Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[Major_Tom]

With the gift of hindsight, we have learned that Dr Bazant was working with an extremely limited number of observables, as he considered the video and photographs to be useless after the first 3 seconds of visible movement due to all the dust and missed a number of observations before then.


A few independent researchers have been able to collect many more observables and much more accurate measurements since that time.

Why wouldn't someone use the much improved list of observables and measurements to check whether the Bazant model matches all observables?

Pgimeno, in your opinion how should we choose which observables to consider and which to ignore when reviewing whether the Bazant conclusion is correct.
................

If you could just let me know which observables and measurables to consider for BGLB and which to ignore, I'll have a better sense of how you read "all observables". Should I go back to the observables that were available in 2008?

I have many posts by David Benson that explain pretty clearly how he interpreted the photographic record from 2008. Would it help to see how he interpreted the visuals available at that time?

His opinion of the "spire'? How he interpreted tilt? His explanation of how homogeneity is applicable to WTC1?

 

[Major_Tom]

Here are a few quotes from past exchanges I have had with David Benson which give a good idea of how he was interpreting the visual evidence available in 2008 just after BLGB was published:


"Better to call the section cushed, rather than compressed, as it is inelastic. It did contain, for the most part, the core columns; only a few were bypassed." from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/p...wers-and-collapse-mechanisms-t62-30.html#p857

"In situations like this, there is no guarentee of a least energy solution being actually used. The fact that both towers had a standing spire of some core columns after crush down shows that eventually the collapse did move out towards the periphery."


"On another matter, we ordinarily start with the simplest hypothesis and stik with it until some evidence shows the hypothesis must be modified. In the case of the top portion, the simplest is that it stayed on top most of the way down; say with the roof at around floor 25. Until someone develops some actual evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with that rather than unending speculation and new simulations of the resulting hypothesis." from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/p...wers-and-collapse-mechanisms-t62-30.html#p833

The top portion stayed on with the roof until around floor 25. This was the simplest hypothesis?



"Albert Einstein once said something to the effect that a model should be as simple as possible, but no simplier. The B&V crush-down equation meets that criterion as long as one only considers measurements taken on the antenna mast. With your careful observations of perimeter wall sections breaking off at and above floor 98 and OneWhiteeEye's observation earlier on this thread to the effect that this led to a inhomogeneity in the structure, I then, as reported earlier on this thread, in effect moved zone C up to start at floor 102. That fits the antenna tower measurements and also (approximately) the additional observation that OneWhiteEye posted earlier on this thread, regarding the SW corner of WTC 1."

"So, the simplest possible model for WTC 1 collapse works very well even though I now conclude that some 4+ floors of early crush-up occurred due to the inhomogeneity introduced by missing perimeter wall sections. But not more early crushup than that. Once those were crushed, the homogeneity is re-introduced so that Bazant & Le then applies. I think. It's a point that needs checking."

It certainly does.

"More complex equations simply are not required. Parsimony suggests the B&V crush-down equation with vertical avalanche resisting force together with starting the crushing front around floor 102, being good enough for the data in hand, is indeed good enough." from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/list-of-all-scientific-research-9-11-papers-t106-105.html#p4886

Good enough?

"Assuming homogeneity, Bazaant & Le show thaqt zone C is almost industrucible. That's mechincs for you. The sturcture obviiously was not homogeneous and you have, in other threads, shown some distruction along the west and north walls. In of itself that mass loss is not important, but it does mean the floor trusses in those areas have been weakened. So an average of about 4--6 stories above floor 98 do not come close to satisfying the homogeneity condition. Fine. consider then that zone C is from floor, say, 102 up. To keep the equation simple, assume crush-down begins from there. As I mentiioned in this thread yesterday, this works well enough to match the additional observations by OneWhiteEye.
" from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/list-of-all-scientific-research-9-11-papers-t106-90.html#p4881

That's mechanics for you.

"Zone C simply disappears into the obscuring dusts. Not sufficient reason to assume it is being crushed first. If sufficiently close to homogeneous, then from Bazant & Le it is not being crushed at all." from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/list-of-all-scientific-research-9-11-papers-t106-90.html#p4863

If sufficiently close to homogeneous?

