Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[LightningTeg]

You mean these?

That just looks hot

 

[tfk]

femr,

And you produce another complete derail from the thread topic. For no particular reason at all.

Reading your posts makes it obvious that you don't know what creep is.

As proof, I invite you to relate to us:

A) what value of creep you think that NIST was claiming in the South & east wall of the (undefined) figure you posted (fig 4-89, NCSTAR1-6D).

B) what value of creep NIST claims was in the same walls at the same time in Fig. 4-123 of the same document.

C) calculate the amount of creep that you say the building underwent during the last 9.5 seconds.

D) compare the A, B & C answers, and explain the differences in the values.
___

The "enormously increased rate of creep" that I was referring to in my post to P4T is simple & clear in the post. It was the greatly increased amount of creep that Bazant described that results from increased stress levels and modest temperature rises.

"… 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 …"

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

The nice thing about materials is that the have no political agenda. They behave fairly consistently, from the test lab to the application. Therefore I believe Bazant's assessment will apply to all structural steel under those conditions, as it was generated by engineers who know what creep really is.

Plus I consider a creep rate that produces a buckling failure in 1 hour instead of 2400 to be "enormously increased".

That's just me...

… 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.

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.

In other words, you just confirmed everything I said from the beginning. You do not look at creep. You can't see creep. You can't measure creep.

You look for what you think is "the *effect* of *progressive creep* over *time*". Presumably displacement and tilt. But it would be asking WAY too much of you to state it clearly, of course.

Just out of curiosity, what features of how many columns did you look at in your analysis?

My best guess is "zero features of zero columns".

Never mind. It just perpetuates your derail.
___

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

Yet you chose to not produce your data, or provide a link to it. In spite of being invited to numerous times.

Typical.

You suggest (without saying, of course. God forbid you ever state anything clearly.) that the 9.5 seconds of building motion just before external collapse initiation is creep.

How amusing...

Stealth data, unlabeled charts, redefined "terms". Yeah, debating you is a real joy...
___

Thanks for proving, once again, that your primary debating tools are obfuscation, uniquely defined terms and games.

Write your paper. Publish your results.

Oh yeah. You're not going to publish anything. Which relegates all of your work to the class called "nonexistent".

Captain Irrelevant strikes again.

Silly boy.

 

[newton3376]

femr,

And you produce another complete derail from the thread topic. For no particular reason at all.

Reading your posts makes it obvious that you don't know what creep is.

As proof, I invite you to relate to us:

A) what value of creep you think that NIST was claiming in the South & east wall of the (undefined) figure you posted (fig 4-89, NCSTAR1-6D).

B) what value of creep NIST claims was in the same walls at the same time in Fig. 4-123 of the same document.

C) calculate the amount of creep that you say the building underwent during the last 9.5 seconds.

D) compare the A, B & C answers, and explain the differences in the values.
___

The "enormously increased rate of creep" that I was referring to in my post to P4T is simple & clear in the post. It was the greatly increased amount of creep that Bazant described that results from increased stress levels and modest temperature rises.

"… 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 …"

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

The nice thing about materials is that the have no political agenda. They behave fairly consistently, from the test lab to the application. Therefore I believe Bazant's assessment will apply to all structural steel under those conditions, as it was generated by engineers who know what creep really is.

Plus I consider a creep rate that produces a buckling failure in 1 hour instead of 2400 to be "enormously increased".

That's just me...



In other words, you just confirmed everything I said from the beginning. You do not look at creep. You can't see creep. You can't measure creep.

You look for what you think is "the *effect* of *progressive creep* over *time*". Presumably displacement and tilt. But it would be asking WAY too much of you to state it clearly, of course.

Just out of curiosity, what features of how many columns did you look at in your analysis?

My best guess is "zero features of zero columns".

Never mind. It just perpetuates your derail.
___



Yet you chose to not produce your data, or provide a link to it. In spite of being invited to numerous times.

Typical.

You suggest (without saying, of course. God forbid you ever state anything clearly.) that the 9.5 seconds of building motion just before external collapse initiation is creep.

How amusing...

Stealth data, unlabeled charts, redefined "terms". Yeah, debating you is a real joy...
___

Thanks for proving, once again, that your primary debating tools are obfuscation, uniquely defined terms and games.

