Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[pgimeno]

A quite lengthy quote I'm afraid, but necessary...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/327327057.png[/qimg]
The author is indicating that if the column cross sections changed discontinuously right below or right above the first collapsed stor(e)y, the initial crush-up distance would be affected.

The author is also indicating, and there is no other way to interpret, that this (cross-section change) does not appear to be the case in the real tower.

The author is stating that because, in the real tower, column cross-sections don't change (as much as the author thinks they would need to) that crush direction calculations are therefore justified.

He's not talking about *some generic building*. He's talking about WTC1/2.

Yes, that's right, and I thought it was already clear that in BLGB he tested his model by applying the towers' parameters to it.

Yes, I'm aware your wording is specific.

However, the author is misapplying calculated crush direction metrics to the real building, and using building measurements as justification for his results.

As justification? I thought it was just a comparison that put the model to test.

And you still have to prove why and how he is misapplying these metrics.

The author is a bit lost. The lines between fiction and reality have become very blurred for him.

For him, or for you? Who is the lost one here?

You and I can argue about the semantics ad infinitum, but the bottom line is for others to be fully aware of how immersed and convoluted the author has become, failing to see how blurred his viewpoint is and how messed-up an interpretation of what he's saying a reader could take from his wanderings.

Great statement that shows your true colors.

Easy to read, huh ?

I didn't say it was easy to read. Did you?

I created this thread precisely to educate the unaware people about a common mistake I myself made in past, before I realized the context and scope of Bazant's papers. Your repeated misunderstandings and general blindness are offering an unique opportunity for me to continue to do so, boarding the same topic from different points of view, and proving, with each of your quotations and misinterpretations, that that viewpoint was right. At this point you probably have realized that you can't produce a single instance of where Bazant compares the real world crush direction with the model's predicted one (which differs from your initial assertion that he maintained that such crush direction happened in reality), so you're trying to save your face somehow desperately, even shifting goalposts and falling into the same well of smearing attempts where MT fell long ago, while I have been maintaining the same position since the OP.

This is what Bazant did (in my interpretation):
- Elaborate a mathematical model of a collapse that allows analysis. That mathematical model is necessarily simpler than the real world, but that's the best that he could come up with, and no one has as of yet come up with a better mathematical model as of now, to my knowledge.
- Refine the model as much as possible.
- Apply a real building's parameters to the model.
- Compare the predictions of the model with the real world results. There are some known limitations in the model that will make it not match reality in some cases, but since that's the best available mathematical model because it's impossible to have an accurate real model due to the high number of uncertainties, all that can be done is test it empirically. Where possible, adjustments are made to better approximate the model to reality, like the compensation for the tilt in page 901 in the section titled "Analysis of Video-Recorded Motion and Correction for Tilt."

To me, that sounds like the best possible scientific proceeding. Now, it would also have been nice if the authors also gave some statements about the metrics in which the model fails, but that's a separate issue.

The author applying crush direction features of the model to the real world is also on-topic.

Yes it is. When will it be discussed? So far the only thing that has been discussed in that respect is either the straw man argument of saying that the author claims that crush-down happened in reality before any crush-up (which is false, he didn't claim that) or stating that doing so what you say he's doing is wrong without proof or discussion.
(Edited as indicated; the underlined text was added)

Engineering models are not there to solve conspiracy puzzles. You seem to assume that as the purpose, and that's where you are failing again and again.

Er...
BLGB...

That's an application of the model.

(I see DGM already noted it. I highlighted the key word you seem to have missed.)

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that Bazant co-authored BV with the sole purpose of using it in future to write BLGB. That's ludicrous enough as to need an explanation.

 

[BasqueArch]

Re: OP “Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world”

Originally Posted by pgimeno
And, as I have repeatedly stated, that doesn't prevent the model from being applied to the real world.

This is going round in circles. Let's try it t'other way around...
In what way(s), or for which specific observations, do you think the model CAN be applied to the real world...beyond the original scope and intention of determining that, given the simplifying assumptions, there is enough energy available for propogation ?

Bazant -"Distinction must be made between crush-down and crush-up phases, for which the crushing front of a moving block with accreting mass propagates into the stationary stories below, or into the moving stories above, respectively. This leads to a second-order nonlinear differential equation for propagation of the crushing front, which is different for the crush-down phase and the subsequent crush-up phase."