"OneWhiteEye --- I've been thorugh all this before. Homogenization is fine when the tilt is taken into account; crushing proceeded on 3+ floors simultaneaously which is surely better represented by homogenization that by stepwise floor-by-floor model. However, both give essentially ythe same results; shagster actually went to the effort of running his own version of Greening's ideas using minifloors to demonstrate this; although, after some study, this is analytically obvious.

"The issue of early crush-up never seems to die, does it? The problem is that it would have to proceed against the force of gravity, not with it. Instead what you seem to have noticed in frame 1007 is a lack of one dimensionality, with zone C west perimeter wall going outside the lower portion, yes? That actually does not trouble me, yet.
" from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/list-of-all-scientific-research-9-11-papers-t106-90.html#p4847

No, it did eventually die, except for the cult following.

"No sign of zone C falling aprat as long as it can be seen. Unlike the case of WTC 2." from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtccs-asynchronous-impact-crush-down-model-t178-30.html#p4824

As long as you don't bother looking too carefully.

"Major_Tom ---
Do you doubt Newton's Laws?
Do you doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle?
Do you doubt the applicability of the four simplifying assumptions in B&V?
If not, the conclusion of little early crush-up of zone C follows.
Further, the timing studies in BLGB show that most of zone C mass must have stayed on top most of the way down." from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-offered-no-resistance-t168-60.html#p3497

It is just that simple. How could I have doubted those assumptions?

"As for the core punching through the roof, I conjecture this occurred when the upper mechanical floors and up to the roof encountered the greater resistance offered around floors 75--79, about 30 stories (about 110 meters) down. No air escaping through such a puncture will be separately observable in any of the photos, IMO." from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-offered-no-resistance-t168-30.html#p3392

A pretty air-tight puncture of that roof from the "spire".

MT: "Can you please explain how such tall surviving sections of the core can exist with horizontal bracing still attached without the need the debris to go around it, not through it (hence a gaping hole up the middle of the debris distribution)?

DBB: "The west and north walls peeled away sufficiently rapidly that deebris tended to move west and north near the spire. Similarly, but to a lesser extent, to south and east. There actually wasn't a gaping hole, just less density and in particular no structural steel to break connections."

A huge homogeneous piston.

"OneWhiteEye --- B&L show little inital crush-up, not none at all. Since it is so small, the argument is that the crush-down only in B&V is a valid approximation." from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/crush-down-models-t145-135.html#p2619

"Major_Tom --- B&V have four simplifying assumptions which lead to the crush-down ODE. These assumptions are reasonable for WTC 1 but not, by video timing, for WTC 2 after a few seconds. In the case of WTC 2 it is clear from the ABC video of the collpase proceeding down to the Mariott rooftop level that the collapse was proceeding much too slowly; the inference is that the top section broke apart and fell off rather early on.

But as BLGB indicates, this could not have happened to WTC 1 or the timing would be off."
from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/crush-down-models-t145-75.html#p2476

"OneWhiteEye --- I'm not the one with any doubts about the matter: there can be no significant early crush-up.
" from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/crush-down-models-t145-30.html#p2406

"Read Bazant & Le to understand why zone C can be consired to be essentially rigid during crush-down.
I offered to start a thread about how to build a table-top demonstrator that will allow one to see that,
indeed, zone C remains intact during crush-down. I didn't bother when I realized that nobody here would bother to actually build it, test it, and in the process dicover that the application of Newton's laws and
d'Alembert's principle in Bazant & Verdure agrees with reality." from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/a-question-to-david-b-benson-t144.html#p2315

"See Bazant & Le for a further exposition of why early crush-up is very small. It is, I admit, a difficult
point. But it is similar to a house riding down a landslide for which many examples have occurred in southern California." from http://the911forum.freeforums.org/a-question-to-david-b-benson-t144.html#p2296


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We could talk about any of these ideas in the context in which he was describing them at the links provided.

The moral of the story is neither he nor Bazant were very good at observing the events directly. The written record shows they were pretty crappy observers.

Smart minds, no doubt, but crappy observational skills.
...............................

 

[ergo]

Prominent example:
http://whywtc7fell.info/misinfo/aeppt97/059.html

Umm...

Even if this is a section of compacted floors, it is too tiny to be representative of a larger, global process. There seems to be some confusion as to which building these are from, too. How do you know they're from the towers?

