Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[ProBonoShill]

First we have a post by an engineer that is well thought out and easy to understand.

Then we have a reply that ignores most of that post, dodges the request made in that post and is clouded by irrelevant nonsense making it almost unreadable.

Wash, rinse and repeat for 100 pages.

Save us the time femr, just write a book, here i have a working title for you:

Pods and Pixels, How I Solved 9/11

 

[rwguinn]

looks to me like femr2 has never seen a lightly-damped 0.091 Hz response to an impulse plot before...

 

[twinstead]

looks to me like femr2 has never seen a lightly-damped 0.091 Hz response to an impulse plot before...

I don't know what this means, but it sounds like it ROCKS!

 

[newton3376]

Okay.....someone please correct me if I am wrong here...

The way I am seeing it what is important is that we KNOW some of the fire insulation was removed upon impact, some structural members were damaged, and massive fires were started.

Knowing exactly where each and every event occurs seems to be a detail that we do not need to make a general conclusion.

The general conclusion is, as far as I can tell, that the system failed eventually and that failure was a combination of the three events listed above.

Structural members were damaged which would cause a load redistribution in the overall system.

Fire insulation was removed and massive fires were started which would cause various structural members to weaken even more and would continue the load redistribution throughout the system.

Eventually we get a runaway system of failures that ultimately results in the collapse of the building.

Knowing the exact details of every single event is not possible nor is it necessary to understand what happened.

We need to analyze the structure as a system of interconnected members where local failures eventually cascade in a global failure.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here......

 

[rwguinn]

Okay.....someone please correct me if I am wrong here...

The way I am seeing it what is important is that we KNOW some of the fire insulation was removed upon impact, some structural members were damaged, and massive fires were started.

Knowing exactly where each and every event occurs seems to be a detail that we do not need to make a general conclusion.

The general conclusion is, as far as I can tell, that the system failed eventually and that failure was a combination of the three events listed above.

Structural members were damaged which would cause a load redistribution in the overall system.

Fire insulation was removed and massive fires were started which would cause various structural members to weaken even more and would continue the load redistribution throughout the system.

Eventually we get a runaway system of failures that ultimately results in the collapse of the building.

Knowing the exact details of every single event is not possible nor is it necessary to understand what happened.

We need to analyze the structure as a system of interconnected members where local failures eventually cascade in a global failure.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here......

No correction needed.
Not enough computer power in the world to look under every mouse turd.

 

[twinstead]

Unless one is a conspiracy theorist, then it's necessary to keep looking under every mouse turd to keep the debate going.

 

[ergo]

Okay.....someone please correct me if I am wrong here...

Okay.

The way I am seeing it what is important is that we KNOW some of the fire insulation was removed upon impact,

No, you don't KNOW this. It is speculation.

some structural members were damaged, and massive fires were started.

Massive fires were not started. A fireball occurred from the initial burning of the jet fuel; after that, a few floors burned in various places. A massive fire would be visible from one or more sides of the building for the duration of its burning, like we see in some of the other buildings that day, and in building fires that can actually be described as massive.

So you are wrong right off the bat. As most of you are.

 

[carlitos]

A massive fire might even have a miles-long smoke plume visible from space...

 

[twinstead]

ergo you can't hand wave everything away as "speculation". The commonly-held opinion by experts is that the fire insulation was removed upon impact, and others, namely Quintere, suggest that the buildings would have fallen even if the insulation was NOT removed on impact.

The fires were massive. Those who were there that day as well as countless images and videos support that.

So, your objections are noted and rejected. Thanks for playing.

 

[DGM]

Okay.



No, you don't KNOW this. It is speculation.



Massive fires were not started. A fireball occurred from the initial burning of the jet fuel; after that, a few floors burned in various places. A massive fire would be visible from one or more sides of the building for the duration of its burning, like we see in some of the other buildings that day, and in building fires that can actually be described as massive.

So you are wrong right off the bat. As most of you are.

What's that saying again.............oh yah


Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Carll68]

Let my try my hand at femr debating

Okay.....someone please correct me if I am wrong here.

OK..

The way I am seeing it what is important is that we KNOW some of the fire insulation was removed upon impact, some structural members were damaged, and massive fires were started.

Incorrect

Knowing exactly where each and every event occurs seems to be a detail that we do not need to make a general conclusion.

Nonsense

The general conclusion is, as far as I can tell, that the system failed eventually and that failure was a combination of the three events listed above.

Structural members were damaged which would cause a load redistribution in the overall system.

ROFL. Look at my pixel chart (insert grainy nonsensical pixel chart with colorful lines here)

Fire insulation was removed and massive fires were started which would cause various structural members to weaken even more and would continue the load redistribution throughout the system.

False

Eventually we get a runaway system of failures that ultimately results in the collapse of the building.

Knowing the exact details of every single event is not possible nor is it necessary to understand what happened.

Incorrect

We need to analyze the structure as a system of interconnected members where local failures eventually cascade in a global failure.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here......

ROFL. Look at my pixel chart (insert grainy nonsensical pixel chart with colorful lines here) Once again, Newton, you are wrong.