Bazant - "Crush down followed by crush up
The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down is demonstrated by the condition of dynamic equilibrium of compacted layer B, along with an estimate of the inertia force of this layer due to vertical deceleration or acceleration; see Eq.10 and Fig. 2(f) of Baˇzant and Verdure (2007). This previous demonstration, however, was only approximate since it did not take into account the variation of crushing forces Fc and F0c during the collapse of a story. An accurate analysis of simultaneous (deterministic) crush-up and crush-down is reported in Baˇzant and Le (2008) and is reviewed in the Appendix, where the differential equations and the initial conditions for a two-way crush are formulated. It is found that, immediately after the first critical story collapses, crush fronts will propagate both downwards and upwards. However, the crush-up front will advance into the overlying story only by about 1% of its original height h and then stop. Consequently, the effect of the initial two-way crush is imperceptible and the hypothesis that the crush-down and crush-up cannot occur simultaneously is almost exact."

Examples that crush-down and crush-up are two distinct phases and that crush-up of entire stories do not occur simultaneously with the crush-down. Bazant's crush-down, crush-up model can be applied to the real world.
.
.





ETA: 13th floor down from top CD'd, 12 stories remain upright

 

[Carll68]

For goodness sakes, can we please apply some PERSPECTIVE to this discussion?

First, as has been stated numerous times, this is in the WRONG SECTION. Where is the conspiracy, I ask you. Unless you are stating that
(1) An independent researcher and his peers/constituents concocted a conspiracy to
(2) Create a fake study/studies that
(3) Passed peer review and
(4) Were subsequently published in an esteemed journal (Now all of these people must also be in on it) then
(5) Presented these detailed studies to the public without
(6) Being noticed by the professional community in order to
(6) Further some larger conspiracy,

THEN WHAT IS YOUR POINT EXACTLY?

Is this your theory? If not.....Then how is this a conspiracy again?

A handful of unqualified posters (Femr2/M_T) disagree with esteemed professionals on some points they fail to understand in the esteemed professionals peer reviewed papers? (Yes, O41, peer review matters!) SHOCKING NEWS!

Pfft.....This happens all the time.

Big Flip.

Per-Spec-Tive: In the not so distant past Femr2 thought and fought vehemently, tooth and nail, for; Pods on the planes, two flight 175's, not enough energy in the collapses to hurl debris, all the concrete being crushed.....UFO's....invorrect answers to high-school physics questions.....on and on and on.

Being unqualified to understand the meaning of a few technical papers and the models therein..well, that isn't a conspiracy, is it! I understand...they are are well outside your scope and expertise..no shame. So, I will ask again why the heck is this in the Conpiracy forum?

Like I said before.

What.Does. It. Matter.

How does this differ from Hiewa presenting his insane ramblings in the form of a letter to the Journal only to have his same insane theory laughed at...not because it was funny, but, because it showed a level of misunderstanding that was not worthy of acknowledgement otherwise.

So, in summary, what you think you found DOES NOT MATTER in the grand scheme of things. Not in the least. You still are left with ZERO evidence of the CD delusion you are trying to squeeze in. And, face it....that is WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SQUEEZE IN.

Got your own study and findings? Man up and muster the courage to accept the professional critiques of your work and make the proper amendments/corrections. Present them to qualified peers. WHY WOULD YOU SHY AWAY FROM THIS IF YOU ARE CERTAIN OF YOUR FINDINGS?

Upper block, crush up.....so WHAT! It is a MODEL and a STUDY....not the official finding. Can you grasp this concept? Can You?

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO FURTHER YOUR CD AGENDA? No?

Take up your unqualified beef with the ORIGINATING writers in the proper forum, in the proper context of the studies, and in the proper manner if you have the courage...otherwise, keep on beating your chest and hand-waving away everything thats shows you are 100%, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT incorrect in your final assumption OF CD.

So, in the end, you are left conspiraspanking all over this thread, and others are falling into your delusional trap of uncorrected assumptions that you hope somehow bolster you CD position. You are arguing ABOUT STUDIES DONE BY INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS, not official findings.

They have had the qualifications, work ,education and courage to submit there work to pass peer review and the accuracy in there findings to be published numerous time (Yep, O41, this still matters)....so I ask....can we expect that you will have the courage to do the same of those you critique??


Why not?

 

[pgimeno]

In the conclusion he claims his model can explain 8 different features of the collapses. He explicitly states that his model is capable of matching all observations, including 8 specific features.