Write your paper. Publish your results.

Oh yeah. You're not going to publish anything. Which relegates all of your work to the class called "nonexistent".

Captain Irrelevant strikes again.

Silly boy.

Good post tfk.....I was somberly reading this reply until I got to this phrase...

Captain Irrelevant strikes again.

lol

And then I was just laughing...I am going to steal that phrase and start using it.....freaking classic.

 

[pgimeno]

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..

Ah, that explains why you guys don't want to publish your studies.

 

[twinstead]

I like it. Captain Irrelevant and his trusted ward Boy Orthogonal to the rescue!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

Oh, yes. Yes. Agreed. Just a small handful of floors from the Twin Towers is easily the size of many other office buildings. It sure as hell is more floor space than where I work, and my workplace is actually spread across multiple adjacent buildings. That says something about the size of the Towers. Yes, I'd never, ever accept anyone characterizing that much volume as "small". You and I both agree that such attempts to distort and mischaracterize should be challenged. It's prima facie stupid to try to paint the Tower fires as such.

Regarding comparisons: I was only comparing the magnitudes of the fires in the Twin Towers and the CCTV building, and only doing in very broad strokes. Yes, I admit that's an unevaluated equality fallacy (to take a concept from Dave Rogers and modify it a bit), but it was an offhand statement that was only trying to recall "large building fires" that were even remotely comparable. It's true that, given the incomplete construction that sheer volume is not comparable since the area as well as the fuel loads are far different. But I wasn't trying to be that detailed. I was looking for a gross comparison alone, and the CCTV building fit (and unhiding his post, I can see that it happened to be the building ergo was referring to anyway, so surprise surprise. He's trying to use it too).

Yes, it's correct that there are no other valid comparisons between the structures, but I want to make clear to other readers here that I wasn't trying to make such comparisons at all. They are completely different from each other. Again: I simply referenced general size, and nothing but. If someone can come up with floor space and combustibles figures that would allow a total volume, or at least a floor space area to be calculated, that would be great, but I don't know if that data's easily available. Regardless, the truther in question obviously doesn't know it either; as conspiracy peddlers are wont to do, he is working off of even more grossly generalized, superficial characteristics than I am. And he's misrepresenting one of them to boot. I doubt he even knows there are fuel load calculations in the NIST reports, and that's every bit as vital a figure to be aware of as sheer area. How many combustibles burnt is key to how large a fire is, but he's not even trying to make a nod towards that concept.

In the end, though, all the rational people here agree: Regardless of attempts to denigrate the size of the Twin Tower fires, and regardless of comparison to the CCTV fires or any others, it is objectively, quantitatively demonstrable that the Twin Tower fires were huge. We don't need pictures to demonstrate that. We have better data: Floor area, number of floors aflame, and fuel load, all of which is published for public consumption in the NIST report (NCSTAR 1-5 and 1-6 plus subreports, specifically). Those are things that illustrate the magnitude of the fires far better than images can (although images of the Tower fires get the point across too). And I think we can all note that no truther who ever argues the fires were small ever tries to do so with figures and facts. They only do so with misrepresentation of quotes (Chief Palmers' statements, anyone?) and insinuation via superficial comparison of images. They don't do so rigorously. And that has been well demonstrated here.

 

[tfk]

This is a classic example of specious truther nit-picking.

What started this derail was P4T oversimplification of the event, arriving at the traditional "steel framed building collapsed from fire" strawman.

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?

I reminded him of additional factors that he was ignoring:

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

Ever vigilant in his Giant Nit Hunt, femr proceeds to claim that the loss of insulation & physical damage are merely "speculative".

And why are they merely speculative?

Because he thinks that the plane hit at a slightly different angle than NIST calculated.

It doesn't get any more clueless than that.

Anyone who sees this:

or this:

… and concludes that physical damage to the building is "speculative" has got more than a few screws loose.

Or is perversely, purposefully argumentative.

Which describes femr to a Major_T.
___

But a close runner-up in the Clueless Derby is the following 8 day bitch-fest. In which femr asserts that, since he can not measure some parameter peripherally related to *non-creep creep*, then real creep did not happen.

