Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[DGM]

At that link, Frank Greening, one of the authors of BLGB, says to me:

"Major Tom:

I agree!

In fact, after an upper block has dropped a few floors, a "natural" collapse is essentially indistinguishable from a controlled demolition.

So yes, it is all about collapse initiation....."

He knew in 2008. And he never defended BLGB as being "proof" like many of you here. Frank Greening seemed quite honest in contrast to many posters here.

I'm a bit confused. Who exactly is using BLGB as "proof"?

Can you show specific examples where the argument against CD was based on BLGB?

 

[alienentity]

Following the Frank Greening quote offered by M_T, why don't we list the collapse initiation evidence for and against CD?

The mainstream, conventional view has the following:

1) Airplane impacts which redistributed load paths in the towers, and initiated large multistory fires
2) A substantial record of the activities of the alleged hijackers, from multiple and diverse sources: audio recordings from cockpits; eyewitness reports of the hijackers; flight training documents of hijackers; flight instructor observations of the hijackers; photographs of the hijackers entering the security checkpoints in airports....etc etc etc

I've listed the relevant physical causes for the tower destruction plus the related conspiracy which directly brought it about.


Now for the equivalent evidence from the CD conspiracy side:

1) __________________

2) __________________

Now it's your turn, M_T, Femr2 and anybody else who is pushing for a different conspiracy. Should be interesting. That's what a conspiracy forum is all about, after all....

ETA It may well be that neither Femr2 nor M_T is pushing an alternative conspiracy theory. In that case, they are arguing the details of the mainstream, conventional view, and perhaps would like to address the conspiracy aspect relevant to the hijackers.

 

[Dave Rogers]

ETA It may well be that neither Femr2 nor M_T is pushing an alternative conspiracy theory. In that case, they are arguing the details of the mainstream, conventional view, and perhaps would like to address the conspiracy aspect relevant to the hijackers posting in the wrong forum, and should seek a more appropriate one.

ftfy.

Dave

 

[Major_Tom]

The very first edition of BLGB was made available on the 9/11 forum by David Benson in this post:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/blgb-errata-t28.html#p105

Where he wrote:

"The 'final' draft of BLGB has been sent to ASCE. After a bit longer, the draft will come back to Professor Bazant for inspectin. At that time it is still possible to make some minor, most minor changes.

If you would care to obtain a copy of the 'final' draft from Professor Bazant web site and look through it for anything you think is a mistake, please post it on this thread.

I'll collect these and organize an e-mail to Professor Bazant when the time is ripe."



The dear Max Photon objects to the use of the word "proof" in the first post. I object next. Notice the words of Max:

"Hi David,

I would like to suggest that Bazant reconsider the use of the word "proves" in the following:

"Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain
the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked
whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis
proves that they do not."



While the word may be technically correct from some perspectives, I believe - given the circumstances - the choice lacks a certain bit of common sense.

There are very few articles in serious journals about the WTC collapses, and after all, Bazant is Column God, so the paper will carry a lot of weight. Many people - including engineers - will only read the abstract. I think it is reasonable to assume that the average reader of the abstract will be left with the impression that Column God & Co. have proven that all CD hypotheses, whether regarding collapse initiation or collapse progress, have zero scientific merit.

While I know that usually such an article is written for engineering peers, in this case - given that 911 had such international reprocussions - it might make sense for Bazant's wording of the abstract to accomodate a wider, slightly less scientific audience.

Respectfully,

Max

P.S. Some gratuitous bikini photos might also help spruce up the paper a bit.
(Not of Bazant et. al. of course........I think you know what I mean.)"


Absolutely true, except the word "proof" is not even technically correct.

Notice that I was talking about ROOSD at the time with 2 of the authors, and Dr Greening agreed that collapse initiation is the key.




Just as Max had predicted, I am here 3 years later showing you there never was any "proof" and Dr Greening knew that. So did David Benson. And if David sent his emails to Dr Bazant like he said, Dr Bazant was aware of this also.

 

[carlitos]

The very first edition of BLGB was made available on the 9/11 forum by David Benson in this post:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/blgb-errata-t28.html#p105

Where he wrote:

"The 'final' draft of BLGB has been sent to ASCE. After a bit longer, the draft will come back to Professor Bazant for inspectin. At that time it is still possible to make some minor, most minor changes.