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/722621348.png[/qimg]

That's an excellent quote that proves my point. Thanks.

I'll reproduce that quote in text form here for everyone to have it accessible, including blind people and Google, and to highlight some outstanding points that you must have missed because they contradict you and prove my point:

Conclusions

Several of the parameters of the present mathematical model have a large range of uncertainty. However, the solution exhibits small sensitivity to some of them, and the values of others can be fixed on the basis of observations or physical analysis. One and the same mathematical model, with one and the same set of parameters, is shown to be capable of matching all of the observations, including: (1) the video records of the first few seconds of motion of both towers; (2) the seismic records for both towers; (3) the mass and size distributions of the comminuted particles of concrete; (4) the energy requirement for the comminution that occurred; (5) the wide spread of the fine dust around the tower; (6) the loud booms heard during collapse; (7) the fast expansion of dust clouds during collapse; and (8) the dust content of the cloud implied by its size. At the same time, the alternative allegations of some kinds of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of parameter uncertainties is considered.

These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.​

[ETA: Wait, where in these 8 points is "observed crush-down followed by crush-up"? Yes, it's a rhetorical question.]

Note especially that the part I highlighted in bigger font is exactly what this thread was meant to discuss. Are these parameters really applicable to the real world case of the WTC towers? femr2 has stated that they weren't, but he hasn't supported that claim so far. I offered the argument of energy. If the total amount of energy is the same in the model and in the real world, it doesn't matter the path by which you get to that result. That is an argument that can favor the matching between the obtained results and the real world.

 

[femr2]

Yes, that's right, and I thought it was already clear that in BLGB he tested his model by applying the towers' parameters to it.

The purpose of BLGB, quoted from the introduction...

some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition. The objective of this paper, based on the report by Baˇzant et al.(2007), is to examine whether those allegations might be scientifically justifiable, and to show that the concept of gravity-driven collapse does not conflict with any observations.

Testing the model ? No, applying the model to the real world to examine allegations of controlled demolition.

I thought it was just a comparison that put the model to test.

No. The objective of the paper is stated.

And you still have to prove why and how he is misapplying these metrics.

As Ozeco41 aptly put it...
The base case model had columns aligned resisting the falling weight and getting crushed to give a founding premise for the maths which were applied. Is any further comment needed??

For him, or for you? Who is the lost one here?

B,L,G & B. (And you ?)

I created this thread precisely to educate the unaware people about a common mistake I myself made in past, before I realized the context and scope of Bazant's papers.

Still some work to do there imo. You are still making mistakes.

At this point you probably have realized that you can't produce a single instance of where Bazant compares the real world crush direction with the model's predicted one (which differs from your initial assertion that he maintained that such crush direction happened in reality)

Bizarrely, he does that the other way around...justifies and *approves* the model behaviour (and inclusion of unreal crush direction behaviour) by applying the limiting case energetics model to reality, coming out with something he thinks fits okay, and patting himself on the back. It's nonsense.

I'll list all my comments on crush direction if you're getting confused about my position.

I'll also list each crush direction reference from BLGB and the inference of the authors.

so you're trying to save your face somehow desperately, even shifting goalposts and falling into the same well of smearing attempts where MT fell long ago, while I have been maintaining the same position since the OP.

Nonsense.

This is what Bazant did (in my interpretation):
- Elaborate a mathematical model of a collapse that allows analysis.

No. The base model is by definition a limiting case, never intended to be used against behaviours of the actual event which suffered an entirely different mode of destruction.

Comparing descent time output from a limiting case scenario with the actual crush-front propogation time ? Nonsense.

That mathematical model is necessarily simpler than the real world, but that's the best that he could come up with

Again, no. Fundamentally no, it's a limiting case.

I'm sure Bazant et al could have generated a model which would exhibit many more real world behaviours, but that was simply not the intent. The intent and scope of the base model is clear.

- Refine the model as much as possible.

No. Refining the limiting case would probably mean starting from scratch with an entirely different basis for treating mode of destruction, and hence energy dissipation.

- Apply a real building's parameters to the model.

A real building ? No. WTC1 & WTC 2.

- Compare the predictions of the model with the real world results.

Doing so is misapplying the model imo, as I have repeatedly made clear.

Limiting case.

There are some known limitations in the model that will make it not match reality in some cases

Absolutely. Most (if not all) cases.