Another example:
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html
Check the second photo. And the third. And the last.

Yes, I've seen these. Thanks. We are looking at basement levels, here. The second and third photos show floor slump and the last photo doesn't show anything. Where is the evidence for pancaking as a general, global process for the Towers?

Credit goes to TruthersLie for this post in which he mentions iron workers talking about 14 floors pancaked on top of each other: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5192820&postcount=9
Still far off topic.

Same photo as the one you just showed. And where is the testimony from the iron workers? Truthers just says "we have...[this]..." Where? Where is the photo of the 14 floors? Surely there must be a picture of this?

I'm well aware of that. Still not «official».

Someone should inform Bazant, then.

 

[ergo]

And from your earlier post:

However, here is a quote suggesting that they think that the floors pancaked:

Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking."

NCSTAR 1-3C Damage and Failure Modes p.117.

Tony has pointed out that a reduced number of trusses and their connections are, according to NIST, strong enough to pull in a wall of 14" inch steel perimeter box columns while being heated to failure point, even when NIST had to knock out the majority of them to get the sag they need. But entire floors of intact primary and bridging trusses, which were strong enough to arrest floor collapse from the gravity load of a Boeing 757, are not strong enough to cause any arrests or pauses in what would initially merely be a slumping floor collapse? How do you figure that?

 

[pgimeno]

Why wouldn't someone use the much improved list of observables and measurements to check whether the Bazant model matches all observables?

Pgimeno, in your opinion how should we choose which observables to consider and which to ignore when reviewing whether the Bazant conclusion is correct.

It depends. Is the aim to build a mathematically valid model, or a mere qualitative description with low engineering interest?

If the aim is the first, then some simplifications are in order. In the other case, the simplifications have no place, but the result, not being a model, will lack the predictive power a model has.

If you could just let me know which observables and measurables to consider for BGLB and which to ignore, I'll have a better sense of how you read "all observables". Should I go back to the observables that were available in 2008?

I quoted them. Come on, stop trying to pull my leg, you can't be that thick.

The moral of the story is neither he nor Bazant were very good at observing the events directly.

I might agree on Benson based on your quotes, but there's no reason to extend that to Bazant.



Now that I've answered your questions, care to answer these you have pending, or are you going to keep dodging them ad infinitum?

While you're here, MT, do you intend to back your qualitative description with math?

You mean...like...measurements and stuff?

I mean like a description of the resistance of the materials into play, bending behavior of columns, shear force at the joints, energy of impact at each floor, that sort of stuff.

In other words, why the towers failed in the way described by your model. You're contesting Bazant's mathematical model with a qualitative model that doesn't even attempt to have an engineering background to it. Why should we think that Bazant's model should be substituted by yours, if yours doesn't nearly constitute a viable alternative?

If we include accurate measurements of the objects being studied as "math", my question to you is:

When are you going to start using accurate measurements, instead of the false ones you have been using up to this point?

I don't include measurements as «math». But my question to you is, why do you use the word «false» instead of «inaccurate»? Are the ones you provide «true» or just «more accurate»? Is there a «true» measure? Can you claim to have the exact values of the measurements?

Of course, as I have always done in past every time I've explained that to you, and you have never accepted, I invite you to prove me wrong, and to show me where these inaccuracies are within these chapters.

But then, how is it possible that just one line in 49 pages would be affected if there was so much wrong according to you?

 

[pgimeno]

Umm...

Even if this is a section of compacted floors, it is too tiny to be representative of a larger, global process. There seems to be some confusion as to which building these are from, too. How do you know they're from the towers?

The text in the paper pieces suggests so, but ultimately we're not sure.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3436909&postcount=92

Yes, I've seen these. Thanks. We are looking at basement levels, here. The second and third photos show floor slump and the last photo doesn't show anything. Where is the evidence for pancaking as a general, global process for the Towers?

You wanted pancaked floors, there they are. Here are some more: http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=3952
[ETA: And some more: http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=3980]

Same photo as the one you just showed. And where is the testimony from the iron workers? Truthers just says "we have...[this]..." Where? Where is the photo of the 14 floors? Surely there must be a picture of this?

Why? Should each iron worked be equipped with a camera?

I don't know where is that testimony. I just found his message and dug to find the origin of that pic, then linked to it to give him credit. Ask him.

