Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[femr2]

STUNDIE ...!!!

Son, you will NEVER know "much more than Bazant" about ANY aspect of ANYTHING related to structural mechanics.

Tom, you are showing another consequence of your increasingly frantic attempts to deflect attention from your repeated, to put it mildly, FUBARs.

MT is CLEARLY (lol) referring to specific detailed observable features, not structural mechanics.

I don't think anyone is going to be too dismayed by your "Son" prefix, which though you intend it as an insult is rather impotent bearing in mind you have repeatedly branded yourself as an "old fart".

Have a nice day.

 

[rwguinn]

Yes - a very simple and effective plan. Then two of the buildings fell down - something which caught the engineering profession world wide by surprise. the profession learned. The situation somewhat analogous to the Tacoma Narrows bridge event. It has been said that doctors bury their mistakes whilst we engineers make them in full public view... The Westgate Bridge in Melbourne was one of our local ones - although it was a balls up not a natural phenomenon. http://www.westgatebridge.org/collapse.html
Yes. Likewise a few 'debunkers'. Yes, I can discern those who have substance to offer from those who don't.

I have not the slightest difficulty accepting a true statement as true whoever makes it. I have no need to make false accusations or insult people simply because they are labelled as truthers.

It wasn't a surprise. Many of us watching stated that the buildings would likely fall.
Hell, after the attempt to destroy the building earlier by putting a car bomb at the core, we TOLD 'em how to bring it down...
Basically, what M_T, and femer are trying to do is discredit a scenario that puts one (or 2) explanations for the chaotic result after initiation out there, by attacking detail that doesn't matter.
I expect better from our old(er) timer engineers. You disappoint me.

 

[femr2]

Basically, what M_T, and femer are trying to do is discredit a scenario that puts one (or 2) explanations for the chaotic result after initiation out there, by attacking detail that doesn't matter.

Incorrect.

This thread was started by pgimeno to highlight misapplication of the Bazant et al model(s) to the real world, and clarify correct application.

Detail I have provided relating to Bazant et al is, on the whole, focussed upon specifically that.

There was enough energy available for propogation given the defined initial state, even in the limiting case.

Decisions in latter reports based upon the initial energy assessment, such as BLGB, have been validly questioned.

Certainly, inclusion of the *proof* statement is clearly wrong. The report neither proves, nor disproves what actually ocurred. A very simple limit of application is within the boundary of what could or could not, not what did or did not.

Indeed, even authors of that report itself have asserted such.

If you interpret valid criticism as "trying to discredit", then that's your own problem I'm afraid.

 

[ozeco41]

Do you think it was a CD?

No way. I have put up around 5000 posts explaining the collapses on another forum. Explaining why from the perspective of an experienced engineer - why no demolition was needed and why there was no demolition and countering just about every bit of the usual rubbish which gets posted.

But that does not mean I have to join the baying false claims of those who claim "everything xyz says must be false because xyz is a truther' - especially when some of those making the most noise do not, will not or cannot support the false claims they make. I usually ignore them but sometimes they post direct references to me so I respond.

 

[tfk]

Oh dear Tom.

ozeco41 has made it abundently clear that he thinks the notion of CD, MIHOP, LIHOP and any number of other acronyms are ridiculous.

That you become paranoid about his intentions and go on the attack is absolutely hilarious.

The fact that you think my insisting that he not grossly misportray my statements constitutes "going on the attack" is cute.

Cute in a teenage girl, "Julie, you'll never belive what Susie said about you", drama princess kinda way.

I guess when you can't make arguments, then forming cliques is the best you can do.

I hope he laughs it off, as it's about time there was a voice of reason around here that doesn't have the highly *skeptic*-convenient moniker of *nutjob twoofer* applied to every response from those who suffer from inordinate consequences of hubris on a regular basis. (See my previous post )
...
ozeco41,

Don't let the bar stewards grind you down You've made your position clear. I applaud your principles, regardless of whether I agree or not.