Limiting case.

but since that's the best available mathematical model because it's impossible to have an accurate real model due to the high number of uncertainties, all that can be done is test it empirically. Where possible, adjustments are made to better approximate the model to reality, like the compensation for the tilt in page 901 in the section titled "Analysis of Video-Recorded Motion and Correction for Tilt."

Comparison of physical behaviour of an energetics based limiting case base model to real events with an entirely different (and pretty much known) mode of destruction is erronious use of that base model, no matter haw many tweaks are stuck on to it.

To me, that sounds like the best possible scientific proceeding.

I don't agree, at all.

 

[ProBonoShill]

For goodness sakes, can we please apply some PERSPECTIVE to this discussion?

First, as has been stated numerous times, this is in the WRONG SECTION. Where is the conspiracy, I ask you. Unless you are stating that
(1) An independent researcher and his peers/constituents concocted a conspiracy to
(2) Create a fake study/studies that
(3) Passed peer review and
(4) Were subsequently published in an esteemed journal (Now all of these people must also be in on it) then
(5) Presented these detailed studies to the public without
(6) Being noticed by the professional community in order to
(6) Further some larger conspiracy,

THEN WHAT IS YOUR POINT EXACTLY?

Is this your theory? If not.....Then how is this a conspiracy again?

A handful of unqualified posters (Femr2/M_T) disagree with esteemed professionals on some points they fail to understand in the esteemed professionals peer reviewed papers? (Yes, O41, peer review matters!) SHOCKING NEWS!

Pfft.....This happens all the time.

Big Flip.

Per-Spec-Tive: In the not so distant past Femr2 thought and fought vehemently, tooth and nail, for; Pods on the planes, two flight 175's, not enough energy in the collapses to hurl debris, all the concrete being crushed.....UFO's....invorrect answers to high-school physics questions.....on and on and on.

Being unqualified to understand the meaning of a few technical papers and the models therein..well, that isn't a conspiracy, is it! I understand...they are are well outside your scope and expertise..no shame. So, I will ask again why the heck is this in the Conpiracy forum?

Like I said before.

What.Does. It. Matter.

How does this differ from Hiewa presenting his insane ramblings in the form of a letter to the Journal only to have his same insane theory laughed at...not because it was funny, but, because it showed a level of misunderstanding that was not worthy of acknowledgement otherwise.

So, in summary, what you think you found DOES NOT MATTER in the grand scheme of things. Not in the least. You still are left with ZERO evidence of the CD delusion you are trying to squeeze in. And, face it....that is WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SQUEEZE IN.

Got your own study and findings? Man up and muster the courage to accept the professional critiques of your work and make the proper amendments/corrections. Present them to qualified peers. WHY WOULD YOU SHY AWAY FROM THIS IF YOU ARE CERTAIN OF YOUR FINDINGS?

Upper block, crush up.....so WHAT! It is a MODEL and a STUDY....not the official finding. Can you grasp this concept? Can You?

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO FURTHER YOUR CD AGENDA? No?

Take up your unqualified beef with the ORIGINATING writers in the proper forum, in the proper context of the studies, and in the proper manner if you have the courage...otherwise, keep on beating your chest and hand-waving away everything thats shows you are 100%, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT incorrect in your final assumption OF CD.

So, in the end, you are left conspiraspanking all over this thread, and others are falling into your delusional trap of uncorrected assumptions that you hope somehow bolster you CD position. You are arguing ABOUT STUDIES DONE BY INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS, not official findings.

They have had the qualifications, work ,education and courage to submit there work to pass peer review and the accuracy in there findings to be published numerous time (Yep, O41, this still matters)....so I ask....can we expect that you will have the courage to do the same of those you critique??


Why not?

This is a superb summary of what I believe to be the thoughts of many here, great post.

 

[BasqueArch]

This is a superb summary of what I believe to be the thoughts of many here, great post.

Yep. Seconded.

 

[DGM]

An embarrassingly deperate effort to save face:

DMG post 1474: "I think you missed his distinction between model (BV) and application of the model (BLGB). "

I see your reading comprehension is as bad as femr2's.




Oh BTW, it's DGM not DMG. Need to work on your atention to detail.

 

[Major_Tom]

The true purpose of the 3 papers may not even be stated within them.

As of now, the papers effectively serve as vehicles of propaganda. They look pretty impressive and convincing but are fundamantally flawed.

