Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[Patriots4Truth]

At what temperature and duration of time would there be enough heat to cause enough sag for the floors to collapse? I'm sure NIST must have done some work on this.

Meaningless question.

Parts (including floors) don't fail because of "sag".

They fail because of local stresses exceeding local strengths.

Rather than spoon feed you, you'd do well to think about the various factors that affect both of those.

First, you need definitions.
Keep it simplified...

From what I understood
Hot temperatures --> ... --> Columns sag --> ... --> Local stress exceeds local strength at exterior column/floor column connection/s --> ... --> The first floor collapses --> ...

Are you telling me this is wrong?

You said: "Parts (including floors) don't fail because of "sag""
But isn't "sag" an important step in the cause of collapse?
How then is my original question meaningless, as you like to put it?

 

[tfk]

From what I understood
Hot temperatures --> ... --> Columns sag --> ... --> Local stress exceeds local strength at exterior column/floor column connection/s --> ... --> The first floor collapses --> ...

Are you telling me this is wrong?

Yup. By the scenario that you've posted (just fires), the towers would, to a very high probability, both still be standing.

I know that you know there was more than just fires, but this is EXACTLY the perennial mistake that truthers make: picking out only one of the significant factors. Such as "fire never caused a steel framed building to collapse." (Both over simplified and wrong.) Or "the buildings were designed to withstand an impact from a jet." (Both over simplified & wrong.)

Here is one very important consideration that you've left out. Read it carefully & try to understand what it is saying.

Bazant
The effect of stress level on creep.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE , Vol. 134 (2008)
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

Page 2:

"But are high steel temperatures really necessary to explain collapse?

Not really.

... The tests by NIST (2005, part NCSTAR 1-3D, p. 135, Fig. 6-6) showed that, at temperatures 150° C, 250° C and 350° C, the yield strength of the steel used in the fire stories decreased by 12%, 19% and 25%, respectively. ... These effects of heating are further documented by the recent fire tests of Zeng et al.(2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of their cold strength collapse when heated to 250° C.

... Nevertheless, it can easily be explained that the stress in some surviving columns most likely exceeded 88% of their cold strength S0 . In that case, any steel temperature ≥150° C sufficed to trigger the viscoplastic buckling of columns (Bazant and Le 2008). This conclusion is further supported by simple calculations showing that if, for instance, the column load is raised at temperature 250° C from 0.3Pt to 0.9Pt (where Pt = failure load = tangent modulus load), the critical time of creep buckling ... gets shortened from 2400 hours to 1 hour ...

Therefore, to decide whether the gravity-driven progressive collapse is the correct explanation, the temperature level alone is irrelevant (Bazant and Le 2008). It is meaningless and a waste of time to argue about it without calculating the stresses in columns. For low stress, high temperature is necessary to cause collapse, but for high enough stress, even a modestly elevated temperature will cause it."

You've left out some fundamental things that would have completely changed the outcome.

loss of insulation
physical damage from plane impact
greatly increased stresses as a result of damage
the enormously increased rate of creep because of the high stress levels

What this means:

To a very high probability (not a certainty, there is disagreement on this)...

Just the fire, no physical damage => no collapse. (IMO. Dr. Quintiere disagrees. He's an expert. You'd do well to listen to him. But I still think I'm right.)

No physical damage from the plane crash means that the insulation would have been intact & the stress levels would have remained their low, "as designed" values.
The columns would not have gotten as hot before the fires burned out. At the "as built" stress levels (1/2 to 1/3rd of strength values), you would not have had as much or as rapid creep. Or as much load shifting between core & perimeter columns.

Just the physical damage, no fire => no collapse. (IMO, highly probable from the fact that the towers restabilized themselves after the initial impact.)

You said: "Parts (including floors) don't fail because of "sag""
But isn't "sag" an important step in the cause of collapse?

I mean exactly what I said. Parts do not fail because of "sag". They fail because of stress levels exceeding strength levels.

What determines stress levels: Amount of load, direction of load, cross sectional area, stress concentrations (like discontinuities, sharp corners, features like holes machined into parts, etc).