And you think, for some reason, that you giving a very public stroke job to oz is supposed to REDUCE my uncertainties…?

Oh dear. Human nature ain't one of your core competencies either, is it?

I strongly disagree with the requirement that the others (& now you) have expressed, which is that the entire upper block must have somehow shrunk laterally while crushing down and fit inside the lower block.

ROFL. You just invented that Tom. Who said that, other than you ?

Indeed the folk I think you are aiming that little arse-covering invention at have explicitly and repeatedly stated the viewpoint that the *upper block* was rapidly stripped of it's perimeter (which was mostly ejected laterally just after initiation) leaving unsupported OOS flooring which was similarly stripped from the core region.

Well, as I live and breathe. Femr decides to attempt to string nouns & verbs together into sentences in order to construct arguments.

And as he has learned so many times before - which is PRECISELY why he is so loathe to do it in the first place - he is about to fall flat on his face.
___

"… the folk that I am aiming this little arse-covering invention at …"

Who would be "folks like you", I presume.

"… who have repeatedly & explicitly stated (etc.) …"

hmmm, you've known all along that they have repeatedly & explicitly stated (this), but for 2 farkin' days and 100 posts, you've been unable to type it.

What's your lame-ass excuse for being unable to provide that point for those 2 days?
___

Now let's see if your "repeatedly & explicitly stated" rationale stands up to 2 minutes of scrutiny...

Hmmm, "I just invented it", eh?

And yet, now you are trying to justify "how the upper block could fit inside the lower one", by suggesting that the upper block was "stripped of its perimeter … " (columns, I presume)

… and he stops.

Not wanting to take the giant risk of saying anything further.

But leaving him in the self-satisfied state that:

Hey, I said something. And, I know I can sit here & type endlessly, and guarantee that I'll get in the last word.

The last word always wins arguments, doesn't it?

If not, I can surely put up some videos. Or graphs. Or gifs. With lines & arrows, if necessary.

You are clearly implying that, without its periphery, now the upper block will fit inside the lower block.

If so, you just confirmed my statement of a requirement that the upper block somehow fit inside the lower one, in order to "leave the outer walls standing".

If not, why do you bring up stripping of the perimeter at all?

Are you seriously suggesting that, if we violently rip apart the upper AND lower blocks, then the upper block, WITH its core [since the core did NOT protrude out the roof], fit inside the lower block?
___

Now, you are suggesting that "the upper block was rapidly stripped of its perimeter".

What evidence do you have for this? Because I've seen hundreds of collapse videos, and they all show one thing: the perimeter of the upper block starting to fall, with its perimeter intact, until the upper block disappears from view into the cloud of debris.

Or are you just making an assertion that you find convenient to the moment.

Clearly, the perimeter columns in the crush zone get stripped. Some of those columns reach upwards 1 to 3 stories. (These are, in my estimation, still in the crush zone.)

What evidence do you have that columns 4 or more stories above the crush zone get "rapidly stripped"?

Would that be "no evidence whatsoever"?
___

"The OOS flooring get stripped from the core columns …"?

Why?

You haven't made the case that the peripheral columns have been stripped yet.

If they haven't, the flooring, the internal columns & external columns are falling AT THE SAME ACCELERATION, about 0.7G. There are no forces tending to strip the OOS.

If you are saying that the crush up region enters the upper block, sure. I'll give you that. Perhaps a couple of floors. Tops maybe 5. Until the lower core pierces it, of course.
___

Take ANY complex structure...

No deflection Tom (pun intended).

Lousy pun note.

Complete lack of cogent counter-argument noted as well.

So, I'll accept that you agree with my contention that collisions mushroom out the leading edge of the colliding bodies of complex structures.

Feel free, of course, to offer cogent counter-arguments at any time in the future. Lousy puns are, of course, a piss-poor substitute.
___

Putting up videos, and saying "there", when the interpretation of the videos is the specific point of disagreement, does not constitute making a case. It specifically does constitutes obstinately refusing to make a case.