BL and BLGB both claim to "prove" allegations of CD are absurd. This is pure propaganda.

A little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down. It looks like "proof", but it is only a vehicle to insert propaganda into engineering journals.

If it is not challenged, corrected or removed, it will stand as propaganda disguised as science, which may have been the intention all along.


I'll also guess that is why many people will try to salvage these papers. They don't care if they are wrong or right, just so they "appear authoritarian" and keep the propaganda in the history books to feed our youth.

You need your guru, your symbol of authority.

Without your twin symbols of scientific authority, the NIST and Dr Bazant, your physical arguments for "proof" turn to jello.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]

The base case model had columns aligned resisting the falling weight and getting crushed to give a founding premise for the maths which were applied. Is any further comment needed??

Then that word "simplify" must be a candidate for the most misused word in these discussions about Bazant's work. We quite often see it used in the context of an accusation that someone does not understand models - that accusation supported by a misuse/misinterpretation of "simplification".

If you simplify things to obscure the factor which matters it aint no simplification.

If I understand your first and last paragraphs correctly, you're saying that none of the Bažant et al papers are applicable, including Bažant and Zhou. Is that your position?

 

[Carll68]

As of now, the papers effectively serve as vehicles of propaganda.

There you have it! His entire uneducated argument from ignorance on the topic he knows nothing about - is born from his delusion that the PEER REVIEWED Independently CREATED scientific research paper(s) of Bazant et.al. are all part of a larger plot put together by some invisible shadow nefarious element within our government.

Are you kidding me? This is the kind of junk that is getting attention? Please. So, now that we know 'why' he thinks the continuation of this conversation belongs in the 9/11 CT section, let's dig into that.

Start a thread presenting all the evidence to support your baseless delusion that the Published peer reviewed papers of a group of Independent esteemed professionals that has escaped the notice of the entire professional community are intentional vehicles of propaganda.

You have already failed in your attempts to 'debunk' these papers based on your inability to understand the parameters each one works within, or the confines of there limited conclusions.

You fail to see that since it has been scientifically proven repeatedly - despite your inarticulate ramblings to the contrary - and thus universally accepted by the professional community that the towers could have (and eventually did) collapse(d) from fire and damage without the use of a CD's....that the argument to back in CD's when there is no evidence or even a rudimentary indication of Demolition present is not only futile but asinine....

So, start your thread champ...begin laying out the details of the evidence to support your insane claim of these excellent papers being 'vehicles of propaganda'...you have a dog in this fight...man up and support it!

 

[ozeco41]

If I understand your first and last paragraphs correctly, you're saying that none of the Bažant et al papers are applicable, including Bažant and Zhou. Is that your position?

Steady there - not so fast. The trap of reading only recent posts.

Preliminary comment - in addressing "are applicable" I clearly distinguish "applicable to WTC" from "applicable to generic conventional buildings".

With that proviso and as tightly as I can summarise:
I am in 98% agreement with what seems to be the prevailing opinion of Bazant and Zhou. That is that it represents a valid 'limiting case'. It shows that there was an overwhelming surplus of energy available to ensure that WTC Twin Towers collapse would progress to global collapse once started. The '98%' reservation because one of Bazant's assumptions is in the unsafe direction BUT I still think he is right overall. Also some of his descriptive stuff in BZ is wrong but it does not affect the conclusions.

I am of the view that, on the surface, BV cannot apply to WTC collapse but is valid for the 'generic building model' which BV used in their paper. That 'generic model' treats the falling block and the lower tower as discrete sort of homogeneous entities with the columns acting in integral concert with the floors. That was certainly not the case for WTC Twin Towers. So my position is BV applicable to generic buildings of conventional construction, not applicable to WTC1&2.

I have left it open for two ways to change my opinion. (Change it to bring WTC into valid application of BV)
1) someone show me that Bazant's maths allows for the case at WTC where the columns were scarcely involved. (I am 95% certain that is not so.); AND
2) I have suggested a method how the actual WTC collapse mechanism may be able to be tested under BV.

 

[ozeco41]

For goodness sakes, can we please apply some PERSPECTIVE to this discussion?...

Good idea - let's do just that because your broadside rant of ad hom attacks and attempts to change the topic do you no credit.

Take this bit:

...A handful of unqualified posters (Femr2/M_T) disagree with esteemed professionals on some points they fail to understand in the esteemed professionals peer reviewed papers?
....Being unqualified to understand the meaning of a few technical papers and the models therein....