If you would care to obtain a copy of the 'final' draft from Professor Bazant web site and look through it for anything you think is a mistake, please post it on this thread.

I'll collect these and organize an e-mail to Professor Bazant when the time is ripe."



The dear Max Photon objects to the use of the word "proof" in the first post. I object next. Notice the words of Max:

"Hi David,

I would like to suggest that Bazant reconsider the use of the word "proves" in the following:

"Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain
the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked
whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis
proves that they do not."



While the word may be technically correct from some perspectives, I believe - given the circumstances - the choice lacks a certain bit of common sense.

There are very few articles in serious journals about the WTC collapses, and after all, Bazant is Column God, so the paper will carry a lot of weight. Many people - including engineers - will only read the abstract. I think it is reasonable to assume that the average reader of the abstract will be left with the impression that Column God & Co. have proven that all CD hypotheses, whether regarding collapse initiation or collapse progress, have zero scientific merit.

While I know that usually such an article is written for engineering peers, in this case - given that 911 had such international reprocussions - it might make sense for Bazant's wording of the abstract to accomodate a wider, slightly less scientific audience.

Respectfully,

Max

P.S. Some gratuitous bikini photos might also help spruce up the paper a bit.
(Not of Bazant et. al. of course........I think you know what I mean.)"


Absolutely true, except the word "proof" is not even techincally correct.

Notice that I was talking about ROOSD at the time with 2 of the authors, and Dr Greening agreed that collapse initiation is the key.




Just as Max had predicted, I am here 3 years later showing you there never was any "proof" and Dr Greening knew that. So did David Benson. And if David sent his emails to Dr Bazant like he said, Dr Bazant was aware of this also.

That paper doesn't appear to contain the word "proof," so perhaps you could clarify your point? I checked other words, and indeed the PDF is keyword searchable.

 

[Major_Tom]

Max Photon, in his next post, proves to be a bit of a prophet:

"Dr. G,

Perhaps I can enlist you help.

You are obviously familiar with the paper, being one of its author; you understand why "proves" is a defensible term in the practical world of publishing engineers flexing at each other; you also understand the basic complaint here about how that word is ripe for (mis)interpretation well beyond the scope intended (think JREF).

So let's say I had a couple of cold ones with Zden'ek and voiced my concerns about the potential unnessary turbulence, and he, seeing my point but wanting to watch Nova (actually, BayWatch ; ) later that evening, suggested that you rephrase the abstract.

What would you write to both impress the gearheads and calm the natives? "


It is very funny that he knew it would be JREF that turns this paper into a Gospel. Very funny. 3 years later here we are.....

 

[W.D.Clinger]

That paper doesn't appear to contain the word "proof," so perhaps you could clarify your point? I checked other words, and indeed the PDF is keyword searchable.

BLGB's abstract contains the word "proves", and the word "prove" appears twice in the body of the paper.

From your quotation of Major_Tom, I see he's claiming to speak for Dr David B Benson, the second B in BLGB. It's been 29 almost 30 years since Dr Benson hosted my interview at WSU, but I remember him clearly and fondly. Perhaps Major_Tom will say "hi" for me.

 

[carlitos]

Ah, how stupid of me; I tend to be overly literal when interpreting words in quotation marks. Carry on.

ETA -Glad to see that Major_Tom is starting to outline the conspiracy. IMHO, this would have saved a lot of quibbling in the first place. Just lay out the who / what / where / why / how of the conspiracy.

 

[Major_Tom]

Collapse initation as the key differentiator between CD and natural failure is an idea which originally formed on your own forum, JREF, in conversations between Max Photon and Apollo20 (Frank Greening), even before it was discussed at the 9/11 forum.

To my recollection, it was the exchanges between Max Photon and Frank Greening in 2007 on JREF that first drew my attention to the idea.

Frank's AP demo idea, originally posted on this forum, is just one variation of a manipulated collapse initiation leading to total collapse.

Max and Frank deserve much of the credit for the careful focus on initiation. They were ahead of the pack. An author of BLGB posting in 2006, 2007 on your own forum.


Please don't tell me that a manipulated initiation process leading to total collapse is some fringe theory like space beams. Or that it was invented in 2010.

Bazant simply ignores the possibility in his "proofs", even though 2 of the authors were discussing it at the time.


Bazant attacks the straw men and ignores the elephant in the room.

