Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You don't see the corner remnant sticking up ?

You don't see the East perimeter being pushed out by the wedge action of the tilted upper section ?

A bit like this...
[qimg]http://i36.tinypic.com/33a9ms7.gif[/qimg]
(An image, to illustrate a valid point )

You seriously think that the exterior panels & floor trusses are strong enough to produce a wedge in real life?

Good God Almighty!

 

[ozeco41]

...Hey, I LIKE this.

Allow me to wrap up:

Conclusion: Bazant was correct about inevitability of progressive collapse to ground...

Not only Bazant - quite few others methinks. At least me since 2007!

....Conclusion: No CD....

Not a valid conclusion. Let's keep the logic tight. It proves CD was not required. Does not disprove use of redundant unneeded superfluous CD. (wordplay intended - it's that sort of day down here.)

'Proof' of no CD therefore relies on other evidence. And we can deal with the concerns about using the word 'proof' if we need to.

...Conclusion: NIST got it right....

Yes - NIST said "global collapse was inevitable" and left it there - did not make claims the finding could not support. They dealt elsewhere with the "No CD" matter.

...Conclusion: Twoofers are delusional....

Let's see if I have this clear.

The debunker side says "progressive collapse to ground was inevitable" is a true statement when uttered by Bazant.

But it is 'delusional' when someone you classify as a 'twoofer' says the same thing.

An interesting application of contextually adaptable logic.

 

[femr2]

You seriously think that the exterior panels & floor trusses are strong enough to produce a wedge in real life?

Against an unsupported precarious perimeter face, that's what the video evidence shows, regardless of what you think.

You seem to disagree with tfk.

Ask him how the perimeter section can effectively hinge at a point way down towards the lower mechanical region, if it's still attached to floors above that point up to the level at which the upper and lower *blocks* separate, will you ?

See multiple copies of appropriate video segment above.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Against an unsupported precarious perimeter face, that's what the video evidence shows, regardless of what you think.

You seem to disagree with tfk.

Ask him how the perimeter section can effectively hinge at a point way down towards the lower mechanical region, if it's still attached to floors above that point up to the level at which the upper and lower *blocks* separate, will you ?

See multiple copies of appropriate video segment above.

Just try & apply your little animation about a wedge in real life in a steel skyscraper like the WTCs'. Just because it works on paper doesn't mean it'll work in the real world.

I disagree with you!

Because the opposite side where the plane impacted wasn't damaged by the plane itself, that's why there was a hinge. The point is the outter columns are separated from the core, with the floor pans in between. The outter columns were bolted together.

 

[tsig]

You don't see the corner remnant sticking up ?

You don't see the East perimeter being pushed out by the wedge action of the tilted upper section ?

A bit like this...
[qimg]http://i36.tinypic.com/33a9ms7.gif[/qimg]
(An image, to illustrate a valid point )


You know, there are rules here about posting the same image over and over again.


Do you mean like these...


...within which you are talking about the WEST face, showing a view of the north and east faces of WTC2, when your response, pointed at MT was about WTC1 ?

Funny stuff.

You're not going to be able to shout and *snark* your way out of your foolishness I'm afraid.

How did the top of the building flip in it's side and rotate like that?

 

[femr2]

How did the top of the building flip in it's side and rotate like that?

Have a look...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcZJMdrZ-ps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvfWI4qSc-o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpUTXF9isII

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFr3QeCzVgY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT17AKh9RQw

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Have a look...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcZJMdrZ-ps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvfWI4qSc-o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpUTXF9isII

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFr3QeCzVgY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT17AKh9RQw

Oh great, Femr's from the U.K.

Do you know Stundie by any chance? He lives in the U.K.

 

[ozeco41]

You don't see the corner remnant sticking up ?

You don't see the East perimeter being pushed out by the wedge action of the tilted upper section ?

A bit like this...
[qimg]http://i36.tinypic.com/33a9ms7.gif[/qimg]
(An image, to illustrate a valid point )

Tactical error there femr2 posting an extreme caricature. The criticism will be directed at the caricature. What we really need is a bit of the process known as "thinking" - watch me try "thinking" and I will predict the word "speculation" will occur in the adverse comments - if we get any.

