Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[beachnut]

ROFL. Don't you know ?

Hope this helps you...

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

... ).

Wow, a wiki-engineer.
911 Truth University, an extension of wikipedia U., the school for on-line experts majoring in 911 truth. wiki-engineers, the best for critical delusions of paranoid conspiracy theories, specializing in inside job demolitions.

wikipedia, a big reason 911 truth fails to comprehend models and engineering. Bazant' model is looking good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zdeněk_Bažant oops, no wonder 911 Truth wiki trained engineers can't keep up with Bazant; after 9 years, that is the model for failure, 911 truth. It appears understanding Bazant's model is an order magnitude beyond 911 truth.

 

[carlitos]

femr2, if you plan to argue that *creep* is different from "creep," I'd suggest perusing the threads by a guy called Rramjet. They can be found in the General Skepticism and the Paranormal section of the Forum. There you can read how "aliens" are different from aliens.

 

[ergo]

These were large fires. Some of the largest in history. That can be demonstrated objectively.

A couple of pictures (not of the fireball) would suffice. Why is this so hard?

To be fair, Truthorlies posted the best pic of the bunch, which actually shows some kind of significant fire occurring on those floors for at least the moment that the picture was taken.

"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.

LOL. So you compare to another fire that you have no pictures of. It's the 9/11 bedunker invisifires!!

Again, not much point arguing with people who don't know what a massive fire looks like.

 

[grandmastershek]

I love how these guys always parade around the fires from the middle of the night and expect that to be a fair comparison.

 

[tsig]

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

Then trying to hide explosives in the micro inches.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I love how these guys always parade around the fires from the middle of the night and expect that to be a fair comparison.

To borrow a Gravyism: Ergo only exists to me in quoted form.

Until he or anyone else addresses the point that 7 floors covering 43,560ft² were nearly entirely ablaze in one tower, and 6-some in the other (not counting the individual fires on floors above and below the main fire zones), there's nothing to discuss. What other fires are comparable? WTC 7. If you move across the ocean, the Beijing TVCC fire in 2009. Regardless, he can minimize the Twin Tower fires all he wants, but the photographic evidence alone, available in abundance on the web, defeats the claim. So do the hard figures in NCSTAR 1-5. Those are the pieces of evidence that must be addressed.

 

[newton3376]

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.

Agreed...

BTW...what branch were you in? I'm also ex military....

 

[Dave Rogers]

Does the above look about right? I think I am getting the hang of it.

You forgot to post an animated GIF with no explanatory text.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

A couple of pictures (not of the fireball) would suffice. Why is this so hard?

To be fair, Truthorlies posted the best pic of the bunch, which actually shows some kind of significant fire occurring on those floors for at least the moment that the picture was taken.



LOL. So you compare to another fire that you have no pictures of. It's the 9/11 bedunker invisifires!!

Again, not much point arguing with people who don't know what a massive fire looks like.

into vs onto
footprint vs your bs defintion
the images show a massive fire.
center of mass
essentially vs actually

the list keeps on growing stundie I mean Ergo.

I love how you link to a building that is a concrete structure for your example of a massive fire. Gee... I wonder why.

Oh speaking of concrete reinforced buildings, have you figured out why the caracas tower didnt' collapse, but the long steel floored parts did over 2 floors yet?

 

[ozeco41]

Agreed...

BTW...what branch were you in? I'm also ex military....

Part time reservist here ~ 15 years. RAE - "Royal Australian Engineers" which includes the field or combat zone engineers and the construction engineers who theoretically are communication zone types. But both those terms out of date with today's realities of war.

 

[TruthersLie]

To borrow a Gravyism: Ergo only exists to me in quoted form.

Until he or anyone else addresses the point that 7 floors covering 43,560ft² were nearly entirely ablaze in one tower, and 6-some in the other (not counting the individual fires on floors above and below the main fire zones), there's nothing to discuss. What other fires are comparable? WTC 7. If you move across the ocean, the Beijing TVCC fire in 2009. Regardless, he can minimize the Twin Tower fires all he wants, but the photographic evidence alone, available in abundance on the web, defeats the claim. So do the hard figures in NCSTAR 1-5. Those are the pieces of evidence that must be addressed.

Mondo.

I think you are wrong here. The construction and building layout of the cctv tower had a huge interior atrium that was empty. The total ft² was less (IIRC). But because the outer shell went up, it looked much bigger.

and

 

[pgimeno]

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

[qimg]http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5080/northtowerfiregjswtc27c.jpg[/qimg]

tiny fires.

You mean these?

Or these?

Or maybe these?

Yeah, teeny tiny fires.

 

[Obviousman]

Related to this thread: an example of Twoofers eating their young / attacking anyone who does not agree with THEIR own theory.

Stars our favourite buffoon, Unca Fetz.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?6161-Dr.-Judy-Wood-Where-Did-The-Towers-Go

 

[pgimeno]

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

Following your technique of not focusing on the meaning of the example, but in the exactness of the example itself, that question is solved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#Responses_to_the_dilemma

If you manage to see the stupidity of focusing on that, you might manage to see the stupidity of focusing on the speed of the falling apple.

 

[tfk]

femr,

Deceptive ? Nah.

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

*creep* tom

Aaahhhh, I see...

You are now asserting, that you never spent any time looking for creep in the towers. You spent considerable time looking for *creep*, instead.

When you use the word *creep*, you mean anything BUT "creep".

Just as, when you say "scare quotes", you really mean "asterisks".

And when I challenge that you don't know what creep is, and that you don't know how to measure it, you didn't reply "I wasn't talking about real creep, I was talking about "asterisk creep".

Nope. You said:

Incorrect.