 

[Major_Tom]

WDC post 1547: "From your quotation of Major_Tom, I see he's claiming to speak for Dr David B Benson, the second B in BLGB. It's been 29 almost 30 years since Dr Benson hosted my interview at WSU, but I remember him clearly and fondly. Perhaps Major_Tom will say "hi" for me. "

He posts regularly at the physorg forum. You could say "Hi" yourself and you could ask him any question you want about the papers instead of reinventing the wheel.

Any of you, like Myriad, could ask him anything you want. This would take you a few days to have all your questions answered. Instead, you post back and forth with me for months, accusing me of many things.


EDIT: You don't even need to contact him to see quite a good collection of his posts at physorg and The 9/11 forum.

We had detailed technical discussions for about a year before I began posting here. It was a shock for me to go from conversations with him to a bunch of people insisting that some mutant hybrid model exists, a lovechild between BZ and BV. That is a JREF invention. Dr Benson wouldn't know what the hell you (Myriad) are talking about. Check out his posts to see how he uses the tools in BLGB.

We have a good history of posts by a couple of the authors on the subject. No need to reinvent the wheel once again in 2011.

Dr Benson has done a lot of work with fitting a form of the eqs of motion in BV and BLGB to the first few seconds roof-line and antenna descent and the seismic record.

Myriad, please ask Dr Benson about your ideas.

 

[pgimeno]

BLGB was published in 2008. In the forum page linked below I was having a conversation with two of the authors over the idea of OOS collapse propagation:

[...]

Also, I asked Frank Greening why BLGB claims to "prove" demolition did not happen. He told me that it was not his idea to include the claim of "proof" in the paper. He never defended the claim like many here. He simply said it was not his choice to include it, meaning he doesn't agree with such a sweeping statement.

So, one of the co-authors is not responsible for such a statement. That just supports my point that whoever put that sentence, did so from the perspective of the well-known usual CD allegations that circulated at the time and continue to do.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the average reader of the abstract will be left with the impression that Column God & Co. have proven that all CD hypotheses, whether regarding collapse initiation or collapse progress, have zero scientific merit.

Indeed, that's the case as things stand now. They're conjectures unsupported by facts, =zero scientific merit.

 

[Major_Tom]

Pgimeno post 1551: "Indeed, that's the case as things stand now. They're conjectures unsupported by facts, =zero scientific merit."


Perhaps you haven't noticed that you have no collapse initiation theory for WTC1 left. It is you that are left with poor conjectures, not me.

While you were arguing for over 20 pages about NIST's comments about 8 degrees of tilt, You were effectively admitting that the only collapse initiation scenario that the NIST gives for WTC1 is scant of any details and basically illegible.

You have about 6 or 7 NIST quotes that comprise your entire WTC1 collapse initiation theory, no more, and you claim that some of the quotes are confusing.


You see? No BV, no BL, no BLGB and no collapse initiation theory.

That leaves you with nothing. No scientific "proof", and your twin authority figures have nothing more to offer.

(Unless they invent a new theory fast. But it is too late for that.)


Once you realize this, a real debate about the possibility of demolition can begin in earnest.

First loose the gurus, then we can talk.

(Drop all the propaganda, then we can have an honest debate for the first time.)

To be fair to JREF, the same complaints extend equally to AE911T and the Scholars groups. Drop the crap, then we can talk in earnest. This way everyone can talk, not just you.

No insult intended to any individual member of these groups, but the features lists on the OPs of your websites are incorrect for the most part. Your base claims are in need of serious revision.

 

[DGM]

Collapse initation as the key differentiator between CD and natural failure is an idea which originally formed on your own forum, JREF, in conversations between Max Photon and Apollo20 (Frank Greening), even before it was discussed at the 9/11 forum.

To my recollection, it was the exchanges between Max Photon and Frank Greening in 2007 on JREF that first drew my attention to the idea.

Frank's AP demo idea, originally posted on this forum, is just one variation of a manipulated collapse initiation leading to total collapse.

Max and Frank deserve much of the credit for the careful focus on initiation. They were ahead of the pack. An author of BLGB posting in 2006, 2007 on your own forum.


Please don't tell me that a manipulated initiation process leading to total collapse is some fringe theory like space beams. Or that it was invented in 2010.

Bazant simply ignores the possibility in his "proofs", even though 2 of the authors were discussing it at the time.