There are any number of possible "wedge" actions. I suggest the more numerous ones will be those at the micro scale and not the macro scale of top block tilt. Lets look at one face of the impact and fire zone as the top block starts to fall. Take the face with the pulled in columns.

We know three things:

• All the columns have failed and their two ends are bypassing each other. Think about that one if it is not immediately self evident.
• As the outer perimeter columns of the top block fall they will go into one of three relationships with their corresponding parts on the lower tower. Those are
  • The top block will pass inside the lower tower perimeter;
  • The top block columns will pass outside the lower tower perimeter; OR
  • The top block columns will land on the lower columns but will immediately fail again and revert to either(a) or (b) above.
• Taking case 2a for illustration the top block columns bypassing the lower tower columns will have a natural wedging action - in that case the one you illustrated with your caricature BUT on a much smaller, micro scale and realistic.

Work through that exercise in thinking and visualising. When you see it is reasonable then consider other impacts.

 

[Carll68]

Sorry twoofs and pseudo stealth born in 41 twoofs...Bazant and company prove 100% that there was no CD !!

Beyond any doubt, despite your bad graphs and poor physics. Despite your word salads and sub par youtube vids...and, yes, despite your holier than thou posturing from the septuagenarian. sect.......they have proven your CD delusion born form poor poor engineering skills to be just a delusional pipe dream.

There is no need to seriously entertain this CD nonsense.

The models apply to the real word, and prove no CD.

There is no evidence to even remotely suggest CD...and the models prove that the collapse could and did progress without a CD - thus destroying your delusions.

100% proven.

100% incontrovertibly Fact: The models prove NO CD was necassary for the collapse to continue to completion,,,the way it did in THE REAL WORLD.

100% incontrovertibly Fact: There has been zero evidence of any explosives, thermite, therm-ate, nano whatever, or femrs new pet delusion, and our 70 something entertains this also...,Ammonium Perchlorate --NOTHING.

100% incontrovertibly Fact: Since we know the collapses could have progressed without the use of CD, and since there is not even a shred of evidence to support any CD.......THEN...

GUESS WHAT?

The Bazant studies therefor rule out CD and prove no CD was needed or present.

Case Closed.

Can you prove a Cd was present?

Thought not.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Has the paper been written yet?

 

[Carll68]

Guess what? They have no intentions of writing one, Ever. Gee, I wonder why. Any thoughts?

 

[femr2]

Tactical error there femr2 posting an extreme caricature.

Not a tactic, but perhaps jumping a little ahead of the general local understanding of event sequencing.

Work through that exercise in thinking and visualising. When you see it is reasonable then consider other impacts.

It's perfectly reasonable, and no-one would suggest that even perfectly vertical internal floor pancaking would result in zero effect upon the perimeter.

The problem with simplifications is that the real world behaviour doesn't quite play ball as there are other factors which complicate things a little, namely...

a) There are four perimeter faces tied to one another at the corners, which, until those corners *let go* they do a pretty hood job of holding-back that lower scale wedging action a little.

...and...

b) The effective pivot point of the upper section, which, for WTC2, adds a delay in terms of when the angled upper perimeter comes into contact with the upper edge of the lower perimeter (as the east face of the upper section moves west as a side-effect of the pivot action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcZJMdrZ-ps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFr3QeCzVgY

Add to these factors that ROOSD is under way very rapidly and propogating off down to ground independantly and the effective distance between the lowest edge of the crush front and the top of the still upright perimeter is pretty large by the time the tilted upper face applies that larger scale wedging. It's around that time that the NE corner, which up until that point is sitting pretty, fails.

 

[pgimeno]

Not at all. I've pointed you at the video record. That's the point, words are always subjective.

Yeah, images are objective. They aren't subject to interpretation.

The image of this elephant will prove my point, let's call it the "elephant in the box". Who could not surrender to the obvious visual evidence that this is an elephant?

 

[tfk]

Oz,

Let's see if I have this clear.

The debunker side says "progressive collapse to ground was inevitable" is a true statement when uttered by Bazant.