It just happens that I am one of those members who is prepared to discuss the topic which was "Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world" to which a related topic has been merged. I am not unqualified and discussing the limits of some academics work does not automatically imply 'disagree' despite your inference. I do understand the papers and I probably understand modelling better that the average poster here.

So let's follow your suggestion and get some perspective. And it is not the false perspective you advocate with its implicit change of topic.

The discussion is one taking place in a discussion forum on the Internet. It is a discussion open to members of the forum and takes place within the constraints of a set of rules. The basic arrangement of discussion is that members create a discussion 'thread' by posting an original post - the 'OP' which sets the topic to be discussed. Discussion is expected to stay within the bounds of the topic. Whilst some flexibility is allowed posting 'Off Topic' is discouraged and may attract regulatory attention from Moderators who enforce observance of the forum rules.

This specific discussion from the OP is titled "Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world". It is not about CD. It is not about off topic claims that certain members may have made at other times in other places and which those members have not raised here.

So it is a valid topic for discussion and a discussion I have participated in. And given the current polarised climate of 'debunkers' v 'truthers' the thread has raised a lot of off topic comment - some of it by members who clearly wish that the topic was CD.

So should I take offence at recent comments which include me within the scope of some insults?

I won't do so but please don't let your enthusiasm to attack truthers by off topic accusations extend your insults to those of us who are professionals and prepared to discus valid topics in the context of an Internet forum.

This is a superb summary of what I believe to be the thoughts of many here, great post.

Agreed right up to '...great post'. The frustration of many members asking 'when will we get there?' is almost palpable. But the discussion has not gone to CD. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

 

[tsig]

Steady there - not so fast. The trap of reading only recent posts.

Preliminary comment - in addressing "are applicable" I clearly distinguish "applicable to WTC" from "applicable to generic conventional buildings".

With that proviso and as tightly as I can summarise:
I am in 98% agreement with what seems to be the prevailing opinion of Bazant and Zhou. That is that it represents a valid 'limiting case'. It shows that there was an overwhelming surplus of energy available to ensure that WTC Twin Towers collapse would progress to global collapse once started. The '98%' reservation because one of Bazant's assumptions is in the unsafe direction BUT I still think he is right overall. Also some of his descriptive stuff in BZ is wrong but it does not affect the conclusions.

I am of the view that, on the surface, BV cannot apply to WTC collapse but is valid for the 'generic building model' which BV used in their paper. That 'generic model' treats the falling block and the lower tower as discrete sort of homogeneous entities with the columns acting in integral concert with the floors. That was certainly not the case for WTC Twin Towers. So my position is BV applicable to generic buildings of conventional construction, not applicable to WTC1&2.

I have left it open for two ways to change my opinion. (Change it to bring WTC into valid application of BV)
1) someone show me that Bazant's maths allows for the case at WTC where the columns were scarcely involved. (I am 95% certain that is not so.); AND
2) I have suggested a method how the actual WTC collapse mechanism may be able to be tested under BV.

You mean in the case where the columns don't make contact?

 

[ozeco41]

Just for fun - I have this unusual idea that the "goodies" (i.e. the debunker side )
should keep their logic pure when addressing the "baddies" (i.e. the truther side)

(Gives my age away and the fact of my childhood diet of cowboy films. )

Is this conclusion by Bazant valid?

....(Quoting Bazant)...These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire....

...I say 'No!'

 

[tsig]

The true purpose of the 3 papers may not even be stated within them.

As of now, the papers effectively serve as vehicles of propaganda. They look pretty impressive and convincing but are fundamantally flawed.

BL and BLGB both claim to "prove" allegations of CD are absurd. This is pure propaganda.

A little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down. It looks like "proof", but it is only a vehicle to insert propaganda into engineering journals.

If it is not challenged, corrected or removed, it will stand as propaganda disguised as science, which may have been the intention all along.


I'll also guess that is why many people will try to salvage these papers. They don't care if they are wrong or right, just so they "appear authoritarian" and keep the propaganda in the history books to feed our youth.

You need your guru, your symbol of authority.

Without your twin symbols of scientific authority, the NIST and Dr Bazant, your physical arguments for "proof" turn to jello.

Then you've got your work cut out for you.

Imputing nefarious motivations to others is rude.