Sure thing. THAT explanation is believable.
___

I was talking to P4T about creep.
When I say "creep", I mean "creep". Real creep, the way that any engineer or dictionary would define the word.
I don't mean "asterisk creep".

Therefore your new dance begs one point.

Since only you know that "asterisk creep" is different than "real creep", then WHY THE HELL did you bring "asterisk creep" into my discussion with P4T about real creep?
___

Maybe there are still a couple of fools reading these posts who haven't yet caught on to your "unique" use of the language.

Maybe there are a couple of credulous neophytes, like P4T, who read your claim to have "searched for *creep* and found very little", but who don't have the history with you to know that, in your elastic definition of honesty, you believe you've made no assertion about "creep".

Maybe nobody can trust your sentences to mean what they appear to mean. Perhaps whenever anyone reads anything you write, they DAMN WELL better go back over everything you've ever written on the subject to see if there are scare quotes or scare asterisks around each & every significant word used in the last 4 days or so.

Or maybe there is a much simpler explanation: You made up a bald-faced lie, claiming to have some data, and when challenged to produce it, you could not. And are now forced to wriggle like a worm on a hook.

Yeah, femr, I've got history with you.
Therefore I know EXACTLY why you use words the way that you do.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Mondo.

I think you are wrong here. The construction and building layout of the cctv tower had a huge interior atrium that was empty. The total ft² was less (IIRC). But because the outer shell went up, it looked much bigger.

It's entirely possible that I am. I can't find any references to interior floor area for the TVCC (although, ironically, I ended up being awash in references to how much was available in the CCTV. Curse you, Beijing bureaucrats, for making research hard!!

). So I'm not sure how actual floor areas in terms of m²/ft²/whatever² compare. Regardless, both were pretty damn big fires. If anyone has any square footage data for the CCTV that would make comparison valid - and I'm talking the CCTV, aka "The Boot", and a figure that's not based on the completed tower but what was actually finished when it caught fire - then I'm definitely interested.

My point, though, is that even if one fire is bigger than the other, it doesn't make the other small in the absolute sense. That's like arguing that K2 is "small" because Everest is larger; it's a completely stupid argument to make.

 

[TruthersLie]

It's entirely possible that I am. I can't find any references to interior floor area for the TVCC (although, ironically, I ended up being awash in references to how much was available in the CCTV. Curse you, Beijing bureaucrats, for making research hard!! [qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/fist4su.gif[/qimg]). So I'm not sure how actual floor areas in terms of m²/ft²/whatever² compare. Regardless, both were pretty damn big fires. If anyone has any square footage data for the CCTV that would make comparison valid - and I'm talking the CCTV, aka "The Boot", and a figure that's not based on the completed tower but what was actually finished when it caught fire - then I'm definitely interested.

My point, though, is that even if one fire is bigger than the other, it doesn't make the other small in the absolute sense. That's like arguing that K2 is "small" because Everest is larger; it's a completely stupid argument to make.

Just pointing out that 5 or 6 floors in wtc towers was OMG huge (even if ergo wishes it wasn't). And that I dont' think there is any valid comparsion between cctv tower in beijing (different construction, different design) and not allowing truthers to even try to bring in to any discussion of the fires at wtc1 and 2.

that is all.

 

[femr2]

Aaahhhh, I see...

I doubt it.

You are now asserting, that you never spent any time looking for creep in the towers.

Incorrect. As you well know I've spent lots of time looking for evidence of creep, both in terms of it's previous *evidential form*...progressive tilt, and in terms of extremely fine displacement of building features over time.

You spent considerable time looking for *creep*, instead.

You could say so, yes. Looking for per-element creep behaviour would be a little silly, so looking for the *effect* of *progressive creep* over *time* is the next best thing in terms of extracting data from the visual record. You do get yourself all confused when you switch *pedantic* to high volume

When you use the word *creep*, you mean anything BUT "creep".

Incorrect.

Just as, when you say "scare quotes", you really mean "asterisks".

The issue is your anal penchant for the utterly pedantic word-play tedium. Hence when using the word *creep* I made a point of highlighting the word. Pretty easy to understand really, unless you are you and need another excuse to not answer a simple question by deflecting onto ridiculously banal nit-picking about use of language

Since only you know that "asterisk creep" is different than "real creep", then WHY THE HELL did you bring "asterisk creep" into my discussion with P4T about real creep?

Because you said....

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

...to which I responded thusly...

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

...and various flavours of the same question, that question being namely...

NIST predict traceable levels of displacement, like...

...and with long timescale traces I have found no gradual motion until the final 9.5s.

Soooo....

Do you think that the enormously increased rate of creep you mentioned applies only from 9.5s in advance of release ?

Or at what point do you suggest the enourmously increased rate of creep began ?

(It's not difficult, unless you don't want to answer for some reason )

Or maybe there is a much simpler explanation: You made up a bald-faced lie, claiming to have some data, and when challenged to produce it, you could not. And are now forced to wriggle like a worm on a hook.

ROFL. Some of the data (especially the 9.5s motion data) has been available for looong time tom. Silly boy.

Yeah, femr, I've got history with you.
Therefore I know EXACTLY why you use words the way that you do.

You are full of it tom. The history is indeed set in print, and in stone. Whether you think so or not, you should be qukite embarrassed about it. The one thing you have achieved most conclusively is confirmed your regularly self-asserted status of being *an old fart*.

Have a nice day.

 

[Major_Tom]

Femr: "The history is indeed set in print, and in stone."

The written word is a wonderful thing. There is no need to rely on memory when we have it all recorded.

It's a good thing, too, because if we needed to rely on memory, we'd be destined to move in circles..

 

[newton3376]

So when will femr2 post his creep data?

Or "creep" data?

Or *creep* data?

Will it be anytime this year?