Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

ozeco41 · Jan 19, 2011

newton3376 said:
I think you missed the point....

Analyzing the graph mathematically as a general calculation of simple areas is a bit different from going into the physical interpretations of how that calculation applies to specific cases.....

It doesn't matter if this was a graph from the WTC or not....the way you would calculate the work done using that graph is the same.

If you guys can't get the math right, what makes you think you understand the physics interpretation of the math/graphs?

No, I didn't miss the point. And please don't make attacks on my credibility by irrelevant commentary on my competency OR by including me in any grouping with other members who you denigrate as truthers. I can hold my own in discussing all relevant aspects of the topic. However I'm not into the evasive tactics of personally targeted insult or calling other members qualifications into dispute.

So, if we address the topic, the first test of "Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world", the same test as would apply to any authority person, is "Does it relate validly to the real situation". A subsidiary question could be "is any necessary maths correct". And that second question only comes into play if the first question is answered "yes."

...and the validity of Bazant's work does not rest on Major_Tom's qualifications or ability to explain the math. Nor on my qualifications or explanatory skills BTW.

Major_Tom · Jan 19, 2011

tfk said:
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

Very clear. I've explained in 4 reviews.

We are now waiting for you, cowboy. Which review comments are incorrect?

Major_Tom · Jan 19, 2011

Carll68 said:
In the bigger picture, can someone explain why this minutia being discussed matters? I mean, what difference does it really make if any of Bazants papers have incorrect formulas?

Incorrect concepts leading to incorrect equations.

It means that you, carl68, have been clueless of your subject matter and a first class hypocrite.

Not only were the papers incorrect, but the JREF herd instinct actually created a mutant franken-theory to justify the obvious contradictions. I watched this mentality, ignorant and hostile to anyone who calls their bluff, from my first posts in May to the present. Only now are people beginning to realize that the franken-theory isn't that of Bazant.

8 months I've watched, the whole time knowing you were wrong. Waiting...

This invention was a graft of BZ and BV in a way the author never intended.

For me, the oddest feature of all this is how just about every regular poster made the exact same mistake and reinforced this incorrect thinking in the other posters.

I could understand people making mistakes, quite normal. But how can groups of people all make the exact same mistake and never notice it?

W.D.Clinger · Jan 19, 2011

Major_Tom said:
Incorrect concepts leading to incorrect equations.

Which often lead to incorrect conclusions.

Major_Tom said:
It means that you, carl68, have been clueless of your subject matter and a first class hypocrite.

Other than that, he's been a model poster.

Major_Tom said:
Not only were the papers incorrect,

Virtually all software is incorrect as well, but some of it works well enough to be useful. I don't know of any fatal errors in Bažant and Verdure 2007, which is the only one of those papers I've looked at recently. On the other hand, I am not an engineer of any kind, so I may not be seeing mistakes that might be obvious to an expert.

Major_Tom said:
I could understand people making mistakes, quite normal. But how can groups of people all make the exact same mistake and never notice it?

Herd instinct and tribalism are also quite normal, as we saw with femr2's defense of your technobabble. In this case, relatively few members of JREF are qualified to comment on the papers in question. I have tried to limit my criticisms to the mathematics, without addressing the models.

tfk · Jan 19, 2011

Major_Tom,

Four weeks ago:

ozeco41 said:
I am not clear where the assumptions [for Bazant and Zhou] apply to limit applicability of Bazant's later work with other collaborators. I had been hoping that someone could clarify things for me …

Major_Tom said:

I could, but who would be capable of understanding what I say?

Step 1: Realize there is no "Bazant model". There are 2 distinct models haveing very different applications and purposes.

…

The single biggest source of confusion is that people on this forum cannot distinguish between the 2 models and blur them together.

tfk said:

Why don't you go ahead and explain the differences between the "two distinct models".

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Then, despite reminders here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here (among others), and a PM directly from me to you, the net result was …

… 4 weeks of zero explanation from you.

The BEST thing, the ONLY thing, you had to offer was:

Major_Tom said:
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?

____

Now you reach back over 3 weeks, pull out:

tfk said:
YOU claimed that the analyses in BZ & BV were fundamentally different.