Someone should inform Bazant, then.

What's the point? "Hey Zdenek, you are not official, and your last paper is not officially endorsed by NIST!" "Thanks for telling, but I already knew!" Pretty pointless, isn't it?

Tony has pointed out that a reduced number of trusses and their connections are, according to NIST, strong enough to pull in a wall of 14" inch steel perimeter box columns while being heated to failure point, even when NIST had to knock out the majority of them to get the sag they need. But entire floors of intact primary and bridging trusses, which were strong enough to arrest floor collapse from the gravity load of a Boeing 757, are not strong enough to cause any arrests or pauses in what would initially merely be a slumping floor collapse? How do you figure that?

You need to understand the difference between horizontal and vertical and between pull and impact. Come back when you get it.

At least I hope that the points I made are clear now:

1) FEMA's explanation is the only official explanation of the collapse progression. I explained to you one year ago but it took you a year to understand. Fair enough, as long as you did.

2) NIST does not contradict FEMA's explanation of the collapse progression, and even mentions that as an explanation for an observable at a certain point, therefore suggesting that they believe that the pan-caking [their wording] happened.

3) Bazan'ts model does cover FEMA's explanation as a case that is less favorable to arrest collapse than his «best case».

And now that these points are hopefully clear, you were asked a question that I was curious about the answer...

He did no such thing. Furthermore, his "best case scenario" is not a best case scenario.

You said this before, and recently. I challenged it, and you ignored that.

So, ergo, given collapse initiation what would be the 'best case scenario' for collapse arrest apart from the theoretical Bazant scenario?

This question is irrelevant until you declare which collapse progression model you support. Bazant's columnar one-way crush "limiting case" or ROOSD (aka FEMA pancakes)?

When you answer this, I'll answer your question.

Hopefully that is clear now. No matter what collapse progression model you suport, what would be a «best case scenario» for collapse arrest apart from the one described by Bazant? I mean in any situation where there is a drop such as the one described by him.

It's stunning that you're actually trying to alchemize the two, but also helpful in exposing for us exactly how flawed and confused bedunker thinking is on this.

Maybe even you can now see the irony in that.

 

[Major_Tom]

Pgimeno, after a year of this I have to admit that you need Bazant. Maybe he needs you, too.

Beachnut, TFK and you really need BLGB, and perhaps I am wrong in depriving you of this need.


At the time, I remember writing the OOS model for 2 immediate reasons: To shut Heiwa up and to counter David Benson on the other forum. I was sick of "blocks" and the destructive influence they seemed to be having on debate.

Those days are over and most participants in these forum discussions have moved past blocks and assumptions of homogeneity.

For the few posters remaining, like you, TFK and Beachnut, who need BLGB to be right like they need oxygen, I now question the wisdom of fomenting division between them and their surrogate father figure.

You need him to be correct. Maybe he needs you to keep believing. After over a year of demonstrating this, is it wise of me to push the remaining pocket of Bazantistas further toward psychological conflict?


Also, if that dam breaks, am I sure I want to see what is on the other side?

The questions may run deeper than crush down, then crush up or mere accuracy in claims.

I remember my exchanges with David Benson to be interesting. He has a sharp mind, even though he didn't have much knowledge of the visual record. But with you, TFK and Beachnut, I have to admit being bored to tears.

I had some good discussions on the subject in the past but with just a few of you left circling your wagons, I feel most of my work in that direction is done and I don't have another year to discuss it with you.

I have all the info I need on the subject and you do not seem to need any accurate information at all, including a list of detailed posts by one of the authors.

If you really need BLGB, you can have it. It is not good for much else, anyway.

 

[ozeco41]

Pgimeno, after a year of this I have to admit that you need Bazant. Maybe he needs you, too.

Beachnut, TFK and you really need BLGB, and perhaps I am wrong in depriving you of this need....

About two hours before you posted this Major_Tom I wrote and did not post some comments driven by "deja vu" and thoughts of however much we change things still stay the same.

I was musing on how predictable our regular members are. And how you/we/ at least I know where they will come from.

Recall this post from yesterday:

....Your posts and those of Beachnut seem to go hand-in-hand.

Tempting there Major_Tom

Not sure I can resist the opportunity.

Both seem to stick to their own SOP's - but there is a fundamental difference between them.