Bazant attacks the straw men and ignores the elephant in the room.

Why are you talking about the collapse initiators in a thread about the Bazant papers?

Are you OK?

 

[Major_Tom]

The point being that you have no scientific proof that WTC1 collapsed naturally. Before, you had the Bazant papers and the NIST WTC1 initiation theory.

The two together were considered to be the heart of the official scientific argument.

Both fall apart like putty upon closer inspection. That leaves no sound official physical argument remaining.

No "proof". Only the appearance of "proof". The illusion of proof by authoritative decree.


Smoke and mirrors..

 

[newton3376]

The point being that you have no scientific proof that WTC1 collapsed naturally. Before, you had the Bazant papers and the NIST WTC1 initiation theory.

The two together were considered to be the heart of the official scientific argument.

Both fall apart like putty upon closer inspection. That leaves no sound official physical argument remaining.

No "proof". Only the appearance of "proof".

Two questions MT.....

1. Do you think that NIST and Bazant are the only technical papers written on the collapses?

2. Do you really think that the majority of the worlds engineers and scientists would have missed what you believe are obvious errors and you somehow managed to figure it out?

 

[ozeco41]

...Is this conclusion by Bazant valid?

...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!'

It is valid within its context. That claim, by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson, was directed to counter the allegations of CD that were in use by the time the article was written...

I was writing anti-demolition arguments at about the same time. (Anti any form of human assistance to be pedantic.) And writing for an audience of intensely sceptical lay persons. The point of logical pedantry I was facing was that the Bazant papers can 'prove' that there was no need for demolition or any form of human assistance beyond the aircraft impact and accumulating fire damage. But the technical paper could not prove that there was no unnecessary demolition performed even though unnecessary. In that climate the word 'prove' and derivatives would also attract criticism hence my 'scare quotes'.

In that setting it was obvious to me that, if there was any demolition, it had to be in the collapse initiation phase whether or not it was used in global collapse/collapse progression. So it was logically possible that those responsible could also have used it in the global collapse phase whether it was needed or not. To satisfy sceptics at that time it was necessary to produce argument to eliminate global collapse phase demolition and a technical paper proving it wasn't needed did not prove that it wasn't used even though redundant.

So I still think that the Bazant et al claim was overbidding their hand. The technical papers could prove demolition not needed. They could not prove that there was no unneeded demolition.

... Some background information can be found in the JONES and other truther sites, deriving CD out of PE, dust size, panels stuck in other buildings, behavior of the flying debris, etc...

I am well aware of the debate from mid 2007 on - reading from May 2007 and actively debating on Internet from Nov 2007.

...There's just one bit that is really wrong in the quoted paragraph:

... leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.​

That part specifically, certainly falls out of the scope of the paper and there's no justification within the paper to hold it. However, I'd say that, given that allegations of tearing down the building by inducing an apparently natural collapse were not widely known by the time they wrote that (nor are they now, anyway), it's still pretty justified in its context as the only competing popular alternative.

I agree with you on the "really wrong". The Internet debating context of 2007-2008 was filled with conspiracy theorist or sceptic developed alternate claims. It was not confined to the professional arenas. As for "...inducing an apparently natural collapse..." any MIHOP/human assistance claim had to pass the test of "look natural" - the ones that didn't/wouldn't were easily dismissed. And there were still plenty of them to deal with.

 

[Major_Tom]

Questions from Newton3376:

1. Do you think that NIST and Bazant are the only technical papers written on the collapses?

They are the heart of your scientific argument.

2. Do you really think that the majority of the worlds engineers and scientists would have missed what you believe are obvious errors and you somehow managed to figure it out?

I'm sure most haven't read it. Once the perimeter peeling and core survival are observed, the rest follows naturally. Many people probably didn't put the observations together.

Just about every person I mentioned suspects ROOSD in one way or another. It is not a controversial idea. I showed evidence of two of the authors discussing the same idea with me in 2008.

 

[ozeco41]

The point being that you have no scientific proof that WTC1 collapsed naturally. Before, you had the Bazant papers and the NIST WTC1 initiation theory....

I'll stick my neck out here and partly agree with you Major_Tom before I then identify holes in your logic.

I think your claim as quoted above is correct in strict logic. Let me explain. There are two possible parts to the 'proof' that WTC1 collapsed naturally:

• Proof that there was a sufficient mechanism to cause collapse without human assistance; AND
• Proof that there was no demolition whether needed or not.