I can assure you that ALL A36 structural steel behaves in the same way. It's creep behavior is not optional. If it creeps at that rate, under those temperatures and stress levels in a lab test, then, under the same temp & stress levels [which the columns certainly achieved], it WILL creep at the same rate in the field.

This is the cornerstone of the field of Material Science. If this were not true, then the field of Mechanical Engineering would not exist.

femr, you make such an absurd assertions purely out of your desire to find some Golden Nit that you imagine will unravel the entire NIST report.

Your Quest is futile.

But amusing to watch.

What was it that Major_T just said…

… if we needed to rely on memory, we'd be destined to move in circles..

Circle on, boys…



tk

PS. Oh, almost forgot.

Have a nice day.

 

[carlitos]

tfk - I can't see your images again on 2 different systems.

This guy disproved Bazant's theory:

9/11 Experiment: Egg Drop, Equal Collision disproves Bazant's "Pile Driver" Theory

 

[tfk]

That section should read...

Ever vigilant in his Giant Nit Hunt, femr proceeds to claim that the loss of insulation & physical damage are merely "speculative".

And why are they merely speculative?

Because he thinks that the plane hit at a slightly different angle than NIST calculated.

It doesn't get any more clueless than that.

Anyone who sees this:

or this:

… and concludes that physical damage to the building is "speculative" has got more than a few screws loose.

Or is perversely, purposefully argumentative.

femr was not born a moron. He is not unintelligent.

He does not mean that "the damage is speculative". He means: "NIST's assessment of the exact location of the damage is different than mine."

But he WRITES "the damage is speculative".

And proceeds to get into a 6 day argument about it. All the while, who knows what the hell he really means with any of his sentences.

Then he has his own tortured explanation as to why the words that he wrote mean something different than their literal meaning.

He gets pissed off at me for calling him on being sloppy in his definition & use of words.
I get pissed off at him because there is no telling what the hell he means whenever he writes something.

Sentences don't get any simpler than "physical damage to the building is speculative".
Yet he means nothing of the sort.

This is why it's so ridiculously annoying, and ultimately a colossal waste of time, to try to communicate with him.

 

[femr2]

I consider a creep rate that produces a buckling failure in 1 hour instead of 2400 to be "enormously increased".

Not the question asked, but to interpret...

You think the period of enourmously increased creep applies to...the hour before release ?

If so, then I assume you also agree with the NIST estimated displacements, such as...

femr asserts that, since he can not measure some parameter peripherally related to *non-creep creep*, then real creep did not happen.

Utter crap tom. I've lost count of the number of times you have made the same stupid baseless assertion, and I have responded stating that I'm not saying there was no creep.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach.

He does not mean that "the damage is speculative". He means: "NIST's assessment of the exact location of the damage is different than mine."

No, he doesn't. He means that the NIST estimate is an estimate. Estimate being speculative. Accuracy of speculative estimate being increasingly poor due to inaccurate initial aircraft impact trajectory and orientation parameters...

As I said 8th feb...

ROFL. The NIST impact simulations result in damage ESTIMATES. aka speculative. Getting the impact orientation and trajectory paramaters wrong reduces the accuracy of such ESTIMATES even further. As I said earlier. Again, trying to shift the scope is very transparent tom. Tsk tsk.

So, in this post...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6847736&postcount=2090
...I asked you 3 questions. You've *kind-of* managed an answer to the third. Hows them thar answers to 1 & 2 coming on ... ?

 

[femr2]

You look for what you think is "the *effect* of *progressive creep* over *time*".

I have indeed, as well you know.

Presumably displacement and tilt.

Presume ? I've told you repeatedly...

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

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.

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

...etc...
Motion, very fine motion, yes.

Tilt, no, clearly not.

You've discussed that before...

It is proven in the slow, progressive tilt of the buildings
...
The temperature was hot enough to allow the steel to creep. That is unequivocal, from the video.
...
ANY AND ALL buildings that undergo continuous, progressive leaning WILL collapse. That is also unequivocal. The ONLY way in which a building does NOT collapse is to bring the progressive leaning to a halt.

...and we have had much discussion on the topic of progressive tilt.

Your previous claims, suggesting visually observable progressive tilt in the video records for both buildings proves the presence of creep are, as you now know, nonsense. The scale is far too low to determine *tilt angle* change metrics. I've tried, as you know.