The comment about "...stick to their own SOP's". Just another way of saying nothing changes. ("Standard Operating Procedures" if their are any readers not familiar with the military acronym.)

pgimeno showed in that other "limits of Bazant" thread that he prefers to stretch his view into one broad enough to ensure Bazant has a place representing the real events of WTC 9/11. Even when discussion where Bazant does not fit the real world.

You identify tfk and beachnut - I said they are different in style. You pick their need to have BLGB - something they possibly have in common. I would pick their need to disagree with you as the one thing they have in common. Where they differ should not be too hard to discern but I won't state it at this time.

Your own characteristic is "rely on the observables" and discount lots of things plus one other defining characteristic.

Myself. Well by definition you cannot see your own blind spots. So my view is correct/perfect etc.....

Jokes aside my own bias is probably that I put explaining the real events of WTC 9/11 ahead of any models. I reject use of models when the models are taken beyond validity or purported to apply to WTC 9/11 when they don't. Despite my way of saying it being different to yours I think I am on almost the same track as you.

So I reject claims such as this one by pgimeno:

It depends. Is the aim to build a mathematically valid model, or a mere qualitative description with low engineering interest?

Note the implicit claim that "valid" is better - with no recognition that the validity could be limited. And the obvious "put down" of "mere qualitative description...."

So that puts me and pgimeno in opposing camps from the outset. You too because the thing you and I seek is proper correct accurate explanations of the mechanisms of WTC 9/11.

And explaining qualitatively what actually happened is more interesting to me than discussing the details of someone's abstract model. Especially when that model has limited validity. And the other person pushing the model keeps losing sight of where the model does not "fit" on WTC 9/11. And where the "mere" qualitative model is in reality more accurate.

So we all have our preferred points of view.

Not surprising that despite the passing of months since that "limits of Bazant" thread, the same personal slants continue to emerge.

Then I'm right Except I cannot see my own blind spots.

Where I hope I differ from your usual style is that I don't think I would put the needle in in nearly every post:

...For the few posters remaining, like you, TFK and Beachnut, who need BLGB to be right like they need oxygen, ....If you really need BLGB, you can have it. It is not good for much else, anyway.

...not IMHO the way to win friends.

Still they rarely seem friendly towards you....

 

[GlennB]

If you really need BLGB, you can have it. It is not good for much else, anyway.

No rational person "needs" Bazant. His work is nothing more than an interesting theoretical case. Its sole value lies in the fact that the case he chose indicates the inevitability of collapse under the most favourable of circumstances and that, in passing, his calculations indicate a surprisingly (to me anyway) small minimum fall that would also ensure collapse.

Absolutely nobody would be tearing their hair out wondering why the Towers hadn't stopped falling if Bazant (or anyone else) had never produced studies of that nature. 1000 space-alien engineers, fully appraised of the circumstances surrounding WTC1+2, would probably vote 998-2 in favour of inevitable collapse progression without so much as scribbling a single calculation. The odd 2 would be the alien equivalents of Szamboti and Gage.

The only person truly needing Bazant is Szamboti. Without Bazant, Szamboti would have nobody's work to misrepresent and misinterpret so dramatically.

 

[ozeco41]

Oops!

Fail proofreading 101 eco. "their"

 

[newton3376]

Here are a few quotes from past exchanges I have had with David Benson which give a good idea of how he was interpreting the visual evidence available in 2008 just after BLGB was published:

***SNIP***

I have read the discussion you (and others) have had with David Benson and also with Frank Greening...


The general impression I get is that people like Benson sort of humor you guys to a point....try to answer questions......and then eventually hit the "wall of absurdity" and get annoyed with these non experts questioning everything without having the required mathematical/engineering background or knowledge to back them up.

This is my impression....and I could be wrong.....but I think you guys just eventually annoy such experts to the point where they just give up trying to explain things to you. You will find as time goes on there will be less and less experts willing to give you and your *ahem* "ideas" (lol) the time of day.

My recommendation is if you think you have a valid point....then take what you have and write an article (complete with some actual calculations FFS) and get it published in a peer reviewed journal instead of just writing about it on stupid internet forums.

Otherwise more and more people will just ignore you and mock your supposed points....