ROFL.

Do you need me to show you the video again, but with arrows on it ? Can do, but it will mean showing you a (moving) picture, pointing, and (as you are such an unpleasant fellow) laughing.

Sure. Be my guest.

Post all the obscure, brainless, uncommented videos your heart desires. Draw all the lines & arrows you please.

Demonstrate FURTHER that you are incompetent at stating an argument. That your only talent is posting brainless videos.

* "How many people believe that, at the moment of collapse, the upper block could somehow fit inside the lower block?"

Strawman.

* "How many people believe that, as the upper mass smashed down thru the lower block, the crush front got narrower, rather than wider?"

Strawman.

Gee, they were not Strawman arguments just a moment ago, when you were attempting to justify how the upper block fit inside the lower block by asserting that the perimeter of the upper block got blown away.

It is absolutely astonishing how rapidly arguments that you cannot address turn into Strawmen. In your opinion.

ROFL. The dimensions of a floor slab conveniently fit inside the perimeter you know Tom. Otherwide the OOS floor slabs would poke out the side of the tower.

Gee, ONCE AGAIN, you are now trying to construct an VERBAL argument about how the upper block FITS INSIDE the lower block.

What a sudden, amazing reversal.

Amazing fail, too.
___


All in all, you seem conflicted.

Is it necessary for the upper mass of debris to fit inside the lower structure in order for your "stripped the floors inside, leaving the perimeter walls standing" theory to work?

A simple yes or no will really help to start out here.

Then with as much elaboration as you wish. Your written words are always helpful. (Unfortunately for you, they are seldom helpful to YOUR side of the argument. LoL)

Post any videos you want.

I fully expect that, after this little foray into actually SAYING SOMETHING, you'll retreat into speechless, mindless video posting once again.

LoL.

 

[ozeco41]

It wasn't a surprise. Many of us watching stated that the buildings would likely fall.
Hell, after the attempt to destroy the building earlier by putting a car bomb at the core, we TOLD 'em how to bring it down...
Basically, what M_T, and femer are trying to do is discredit a scenario that puts one (or 2) explanations for the chaotic result after initiation out there, by attacking detail that doesn't matter.
I expect better from our old(er) timer engineers. You disappoint me.

Sorry for that. What do you want me to do? Ignore the positive contributions they make? Tie myself in knots disagreeing with them when what they say is true? I am fully aware of the possibility of the paths they pursue leading to other things and if you followed my interactions with all four you would be aware that I have challenged each of them on the issue of potential scope. I have fired the same warning shot several times recently. Do you think dishonesty is justified or even required when dealing with truthers?

This thread was started for genuine reasons by pgimeo who launched it following a comment I made about applicability of Bazant's work. Despite the religious zeal with which some would defend their own interpretation of what they think Bazant says at any cost there has been some clarity posted on that OP. Including some conflicting different versions of clarity which seem to have passed unnoticed - I'm not going to highlight them.

 

[tfk]

I missed a very interesting behaviour in my last post.

Consider the following from tfk...


Now, these questions immediately suggest that Tom is under the impression that people believe the non-existant virtual model behaviour such as that portrayed in the texts of Bazant and co.

His questions suggest he believes that destruction ocurred floor-by-floor, with perimeter panels being flung outwards at the point of crush, with an intact upper section fitting neatly on top riding the wave on down.

Wow.

Talk about bang on topic eh

Once again, you show yourself to be utterly incompetent at relating my beliefs.

Stick to "not relating your own".

 

[femr2]

hmmm, you've known all along that they have repeatedly & explicitly stated (this), but for 2 farkin' days and 100 posts, you've been unable to type it.

It's been written many times. If you are so inept and inattentive that you can't keep up, that's your own problem. Can quote each instance if you like.