Have A Nice Day


Does the above look about right? I think I am getting the hang of it. Stunning debate tactic!

 

[newton3376]

Okay.

I actually only wanted COMPETENT people to reply....perhaps I should have been clearer....

No, you don't KNOW this. It is speculation.

Um....a PLANE crashed into the building. It's not speculation.

Massive fires were not started. A fireball occurred from the initial burning of the jet fuel; after that, a few floors burned in various places. A massive fire would be visible from one or more sides of the building for the duration of its burning, like we see in some of the other buildings that day, and in building fires that can actually be described as massive.

Wow....delusions really are difficult to debate with. I recommend professional help.....seriously.

So you are wrong right off the bat. As most of you are.

Wow....

So this is what you claim....

1. It's "speculation" to say that the impact of a really large plane traveling at 400+ mph would strip fire insulation off.

2. There were not massive fires started in the towers on 9/11.


If you deny reality right off the bat then I simply can't help you.

 

[femr2]

Not really. They undoubtedly lost their insulation, but as they also failed simultaneously, the insulation loss on those particular members probably had little effect.

Undoubtedly ? Which members are you referring to ?

I know, that's not what you really meant by "initial failure." But that was the initial failure in actual fact. And that's important.

But you do know what I meant, members leading release, so...

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

Only to the mechanically incompetent.

...do you have an opinion upon which members led release ? Some severed upon impact, fine, others led release. Whereabouts ? WTC1 South perimeter ? What floor ?

Has to be describable as starting somewhere. I'm aware of your prior responses on the topic.

As long as you keep thinking of the collapse initiation as a race between isolated individual pieces to see which broke first, rather than as just one stage of an ongoing systems failure

Don't presume to read minds please. NIST think WTC1 south perimeter. Do you agree, or not ? Generalisations, sure, but if it's okay for the goose...

you will continue to exhibit confused thinking, such as claiming "WHERE was the insulation removed -versus- where was the initial failure is what is on the table, for WTC 1."

Not confused thinking at all. If the members which failed first still had intact insulation and were not themselves weakened from heat, then that failure would be from overload only.

If you don't want to tie yourself to fine details, don't.

 

[tfk]

femr,

Were the members at the location of initial failure affected by loss of insulation, or not ?
Where was the initial failure for WTC 1 ?

blah, blah, blah…
Irrelevant.
You claimed you've measured creep data. Just post it for however long you have it. At least the last 40 minutes before collapse will do.

Creep on vertical axis and time on horizontal axis.

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/5/2857921.png
Shrapnel ? Want to rephrase that ?

Nah, the meaning is clear.

Still using inaccurate figures I see.

Nope. Using the best data possible. Gathered, analyzed, published & reviewed by professionals.

Where ? South Face only ? Which columns ? Which beams ?

See, told ya you are clueless when it comes to mechanics.

Where does the impulse have to pass thru the insulation on its way to the columns? EVERYWHERE. The only exception is the impact impulse that is transmitted from the wrecked remains of the concrete floors directly to the columns. I don't imagine that there was any insulation in that gap.

No twisting tom. WHERE was the insulation removed -versus- where was the initial failure is what is on the table, for WTC 1. Why do you try and shift the goalposts so primitively ? It's not like it's hard to spot.

blah, blah, blah…

I know what you're going to say. It's irrelevant.

Post your creep curves, please.

ROFL. The NIST impact simulations result in damage ESTIMATES. aka speculative.

You butt into others' conversation, and prove that you can't read.

I explained to P4T that the physical damage from the plane impact distinguished the WTC Tower incident from other "pure fires".

Your ignorant ass claimed that "the physical damage was purely speculative".

Now you start ancing about "which column"…?!!

LMAO. It's completely irrelevant where the plane crashed into the tower. Massive damage results.

You creep curves, please.

But you do know they messed up for WTC2, as I've shown you

Irrelevant.
You creep curves, please.

You keep avoiding the question.
Motion of features on WTC1 transitions from *none* to *significant* roughly 9.5s in advance of release.

"Motion" is not the same as "creep".

You creep curves, please.

So lets try and get some kind of an answer from you...

You stated enormously increased rate of creep...

When does that apply from ? A time after impact fro WTC1, or a time before release is fine.

What scale is your suggested enormously increased rate of creep over ?

(NIST have some disgrams you will probably want to refer to ?)

"… blah, blah, blah …"

You jumped into a conversation. You claimed to have measured creep. You made claims about data that you say you've already gathered.

Let's see the data that you claim you already have.

You creep curves, please.
Or be shown to be a) a liar or not having the data, or b) totally incompetent, because the data will have nothing to do with creep.

Thereby confirming my statement that you neither know what creep is nor how to measure it.

I'm guessing "b)".

Your creep curves, please.

 

[beachnut]

... Massive fires were not started. A fireball ...


be described as massive.

... wrong right off the bat. As most of you are.

What a coincidence 911 truth doesn't do differential equations or understand Bazant's model too. Your 911 truth buddies have delusions on 911 and share your ignorance with models.