Feature displacement over long spans of time is the only way, which I have done.

You seem to have a problem with that for some reason, but no worries

So, as I was saying...long timespan traces for WTC1 reveal sharp transition from *none* to *significant* motion of multiple features only from ~9.5s prior to release.

 

[rwguinn]

Let's see:
Insufficient detail to determine creep from tilt
But sufficient detail to determine creep over long time...
Yeah.
Got it...

ETA--and creep IS progressive-it accelerates as failure is approached..

 

[tfk]

femr,

And you continue your complete derail of the thread...

Not the question asked,

I answered PRECISELY the question that you asked.

You askedme what "enormous increase in creep" that I meant when I answered P4T.

I answered you, carefully, precisely, accurately.
___

Now, speaking of Unanswered Questions:

As proof, I invite you to relate to us:

A) what value of creep you think that NIST was claiming in the South & east wall of the (undefined) figure you posted (fig 4-89, NCSTAR1-6D).

B) what value of creep NIST claims was in the same walls at the same time in Fig. 4-123 of the same document.

C) calculate the amount of creep that you say the building underwent during the last 9.5 seconds.

D) compare the A, B & C answers, and explain the differences in the values.

Unanswered questions? I've asked you questions, time after time after time after time, and received no answer. As in this case, you go silent.

It's become amusing to me to discover the consistency with which you go silent or change the subject whenever I've asked you to quantify something.
___

You think the period of enourmously increased creep applies to...the hour before release ?

Yes, I do.

If so, then I assume you also agree with the NIST estimated displacements, such as...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/9/495244215.png

Yup.

Utter crap tom. I've lost count of the number of times you have made the same stupid baseless assertion, and I have responded stating that I'm not saying there was no creep.

You are the undisputed CHAMP when it comes to "not saying things".

You "don't say things" every time you post. When people plead with you to "say something", you say nothing.

You leave others to flounder around, trying to figure out what the hell you are saying.

You provide one-word, "Nope" type answers when others honestly try to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.

Then you whine … and whine … and whine …and whine … that "I didn't say that", when someone misinterprets what you write.

The sum of things that "you didn't say" is a mountain.
The list of things that "you did say" is a tiny, steaming molehill.

There are 3 factors, and only one person, to blame when your nonsense gets misinterpreted. You, your careless sloppiness with the language & your secretiveness.

As an example of sloppiness with language...

[I mean] that the NIST estimate is an estimate. Estimate being speculative. Accuracy of speculative estimate being increasingly poor due to inaccurate initial aircraft impact trajectory and orientation parameters...

When you jumped into the middle of my reply to P4T with this irrelevant crap, nobody was talking about ESTIMATES of anything.

I was explaining to him the REAL effects that made his "collapsed from fire alone" mantra irrelevant.

That is why I wrote:

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

And then you sloppily replied:

loss of insulation

Largely speculative

physical damage from plane impact

Largely speculative

And then you start blabbering about "ESTIMATES of loss of insulation" & "ESTIMATES of physical damage from plane impact".

And when specifically admonished about the difference between REAL effects and ESTIMATES of those effects, you just keep blabbering.

The ESTIMATES had precisely zero to do with the REAL collapse.
You either (idiotically) don't understand that simple fact, or you (connivingly) pretend not to.

The NIST impact simulations result in damage ESTIMATES. aka speculative. Getting the impact orientation and trajectory paramaters wrong reduces the accuracy of such ESTIMATES even further. As I said earlier. Again, trying to shift the scope is very transparent tom. Tsk tsk.

It's telling that you don't recognize the difference between "speculation" and "professional analysis".

There is precisely zero evidence that NIST got the approach angles wrong.

You think that you've proven something. Your little treatise has no more standing than the "disproof" of the Theory of Relativity that I once saw scribbled on a bathroom wall.

You & MT have proven again & again that you don't comprehend how to transform camera views into real 3D space.

NIST hired people who are expert in this analysis.

And you expect me to dismiss their work & accept yours??
Where are the Laughing Dogs when you need 'em?

Publish your nonsense.

I fully expect that it will get shredded by experts.

But, of course, we'll never know. Because you lack the courage to submit it for publication to any place except brain-dead, credulous Twoofer websites.