And, in a lattice structure like the towers in which lots of elements simultaneously carry a load, if some parts shed their load, then it has to be borne by the other elements. In this way, increased temperature can both increase or decrease load (& stress in a member). Higher temps can increase stress by lengthening the columns (thermal expansion), thereby causing the longer ones to take up more of the load. Increasing temperature some more can cause the column to creep (i.e., essentially shorten), thereby decreasing the stress.

What determines strength? The type of load (columns are very strong in pure compression, very weak if loaded in bending), material & (especially) temperature.

And, as Bazant's research above shows, (progressive, sometimes runaway) creep is a function of both temperature & stress levels. Creep changes the geometry of the building. (Sag is a form of creep.)

Changing the geometry of the building dramatically changes the loading conditions. If you lose the balanced geometry & the balanced loads & the balanced stresses that result, then you'll lose the building.

How then is my original question meaningless, as you like to put it?

See bold part of Bazant's statement, above.

 

[ozeco41]

Therefore, to decide whether the gravity-driven progressive collapse is the correct explanation, the temperature level alone is irrelevant (Bazant and Le 2008). It is meaningless and a waste of time to argue about it without calculating the stresses in columns. For low stress, high temperature is necessary to cause collapse, but for high enough stress, even a modestly elevated temperature will cause it.

There is a trap for learners and skim readers in that quoted section tfk. Nearly caught me

Bazant labels what he is discussing as "gravity-driven progressive collapse". Many of us posting here divide the WTC Twin Towers collapses into (at least) two stages and label them "initiation" and "collapse progression" or similar words. What Bazant is discussing (and you and Patriots) is the initiation phase - quite clear in the context of his paper and your recent posts. But when I first read the quotation in your post I saw "progressive collapse" linked to columns affected by temperature which nearly threw me till I re-read the quote and checked back to the source. Because there was no columns affected by heat aspect in the "global collapse" OR "collapse progression" stage.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

That was a very good and informative post tfk. It really helped my understanding of 'initiation'.

 

[tfk]

There is a trap for learners and skim readers in that quoted section tfk. Nearly caught me

Bazant labels what he is discussing as "gravity-driven progressive collapse". Many of us posting here divide the WTC Twin Towers collapses into (at least) two stages and label them "initiation" and "collapse progression" or similar words. What Bazant is discussing (and you and Patriots) is the initiation phase - quite clear in the context of his paper and your recent posts. But when I first read the quotation in your post I saw "progressive collapse" linked to columns affected by temperature which nearly threw me till I re-read the quote and checked back to the source. Because there was no columns affected by heat aspect in the "global collapse" OR "collapse progression" stage.

There is no trap. There is no deception.

You are about 89/95ths (94%) correct in your observation for WTC1.

In school or in most professions, 94% correct might get you a good grade. In engineering, it gets you an "F".

Especially when you're right about lots o' insignificant things, but wrong about a few (sometimes just one) critical point. As you are here.

You have suggested a deception (on Bazant's or my part) precisely because you don't know nearly as much about the collapse of large structures as Bazant does. That's not an insult. It's merely fact. Exactly the same way that he knows a ton more about those same issues than I do.

Bazant knows that, given the masses, heights & toughness of the structure, there was no way for the building NOT to have collapsed to the ground once the collapse began. It is the seminal result of his analysis.

Bazant knew it soon after the collapse, after constructing a simplified (not "simple") model & crunching some numbers. He knew how to structure the calculation long before 9/11.

He knew how to construct that model, not because he is a gubbamint stooge, or because he wanted to undermine a brain-dead, clueless bunch of morons & their whack-job theories that NOBODY at the time (especially not structural engineers) imagined would emerge from this tragedy. He knew it because it was right down the middle of the plate of the various analyses he'd performed, & taught, over a 50+ year professional career.

In 2 days, he executed, and published his analysis, which constitutes the HIGHEST art-form of the engineering profession: the BOTE. The Back Of The Envelope calculation, a first order approximation that accurately captured the key factors.
___

The temperature & stress related creep of various structural members obviously occurred only where the temperatures were elevated.

C'mon, oz. Start acting like a real engineer, willya?

Stop with the safe, subjective qualitative observations that any high school drop-out, Comparative Religions perfesser or radio shock jock can make.