I disagreed & invited you to explain yourself.

You refused to reply

and give this reply:

Major_Tom said:
Tom, you seem to be the only person left posting that believes this crap.

Can you explain why you disagree?

You made an assertion with which I disagree.
I asked you to explain the statement that YOU made.
You ignored my repeated invitations to explain your assertions for 4 weeks.

And now, the best that you can do is
1) an appeal to (your misperception of) popular opinion, and
2) shift the burden of doing the work.

:dl:

My 10 year old niece could do better than that.

Plus, you STILL haven't provided YOUR explanation that YOU asserted "[you] could, but who here could understand…"

YOU explain YOUR initial assertion first.

Then I'll be happy to supply you with my response.

Not "dodge the question & then toss the work back over the wall."

That's how this works. If one is not a bluffing, blustering fraud, that is.

YOU are up...

Somebody go wake up the crickets. They'll be on shortly.

femr2 · Jan 19, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
Herd instinct and tribalism are also quite normal

Certainly is for the, er, locals 'roun'ere.

as we saw with femr2's defense of your technobabble.

You what ? Whilst I do agree with deformation as opposed to rigid tilt (which incidentally it's ridiculous to disagree with, simply a matter of extent) care to qualify your statement above ? Don't recall actually commenting upon any of the technical details on the subject.

femr2 · Jan 19, 2011

tfk said:
Not "dodge the question & then toss the work back over the wall."

Tom,

A simple set of questions were asked...

Tom, do you believe in the concept of crush down, then crush up?

Please explain to us little people why Bazant is correct when he claims that significant crush up is impossible before crush down is complete.

Is he wrong? Why or why not?

Nice simple answers please.

W.D.Clinger · Jan 19, 2011

femr2 said:
as we saw with femr2's defense of your technobabble.

Click to expand...

You what ? Whilst I do agree with deformation as opposed to rigid tilt (which incidentally it's ridiculous to disagree with, simply a matter of extent) care to qualify your statement above ? Don't recall actually commenting upon any of the technical details on the subject.

Nor do I recall any technical contributions from your many posts in that thread. A lot of people asked you to say something substantive, but you refused. I guess you had little to say beyond "hooray for our side".

Which you said often. That's what I mean by "herd instinct and tribalism". Truthers have no monopoly on that, but you cited yourself as an example.

carlitos · Jan 19, 2011

In femr2's defense, he includes a lot of annoying British slang to help maximize the condescending tone of his tribalism.

Dave Rogers · Jan 19, 2011

carlitos said:
In femr2's defense, he includes a lot of annoying British slang to help maximize the condescending tone of his tribalism.

No he doesn't. He just avoids the use of annoying Americanisms.

Dave

femr2 · Jan 19, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
Nor do I recall any technical contributions from your many posts in that thread.

So what is it that led you to your prior statement ? Making it up as you go along by the looks of it.

A lot of people asked you to say something substantive, but you refused. I guess you had little to say beyond "hooray for our side".

Utter false nonsense.

Which you said often.

And a liar. Doing well.

That's what I mean by "herd instinct and tribalism".

Based upon your blatant falsehood. Gripping stuff.

Truthers have no monopoly on that, but you cited yourself as an example.

Nonsense.

If you want to quote things I've said, by all means do so, but don't make up crap.

Major_Tom · Jan 19, 2011

TFK post 1345: "You made an assertion with which I disagree.
I asked you to explain the statement that YOU made.
You ignored my repeated invitations to explain your assertions for 4 weeks.

And now, the best that you can do is
1) an appeal to (your misperception of) popular opinion, and
2) shift the burden of doing the work."

Popular opinion? Shift the burden of work?

I wrote 4 separate reviews to make my views pretty clear.

Tom, you are a coward.

You cannot answer but you like to talk tough.

Tom, you volunteered to be the new guinnea pig. So you are the proud new defender of the Bazant papers.

I'd request a little space from others to allow our resident expert, TFK, to debate me, showing the errors I've made in the reviews.

After he makes a complete ass out of himself, we can go over each paper equation section by section looking for the most fundamantal mistakes in BV, BL and BLGB.
................

