Just to say that I disagree with your assessment on that particular post.No - but I'm trying to avoid explicitly rebutting those ancient (2010) posts loaded with arrogant nonsense, personal attacks and technical errors.
I recently re-read the first dozen or so pages of the thread.
It was not a professionally satisfying experience.
If you must quote me would you please comment on what I said - no need to sink to ridicule.
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
What I mean is that the specific case in the BV analysis is one in which only the energy dissipated by column buckling is considered. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "columns in line" but if the floors and connections were strong enough to transfer all loads to the columns, then column alignment wouldn't matter (and one-dimensional analysis would be sufficient) because only the column buckling would be dissipating any significant amount of energy. It is in that sense that I consider it a limit case, similar to (but not the same as) BZ.
My point of contention is that "represent(ing) the real WTC event" is neither the stated nor implicit purpose of the analysis. You quoted this section from the abstract, but I'll highlight a different sentence:
... and you said:
What I see in BV is that they use the column buckling energy to derive equations that theoretically describe collapse propagation, but then the crux of the paper is that they are saying those equations can be used in reverse: If you know the collapse propagation history, you can derive the energy dissipation. The issue, then, should be whether or not that inference is valid. If it is, then the simplifying assumptions "still adequately represents the real thing" close enough for the stated purpose. I have skimmed the paper again, and that is still the only sense that I see the assumption "framed as if it did apply."
If your criticism of post #3 is any more substantive than "shame on you," then please point out the factual errors in it.
Otherwise, it appears that "shame on you" is a completely fair characterization of your position on it.
Post #3 heavily snipped and highlighted but, I believe, trimmed to the relevant points :
I see nothing but reason in NB's post #3 and no cause for shame whatsoever. I'll add my vote for ozeco41 to point out its failings rather than fling snark.
I see nothing but reason in NB's post #3 and no cause for shame whatsoever. I'll add my vote for ozeco41 to point out its failings rather than fling snark.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Apparently, NB and the rest of us arrived at the place we did by using the wrong process.
As anyone who has been an engineer in any industry for more than 5 minutes knows, "Process" is the desired goal. Being correct, if process is not followed, is the wrong answer.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Who says it does?
The comments over the last few pages demonstrate clearly that these explanations are as deeply rooted now as they were when the thread began.
These beliefs are set in stone within this environment and cannot be altered anymore.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
It's really hard to change peoples understanding of a paper if no one bothers arguing against that understanding. If you want people to agree with your ideas, you will first need to argue for them.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Well, no, your arguments are simply unconvincing.
Jay,
I don't know precisely what arguments you refer to. I think (dumb me) that the ROOSD explanation... by whatever name one wants to give it... is a pretty convincing *explanation* of the progressive collapse process which then led to the peeling off and tipping away of the facade structure and leaving the core absent adequate bracing which also collapsed.
I am no expert on Bazant or NIST, but I don't recall anything as convincing as ROOSD.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
In my poll ROOSD stands ahead of column overloading by a margin of 24/5 right now. So I don't think JU was referring to M_T's ROOSD position.
In fact M_T's most recent post never mentions it. Instead he goes on, again, about posters misunderstanding not his own position that ROOSD drove progression of collapse, but refers to other posters misunderstanding Bazant's papers.
M_T seems more interested in discussing Bazant than he does his own paper.
Maybe... It is remarkable that the emperor has been shown to have no clothes so to speak. Again, I am not saying Bazant's work is incorrect. I am saying it appears to be not about the collapses and so it's irrelevant... and I suppose he was so heavily touted as the go to guy it's odd that people appear to refuse to say his work was not an explanation for the collapses as they apparently had touted it to be in the past. I wasn't part of those discussions. Is this about Tom wanting the JREFers to call a spade a spade and they sitting on their hands? Maybe. Who cares? Tom seems to be the whipping boy for *trutherism* when his ROOSD has nothing to do with CD.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You really should stop trying to support what MT is arguing about.
