions have little value. 9 years later, still waiting for an FEA model to show that Bazant's equations have any applicability to the real world. I'm very glad Enik is doing some of the legwork here, but this should have been done years ago by proponents of Bazant.
Click to expand...
What "flawed assumptions" exactly?
 
DGM said:
What "flawed assumptions" exactly?
Click to expand...

Read Bazant & Verdure if you haven't already:
Detailed finite element analysis simulating plasticity and break-up
of all columns and beams, and the flight and collisions of broken
pieces, would be extremely difficult, as well as unsuited for ex-
tracting the basic general trends. Thus it appears reasonable to
make four simplifying hypotheses: (1) The only displacements are
vertical and only the mean of vertical displacement over the
whole floor needs to be considered. (2) Energy is dissipated only
at the crushing front (this implies that the blocks in Fig. 2 may be
treated as rigid, i.e., the deformations of the blocks away from the
crushing front may be neglected). (3) The relation of resisting
normal force F transmitted by all the columns of each floor to
the relative displacement u between two adjacent floors obeys a
known load-displacement diagram (Fig. 4), terminating with a
specified compaction ratio which must be adjusted to take into
account lateral shedding of a certain known fraction of rubble
outside the tower perimeter. (4) The stories are so numerous, and
the collapse front traverses so many stories, that a continuum
smearing i.e., homogenization gives a sufficiently accurate over-
all picture.
Click to expand...
If any of these "simplifying hypotheses" are wrong, than their 1-dimensional mathematical model is worthless.
 
enik said:
Do you with all of your engineering degrees, understand Finite Element Analysis?
Click to expand...
Wrong question. WTC 1 and 2 collapsed due to impacts and fires not fought. WTC 7 collapsed due to fire not fought. This is your problem, you make up nonsense, ask the wrong questions and have delusions on 911.

How will Finite Element Analysis support your CD delusions? Why will all your ME degrees do you fail to understand models? Attacking Bazant, the smoking gun of woo.


lozenge124 said:
Read Bazant & Verdure if you haven't already:

If any of these "simplifying hypotheses" are wrong, than their 1-dimensional mathematical model is worthless.
Click to expand...
When will you publish your findings? lol, NEVER! Your post are super engineering masterpieces of 911 truth woo; keep up the good work. I loved the straw model you did years ago, it was a show stopper! Is a straw model 1-dimensional claptrap, or 2?
 
Last edited:
DMG post 1051: "I have read his work, How about you? Who told you to say it would be worthless?"

It is a fact that equations 12 and 17 from the paper BV cannot be applied to WTC1. Only a couple of your regular posters already realize this (Ozeco and Dave Rogers).

The purpose of BV is to derive eqs 12 and 17. It is meaningless to apply any of the paper to WTC1 if these equations have no application to the WTC towers.

The two follow-up papers, BL (=BVReply) and BLGB, rely heavily on equations 12 and 17 from BV. WIth no exaggeration, almost all of BL ceases to have any meaning whatsoever if BV eqs 12 and 17 cannot be applied to WTC1. The paper is a freakin' wash.

Also, a healthy chunk of BLGB is nothing more than the application of BV eqs 12 and 17 to WTC1 and 2. That part is a freakin' wash, too.


As of the first appearance of BV in 2007, equations 12 and 17 had nothing to do with any of the WTC towers, but nobody seemed to realize it so they carried on a fake debate, pouring from the empty to the void for the last few years.

It is your responsibility to update information as it is learned. This would be a great time to undergo a major overhaul. Beyond BZ, written in 2002, most everything Bazant wrote heavily depends on the debunked eqs 12 and 17.

Wake up and update.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
... Wake up and update.
Click to expand...
When will you publish your findings? Wait, your findings are nonsense and delusional. Darn... If you had an engineering degree this would be a bigger failure. 9 years of failure, shooting for infinity and beyond.
 
Major_Tom said:
As of the first appearance of BV in 2007, equations 12 and 17 had nothing to do with any of the WTC towers, but nobody seemed to realize it so they carried on a fake debate, pouring from the empty to the void for the last few years.
Click to expand...

Would you happen to have a quick link to these equations (save an old guy a lot of looking-up)?

Anyone else want to "catch me up" (although I vaguely remember being here before)?
 
Beachnut post 1055: "When will you publish your findings? Wait, your findings are nonsense and delusional. Darn... If you had an engineering degree this would be a bigger failure. 9 years of failure, shooting for infinity and beyond. "

Only about 2 and a half years for me. Pretty successful in that short amount of time, actually.

Total operating budget: 0 dollars.


Beachnut, since you are so good at reading differential equations, what is your opinion of BV equations 12 and 17? Are they applicable to WTC 1 or not?
 
Major_Tom said:
...
Beachnut, since you are so good at reading differential equations, what is your opinion of BV equations 12 and 17? Are they applicable to WTC 1 or not?
Click to expand...
You don't use math and you can't do quotes! You fail to understand 911 and propose a moronic CD conclusion based on nonsense. Why do you insist of exposing your ignorance on models by attacking Bazant and failing to publish your findings?

Does this mean you will not be publishing your nonsense on Bazant? Gee whiz, Heiwa published a letter; why can't you?


Your budget, "Total operating budget: 0 dollars.", is indicative of your results. a big zero...
 
Last edited:
enik said:
MSME, BSME, PE, 20 years in Nuclear Construction, Automotive, and now oil and gas.

TFK, can you demonstrate your abilities using FEA?
Click to expand...

Gee..I am sooooo very happy to hear you are (cough) so well educated. What I am confused about, however, is if you are (so well educated), why do you spew such uneducated nonsense, and, more specifically, why do you have no idea you are spewing uneducated nonsense?

Call me skeptical.....But.......I was wondering if you could help me out....please utilize all your experience to ANSWER THIS HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL PHYSICS QUESTION FOR US....

Enik, what is the classical model of a diatomic molecule?

I got ya' covered kid....Of course it is a springy dumb-bell, one where the dumb-bell is free to rotate about axes perpendicular to the spring. So, I was curious, in the limit of high temperature, what is the specific heat per mole at constant volume?

Don't mess up now......should take an 'experienced professional' like you about 1 minute to answer this.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom