Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[rwguinn]

... The bits they get right are bits that are right.
...

If only there were more of them than the date...

 

[ozeco41]

If only there were more of them than the date...

Sure. And I didn't say the majority was right either. I just don't see the point of responding to a truther post that happens to be correct by calling it 'lies' or 'delusions' or similar. It only weakens the impact when you do need to address 'lies' etc. And even then it may be 'delusions' not lies....

...so 'untruths' certainly, 'lies' maybe not.

 

[beachnut]

Both are applicable within the limits of their assumptions. Given that the OP Title presumed one model, you see two and I am not sure whether there might be three..... or more.

Then again F=ma doesn't tell us a lot about refraction of light through water so we need to take care we apply it where it is valid. Determining the limits of validity is the key.

Which, I suppose, is the purpose of this thread. And 'truthers' can be correct just as easily as 'debunkers' can be wrong. And not everything a 'truther' says can be described as "...regurgitate lies and are confused by science while spewing delusions." The bits they get right are bits that are right.

PS The Christmas Stocking had a half share in a gas barbecue.

What bits did they get right? And if they got some bits right, why do they always fail by making idiotic conclusions? 911Truth, shooting for infinite fail, and succeeding! If 911 truth was football team; which team would they be? Is there an equal to 9 years of complete failure with no end in sight?

Bazant's model is as applicable to the real world as F=ma; both models baffle the failed 911 truth movement cult members who regurgitate lies and are confused by science while spewing delusions. This is my model on 911 truth, it has some limitations and some of the failed cult members will figure out 911 and be better at spotting fraud in the future. The ones who recover from the temporary learning disability will be upset they were fooled by morons pushing lies.

Are you saying the CD delusion is not a failed conclusion? Are you saying they have something right about the CD claims? Gage and Jones are liars, they have no bits right except Gage is making 70k a year off of idiots.

I don't need Bazant's model to understand 911, and 19 terrorists doing 911. Oh, you are upset about Enik... Missed that, you take a random post my me and think I am calling Enik a liar? Oops.
"Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world" This is the topic, I just pointed out the failure of 911 truth to understand simple models, to include F=ma. The topic is, "Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world", Poor Enik may have changed from a truther to a debunker, I don't care. I have seen his posts and he is too shy to make a stand on much except to keep asking people to do FEA on everything, or some nonsense.

What is his conclusion? Is it CD? Thermite? Has nothing to do with Bazant's model. Where is Enik's model, and what is the conclusion? In summary, 911 truth continues to fail, A&E failed, and we have possible new thread topic: bit 911 truth got right, and Enik's model leads to a possible conclusion, or what?

 

[enik]

These two statements are conflicting:

In typical truther fashion, you have stated that you don't ask what people do for a living directly after you asked a question directly related to what people do for a living.

Fascinating! One must wonder what fantastic leaps you take to ensure that you are always right.

Did you get your license?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Did you get your license?

 

[DC]

are we now starting a contest who has the longest license?

 

[Newtons Bit]

are we now starting a contest who has the longest license?

That's what enik is doing. Rather than discuss what he's doing, he wants to hold people that may criticize his work to an impossible and ever increasing standard.

 

[tsig]

His model is the columns of the upper and lower block missing each other and the collapse propagating through the collapse of the floors. In engineering parlance, this is somewhere between, "duh" and "no sherlock". He's yet to understand that Bazant's papers are talking about a maximum limiting case.

Misunderstanding what a limiting case is seems to be the foundation of MT's and other CT's theory.

 

[rwguinn]

Did you get your license?

Yup.

 

[newton3376]

And if we go back, I don't ask what anyone does for a living, just demonstration that one can do an FEA.

I just love it when truthers try to discuss technical topics with people who actually know what they are talking about....

I have seen junior engineers do this in real life too.....but they are usually smart enough to eventually shut up and learn from the more experienced engineers....

Keep posting Enik...you are quite entertaining....

 

[Major_Tom]

Ozeco post 1110: "So prima facie his paper is based on a wrong model. Therefore it is not applicable to WTC collapse. I do not need Bazant as an authority to support my understanding of the WTC Global Collapse. BL is excluded on the basis of that one section. And I will put the other Bazant papers (other than BZ) into the category of "dubious" when applied to WTC collapse. "

Original post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6688854&postcount=1110

WHat you say is correct. But I think it is important to understand why the papers BV, BL and BLGB are wrong. What is the specific Achille's heels of the formulation of the equations of motion on which all 3 papers are based?

It is quite illuminating to do this, because you can see how so many people have been fooled and continue to be fooled to this day.

Remember, you are the only debunker here that recognizes simple problems with the Bazant formulation of crush up, crush down propagation rates, yet you are honest enough to admit that the sections I mentioned are difficult to read.

Other posters don't even admit that. It is a difficult paper to read, and BV actually reads more like a physics paper. They are describing a mechanics of complex propagation of matter, and that is pretty much what physicists do also.

If you are not familiar with how to set up equations of motion, it is difficult to follow what he is doing. His assumptions are expressed mathematically, and if you cannot follow the mathematical progression, you cannot follow his argument or understand his assumptions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Ozeco, every poster besides you will basically insult me or ignore me for what I wrote. If I have been correct about BV, BL and BLGB since my first post on the subject in May, what does that tell you about the JREF forum?

Is any individual person here capable of understanding the crush down, then crush up mechanics in BV, BL and BLGB and and finding the specific mistakes?

If not, what is really going on with all the insults and defensiveness?

 

[triforcharity]

Do quote tags scare you?

 

[tfk]

Gee MT,

My feelings are kinda hurt.

Here you claimed that the BZ & BV models were completely different. I disagreed, and asked you to elaborate.

Your replied: ... silence.

You claimed that you could walk anyone who needed help thru the details of BV (but doubted that "anyone here could understand it"). I signed up, and said "Sure, start explaining".

Your reply: ... silence.

One might come to the conclusion that you do nothing but bluff...

 

[newton3376]

Gee MT,

My feelings are kinda hurt.

Here you claimed that the BZ & BV models were completely different. I disagreed, and asked you to elaborate.

Your replied: ... silence.

You claimed that you could walk anyone who needed help thru the details of BV (but doubted that "anyone here could understand it"). I signed up, and said "Sure, start explaining".

Your reply: ... silence.

One might come to the conclusion that you do nothing but bluff...

Yep....that pretty much sums it up....he is bluffing because it is HE who doesn't understand this stuff...

At least it's fun to watch him fail.....

 

[ozeco41]

...Ozeco, every poster besides you will basically insult me or ignore me for what I wrote. If I have been correct about BV, BL and BLGB since my first post on the subject in May, what does that tell you about the JREF forum?

Is any individual person here capable of understanding the crush down, then crush up mechanics in BV, BL and BLGB and and finding the specific mistakes?

If not, what is really going on with all the insults and defensiveness?

Fuller response when I return to home base tomorrow, however my previous comment - see quote below -went unacknowledged. And both "sides" seem to be avoiding discussing the topic..

...That does not legitimise snide comments about those interests as tricks to evade responding to what is actually posted and on topic for this thread.

Legal practitioner's maxim "If you have no case attack the witnesses"

Corollary "If they are attacking the witnesses they have no case."

Why not simply address the topic. End of my comments.

And the topic was......????

...and I have clearly outlined the current limit of my understanding of the different models but no one has put me right 'cept you AFAICS.

 

[tfk]

...and I have clearly outlined the current limit of my understanding of the different models but no one has put me right 'cept you AFAICS.

Sorry Oz,

Major Tom claimed that he could explain all this to you.

But when invited to do so, he goes silent.

If you expect him to "put you right", you're gonna be sorely disappointed.
___
___

Major Tom,

Why are you leaving Oz hanging?

Why have you not replied to my invitation to explain your "understanding" of the difference between BZ & BV?

You've stated repeatedly, sarcastically, (& comically) that BV's "crush down - crush up" theory is wrong, ludicrous, a joke. You state that Bazant has made "simple errors".

Why haven't you explained BV's crush up & crush down "simple errors"?

You claim that Bazant's equations 12 & 17 in BV "cannot be applied to the WTC towers" & "have been debunked long ago".

Please explain why they cannot be applied to the TTs.
And provide your debunking.

The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind…

tk

PS. You claimed that Ryan Mackey's statements about the precision & usefulness of models was "all BS and a lie".

I asked you here to elaborate on exactly which statements were "BS & a lie".

Thus far, lots of insulting accusations, and zero explanations.

Typical...

 

[Major_Tom]

TFK post 1156: "Why have you not replied to my invitation to explain your "understanding" of the difference between BZ & BV?"

Why would I explain it to him?

Post edited, breach of rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[tfk]

Major T,

OK, it seems that the "subtle as a punch in the nose" innuendos in my comments are simply too delicate, too nuanced for you.

Here it is, simply & plainly: I don't believe that you have the slightest clue what you are talking about. I believe that you are blowing smoke & bluffing.

I think that you're a fraud.

Now, I invite you to prove me wrong.

Don't explain to Oz. Explain to me.

And when you get it completely & utterly wrong, then I'll explain it to you.

Clear enough?

tk

 

[tfk]

Major Tom?

[...crickets...]

 

[rwguinn]

Sure got quiet around here after credentials came to light...