I'm not sure I get it at this point. What I do know is it has nothing to do with his ROOSD model (unless he's pissed that no one in the engineering world has decided to adopt him as it's creator).
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
This is you disagreeing with Major_Tom. And it's the exact point that we're "arguing" with Major_Tom. He believes Bazant intended for his papers to be literal and exact solutions to the collapse. He is wrong.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
M_T was quoted as saying something along the lines of tieing ROOSD and the scenario of CD together. Hasn't come about and looks like it never will until everyone specifically agrees that only he truly understands Bazant.
What the h difference it makes to his description of what he calls ROOSD or his "mappings" of the visible destruction, I don't know.
The relevance of Bazant's limit case and approximations has been made clear to you before. That you see no significance in it is well understood.
I have, a few times now, tried to steer discussion back to M_It's work rather than M_T's apparent preference to discuss his and other's perception of Bazant's work. To no avail.
If M_T wanted to discuss perceptions of Bazant papers he could have saved himself a lot of work and not bothered with "mapping" the collapses or creating an internet 'paper'.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I don't think this is correct. He thinks we all believe they are and won't listen to him when he says they're not.
(more bizarre I know).
The posts of mine from four years ago that M_T recently quoted were explicitly arguing that Bazant's model was not literal. Which at the time, M_T strenuously disagreed with (and as far as I can tell, still does).
What M_T appears to be trying to get us to counterfactually acknowledge is two separate points: one, that Bazant's models were intended to be literal and provide an authoritative account of how the collapse actually occurred; and two, that we all accepted that authoritative account (double-hinged columns and all) as how the collapse actually occurred, prior to M_T's "ROOSD" coinage.
The fact that we were arguing against the first claim four years ago, as shown in the early passages he keeps quoting, he is somehow trying to use as evidence that the second claim is correct, when it's actually quite strong evidence against it.
Equally bewilderingly, JS_O also continues to argue for the second claim contrary to that and multiple other lines of evidence. Including, for instance, the physical model of the collapse mechanism I proposed a year before this thread started, in which the mechanism of collapse propagation was explicitly expected to be progressive failure of the connections between the model floors and their upright supports.
There may be some ecdysiast potentates around here somewhere, but they aren't Bazant, Newton's Bit, R. Mackey, Dave Rogers, GlennB, DGM, jaydeehess, tsig, JUtah, rwguinn or me.
What M_T appears to be trying to get us to counterfactually acknowledge is two separate points: one, that Bazant's models were intended to be literal and provide an authoritative account of how the collapse actually occurred; and two, that we all accepted that authoritative account (double-hinged columns and all) as how the collapse actually occurred, prior to M_T's "ROOSD" coinage.
The fact that we were arguing against the first claim four years ago, as shown in the early passages he keeps quoting, he is somehow trying to use as evidence that the second claim is correct, when it's actually quite strong evidence against it.
Equally bewilderingly, JS_O also continues to argue for the second claim contrary to that and multiple other lines of evidence. Including, for instance, the physical model of the collapse mechanism I proposed a year before this thread started, in which the mechanism of collapse propagation was explicitly expected to be progressive failure of the connections between the model floors and their upright supports.
There may be some ecdysiast potentates around here somewhere, but they aren't Bazant, Newton's Bit, R. Mackey, Dave Rogers, GlennB, DGM, jaydeehess, tsig, JUtah, rwguinn or me.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I have used the Bazant models to argue against "truther" claims in the past. This is when the claims are based on misuse of the model in the first place (see TSz first paper and "missing jolt"). I've never actually believed they were meant to explain the collapse itself.
Is this where the confusion lies?
ETA: I also think they're useful but, not to the layperson trying to understand the events of 9/11.
Is this where the confusion lies?
ETA: I also think they're useful but, not to the layperson trying to understand the events of 9/11.
Last edited:
- Status