Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[ozeco41]

In Trutherbot language they are error codes:

Run
Out of
Functional
Logic

What about ROFLMAO?

 

[Myriad]

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.

Correct. But overload caused by what? Answer: redistribution of load as a result of other members that were weakened, distorted, and/or forced out of position by mechanical damage, creep, elastic strain, and heat.

And "that failure" remains as only a small contributor to the failure, which much as you want to dismiss this fact as irrelevant and focus only on the final few seconds as if that were the only time anything worth noting was happening, was a systems failure that began with the plane crashes.

Which is why the question of whether the first columns to "release" had damaged insulation or not, that you were harping on (I didn't have to read your mind, I read your post) is irrelevant. "What broke first?" "What's on second." "who's on second?" "Who's on first." "I don't know." "He's on third." A meaningless question for which a meaningless answer more than suffices.

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

I'd love fine details, but they don't exist. And I won't accept imaginative amateur interpretations of un-peer-reviewed video smoke-puff tea leaf reading as a substitute.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[rwguinn]

http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif

What about ROFLMAO?

Really
Odd
******-**
Loud
Mis-placed
Assumption
Override

 

[femr2]

And "that failure" remains as only a small contributor to the failure, which much as you want to dismiss this fact as irrelevant and focus only on the final few seconds as if that were the only time anything worth noting was happening, was a systems failure that began with the plane crashes.

I'm not dismissing ought, no matter what assumptions you may make. I would have thought that even you, respectfully, would be more than aware that I'm interested in the actual initiation behaviour/sequence/...

I'd love fine details, but they don't exist. And I won't accept imaginative amateur interpretations of un-peer-reviewed video smoke-puff tea leaf reading as a substitute.

What interpretation are you referring to exactly ?

Oh, and howsabout...

3. Collapse Initiation
• The inward bowing of the south wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire south face.
• The south wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent east and west walls.

...etc ?

You're okay with that description of chicken-and-egg ?

 

[rwguinn]

I'm not dismissing ought, no matter what assumptions you may make. I would have thought that even you, respectfully, would be more than aware that I'm interested in the actual initiation behaviour/sequence/...


What interpretation are you referring to exactly ?

Oh, and howsabout...

...etc ?

You're okay with that description of chicken-and-egg ?

Since collapse didn't begin until the sonofabitch had been burning for damn near an hour, nothing at all wrong with that description. The South wall couldn't bear the load, and there was no where for it to go that could handle it.

 

[ozeco41]

Really
Odd
******-**
Loud
Mis-placed
Assumption
Override

Well done and thank you. Great to see a little bit of occasional levity.

My other regular forum would not need the asterisks.

Meanwhile back to the technical stuff....

 

[tfk]

femr,

Thanks for the demonstration of how fundamentally, predictably deceptive you are.

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.
…

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

"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."

There is no other interpretation for these words than "I measured creep."

There is no valid way to make this assertion unless one measures creep.

And, knowing you, I invite you post your creep data. The creep data that YOU claim "shows that creep begins only 9.5 seconds before release".

And, to absolutely no surprise, you have no creep data at all.

Doesn't stop you from making baseless assertions, tho…

"Incompetent AND deceptive."

MMMMMmmmmm, what a combination.

 

[ProBonoShill]

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.

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

Let my try my hand at femr debating



OK..



Incorrect


Nonsense



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


False



Incorrect



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!

That pretty much sums up this entire thread.

 

[ozeco41]

Okay.....someone please correct me if I am wrong here...
...Eventually we get a runaway system of failures that ultimately results in the collapse of the building. A

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

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

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

Ooops. I nearly missed this one.

Yes you are correct with a couple of not so minor exceptions.

So:
A Correct.
B Correct unless:

1. You have a personal technical interest in the minor details which are not necessarily of any interest to the rest of us; OR
2. You have a personal goal of "Prove NIST wrong" - whether as a stand alone ego trip or as underpinning the next option; OR
3. You want to challenge "A" which implicitly says "no human assistance, CD, demolition or MIHOP" and you want to reopen that debate.

C Correct and that systemic global perspective is good enough for most of us. It will not be good enough for those in the minority who fit one or more of B 1, 2 or 3.

Then if you want to drive some of us ex military types bonkers don't specify your objective up front and deny that there is an implicit objective even if not stated.