Get it published and make your point or just shut up about it already.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

My recommendation is if you think you have a valid point....then take what you have and write an article (complete with some actual calculations FFS) and get it published in a peer reviewed journal instead of just writing about it on stupid internet forums.

Otherwise more and more people will just ignore you and mock your supposed points....

Get it published and make your point or just shut up about it already.

I think that the truthers rely upon the "What about" method of online forums. They purposely make it difficult to get them to nail down their positions.

Answer a question, the response is either a low keyed "meh, ok" or a "No you're wrong and a liar!" (with nothing of substance to back that statement up with) and then they follow up those with a "But what about..." type question which may or may not be related to the question that they just got an answer to. Eventually it gets back to the first question asked and they act as though it was never asked and answered earlier.

Nailing jello to a fence post is easier then dealing with most of them after awhile. If they put it in writing and sign their names to it then they have to defend it. That takes a lot more work and risks actually finding out that they were fooled into believing utter carp to begin with.

In short the tl:dr version is that they are too lazy to even try to formulate a cohesive theory and the smarter ones know that it would fall apart under any real scrutiny.

 

[BasqueArch]

It doesn't. But it would be interesting to see how much 'headroom' there is in a 12ft freefall initial state. How little would still result in progression ? Would 6ft arrest ? 1ft ? 1 inch ?

The answer is in Bazant’s second paper (BV) p.309. 0.5 meters (20inches)

the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater
than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and
Zhou (2002a) to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the
tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through
the height of one story (or even 0.5 m)..

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

 

[BasqueArch]

Please link to where Greening & Benson say - in their own words, not your interpretation of their words - that they rescind their support of the BLGB paper.

What do Benson & Greening assert now regarding "controlled demolition" vs. "collapsed due to damage from jet impact & subsequent fire"?

Originally Posted by Greening
Now this result split the subsequent JREF debate into two camps. One side was led by the usual JREF nay-sayers who declared, (without proof), the model does not represent the Twin Towers in any way shape or form. On the other side was the lone voice of Hiewa, an oil-rig engineer, who avidly defended the model and its ability to resist progressive collapse. The gist of Heiwa’s argument was that the details of Dr. Sauer’s model, or indeed any model, are irrelevant to any tests of Bazant’s crush-down hypothesis because a smaller upper block can never crush a larger lower block as long as they are made of the same materials and have the same basic structure. This being the case for WTC 1 & 2, or so Heiwa claims, means that it is physically impossible for the upper blocks of WTC 1 or 2 to destroy the lower (larger) sections of the towers without first destroying themselves! Now this got me thinking about models and collapse mechanisms for WTC 1 & 2 and I thought a thread on this interesting topic would be useful over here on The911Forums.

Where I would disagree with Heiwa is that the structural details of a meaningful physical model of the Towers are not just important, they are crucial!

………………..

Heiwa’s main error is that he believes for WTC 1, 14 stories above could not crush 96 stories below, whereas actually , the kinetic energy of 14 stories above could not be absorbed by the buckling resistance of the one story below.

 

[BasqueArch]

The general group-think mentality about the relation between the NIST reports and BLGB is expressed below by Basquearch:

Originally Posted by BasqueArch
You don’t understand the big picture.

1) First phase of Towers 1,2 global collapse is the damage and gradual failure of the critical floor. This initial failure is what NIST exhaustively studied and provided a gravity alone explanation.

2) Second Phase of Towers 1,2 is the progressive collapse of the remainder of the structure to grade following the initial failure of the critical floor. Bazant mathematically describes this gravity alone global progressive collapse following the initial failure of the critical floor.

These two phases are complementary and universally understood to be such by the qualified peer reviewed civil/structural engineering universe and their published studies. These engineers all agree in a gravity only explanation for both phases.

In the first 12 pages of the OOS model thread, I am told in no uncertain terms how BLGB was viewed in JREF.

The NIST reports are published in 2005. BV, BL and BLGB in 2007, 2008.

BLGB was embraced by the JREF community because of the rigorous peer-review process it was subject to by the world engineering community, which seems considered similar to being blessed by the pope himself in the Catholic Church.

Here’s the full quote:

Originally Posted by Major_Tom
..... snip

We need to clear up all the bad information concerning what the Bazant papers prove and what they do not prove. To clear things up I will offer a short review of each paper beginning with Bazant and Zhou.