WDC, BL is a closure to BV, so it is important to read both together. The mistakes become pretty obvious in BL, much more than BV.

I don't mind going over each section to explain the basic mistakes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Comment to Pgimeno, I don't want to do this in your thread. You should be able to guide your own thread, but the moderators stuck me back here. Not my custom to force my topic in another person's thread.

If you request that this departure from the topic receive it's own thread, I don't have to bother your's anymore.

newton3376 · Jan 19, 2011

ozeco41 said:
No, I didn't miss the point. And please don't make attacks on my credibility by irrelevant commentary on my competency OR by including me in any grouping with other members who you denigrate as truthers. I can hold my own in discussing all relevant aspects of the topic. However I'm not into the evasive tactics of personally targeted insult or calling other members qualifications into dispute.

So, if we address the topic, the first test of "Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world", the same test as would apply to any authority person, is "Does it relate validly to the real situation". A subsidiary question could be "is any necessary maths correct". And that second question only comes into play if the first question is answered "yes."

We will have to agree to disagree because...yeah...I think you missed the point as I originally stated. Reading what you wrote did zero to convince me otherwise....

ozeco41 said:
...and the validity of Bazant's work does not rest on Major_Tom's qualifications or ability to explain the math. Nor on my qualifications or explanatory skills BTW.

That's for sure.

newton3376 · Jan 19, 2011

This is really simple....really it is...

Instead of the endless complaining on internet forums about the NIST report or Bazant's papers....why not simply PUBLISH something in a respectable journal?

At least that will take the discussion beyond debate forums on websites out into the more "mainstream" engineering world....if you actually have an argument, any technical argument at all then that is where it belongs as a first step.

Otherwise you aren't presenting anything that has even passed a basic peer review.....get a few articles past peer review and publish.....that will go a long way towards actually creating a debate/discussion in the real world about your supposed points.

Otherwise it looks like you are nitpicking at the reports looking for any potential error or mistake and claiming that any mistake, assumption, approximation, etc invalidates the entire report/paper and opens the door wide for a conspiracy theory narrative. That is NOT how sincere "truth seeking" engineers or scientists approach problems.

Major_Tom · Jan 19, 2011

Newton 3376 post 1354: "Instead of the endless complaining on internet forums about the NIST report or Bazant's papers....why not simply PUBLISH something in a respectable journal?"

3 Bazant papers published. All incorrect. Few notice.

In each of the 3 papers BV, BL and BLGB Dr Bazant claims that significant crush up cannot occur before crush down is complete and, like sheep, nobody called the bluff.

We have had Newton's Bit, R Mackey, Dave Rogers and Myrad all preaching the word of the Great Upper Block, literally hallucinating upper blocks that rode a magic carpet of rubble to earth, all because Dr Bazant said so in 3 of his 4 Gospels.

Like sheep lying at the feet of the sheperd, I heard nobody correcting them.

Published means it's true? Wake up and be skeptical.

Newton : ".that will go a long way towards actually creating a debate/discussion in the real world about your supposed points."

Real world? In your real world, the most current literature claims that the top part of WTC1 rides the bottom part down to earth like Sweet Jesus descending to earth on a cloud. Not one engineering sheep sees a contradiction between this fairy tale and tha actual visual record.

You think I am exaggerating? Wake up.

TFK, we are waiting for your replies.

twinstead · Jan 19, 2011

In the real world there is a deafening chirping of crickets concerning respected engineering and scientific communities from anywhere on Earth claiming the collapses were suspicious.

newton3376 · Jan 19, 2011

Major Tom...

First of all...will you PLEASE learn to use the quote feature....you now have over 600 posts...I think it's time..

Major_Tom said:
3 Bazant papers published. All incorrect. Few notice.

Did anyone here say that the Bazant papers contained no errors?

Did anyone here say that the Bazant papers are exactly what happened on 9/11?

What do you mean by "incorrect"? What was the actual goal of each paper...what was each paper trying to show?

Do any of the errors invalidate the entire paper within the intended scope of the paper?

Major_Tom said:
In each of the 3 papers BV, BL and BLGB Dr Bazant claims that significant crush up cannot occur before crush down is complete and, like sheep, nobody called the bluff.