And start putting a few numbers (or at least quantitative estimates) to things.

The two principle failure modes were buckled columns & snapped connections (bolts & welds).

1. Of those two, which was the "best case" failure mode (favoring collapse halt)?

2. For each of these failure modes, what was the "vertical unit of failure"? (measured in "floors")

3. Just for yuks & giggles (& to save you some time) assume that 25% of the existent perimeter columns buckled, and 75% had their connections snapped. (Feel free to offer any differing numbers, or to research this yourself for better numbers.)

4. Using 2 & 3 above, how many floors of the building "promptly" lost their supports during collapse initiation?

Call this number "A".

5. How many floor were on fire at, or immediately before, the time of collapse?
Call this "B".

6. What is B - A?

7 After a fall of how many floors MUST the collapse have stopped if it was going to stop at all?

8. Still think that "heated elements" played a role only in collapse initiation & no role in collapse progression?


tk

 

[femr2]

The effect of stress level on creep.

As you know, I spent a good while looking for *creep*, and...found some...for WTC1.

Problem is that it begins only 9.5s before release.

loss of insulation

Largely speculative, especially given the level of uncertainty from many as-to where initial failure could have been.

physical damage from plane impact

Largely speculative, especially given the poor level of accuracy of the NIST impact states. (Yeah, that ol' chestnut )

greatly increased stresses as a result of damage
the enormously increased rate of creep because of the high stress levels

So, do you think the the enormously increased rate of creep applies only from 9.5s in advance of release ?


It is important, as recent discussions have clearly highlighted, to separate the fictional/virtual world of what may, or could from what did.


Bazant describes a limiting case of what could, and it bears very little relation to what did. ROOSD is a much better fit to what did. Bazant starts at a point post-initiation after a section of structure has been, er, disappeared, and is allowed to drop.

On the other side of that point, NIST describes the behaviour of their virtual model up to a point of failure, then concludes global....

The chunk in between...initiation itself...is missing.

The events leading up to that point exist within the virtual domain, and do not match real-world observables.


There is still much to do to clarify the actual initiation process, imo

 

[femr2]

You have suggested a deception (on Bazant's or my part)

You're being paranoid.

 

[twinstead]

I'm still thinking that Bazant knows a lot more about the collapse of large structures than you do femr2. From the underwhelming impact that folks like you are having on the rank-and-file engineering communities around the world, I figure I'm not alone.

 

[tfk]

As you know, I spent a good while looking for *creep*, and...found some...for WTC1.

You know next to nothing about structures & creep. Ergo, you "found some … for WTC1".

You don't know what creep is.

You don't know how to measure it.

You evidently can't follow the key points of a short, simple conversation. Otherwise the succession of sentences "floor sag is a form of creep" and "things don't fail due to creep" might have thrown on a light switch for you.

Most importantly, you have no clue how to translate "angle of tilt" into either creep or stress in individual components.

You don't appreciate that "average creep" or "average stress" are irrelevant to failures.

I have explained all of the above to you on more than one occasion. Your ego & agenda prevent you from absorbing any knowledge about this issue.

In short, you're incompetent.

Problem is that it begins only 9.5s before release.

A bunch of experienced professional engineers, who are not incompetent, found clearly evident creep for both towers that started far, far earlier.

They also used well defined, well established tools of the trade, to calculate that there was, there HAD to be, creep in places that were not visible to external cameras.

To no surprise, the experts, who have been trained in, measured, calculated, dealt with & compensated for yield, creep, stress relaxation, cold flow, etc., for their entire professional careers, are right.

You haven't the slightest concept that what you are identifying as "creep" … isn't. BY DEFINITION.

To no surprise, you, who doesn't even know the proper definition of the term, are wrong.

… loss of insulation ...

Largely speculative, especially given the level of uncertainty from many as-to where initial failure could have been.

Only to the mechanically incompetent.

physical damage from plane impact

Largely speculative, especially given the poor level of accuracy of the NIST impact states. (Yeah, that ol' chestnut )

Only to the ludicrously, laughably incompetent.

So, do you think the the enormously increased rate of creep applies only from 9.5s in advance of release ?