Oops, I forgot. You're not "a truther".



Ahhh, there they are...

So, in this post...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6847736&postcount=2090
...I asked you 3 questions. You've *kind-of* managed an answer to the third. Hows them thar answers to 1 & 2 coming on ... ?

Answer my questions A) thru D) above.
Then I'll answer yours.

 

[tfk]

So, as I was saying...long timespan traces for WTC1 reveal sharp transition from *none* to *significant* motion of multiple features only from ~9.5s prior to release.

Once again, you confuse "gross motions" for "creep".

Once again, you dwell in the delusion that deformations that happen on the timescale of 10 seconds at the plausible temperatures of the tower columns constitute creep in steel.

You're wrong on both counts.

 

[femr2]

You askedme what "enormous increase in creep" that I meant when I answered P4T.

Nonsense...

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

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

3) Do you think the the enormously increased rate of creep you stated applies only from 9.5s in advance of release of WTC1 ?

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

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 diagrams you will probably want to refer to ?)

...etc.

I answered you, carefully, precisely, accurately.

LOL.

It's telling that you don't recognize the difference between "speculation" and "professional analysis".

ROFL. So you are saying the NIST impact damage estimates were NOT estimates ? Nice one.

There is precisely zero evidence that NIST got the approach angles wrong.

Incorrect. Two separate additional studies, one by me. Both show pretty clearly the scale of the error.

You think that you've proven something.

Yup.

You & MT have proven again & again that you don't comprehend how to transform camera views into real 3D space.

ROFL. You are simply showing, yet again, that you don't understand the rotoscoping method. It's self validating.

NIST hired people who are expert in this analysis.

They messed it up, by making the DECISION to orient the impact such that the engine would exit at a certain point given a simple linear projection. They didn't determine the CORRECT trajectory and orientation.

And you expect me to dismiss their work & accept yours??

I have very little interest in what you think tom.

Publish your nonsense.

You know where the draft is...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175.htm
http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175-part2.htm
More than enough there to show NIST messed it up.

I fully expect that it will get shredded by experts.

Whatever. You certainly are not one of them, so perhaps someone else will have something to say.

Answer my questions A) thru D) above.

Nope. Stupid leading questions, as well you know.

Then I'll answer yours.

ROFL.

Once again, you confuse "gross motions" for "creep".

Incorrect. You just can't stop yourself from inferring a perfectly clear statement says something other than it does. You don't even know the scale. You just want to try and save face I guess delude yourself into thinking you've *proved femr2 wrong* about something. It's beyond pathetic tom. Funny even. But by all means carry on. The thread is fixed in stone. You're doing a grand job. lol.

Have a nice day.

 

[tsig]

Nonsense...




...etc.


LOL.


ROFL. So you are saying the NIST impact damage estimates were NOT estimates ? Nice one.


Incorrect. Two separate additional studies, one by me. Both show pretty clearly the scale of the error.


Yup.


ROFL. You are simply showing, yet again, that you don't understand the rotoscoping method. It's self validating.


They messed it up, by making the DECISION to orient the impact such that the engine would exit at a certain point given a simple linear projection. They didn't determine the CORRECT trajectory and orientation.


I have very little interest in what you think tom.


You know where the draft is...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175.htm
http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175-part2.htm
More than enough there to show NIST messed it up.


Whatever. You certainly are not one of them, so perhaps someone else will have something to say.


Nope. Stupid leading questions, as well you know.


ROFL.


Incorrect. You just can't stop yourself from inferring a perfectly clear statement says something other than it does. You don't even know the scale. You just want to try and save face I guess delude yourself into thinking you've *proved femr2 wrong* about something. It's beyond pathetic tom. Funny even. But by all means carry on. The thread is fixed in stone. You're doing a grand job. lol.

Have a nice day.

Nonsense.

LOL.


ROFL.

Yup.


ROFL

ROFL.


Incorrect.

Have a nice day

 

[beachnut]

Nonsense.
LOL.
ROFL.
Yup.
ROFL
ROFL.
Incorrect.
Have a nice day

The best part, if his work is correct, the WTC were damaged by the impacts and collapsed due to fire.

And Bazant's model is.