 

[femr2]

Thanks for the demonstration of how fundamentally, predictably deceptive you are.

Deceptive ? Nah.

"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."

There is no other interpretation for these words than "I measured creep."

Can you think of any reason why I made the point of surrounding the word *creep* with, what is the phrase...scare quotes ?

We've had long discussions in the past about your assertions that progressive tilt was detectable for both WTC 1 and WTC 2. Not detectable, and not expected to be.

We'va had discussions about the NIST displacement diagrams, which contain scales of displacment well above that which is detectable with the trace procedures you're becoming familiar with.

*creep* tom

And as I've said also repeatedly, detectable motion 9.5s before release. No scare quotes there

Now, yet again tom...

In what timeframe are you stating the enormously increased rate of creep you spoke of began ?

What rate ?

etc...

 

[ProBonoShill]

femr,

Thanks for the demonstration of how fundamentally, predictably deceptive you are.




"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."

There is no other interpretation for these words than "I measured creep."

There is no valid way to make this assertion unless one measures creep.

And, knowing you, I invite you post your creep data. The creep data that YOU claim "shows that creep begins only 9.5 seconds before release".

And, to absolutely no surprise, you have no creep data at all.

Doesn't stop you from making baseless assertions, tho…

"Incompetent AND deceptive."

MMMMMmmmmm, what a combination.

I think it's pretty obvious femr confused movement with creep.

You've made him look silly, yet again.

Momentum also befuddles him, as do Bazant's models and NIST.

Those pods on the planes were really puzzling too, but don't worry he's just a few pixels away from proving inside jobby job.

 

[LightningTeg]

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 number of floors each containing 40,000 square feet of office space filled with paper/plastic/carpeting burning uncontrolled is not a massive fire?

 

[rwguinn]

A number of floors each containing 40,000 square feet of office space filled with paper/plastic/carpeting burning uncontrolled is not a massive fire?

You seem to somehow been registered for Post-Doctorial Truthiness, without having fulfilled the prerequisites.
But don't worry-if you have with the sense to understand F=M*d²x/dt², you will pick it up very quickly

 

[Sunstealer]

I wonder if femr2 could tell us what the 3 stages of creep are and what the main mechanisms for creep are. Just to show us he knows what creep is.

 

[rwguinn]

I think it's pretty obvious femr confused movement with creep.

You've made him look silly, yet again.

Momentum also befuddles him, as do Bazant's models and NIST.

Those pods on the planes were really puzzling too, but don't worry he's just a few pixels away from proving inside jobby job.

I notice that any dynamics seems to befuddle him.
No comments on the transient response situation...

 

[femr2]

I wonder if femr2 could tell us what the 3 stages of creep are and what the main mechanisms for creep are. Just to show us he knows what creep is.

ROFL. Don't you know ?

Hope this helps you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)

There's all these funny shaped things there. Words I think someone called them. I've been told by many folk around here that I can't read, so maybe you can make head or tail of the squiggles eh ?

Oh wait, the mists are clearing...I see the words...investigoogle....google-fu...

I suggest tfk simply answers the question, rather than endless deflection (no pun intended).

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There seems to be some confusion on the part of conspiracy peddlers on just how large the fires were (or as they claim, weren't). It is not correct to claim they were small in any fashion, and saying "few floors burned in various places" is a complete mischaracterization. A reminder:

• On the North Tower, there were fires shown on all four faces of the tower across 6 floors, 5 of them adjacent ones.
  
  
  
  
  
• On the South Tower, there were fires observed on three of the four faces of the tower 7 floors, 3 of them adjacent.
  
  

Quantitatively, it is easily demonstrated that the fires were large.





Simple eyeball tests also show that the fires were large.

• WTC-2, very soon after impact.
  
  
  
  
• Both towers, soon after the South Tower impact.
  
  

To say that only a "few floors burned in various places" with the goal of minimizing the size of the fires, the claimant would have to support the following:

1. That "various places" equaled anywhere upwards of one quarter (in the least involved areas) to nearly all of any given floor in the fire zones.
2. That fires large enough to be seen on all sides of one tower, and 3 out of 4 sides of another, are merely "various places". As a reminder: The floors were an acre in area. For a square building, that means each side was just a touch over 208 feet in length. Or in terms of a more easily recognizable unit, 43,560 ft².
3. That fires encompassing all the contents of the various offices in those 43,560ft² area - again, covering 7 and 6 floors respectively, represented just a "few floors (burning) in various places".