I'm not incompetent.
I know the time scales over which creep operates.
I wouldn't confuse "creep" for "yield".

It is important, as recent discussions have clearly highlighted, to separate the fictional/virtual world of what may, or could from what did.

Irony meter smashed to atoms long ago...

Bazant describes a limiting case of what could, and it bears very little relation to what did.

And, in spite of the not-particularly-subtle innuendo in your constant dialog, it is not one iota less useful, or valid, for that fact.

Precisely because it was the "best case" limit.

ALL other cases, especially the "more realistic" ones, produced more certain total collapse.

ROOSD is a much better fit to what did. Bazant starts at a point post-initiation after a section of structure has been, er, disappeared, and is allowed to drop.

No structural elements were "disappeared".
No structural elements were waterboarded.

Lots of structural elements were put into "stress positions". Some into extreme "stress positions".

On the other side of that point, NIST describes the behaviour of their virtual model up to a point of failure, then concludes global....
The chunk in between...initiation itself...is missing.

You're wrong. It is not missing.
Apparently you didn't read or comprehend the NIST report.

The events leading up to that point exist within the virtual domain, and do not match real-world observables.

You seem to live in your own virtual domain.
Engineers don't.

There is still much to do to clarify the actual initiation process, imo

And you appear to think that a bunch mutually back-slapping amateurs is the proper route to greater clarification…???

Thanks. That explains - quite completely - your glacial rate of "progress" over the last 9 years.


tk

 

[femr2]

You don't know what creep is.

Incorrect.

You evidently can't follow the key points of a short, simple conversation. Otherwise the succession of sentences "floor sag is a form of creep" and "things don't fail due to creep" might have thrown on a light switch for you.

We've had this discussion before tom. Floor sag doesn't necessarily have anything to do with core or perimeter column creep, as you well know. In our previous discussions perhaps you need me to remind you of the number of times I have not said there was no creep. You seem to have SUCH poor memory tom. Not good. Perhaps I'll pop over to that old thread and remind you.

Most importantly, you have no clue how to translate "angle of tilt" into either creep or stress in individual components.

LOL. You're indicating where your hand-waving hissy fit is coming from here. In what way does "angle of tilt" have anything at all to do with what I'm talking about ? Perhaps you may have (yet again) made an inept assumption about what I'm saying. What a surprise.

You don't appreciate that "average creep" or "average stress" are irrelevant to failures.

LOL. Do you really think that by prefixing completely out of discussion context items with "you don't" makes them in any way valid to the discussion ? Really funny.

A better in context statement... You don't know the scope of the data I'm referring to, and are clearly making incorrect assumptions.

In context. Relevant.

I have explained all of the above to you on more than one occasion. Your ego & agenda prevent you from absorbing any knowledge about this issue.

The problem you are having, tom, is that you are continuing to make the most basic and inept assumptions about what you THINK I'm saying. You just can't help yourself. Every single *snarky* comment borne from that, really dumb, position of assumption, turns what you are saying into humour. It's really quite funny. I'll give you a hint later, and mark it with a Okay ?

A bunch of experienced professional engineers, who are not incompetent, found clearly evident creep for both towers that started far, far earlier.

Are you referring to IB perchance ? We've discussed that as well. Definitely a reminder of those discussions is required I think.

They also used well defined, well established tools of the trade, to calculate that there was, there HAD to be, creep in places that were not visible to external cameras.

Who said there wasn't ? You ? But getting closer to where we're actually speaking from, rather than the inept position you think I am. S'funny as.

Only to the mechanically incompetent.

Interesting.

1) Where was the actual initial failure for WTC 1 ?

Only to the ludicrously, laughably incompetent.

ROFL. WTC 2 impact trajectory and orientation used by NIST was WRONG. Not just wrong, but badly wrong. The reasoning behind their choice of parameters is clear. Very poor. And yep, still haven't bothered to take this beyond draft. Might get around to it...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175.htm
http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175-part2.htm

I'm not incompetent.
I know the time scales over which creep operates.
I wouldn't confuse "creep" for "yield".