 

[tfk]

femr,

This will be my last response to you on this topic.
A summary of this colossal waste of bandwidth.

You can pester someone else with your ignorance from now on.

You asked me what "enormous increase in creep" that I meant when I answered P4T.

Nonsense...

Here is the first use of that phrase, from my reply to P4T. And your first use of the phrase, when you jumped into the middle of the conversation, and rudely diverted it into a different, entirely irrelevant direction.

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 ?

So, you did NOT literally "ask me what I meant by the term". You simply twisted my statement & incompetently misapplied it to the 9.5 seconds of time before the collapse.

Nothing surprising about that. It's your constant style.

And, as usual, I wouldn't let you get away with it. That's my style.

In correcting your error, I have repeatedly (perhaps a dozen times) informed you that there is zero significant creep that occurs in 9.5 seconds in steel at any plausible temperature seen by the WTC columns.

You've ignored my correction of your error each & every time.

But my insistence on correct terminology did get you to explain that, when you say "creep", you don't mean "creep". You mean … uh … *creep*. "Star creep star". "Non-creep creep".

[So, instead of looking for creep, you looked 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

LOL.

That was VERY enlightening.
"Femr-speak" rears its ugly head once again.

One of us is a mechanical engineer. One is not.
One of us understands what creep really is. One does not.
One of us uses words carefully & precisely. One does not.

One of understands that deflection (even in a single element) is not creep. The other may or may not understand this, but repeatedly (& erroneously) conflates the two terms.

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...

Agreed. My insistence on using well-defined engineering terms correctly approaches obsessive.

But "an anal penchant"? Does that mean I end up with someone like you, dangling like a bauble, around my keister?

I guess I'd have to agree with that as well.

And, yes, it is "pretty easy to understand". When you've got no substance, the best you can do is "redefine terms".

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

It's telling that you don't recognize the difference between "speculation" and "professional analysis".

So you are saying the NIST impact damage estimates were NOT estimates ? Nice one.

Nice one, yourself.

Ignored "speculation".
Ignored "professional analysis".
Redundant use of "estimates".

Typical.
Running with goal posts is almost as dangerous as running with scissors.

I stated my meaning explicitly.

I stated that I was discussing REAL damage. Not "estimates of damage".
I stated that "estimates of physical damage" had precisely zero impact on the collapse.
As proven by the fact that the collapse happened on the morning of 9/11/01.
Estimates of the collapse did not exist until months, or years, later.

QED.
(Unless you've got a time machine in your basement...)

Incorrect. Two separate additional studies, one by me. Both show pretty clearly the scale of the error.

Scribbling on bathroom wall.
Impresses ignorant, credulous kiddies.
Has zero standing or impact.

Publish it.
Or not.
Who cares?
___

Now, saving the best for last…

Answer my questions, then I'll answer yours.

Nope. Stupid leading questions, as well you know.

Hilarious.

Question C): "calculate the amount of creep that you say the building underwent during the last 9.5 seconds."

Your reply: "This is a stupid leading question."

Asking you to present your own data, the data that you so proudly trumpeted as "disproving creep for all but the last 9.5 seconds", is, in your estimation, "a stupid, leading question".

Doesn't get much funnier than that.

LoL.

Yup, femr. It IS all written in stone.

 

[femr2]

This will be my last response to you on this topic.

What a shame.

You can pester someone else with your ignorance from now on.

Moi ? Pester thou ? Funny.

Here is the first use of that phrase, from my reply to P4T. And your first use of the phrase, when you jumped into the middle of the conversation, and rudely diverted it into a different, entirely irrelevant direction.

Hilarious. I asked you a simple question tom. The rest is caused by your own failings.

So, you did NOT literally "ask me what I meant by the term".

No, I did not, regardless of how may times you ignored the question and instead made up some other question in your own private world, resulting in such humerous exchanges as...

Not the question asked

I answered PRECISELY the question that you asked.

You asked me what "enormous increase in creep" that I meant when I answered P4T.

I answered you, carefully, precisely, accurately.

It appears you now see how bizarre and deluded your prior viewpoint was, so if you are apologising, fine.

Try and keep up in the future tho eh.

You simply twisted my statement & incompetently misapplied it to the 9.5 seconds of time before the collapse.