And yet, now you are trying to justify "how the upper block could fit inside the lower one", by suggesting that the upper block was "stripped of its perimeter … " (columns, I presume)

ROFL. Try going back to the OP of the OOS thread Tom. What was the date ? Oh yeah, ...11th May 2010. Also try the WTC 1 Features List thread, October 2010. I know you are a little slow, but you have no excuse.

Now, you are suggesting that "the upper block was rapidly stripped of its perimeter".

Been saying so for many months

What evidence do you have for this? Because I've seen hundreds of collapse videos, and they all show one thing: the perimeter of the upper block starting to fall, with its perimeter intact, until the upper block disappears from view into the cloud of debris.

ROFL. See suggestion above.

Or are you just making an assertion that you find convenient to the moment.

Could you be any more incompetent ?

Clearly, the perimeter columns in the crush zone get stripped. Some of those columns reach upwards 1 to 3 stories. (These are, in my estimation, still in the crush zone.)

Upper section perimeter is ejected in very large sections, as documented many months ago. Your visual analysis skill lack is showing again.

What evidence do you have that columns 4 or more stories above the crush zone get "rapidly stripped"?

See suggestion above. I know you have a short attention span, so...ROOSD. Find the links yourself. Not difficult. Better things to do than pander to your inept demands.

Would that be "no evidence whatsoever"?

No, that would be video and photographic evidence Tom.

"The OOS flooring get stripped from the core columns …"?

Yes.

Why?

Providing mass for floor pancaking (ROOSD). This is funny stuff Tom.

You haven't made the case that the peripheral columns have been stripped yet.

See suggestion above. 11th May 2010 and October 2010.

If they haven't, the flooring, the internal columns & external columns are falling AT THE SAME ACCELERATION, about 0.7G. There are no forces tending to strip the OOS.

You are clearly clueless tom.

If you are saying that the crush up region enters the upper block, sure. I'll give you that. Perhaps a couple of floors. Tops maybe 5. Until the lower core pierces it, of course.

Clueless.

Gee, they were not Strawman arguments just a moment ago, when you were attempting to justify how the upper block fit inside the lower block by asserting that the perimeter of the upper block got blown away.

ROFL. You don't even understand why I'm calling them strawmen Classic. You'll get there in the end.

Gee, ONCE AGAIN, you are now trying to construct an VERBAL argument about how the upper block FITS INSIDE the lower block.

The *upper block* is rapidly fragmented, becoming just a bag-o debris. No longer validly referred to as *upper block*. You might have noticed I tend to put what you would bizarrely call *scare quotes* around the term *upper block* most of the time Tom

Post any videos you want.

Thanks.

Perimeter peeling FAR behind crush front.

You really are being rather silly Tom.

Have a nice day.

 

[tfk]

oz,

Are you going to reply to any of my comments or questions?

You appear to be referring to me when you talk about "some debunkers here". Is this true?

Do you believe that I dismiss femr & MT's claims (or non-claims) simply because they come from femr & MT?

Just curious.


tk

 

[femr2]

Including some conflicting different versions of clarity which seem to have passed unnoticed - I'm not going to highlight them.

Why not ?

 

[tfk]

It's been written many times. If you are so inept and inattentive that you can't keep up, that's your own problem. Can quote each instance if you like.


ROFL. Try going back to the OP of the OOS thread Tom. What was the date ? Oh yeah, ...11th May 2010. I know you are a little slow, but you have no excuse.


Been saying so for many months


ROFL. See suggestion above.


Could you be any more incompetent ?


Upper section perimeter is ejected in very large sections, as documented many months ago. Your visual analysis skill lack is showing again.


See suggestion above. I know you have a short attention span, so...ROOSD. Find the links yourself. Not difficult. Better things to do than pander to your inept demands.


No, that would be video and photographic evidence Tom.


Yes.


Providing mass for floor pancaking (ROOSD). This is funny stuff Tom.


See suggestion above. 11th May 2010.


You are clearly clueless tom.


Clueless.


ROFL. You don't even understand why I'm calling them strawmen Classic. You'll get there in the end.