ROFL. As I;ve told you in the past tom STOP making assumptions. You make yourself look silly. When you don't know the details being discussed START asking. A good question would be asking me about the data I'm talking about. A good question would be to ask how long before release that data stretches. A good question to ask would be why I'm ASKING YOU if you think that enourmously increased rate of creep started 9.5s before release.

Oh, nearly forgot...

NIST included estimated creep diagrams, yeah ? With certain (and detectable) scales of displacement

You're wrong. It is not missing.
Apparently you didn't read or comprehend the NIST report.

Is that so ? Cool. Please point me to the results from the simulation up until the upper section enters into the vertical drop phase for either tower.

Have a nice day.

 

[ozeco41]

There is no trap.....

Get real tfk. I confess I nearly fell for a bit of a trap in word usage and you use it to launch a load of insults based on your own inventiveness.

There is no deception....

And I never said there was - let alone any intent.

You have suggested a deception (on Bazant's or my part)....

As I said "inventiveness"...

 

[Major_Tom]

The truth is, by scrubbing the visual record for details, we know much more now about the collapse progression process than Bazant did.

If you keep trying to use a buckle down, then buckle up 1-D model to describe WTC1 or 2, it is like trying to put a round peg into a square hole.


The only reason people would contunue to defend a buckle down, then buckle up mechanics in which some "upper block" survives intact until earth is to try to prop up Bazant as an authority figure.


There is no reason for the efforts to try to keep the Bazant papers BV, BL abd BLGB on life support. It is only hot air that keeps that balloon afloat.



Recall the exact same questions I have been asking since May, 2010:

Here are some basic questions I asked repeatedly since May:


1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Is the following statement true or false:

Dr Bazant believes that a crush-down phase must continue to completion before a crush up phase can begin.

If you answer false, please provide evidence to the contrary.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?



5) Consider from BL:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

What does he mean by these claims? Do you really believe this claim?


6) Or how about this from BL:

"Blocks C and A can, of course, deform. Yet, contrary to
the discusser’s claim, they may be treated in calculations as
rigid because their elastic deformations are about 1,000 times
smaller than the deformations at the crushing front."

This is how Dr Bazant justifies the survival of the upper block until reaching earth in BL

Do you honestly believe this claim?

>>>>>>>>>>>

TFK bragged about his superior capacity to understand these papers. I predicted he'd fall on his face when trying to answer basic questions about the papers.

We're still waiting, cowboy. Please demonstrate your superior capacities by just answering the questions rather than by providing your resume.

Let's take only one from the list:

Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

Or, rephrased: Is the concept of ROOSD consistent with Bazant's 1-D buckle down, then buckle up model based on an upper block which survives intact until hitting earth?

The answer is obviously "no".

It is only hot air that keeps that balloon afloat. Besides Ozeco, the debunker arguments given in this 45 page massive thread are a freaking joke.


All of it could have been by-passed with a few moments of honesty. Insead, we can look forward to more insults and wasted time watching people try to fit a round peg into a square hole.

 

[Major_Tom]

And one more thing: It is important to realize that WTC2 had a surviving core remnant also.

 

[tfk]

Get real tfk. I confess I nearly fell for a bit of a trap in word usage and you use it to launch a load of insults based on your own inventiveness.
And I never said there was - let alone any intent.
As I said "inventiveness"...

I asked you to start acting like an engineer.

Not a little girl.

Engineers grow thicker skin than this.

You got insulted because I said that Bazant knows a ton more than you about structural engineering & collapse? Sorry. It's the truth.

Then I said "you were wrong" about something. Engineers don't have hissy fits about that. They address the issue.

I asked you several questions that were directly pertinent to the comments that you made.

You replied to none of them.

I've now asked you dozens of engineering questions. I don't recall you answering any of them.

I've been getting the feeling that you're not really an engineer, oz.

C'mon, help me out. Allay my suspicions. Answer a few questions.

Like an engineer would. Simply. Directly. No drama.


tom

 

[ProBonoShill]

As you know, I spent a good while looking for *creep*, and...found some...for WTC1.

Problem is that it begins only 9.5s before release.

LOL

Largely speculative, especially given the level of uncertainty from many as-to where initial failure could have been.

Maybe if you're delusional.