Set aside for now potential concerns about the use of 'proof' in a scientific context and the logical issues around proving a negative - viz 'there was no demolition'.

Part 'A' by itself is not sufficient. Strictly Part 'B' could stand alone. Lets see if we can have both.

Now for 'A' the situation is that most seem to take the work of NIST supplemented by authorities such as Bazant et al as sufficient. Personally I accept a lower standard than 'proof'. I am satisfied that NIST offers plausible explanations which could be one of a number of plausible explanations. I would not be unduly fazed if NIST's explanations were shown to be in error. Leave that minor side track aside for now.

Part 'B' suffers from the logical problem of proving a negative. Suffice that of all the multiplicity of pro-demolition claims none seem to have survived the test of scrutiny. I am not aware of a single hypothesis being put forward which can qualify as a complete supportable pro-demolition hypothesis.

So the status of the game is that we have a Part A explanation from NIST and numerous others published all of which support 'natural collapse'. None of them prove 'no demolition' AFAIK. We have a disparate range of partial claims for human assistance. All that we know of have been rebutted but we cannot prove a negative and conclude that we have 'proof'.

So, Major_Tom your claim of 'no scientific proof that WTC1 collapsed naturally' is true in strict logic.

Now you start to make claims which do not follow:

...The two together were considered to be the heart of the official scientific argument.

Both fall apart like putty upon closer inspection. That leaves no sound official physical argument remaining....

The 'heart of the official scientific argument' for what? They are at the heart of the argument for Part A - explaining how natural collapse could occur. NIST dismissed demolition but hardly in a way which overcomes the pedantic needs of logic over proving negatives.

So you claim that 'Both fall apart like putty upon closer inspection'. That claim is either true or untrue. If untrue nothing changes. Those authorities stand for those matters where they are valid authorities.

If it is true, that is if the NIST and/or Bazant explanations of collapse mechanisms can be shown to be wrong, so what? Any alternate explanation would either demonstrate an alternate mechanism of natural collapse which has limited consequences we need not address here OR it could conceivably indicate some form of human intervention. That latter would raise some interest.

But all of the detailed technical discussions in several threads over recent months face significant barriers if they ever lead to claims of 'human assistance' AKA 'demolition'

Those barriers are in the domains of logistic and security impossibility. And those barriers appear to be so strong that they would of themselves demonstrate that any technical claim for demolition was wrong.

So what is the point of the hyperbole in:

...No "proof". Only the appearance of "proof". The illusion of proof by authoritative decree.


Smoke and mirrors..

Many members here have queried the objective of recent discussions. Questions such as where is this leading or outright accusations of 'trying to back in CD'.

I have asked what is the objective and identified three. Is it to re-open CD debate. If so the real discussion should be in the security and logistic domains with technical details of little importance. Is it to prove NIST wrong? If so why? Or is it for pure technical enjoyment? If so this is probably the wrong sub forum.

 

[pgimeno]

Perhaps you haven't noticed that you have no collapse initiation theory for WTC1 left.

Even if that were true, which I'm still far from being convinced, it just would help proving my point that the CD claims have indeed no scientific merit, making your complaint about the abstract baseless.

I see you've been careful in pointing out *WTC1* explicitly. Good for you, because as I have pointed out to you in past, in the WTC2 case you're still far from refuting NIST.

The point being that you have no scientific proof that WTC1 collapsed naturally.

That's where the concept of "burden of proof" comes into play. Your claim has a similar structure to some paranormal ones: "science can't disprove that this is possible, therefore it is (therefore it happened)", the latter not explicit but insinuated.

 

[pgimeno]

As for "...inducing an apparently natural collapse..." any MIHOP/human assistance claim had to pass the test of "look natural" - the ones that didn't/wouldn't were easily dismissed. And there were still plenty of them to deal with.

Easily dismissed by who? I am still debating people who sustain that the dust clouds and the 500 ft reached by the perimeter panels could only be the result of explosives. Even in this forum, there was someone not long ago maintaining that the WTC towers didn't show a collapse progression characteristic of a natural collapse. I don't follow other threads, but I suspect that may even be happening now.

Had any engineer bought any of such absurd claims before thinking, BLGB's abstract would have been a good remainder of reality.