The *upper block* is rapidly fragmented, becoming just a bag-o debris. No longer validly referred to as *upper block*. You might have noticed I tend to put what you would bizarrely call *scare quotes* around the term *upper block* most of the time Tom


Thanks.
http://femr2.ucoz.com/lateperimeterpeel.gif

Perimeter peeling FAR behind crush front.

You really are baing rather silly Tom.

Have a nice day.

Same crap as always.

Zero content.
Zero evidence.

100% baseless assertions.
Videos proving nothing.

 

[femr2]

Same crap as always.

Zero content.
Zero evidence.

100% baseless assertions.
Videos proving nothing.

In-depth response there Tom. Losing your touch.

Here you are...

...perimeter peeling far behind crush front, from a different angle.

Do I really have to put the little clips together, especially for you, with pointy arrows to help you use your eyes properly ? I can if you like

 

[tsig]

No way. I have put up around 5000 posts explaining the collapses on another forum. Explaining why from the perspective of an experienced engineer - why no demolition was needed and why there was no demolition and countering just about every bit of the usual rubbish which gets posted.

But that does not mean I have to join the baying false claims of those who claim "everything xyz says must be false because xyz is a truther' - especially when some of those making the most noise do not, will not or cannot support the false claims they make. I usually ignore them but sometimes they post direct references to me so I respond.

Nice straw man you have there.

 

[tfk]

Thanks.
http://femr2.ucoz.com/lateperimeterpeel.gif

Perimeter peeling FAR behind crush front.

You really are being rather silly Tom.

Nah, femr.

You're being silly.

Although misdirecting, changing the subject or outright lying would be better descriptors.

Your little gif show precisely zippo about the topic under discussion: your assertion that the ejections in the LOWER block, BELOW the debris cloud, were evidence of an internal crush front that left the perimeter walls of the lower block standing.

Nice try, tho.

We'll stick with one lame excuse of "showing video & saying nothing" at a time, please.

Even the gif that you are showing here does NOT prove what you think it proves.

Back to the lower block, getting stripped on the inside, leaving the external walls standing, please.

 

[tsig]

Sorry for that. What do you want me to do? Ignore the positive contributions they make? Tie myself in knots disagreeing with them when what they say is true? I am fully aware of the possibility of the paths they pursue leading to other things and if you followed my interactions with all four you would be aware that I have challenged each of them on the issue of potential scope. I have fired the same warning shot several times recently. Do you think dishonesty is justified or even required when dealing with truthers?

This thread was started for genuine reasons by pgimeo who launched it following a comment I made about applicability of Bazant's work. Despite the religious zeal with which some would defend their own interpretation of what they think Bazant says at any cost there has been some clarity posted on that OP. Including some conflicting different versions of clarity which seem to have passed unnoticed - I'm not going to highlight them.

You seem to be getting a little polarized now.

 

[tfk]

In-depth response there Tom. Losing your touch.

Here you are...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/lateperimeterpeel2.gif
...perimeter peeling far behind crush front, from a different angle.

Do I really have to put the little clips together, especially for you, with pointy arrows to help you use your eyes properly ? I can if you like

Show me, please, how you figured out when the crush front got to any particular floor & when the external wall peeled away from that floor, from this video.

This video shows nothing.

Some verbiage, please.

Explain to me please how this video proves that the upper (block, mass of debris, whatever) "fits inside" the lower block, causing internal collapse, but leaving the external walls OF THE LOWER block free standing.

This video shows nothing of the sort.

Some verbiage please.

 

[ozeco41]

oz,

Are you going to reply to any of my comments or questions?

You appear to be referring to me when you talk about "some debunkers here". Is this true?

Do you believe that I dismiss femr & MT's claims (or non-claims) simply because they come from femr & MT?

Just curious.


tk

I drafted a reply to your recent lengthy post. It took me 1600 words in draft form. Mostly a critique of your debating tactics. I don't think members would appreciate it if posted here so I won't post the lengthy reply.