But it is 'delusional' when someone you classify as a 'twoofer' says the same thing.

An interesting application of contextually adaptable logic. http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif

"… the debunker side…"??

You're getting more than a little condescending here, oz. Best to back up a bit, and INQUIRE about debunkers' epistemology. Rather than projecting this insulting, juvenile parody onto folks that you frankly don't know very well. There are some pretty competent thinkers here.

Very, very few people posting here employ an epistemology as lame as your portrayal.

Perhaps you should try to look a little deeper.

Also, it's comments like this that make me shake my head in disbelief when I hear them coming from an alleged engineer. NO competent engineer in the world accepts much of anything "because someone tell them so." Or because "most people believe it." Goes against our nature.

Maybe Aussie engineers are cut from a different cloth...

 

[alienentity]

We know three things:

• All the columns have failed and their two ends are bypassing each other. Think about that one if it is not immediately self evident.
• As the outer perimeter columns of the top block fall they will go into one of three relationships with their corresponding parts on the lower tower. Those are
  • The top block will pass inside the lower tower perimeter;
  • The top block columns will pass outside the lower tower perimeter; OR
  • The top block columns will land on the lower columns but will immediately fail again and revert to either(a) or (b) above.
• Taking case 2a for illustration the top block columns bypassing the lower tower columns will have a natural wedging action - in that case the one you illustrated with your caricature BUT on a much smaller, micro scale and realistic.

Work through that exercise in thinking and visualising. When you see it is reasonable then consider other impacts.

Seems reasonable to me, as far as the exterior columns go. I also reckon that the core columns couldn't survive the degree of upper block tilt that was seen in either tower.
But it makes sense that once the whole upper mass was falling (as opposed to just tilting) some of the core below was left standing for a few seconds.


But will we ever know exactly what combination of failures were going on? I doubt it.
If you tried to model it, you'd end up (IMO) with too many random interactions to be able to resemble the actual collapse in much detail. That's why I think the limiting case is useful, because it demonstrates the process in terms of energy equations, without trying to account for every detail of the actual event.

 

[ozeco41]

Seems reasonable to me, as far as the exterior columns go. I also reckon that the core columns couldn't survive the degree of upper block tilt that was seen in either tower.
But it makes sense that once the whole upper mass was falling (as opposed to just tilting) some of the core below was left standing for a few seconds....

Yes. Then could you think about the significance of the 'bald assertion' claim I made.

• All the columns have failed and their two ends are bypassing each other. Think about that one if it is not immediately self evident.
• etc
• etc

I have posted that claim many times on this and one other forum and never got a bite. Is it so obvious? Or do people simply not see the significance.

To me it is a big key to understanding the start of the 'global collapse'/'collapse progression' whatever term you prefer.

So whether or not it is that "...the core columns couldn't survive the degree of upper block tilt that was seen in either tower." which caused the column failure I can see no doubt that there has been failure of all columns when the block is falling. And a lot of things follow from that.

...But will we ever know exactly what combination of failures were going on? I doubt it....

I think it is certain we will never know the detail - but I think your "Doubt it" probably means the same.

...If you tried to model it, you'd end up (IMO) with too many random interactions to be able to resemble the actual collapse in much detail...

If by model it you mean detail explain the mechanism I agree fully. Then, switching to the other meaning of "model" - construct a maths set of equations - same impossibility because if you cannot say what happened you cannot apply detailed maths. Which leads us to your next point:

... That's why I think the limiting case is useful, because it demonstrates the process in terms of energy equations, without trying to account for every detail of the actual event.

Spot on.

I can detail explain the 'global collapse' to my own satisfaction using ball park estimated figures. The reason is that the surplus of available energy is so great that you only have to satisfy yourself that the available forces would be 'overwhelming'.