My Review of Bazant and Zhou (first draft) is here:
http://www.the911forum.freeforums.or...zhou-t375.html .......

.
Quote:
............................................
I prefer a similar but alternate description of the stages as:

stage 1) Airplane damage, fuel and fires

stage 2) Visible deformations leading into initial buckling sequence, especially inward bowing (IB) of the south face.

stage 3) Initial buckling sequence (initial lateral propagation of column failure and trajectory over the first 12 ft.

stage 4) Initial collision and resulting trajectory and behavior through subsequent collisions

stage 5) Runaway collapse propagation (ROOSD)


BZ skips over the initial buckling sequence (stages 2 and 3), providing only a simple narrative of his opinion presented as fact. The paper actually focuses on the first collisions only, or stage 4.

Concerning stages 2 and 3, Dr Bazant offers nothing but a narrative. He narrates, or "talks" through the initial buckling sequence and this narration constitutes proof of nothing. It is just his opinion of what may have happened.

Bazant offers mathematical analysis for stage 4 only, the first collision, asking: If the top part falls for 12 feet and smashes into the bottom part, even if it makes a perfect landing can the columns elastic spring energy make the building bounce like a ball? and concludes it wouldn't. That's all.

You don’t understand the big picture.

1) First phase of Towers 1,2 global collapse is the damage and gradual failure of the critical floor. This initial failure is what NIST exhaustively studied and provided a gravity alone explanation.

2) Second Phase of Towers 1,2 is the progressive collapse of the remainder of the structure to grade following the initial failure of the critical floor. Bazant mathematically describes this gravity alone global progressive collapse following the initial failure of the critical floor.

These two phases are complementary and universally understood to be such by the qualified peer reviewed civil/structural engineering universe and their published studies. These engineers all agree in a gravity only explanation for both phases.

You have to choose in which phase your fictitious explosives caused failures that cannot be explained by gravity alone.

......

MT Bazant offers mathematical analysis for stage 4 only, the first collision, asking: If the top part falls for 12 feet and smashes into the bottom part, even if it makes a perfect landing can the columns elastic spring energy make the building bounce like a ball? and concludes it wouldn't. That's all.

No, that’s not all. Major Tom wanders aimlessly about Bazant, failing to understand Bazant’s crucial elegant proof that the dynamic forces from above could not be resisted by the columns below.

Major Tom chooses not to understand the big picture, that planes damage, fires and gravity are sufficient to explain the initial trigger and subsequent global collapse, no room for CD.

 

[pgimeno]

Now that I've answered your questions, care to answer these you have pending, or are you going to keep dodging them ad infinitum?

(crickets...)

You need him to be correct. Maybe he needs you to keep believing.

That's what I call a projection. I believe that the problem is that you badly need him to be incorrect, and that's why you attack the papers on false grounds. That's when I correct you, pointing to you the failure of your attack. I don't need him to be correct; I have been wrong in past about the meaning and scope of his work and now that I understand it better, I am in a position to see your misrepresentations and point them out. As a consequence of me doing so with you, you think that I need him to be correct. Nope, I just try to correct your mistakes.

This sentence is good in showing how badly you need him to be incorrect:

After over a year of demonstrating this, is it wise of me to push the remaining pocket of Bazantistas further toward psychological conflict?

You need to obliterate any trace of his work and to dismiss anyone who tries to point out your mistakes while you try so (with little success, fortunately; despite your attempts I don't think you're convincing anyone here).

 

[pgimeno]

When I say "pretty thin" I'm saying that the Bazant model itself doesn't really have a lot to say about that item. The relationship is not because the model is "correct", simply that it's an energetics based model, and the authors have attempted to stick a round peg in a square hole.

Indeed I think that the arguments I've seen defending the validity of the application of Bazant's model for certain purposes were on the grounds of energy. I don't see why that's a round peg in a square hole, given that the truther arguments addressed were mainly energy-based as well, see e.g. http://www.physics911.net/thermite (an example of many):

Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. [...]

The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses.
​

 

[ergo]

The text in the paper pieces suggests so, but ultimately we're not sure.

No, you're not.

I don't know where is that testimony. I just found his message and dug to find the origin of that pic, then linked to it to give him credit. Ask him.