10,000 gallons of accelerant? Would fire fighters say 10,000 gallons of accelerant would start massive office fires in a building whose fire systems had been compromised and destroyed? Are you making fun of 911 truth? Are you making fun of people burning, being killed, and jumping? Are you giving your terrorists friends a pass on killing?

Fires that can be seen from earth orbit, are not massive, you are correct, they are once in a life time tragic, as they killed people. Ironically brought on by your friends terrorists, you now apologize for due your moronic delusions on 911. The fires were not as massive, as 911 truth's ignorance on 911. ..., are you always this right?

A fireball? Not massive? The impact, E=1/2mv², over 2,000 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy, is massive, the fire ball was massive, and the fires were massive. The reason other building don't fall in fire is caused by firefighters! They put water on the fire. 911 truth doesn't do fire science.

911 truth can't do math, so they can't check my work. Here is part of the heat energy of 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, in the form of a jet fuel fireball, which happens in high speed collisions where the engines are running. If you know you are going to crash, turn off your engines before impact to reduce the possibility of fire. The terrorists, you give a pass for, did this on purpose, they are murderers you have decided to ignore and apologize for, and now you ignore fire. The heat energy of the jet fuel injected in the core of the WTC was equal to 315 TONS of TNT. The best part, 911 truth can't check my math, like they can't check Bazant's math in his model. Failure is 911 truth, at least you are keeping up your end. Add fire, to 911 truth's don't do list.

You don't have a bat. 911 truth has no bat, only lies. There is no off the bat, 911 truth forfeited on 911.

You don't do models.

 

[femr2]

You claimed you've measured creep data. Just post it for however long you have it. At least the last 40 minutes before collapse will do.

Creep on vertical axis and time on horizontal axis.

Nope. Dig yourself out of the hole you've dug yourself.

Nope. Using the best data possible. Gathered, analyzed, published & reviewed by professionals.

ROFL. Noted. (500,000 ton building to sway about 27" to the north, and to rotate around its vertical axis. <<< tfk best data possible, gathered analysed, published and reviewed by professionals)

Where does the impulse have to pass thru the insulation on its way to the columns? EVERYWHERE.

ROFL. Changing the scope again tfk. You are a funny man. Transparent, but funny.

Post your creep curves, please.

ROFL. You're appealing to my authority. Nice.

LMAO. It's completely irrelevant where the plane crashed into the tower. Massive damage results.

ROFL. Noted.

You creep curves, please.

Dig yourself out of your own hole tom.

"Motion" is not the same as "creep".

Who said it was ?

You creep curves, please.

Obsessed, much ? You're making me blush. People will talk. lol.

You made claims about data that you say you've already gathered.

That's right. Easily detectable motion of multiple WTC1 features beginning 9.5s in advance of release.

And the question I've asked you several times now...

the enormously increased rate of creep because of the high stress levels

...at what timeframe are you stating this enormously increased rate of creep began ?

You creep curves, please.

LOL. x

Or be shown to be a) a liar or not having the data, or b) totally incompetent, because the data will have nothing to do with creep.

I've repeatedly mentioned some NIST diagrams to you tfk. Now, bearing in mind that if they didn't write it, you don't know about it, no, you can do without my data for now.

The only claim I've made is about movement becoming easily detectable 9.5s in advance of release. You have a problem with that ? Well, boo hoo I can confirm the assertion, what's your problem ?

At what timeframe are you stating this enormously increased rate of creep began ?

 

[DGM]

Nope

ROFL.

Come on now, Are you two secretly married? You know a Mr & Mrs Smith* thing.







*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._&_Mrs._Smith_(2005_film)

 

[femr2]

Come on now, Are you two secretly married? You know a Mr & Mrs Smith* thing.

He loves me really

 

[tsig]

Nope. Dig yourself out of the hole you've dug yourself.


ROFL. Noted. (500,000 ton building to sway about 27" to the north, and to rotate around its vertical axis. <<< tfk best data possible, gathered analysed, published and reviewed by professionals)


ROFL. Changing the scope again tfk. You are a funny man. Transparent, but funny.


ROFL. You're appealing to my authority. Nice.


ROFL. Noted.


Dig yourself out of your own hole tom.


Who said it was ?


Obsessed, much ? You're making me blush. People will talk. lol.


That's right. Easily detectable motion of multiple WTC1 features beginning 9.5s in advance of release.

And the question I've asked you several times now...

...at what timeframe are you stating this enormously increased rate of creep began ?


LOL. x


I've repeatedly mentioned some NIST diagrams to you tfk. Now, bearing in mind that if they didn't write it, you don't know about it, no, you can do without my data for now.

The only claim I've made is about movement becoming easily detectable 9.5s in advance of release. You have a problem with that ? Well, boo hoo I can confirm the assertion, what's your problem ?

At what timeframe are you stating this enormously increased rate of creep began ?

ROFL and LOL are not logical arguments.

 

[alienentity]

ROFL and LOL are not logical arguments.

In Trutherbot language they are error codes:

Run
Out of
Functional
Logic