We have had Newton's Bit, R Mackey, Dave Rogers and Myrad all preaching the word of the Great Upper Block, literally hallucinating upper blocks that rode a magic carpet of rubble to earth, all because Dr Bazant said so in 3 of his 4 Gospels.

Like sheep lying at the feet of the sheperd, I heard nobody correcting them.

Please show me where you (or anyone) has proven that Bazant is wrong concerning the crush up/ crush down details....

Major_Tom said:
Published means it's true? Wake up and be skeptical.

No one here has said that.

That kind of talk is what you hear out of truthers, not skeptics.

Major_Tom said:
Real world? In your real world, the most current literature claims that the top part of WTC1 rides the bottom part down to earth like Sweet Jesus descending to earth on a cloud. Not one engineering sheep sees a contradiction between this fairy tale and tha actual visual record.

You think I am exaggerating? Wake up.

I don't think you are exaggerating...

What I do think is that:

1. You are wrong and have failed to prove your points.

2. You have made several mistakes in notation and calculation that call into question your level of competence to mathematically critique Bazants work.

3. You claim to have legitimate arguments and yet you present them on a debate forum on the internet.

4. You fail to realize that even if Bazant and NIST are wrong about some or all of the details about collapse initiation and progression that still does not prove demolition or an inside job.

W.D.Clinger · Jan 20, 2011

femr2 said:
If you want to quote things I've said, by all means do so, but don't make up crap.

I don't have to make it up. You dumped it. I'll quote it.

In posts 1346 and 1348, you and I agreed that you had contributed little in the way of technical comments.

femr2 said:
A lot of people asked you to say something substantive, but you refused. I guess you had little to say beyond "hooray for our side".

Click to expand...

Utter false nonsense.

femr2 said:
Which you said often.

Click to expand...

And a liar. Doing well.

Had I been lying, the links above would not be there.

tsig · Jan 20, 2011

Major_Tom said:
Newton 3376 post 1354: "Instead of the endless complaining on internet forums about the NIST report or Bazant's papers....why not simply PUBLISH something in a respectable journal?"

3 Bazant papers published. All incorrect. Few notice.

In each of the 3 papers BV, BL and BLGB Dr Bazant claims that significant crush up cannot occur before crush down is complete and, like sheep, nobody called the bluff.

We have had Newton's Bit, R Mackey, Dave Rogers and Myrad all preaching the word of the Great Upper Block, literally hallucinating upper blocks that rode a magic carpet of rubble to earth, all because Dr Bazant said so in 3 of his 4 Gospels.
Like sheep lying at the feet of the sheperd, I heard nobody correcting them.

Published means it's true? Wake up and be skeptical.

Newton : ".that will go a long way towards actually creating a debate/discussion in the real world about your supposed points."

Real world? In your real world, the most current literature claims that the top part of WTC1 rides the bottom part down to earth like Sweet Jesus descending to earth on a cloud. Not one engineering sheep sees a contradiction between this fairy tale and tha actual visual record.

You think I am exaggerating? Wake up.

TFK, we are waiting for your replies.

When I took engineering I guess I missed Insults 101.

pgimeno · Jan 20, 2011

Major_Tom said:
Comment to Pgimeno, I don't want to do this in your thread. You should be able to guide your own thread, but the moderators stuck me back here. Not my custom to force my topic in another person's thread.

If you request that this departure from the topic receive it's own thread, I don't have to bother your's anymore.

Actually what I am waiting for is your explanation on the difference between the models in BZ and BV that you so far have stated to exist without proof and TFK has asked you about, since that will help focusing the main topic of the thread. How can we talk on whether the model can apply or not if we don't know for certain even if it's a single model or more?

Major_Tom said:
In each of the 3 papers BV, BL and BLGB Dr Bazant claims that significant crush up cannot occur before crush down is complete and, like sheep, nobody called the bluff.

What bluff? He's describing a model, for Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake! You still seem to not have understood the OP at all. Maybe try rereading it?

Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

Philosopher

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Philosopher

"más divertido"

Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through

Illuminator

Graduate Poster

The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%

The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%

Philosopher

a carbon based life-form

Illuminator

Share this page

ISF - Join now!