 

[ozeco41]

You mean in the case where the columns don't make contact?

The short answer is "Yes".
The medium answer is "I may not be sure what you mean"

So the long answer is more complicated.

Once the top block of either twin tower started to fall there was no end for end axial full load transferring contact between the top part of each column and its bottom part. However in the whole mess of what was happening there would be a mix of columns currently failing, columns which have already failed and another mix of failing by plastic hinging and failing by shear and some brief instants of elastic yielding.

However the relevant issue for the context of what I posted is that the falling OOS floors hitting the floors below them would transfer load to each floor joist connection up to the limit where that floor joist connection fails. And, stated a bit simplistically, that joist connection failure load was the only load resisted by the columns of the outer tube.

(I will leave aside the slightly more complicated case of the core columns)

So, back to BV.

BV has the columns in place taking load and being crushed as part of the collapse. And (AFAICS) being crushed at full failure load. So BV presumes full strength of column crushed whereas WTC Real world the equivalent force was not full column load but floor joist failure load which naturally is an order of magnitude less.

Is that what you were questioning?
Close?
Totally off target?

 

[BasqueArch]

Good idea - let's do just that because your broadside rant of ad hom attacks and attempts to change the topic do you no credit.

.......


Agreed right up to '...great post'. The frustration of many members asking 'when will we get there?' is almost palpable. But the discussion has not gone to CD. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

Ozeco, at this point you might counsel "Propaganda Feeding Our Youth Tom" about his rant above.

Regarding the frustration bit 1) It's really no mystery where MT's headed. He's stated why and how he believes CD was done.
2) Reminds me of the following bit "How to Irritate People."

 

[ozeco41]

Ozeco, at this point you might counsel "Propaganda Feeding Our Youth Tom" about his rant above....

Short of outright telling him to "Pull his head in" I have routinely hinted with little subtlety at the negative effects of various matters of style including:

• gratuitous ad homery;
• snide throw away concluding remarks;
• etc...; AND
• (nearly forgot) deliberately not using the quote function in full knowledge that the practice is an irritant to many members.

On one occasion I posted a link to the Wikipedia article about Dale Carnegie and his memorable work "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

I have made numerous suggestions that he should review his objectives. Including suggestions that objectives have a hierarchy... and getting your opponents personally affronted should not be on top.

Other than that I try to focus strictly on topic and avoid joining in the poor logic attacks directed both ways.

PS Cleese - Certainly appeals to me and I used his training materials extensively over the years

 

[ProBonoShill]

Good idea - let's do just that because your broadside rant of ad hom attacks and attempts to change the topic do you no credit.

Take this bit:

It just happens that I am one of those members who is prepared to discuss the topic which was "Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world" to which a related topic has been merged. I am not unqualified and discussing the limits of some academics work does not automatically imply 'disagree' despite your inference. I do understand the papers and I probably understand modelling better that the average poster here.

So let's follow your suggestion and get some perspective. And it is not the false perspective you advocate with its implicit change of topic.

The discussion is one taking place in a discussion forum on the Internet. It is a discussion open to members of the forum and takes place within the constraints of a set of rules. The basic arrangement of discussion is that members create a discussion 'thread' by posting an original post - the 'OP' which sets the topic to be discussed. Discussion is expected to stay within the bounds of the topic. Whilst some flexibility is allowed posting 'Off Topic' is discouraged and may attract regulatory attention from Moderators who enforce observance of the forum rules.
This specific discussion from the OP is titled "Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world". It is not about CD. It is not about off topic claims that certain members may have made at other times in other places and which those members have not raised here. So it is a valid topic for discussion and a discussion I have participated in. And given the current polarised climate of 'debunkers' v 'truthers' the thread has raised a lot of off topic comment - some of it by members who clearly wish that the topic was CD.

Great. Then ask for it to be moved to the appropriate sub-forum, we are discussing 9/11 conspiracies here.

So should I take offence at recent comments which include me within the scope of some insults?

I won't do so but please don't let your enthusiasm to attack truthers by off topic accusations extend your insults to those of us who are professionals and prepared to discus valid topics in the context of an Internet forum.

Once again this topic is not valid for this sub-forum.

Agreed right up to '...great post'. The frustration of many members asking 'when will we get there?' is almost palpable. But the discussion has not gone to CD. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

No it was a great post and while you may tolerate the coyness of Major Tom and Femr, we certainly don't have to.