Largely speculative, especially given the poor level of accuracy of the NIST impact states. (Yeah, that ol' chestnut )

LOL. NIST> femr with his hands waving and no paper.

So, do you think the the enormously increased rate of creep applies only from 9.5s in advance of release ?

LOL

It is important, as recent discussions have clearly highlighted, to separate the fictional/virtual world of what may, or could from what did.

Yes you should try that some day.

Bazant describes a limiting case of what could, and it bears very little relation to what did. ROOSD is a much better fit to what did. Bazant starts at a point post-initiation after a section of structure has been, er, disappeared, and is allowed to drop.

On the other side of that point, NIST describes the behaviour of their virtual model up to a point of failure, then concludes global....

The chunk in between...initiation itself...is missing.

The events leading up to that point exist within the virtual domain, and do not match real-world observables.


There is still much to do to clarify the actual initiation process, imo

ROTFLMAO

Well what don't you get to work on that Scooter, time's a ticking away.

9 years and all that...

Meanwhile back at the ranch:

You're being paranoid.

Really? I'd say someone who believes there were secret pods attached to the airplanes on 9/11 could be considered paranoid. No?

BTW- How's that pod investigation going anyway femr?

Incorrect.


We've had this discussion before tom. Floor sag doesn't necessarily have anything to do with core or perimeter column creep, as you well know. In our previous discussions perhaps you need me to remind you of the number of times I have not said there was no creep. You seem to have SUCH poor memory tom. Not good. Perhaps I'll pop over to that old thread and remind you.


LOL. You're indicating where your hand-waving hissy fit is coming from here. In what way does "angle of tilt" have anything at all to do with what I'm talking about ? Perhaps you may have (yet again) made an inept assumption about what I'm saying. What a surprise.


LOL. Do you really think that by prefixing completely out of discussion context items with "you don't" makes them in any way valid to the discussion ? Really funny.

A better in context statement... You don't know the scope of the data I'm referring to, and are clearly making incorrect assumptions.

In context. Relevant.


The problem you are having, tom, is that you are continuing to make the most basic and inept assumptions about what you THINK I'm saying. You just can't help yourself. Every single *snarky* comment borne from that, really dumb, position of assumption, turns what you are saying into humour. It's really quite funny. I'll give you a hint later, and mark it with a Okay ?


Are you referring to IB perchance ? We've discussed that as well. Definitely a reminder of those discussions is required I think.


Who said there wasn't ? You ? But getting closer to where we're actually speaking from, rather than the inept position you think I am. S'funny as.


Interesting.

1) Where was the actual initial failure for WTC 1 ?


ROFL. WTC 2 impact trajectory and orientation used by NIST was WRONG. Not just wrong, but badly wrong. The reasoning behind their choice of parameters is clear. Very poor. And yep, still haven't bothered to take this beyond draft. Might get around to it...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175.htm
http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175-part2.htm


ROFL. As I;ve told you in the past tom STOP making assumptions. You make yourself look silly. When you don't know the details being discussed START asking. A good question would be asking me about the data I'm talking about. A good question would be to ask how long before release that data stretches. A good question to ask would be why I'm ASKING YOU if you think that enourmously increased rate of creep started 9.5s before release.

Oh, nearly forgot...

NIST included estimated creep diagrams, yeah ? With certain (and detectable) scales of displacement


Is that so ? Cool. Please point me to the results from the simulation up until the upper section enters into the vertical drop phase for either tower.

Have a nice day.

What bunch of nonsense.

Why do you always dodge his questions and wave your hands femr?

He makes assertions and you completely ignore them, then go on to talk about something completely irrelevant.


Why do you do this? Do you not understand him?

Oh and for the record, just in case you're under the completely idiotic impression that we somehow equate your understanding of the building collapses to that of Bazant and Co., we don't.

Bazant, his education, his experience and technical expertise>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than you and your laughable sub pixel tracing crapola.

Find those pods yet?

ROTF indeed.

 

[ozeco41]

I asked you to start acting like an engineer.

Not a little girl.

Engineers grow thicker skin than this.

You got insulted because I said that Bazant knows a ton more than you about structural engineering & collapse? Sorry. It's the truth.

Then I said "you were wrong" about something. Engineers don't have hissy fits about that. They address the issue.