I cannot satisfy myself about "collapse initiation" the same way because, despite several contributory mechanisms being identifiable, there is no way to say that there were enough of those mechanisms to add up to a runaway cascading failure. Sure I'm reasonably comfortable that NIST put forward a plausible argument. But it wouldn't faze me if somebody came up with a different plausible argument. You can describe how a cascade failure could come about. Look in qualitative terms at load re-distribution etc but there is no conclusive "there was enough". At least not one readily accessible for use in persuading a lay audience which is my usual focus. That is important when dealing with CD conspiracy theorists because I cannot muster sufficient technical evidence to say "CD not required" for collapse initiation. So I fall back on to the logistic and security impossibility of CD and the total lack of any evidence for it.

Much easier with 'global collapse' - everything was 'overwhelming'. But being honest with the logic Bazant's proof of no demolition required does not prove that there was no demoliton. You and I and many more know there wasn't any CD by accumulation of multiple paths of evidence. But the technical energy argument doesn't prove it.

 

[ozeco41]

Oz,



"… the debunker side…"??

You're getting more than a little condescending here, oz. Best to back up a bit, and INQUIRE about debunkers' epistemology. Rather than projecting this insulting, juvenile parody onto folks that you frankly don't know very well. There are some pretty competent thinkers here.

Very, very few people posting here employ an epistemology as lame as your portrayal.

Perhaps you should try to look a little deeper.

Also, it's comments like this that make me shake my head in disbelief when I hear them coming from an alleged engineer. NO competent engineer in the world accepts much of anything "because someone tell them so." Or because "most people believe it." Goes against our nature.

Maybe Aussie engineers are cut from a different cloth...

Wow! Perspective tfk. Don 't read too much in to a bit of fun.

You made a silly claim that was self contradictory. I treat it as a joke for a bit of laugh. No need to lose the plot so extensively.

Cheers.

 

[tfk]

Wow! Perspective tfk. Don 't read too much in to a bit of fun.

You made a silly claim that was self contradictory. I treat it as a joke for a bit of laugh. No need to lose the plot so extensively.

Cheers.

First, if that was meant light-hearted poking fun, my apologies. Sometimes humor doesn't transmit very well thru this medium.

All in all, tho, it wasn't very funny. it was simply wrong. At least in my case. And whether you (or femr or MT or anyone else) believes it or not.

Regarding my "silly claim"…

Is it really possible that you didn't realize that the entire post was a parody of femr's new self-identified debating style?

Well, not so much a parody as an exact duplicate of the style that he just told us he's chosen to employ.

Funny that you should notice & object to it when "a debunker" uses it. But not when a truther does.


tom

 

[tfk]

femr,

You don't see the corner remnant sticking up ?

You don't see the East perimeter being pushed out by the wedge action of the tilted upper section ?

None of those images has the slightest bearing on the discussion that you leaped into regarding the ability to distinguish the crush front from a pressure wave.

You're not gonna start offering ARGUMENTS and WORDS at this point, are you??

We don't need no stinkin' WORDS.

My gif proved that you're wrong.

None of these silly WORDS required.

A bit like this...
http://i36.tinypic.com/33a9ms7.gif
(An image, to illustrate a valid point )

Nope, not very much like that.

Oh, you've got one factor right.
You've got about 10 other important ones completely wrong.

Now, someone applying the same rules that you do to Bazant (focusing on trivia while ignoring the significant) would judge your model as useless.

But your model will serve one purpose. It helps folks to see how you define structures. And it will explain why they'd do well to stay the hell away from any structure that you'd ever be-scat upon the world.

Here's a pictogram of the difference between your & my view of structures.

We seem to disagree on how we'd describe that "tilt-y" section of the wall.

BTW, for the purpose of this discussion, any model that doesn't include a reasonable representation of the crush zone debris is pretty much useless.

You know, there are rules here about posting the same image over and over again.

Yeah, I just found that out.

I have noticed, for the last 6 months or so, that you've been our own little class snitch. "Oh moderator, moderator, so-and-so violated rule X today…!!!"

That get humiliating after awhile?
LoL.

 

[ergo]

Take a look at Bazant's "upper parts" in action. Not only can upper WTC2 crush WTC2, it crushes WTC 3 as well! Double action!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY&feature=player_embedded#at=138

All this supposedly from a few weakened upper columns.

By the way, how did WTC3 resist progressive collapse?