You should probably ask him if you're going to use him as a source. I'll assume it's more bedunker fakery.

You need to understand the difference between horizontal and vertical and between pull and impact. Come back when you get it.

You don''t have to believe me, but do you deny Tony's observation of NIST's truss pull-in theory? If NIST had put out of commission four out of every five trusses, what's left to pull in the south wall? And what happened to those weak floor-to-column connections?

1) FEMA's explanation is the only official explanation of the collapse progression. I explained to you one year ago but it took you a year to understand. Fair enough, as long as you did.

Um, I don't think you can state that FEMA's pancaking solution is still the official collapse propagation model. If it was, NIST would at least have referenced it as such in their report. Furthermore, Bazant's model does not relate at all to pancaking. So, I once again have to point out to you that you're mixing apples and oranges here.

2) NIST does not contradict FEMA's explanation of the collapse progression, and even mentions that as an explanation for an observable at a certain point, therefore suggesting that they believe that the pan-caking [their wording] happened.

A single mention of it does not an official theory make. If they believed this was the dominant process it would be included in the review of studies under Probable Collapse Sequence.

3) Bazan'ts model does cover FEMA's explanation as a case that is less favorable to arrest collapse than his «best case».

Where?

 

[ergo]

You wanted pancaked floors, there they are. Here are some more: http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=3952
[ETA: And some more: http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=3980]

Who are you trying to kid?

Where are the pancaked floors in these photos?

You have so far provided only one photo of pancaking, and that, so far, appears to be a single instance in the basement levels. I asked for evidence of a general global pancaking collapse. There should be massive amounts of evidence of this with all the photos of Ground Zero. You fail.

 

[beachnut]

You identify tfk and beachnut - I said they are different in style. You pick their need to have BLGB - something they possibly have in common.....

I don't need Bazant or NIST, Major Tom can't get that right, the same for his claim gravity collapse is an illusion and some evil Satan like guys did 911.

Major Tom's attacks on Bazant and NIST are indicative of his failed anti-intellectual goal free, conclusions free observables made up science junk. How does this fit with the no jolt real cd deal of Tony's? Major Tom is lost without NIST or Bazant etal. His weak attack proves ignorance of science, scientific method, physics, math and engineering. Tom has to have NIST and Bazant, without them what would he attack? me? His efforts are the opposite of intellectual, the opposite of science and engineering. You do a good job stirring that pot... You are not happy with part of 911, you seem to be an inside job truther, a can't define inside job thing you are a truther for.

...
The moral of the story is neither he nor Bazant were very good at observing the events directly. The written record shows they were pretty crappy observers. ...

Is your moronic attack on models because you can't do math?
The moral of the story is, you have no goal, no conlcusions, no understanding of engineering models. Is "Just plain", your peak?

...Smart minds, no doubt, but crappy observational skills. ...

They have conclusions, they are published, you don't have a purpose, and you will not publish your made up junk.
911 truth looks at Bazant's work and can't get past the math, don't do models, they do woo. What is this new observable no conclusion science of nothingness purpose; to attack models and published work? Why can't you publish your implied claims and show Bazant his errors? Heiwa published, and learned he was delusional. Are you claims delusions too?

911 truth can't leap from math and models to what they see.
911 truth would see this...

And miss ... E=mc²

As we are at a high point, if your work was worthwhile, it is not, you would put me on ignore, long ago, and publish, long ago. Even the delusional claims of Heiwa made it to publication, and the most you do is attack JREF, Bazant, NIST, models, and people who see your efforts as a waste of time. All the media you copied and collected show the gravity collapse is not an illusion you claim it is. Your observables failed.

911 truth is void of science. 911 truth makes up their own science to go with their no goal effort, their zero conclusion efforts formed with no evidence, just opinions. What is the science of no evidence, or the science based on opinion called? Observables? No conclusion method? Did you have a conclusion past beachnut is ...? No. You can't ignore Bazant, NIST, and beachnut, your work has no purpose, so you fall back to your junk talk on me, NIST, Bazant, models, math, and more. You can't help it, you will not publish your work. Heiwa published his work even though it was nuts; why can't you do it?

...Smart minds, no doubt, but
crappy observational skills. ...

... attack others when you can't publish your failed nothingness ... no conclusions yet?

How does your work refute or support Tony's missing jolt?