I asked you several questions that were directly pertinent to the comments that you made.

You replied to none of them.

I've now asked you dozens of engineering questions. I don't recall you answering any of them.

I've been getting the feeling that you're not really an engineer, oz.

C'mon, help me out. Allay my suspicions. Answer a few questions.

Like an engineer would. Simply. Directly. No drama.


tom

tfk

I don't join in the games you practice of shifting goalposts, firing off insults and getting people to answer your loaded questions.

In fact I am stretching my normal rules of engagement by even bothering to explain my position. I usually only respond to relevant on-topic discussion material and ignore the padding of insults and personal denigration. So you can take it that I have the measure of your tactics and that it is very unlikely that I will be drawn in by them.

For your information and anyone else who could get caught by only reading a couple of recent posts. In recent days you asked me two serious questions and I responded with serious answers to both. You ignored both responses. So if nothing flows from serious responses what price this last couple of posts which flow from a light hearted comment that I made and your decision to use it as a launching pad for insults.

Cheers.

 

[femr2]

Maybe if you're delusional.

Where was the actual initial failure for WTC 1 ?

NIST> femr with his hands waving and no paper.

Draft study included above. NIST selected incorrect trajectory and orientation for WTC2 impact simulation.

we

That must be the Royal we.

Bazant, his education, his experience and technical expertise>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than you and your laughable sub pixel tracing crapola.

Two very different things. Your place is rather dictated by your use of multiple ">"'s, imo.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Where was the actual initial failure for WTC 1 ?

Unfought fires and damage from impact, created local failures in the vicinity of the jet crash. Read the NIST report.

Draft study included above. NIST selected incorrect trajectory and orientation for WTC2 impact simulation.

LOL, your assertion that the plane might have entered the building on a slightly different trajectory changes nothing. Focusing on impertinent minutia like this is why no one takes you seriously.

That must be the Royal we.

Yes "we" would like to know how the pod investigation is coming, did it get bogged down as badly as this one?

Two very different things. Your place is rather dictated by your use of multiple ">"'s, imo.

Yes I know two VERY different things.

I'll put it in terms you might better understand.

I can claim that David Gilmour makes mistakes when he plays guitar. In fact on his latest release he makes multiple errors.

I can then claim to know more about the guitar than Mr. Gilmour and be able to comprise better solos than him. In fact I think he's a fool.

How can I possibly do this? David Gilmour is a world renowned guitar player, who's been playing the instrument since he was twelve, has numerous critically acclaimed recordings and is immensely respected by his peers.

Well I'll tell you how, I was given the latest version of GUITAR HERO as a birthday present and after much dedication and practice... VIOLA! I'm a guitar virtuoso!!!

So now I run off to tell all my little friends how great I am at the guitar, not only that, but I tell David Gimour fans that he sucks as a guitar player and I'm just as good as he is if not better.

They ask me quite perturbed: If you're such a great guitar player, why have we never heard of you, why haven't you recorded anything, when will you be releasing some music?

I turn to them and say: I've never recorded a thing and don't plan on doing so, but if you want to see my chops, come over for a game of ROCK BAND!!!




Maybe now the absurdity of what you're doing might register, though somehow I doubt it.

 

[Telltale Tom]

The ae911truth proof of CD shows that there were explosive at every level immediately before the collapse and that this blast wave of explosions occurred immediately before the collapse wave. Just look at the Truth on our web site.

So the large sheets of debris just prove that some of the explosives didn't go off.

 

[femr2]

Unfought fires and damage from impact, created local failures in the vicinity of the jet crash. Read the NIST report.

You have not answered the question.
Again, where was the actual initial failure for WTC 1 ?

LOL, your assertion that the plane might have entered the building on a slightly different trajectory changes nothing.

Nonsense. At the very simplest level, it changes the impact orientation and trajectory, of course. Also, of course, the damage caused by that impact is affected. Impact damage assessment is therefore also much less valid than it could have been if it wasn't for the pathetic input values used at step 1. Very poor.

I was given the latest version of GUITAR HERO as a birthday present and after much dedication and practice... VIOLA! I'm a guitar virtuoso!!!

Grow up.