These were large fires. Some of the largest in history. That can be demonstrated objectively. "Massive" is indeed a term that can be applied to them, no question. They were only eclipsed later that day by the 7 World Trade Center fires. It is dishonest to characterize them as small, regardless of what phrase is utilized to minimize their size.

 

[TruthersLie]

Okay.



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

It is speculation... Here is the easiest way for you to prove your case. remmber burden of proof is on da twoof. Find fireproofing that will withstand a 100 Ton bullet strike at 500 mph at any distance that matches the footprint of the towers.

I'll wait for it.

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.

I'm so glad there were no massive fires that ran across multiple floors that was visible from multiple sides of the building.

tiny fires.

as we can see how small those fires were.... they were only "loose" pockets of fire. It is amazing how anyone could be such a pussy and not just walk out past those fires. Or better yet people in the towers should have been able to put them out with hand held extinguishers... sheesh what pussies.

Still waiting for you to explain center of mass
provide a citation for the entire "footprint" fiasco
show us that you understand the difference between onto and into
show us what crushed that car.

As arguments from (intense) ignorance and incredulity go, yours are rather bland.

 

[Myriad]

I'm not dismissing ought, no matter what assumptions you may make. I would have thought that even you, respectfully, would be more than aware that I'm interested in the actual initiation behaviour/sequence/...

I'm aware that that's what you claim. But I don't think it's true, or more precisely, I don't see any reason to believe your interest arises from genuine scientific or historical curiosity. Subtle little absurdly obvious clues, like your YouTube videos being titled "WTC Demolition," tell me otherwise. My working hypothesis is that you are instead merely fishing for further opportunities for seditious innuendo.

Not that I mind (I don't think sedition is even a crime any more, and if it is it's one of those quaint half-forgotten laws like spitting on the sidewalk.) I just don't want you to think you've actually fooled me just because I've occasionally played along with the charade.

What interpretation are you referring to exactly ?

All that I've seen so far of the form "X feature of a video image appeared to move in Y way in a certain frame, therefore the collapse process must have had internal feature Z."

Oh, and howsabout...

...etc ?

You're okay with that description of chicken-and-egg ?

Why would I not be? And what do you mean chicken-and-egg?

You do know that in the real world chickens really do come from eggs, and eggs really do come from chickens, so the question of which comes first (to the extent that it is meaningful at all) does ultimately come down to arbitrary definitions as they apply to a distant past evolutionary event, right?

Similarly in a real system undergoing real failure, deterioration of the condition of element A really can cause deterioration of the condition of element B, and at the same time deterioration of the condition of element B really can cause additional deterioration of the condition of element A, so the question of which caused which (to the extent that is is meaningful at all) does ultimately come down to arbitrary definitions as they apply to the earliest stages of the overall failure event.

If that's what you mean by a chicken-and-egg explanation, then I am not only okay with it, I expect it. While a summary phrased as "A caused B caused C" might help children or laymen understand the broad outlines of an event, I know that in real scenarios causes and effects are not at all likely to be that linear or distinct. I blame history curricula for teaching history based to an unwarranted extent on chronological narratives in textbooks. Chronology is rarely if ever a sufficient tool for assessing causation.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[rwguinn]

Ooops. I nearly missed this one.

Yes you are correct with a couple of not so minor exceptions.

So:
A Correct.
B Correct unless:

1. You have a personal technical interest in the minor details which are not necessarily of any interest to the rest of us; OR
2. You have a personal goal of "Prove NIST wrong" - whether as a stand alone ego trip or as underpinning the next option; OR
3. You want to challenge "A" which implicitly says "no human assistance, CD, demolition or MIHOP" and you want to reopen that debate.

C Correct and that systemic global perspective is good enough for most of us. It will not be good enough for those in the minority who fit one or more of B 1, 2 or 3.

Then if you want to drive some of us ex military types bonkers don't specify your objective up front and deny that there is an implicit objective even if not stated.

You comments on (B) are correct, but that does not overcome the fact that most, if not all, of the minor details are not only unknown, but unknowable from the available data.
There is no person, or computer, which can read 12 place accuracy from 2 place data.
femer2 and his ilk are reading pixels, from a copy of a copy (at least) with a resolution of a foot and spouting microinches at us