Incorrect. I asked you a question. Everything else results from your own failings and penchant to do the very things you accuse me of, namely twist the statement, and incompetently misapply what I'm asking. Poor show, as usual.

Nothing surprising about that. It's your constant style.

And, as usual, I wouldn't let you get away with it. That's my style.

ROFL.


(Just this once eh)

In correcting your error, I have repeatedly (perhaps a dozen times) informed you that there is zero significant creep that occurs in 9.5 seconds in steel at any plausible temperature seen by the WTC columns.

I made no error. You simply can't help yourself making assumptions. I've told you enough times tom. Don't make assumptions.

You've ignored my correction of your error each & every time.

Incorrect. No error made, except your own inept misinterpretation. As usual.

But my insistence on correct terminology did get you to explain that, when you say "creep", you don't mean "creep". You mean … uh … *creep*. "Star creep star". "Non-creep creep".

That's right. The distinctionis of course imortant, thus the *highlight*. But rather than simply check, you go off on a banal linguistic crusade. Well done. Have a lolly-pop.

My insistence on using well-defined engineering terms correctly approaches obsessive.

Your inability to read results in your obsession turning into self-flagration.

But "an anal penchant"? Does that mean I end up with someone like you, dangling like a bauble, around my keister?

Nah. It results in you having repreated hissy-fits, then turning around a couple of weeks later having another hissy fit to explain that the reason you had the first hissy fit was that you didn't read what I said properly, misinterpreted it, because you could, thus excusing you for your first hissy fit and requiring you to have another. Hissy-fit heaven tom. More lollipops for you.

I stated that I was discussing REAL damage. Not "estimates of damage".

Irrelevant. I asked you a simple question. Not my problem if you can't understand. You could ask further questions until you do. If you choose not to you might end up embarrasing yourself.

I stated that "estimates of physical damage" had precisely zero impact on the collapse.

Quite a bizarre thing to say, especially given your recent Fire+NoDamage==Damage+NoFire==NoCollapse (Or *similar* )

As proven by the fact that the collapse happened on the morning of 9/11/01.
Estimates of the collapse did not exist until months, or years, later.

QED.
(Unless you've got a time machine in your basement...)

Signs of madness going on there tom. Increasingly disturbing levels of faux personal justification. Enlightening.

Scribbling on bathroom wall.
Impresses ignorant, credulous kiddies.
Has zero standing or impact.

Publish it.
Or not.
Who cares?

You know where it is. Linked above.

Here's a telling image or two, which in my esteemed opinion includes just about everything you need to know...in a couple of images...

Sample rotoscope (Orientation: NIST 6,38,13)

Sample rotoscope (Orientation: TEST 3,37,3.5)

But we have almost an entire thread of you providing your, er, thoughts, on the study don't we. I'll grab a linky.

Now, saving the best for last…

Oh good.

data that you so proudly trumpeted as "disproving creep for all but the last 9.5 seconds"

I said no such thing. I've clarified the point so many times, that there is only one response....


You are a liar tom.

Yup, femr. It IS all written in stone.

Indeed.

Have a nice day.

 

[newton3376]

After reading through some of the train wreck of a thread where femr2 was screwing up conservation of momentum I kind of lost all hope that there was any use in replying to his points....

I think one part of your post pretty much sums up this entire thread and indeed several threads on this website...

One of us is a mechanical engineer. One is not.
One of us understands what creep really is. One does not.
One of us uses words carefully & precisely. One does not.

One of understands that deflection (even in a single element) is not creep. The other may or may not understand this, but repeatedly (& erroneously) conflates the two terms.

That pretty much sums up the entire issue with conversations like this....we are usually talking to truthers with no engineering background. That makes the conversations frustrating.

And then when we DO talk to truthers with an engineering background like Szamboti they make such horrific errors and faulty assumptions that it is almost embarrassing to those of us who are real life Engineers.

The problem is that you are discussing Engineering with someone who is not an Engineer and is not listening to your advice, is not evaluating your analysis, and is focusing on minute details that do not change the overall conclusion.

At this point it is likely best to just ignore it and allow the thread to die....there is more then enough information, for anyone interested in this thread or the other threads, to show that no one has disproven Bazant or NIST in any way.

Oh....and "Have a nice day".

ROFL