The On Topic central technical issues are:
a) You have agreed that most of the top block fell inside the perimeter columns of the lower tower. That agreement disposes of one of the main points of your multiple dogs ridicule post which started the discussion. The others could just as easily be dropped.
b) You continue your strawman claim about the top block "shrinking" which no-one had proposed:

...I strongly disagree with the requirement that the others (& now you) have expressed, which is that the entire upper block must have somehow shrunk laterally while crushing down and fit inside the lower block.

...strawman AND a false attribution of that strawman to me since it is not the only or the viable option. Therefore that claim is a dead end.

Let me know if you want more.

 

[rwguinn]

I drafted a reply to your recent lengthy post. It took me 1600 words in draft form. Mostly a critique of your debating tactics. I don't think members would appreciate it if posted here so I won't post the lengthy reply.

The On Topic central technical issues are:
a) You have agreed that most of the top block fell inside the perimeter columns of the lower tower. That agreement disposes of one of the main points of your multiple dogs ridicule post which started the discussion. The others could just as easily be dropped.
b) You continue your strawman claim about the top block "shrinking" which no-one had proposed: ...strawman AND a false attribution of that strawman to me since it is not the only or the viable option. Therefore that claim is a dead end.

Let me know if you want more.

Nope.
You backed Femr2's claim of the blivit.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6822307#post6822307

I have always taken the main mechanism as self evident - put a bit simplistically the top block fell down inside the outer tube of the lower tower causing the outer wall columns to peel off. Then add explanation of what happened to the core.

Now, how do you get a 200 foot square (outside dimension) inside a 200 foot square (outside dimension), unless you "peel as you go"?

 

[tfk]

In-depth response there Tom. Losing your touch.

Here you are...

...perimeter peeling far behind crush front, from a different angle.

Do I really have to put the little clips together, especially for you, with pointy arrows to help you use your eyes properly ? I can if you like

No, femr. I'm not losing my touch.

And I do believe that you just provided (nearly) conclusive proof that your argument is completely wrong. And that mine is right.

I have zero idea whether you guys have come to the following conclusion or not. As difficult as it may be for femr to realize, I don't follow the nonsense of a bunch of stealth and not-so-stealth truthers at the911forum. I see no evidence there of unbiased debate. I never have.

It seems to me to be certain (but it's new to me, so I'll only say "highly probable") that the tops of a line of external columns that emerge from the debris could at the end of that gif represent a giant continuous wall of external columns that are STILL ATTACHED to the tower at their lower boundary.

There are several pieces of evidence in the video that point in this direction. And one, the vertical velocity, that seems conclusive.

If this is so, it does nothing to suggest that these columns peeled away from the face AFTER the crush front passed. In fact, the go a long way to proving the opposite.

There is nothing in this clip that pertains to, in the slightest way, my original question to MT. Which both he & femr have resolutely ignored:

"What evidence do you have that the ejecta shown in that tall, skinny gif, that you claimed you used to time the collapse front, was really the collapse front, & not over-pressure in front of the collapse front?"

Thus far, zero has been offered in reply.

Oh, lots of snark. Lots of uncommented video clips. Lots of irrelevancies.

Just zero substantive arguments.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Now, how do you get a 200 foot square (outside dimension) inside a 200 foot square (outside dimension), unless you "peel as you go"?

So then let's change it to:

MOST of the upper block fell inside the lower piece during initiation and the very early stages of propagation.

MOST of the structure destroyed during propagation would have stayed inside, other than a MAJORITY of the ext columns.

SOME of the mass from the concrete, drywall, office contents, etc, ( a small percentage) went out the windows.



Stuff falls on floors. I personally see nothing wrong with the concept of ROOSD, although admittedly I don't care enough to try and understand every little detail that the 2 twoofs are advocating.

I want for them to get onto the part that they say is the most important - the collapse initiation - where MT will advocate for the unbolting of the upper columns, etc.

We will all enjoy the LULZ from that hilarity.