Split Thread Was global collapse of WTC inevitable?

[triforcharity]

Why would I read an article by a grad student who believes in supernatural quantities of kinetic energy somehow generated by gravity alone? Secondly, why would I pay to read it? Why would I care what he has to say about "energy absorbing devices" for structures that don't collapse from fire?? He won't be talking about global collapses because global collapses in steel-framed highrises DO NOT OCCUR FROM FIRE ALONE. Okay?

If you want to read the article, you go right ahead.

And by grad student, you actually mean Professor, right?

BTW, here is the abstract.

"The World Trade Center collapse has brought attention to progressive collapse of tall buildings and the study of possible countermeasures. From the viewpoint of energy transfer, this analysis explains why the collapse could not stop by itself once began. By introducing a design parameter called collapse stability index that controls design against progressive collapse, it is found that conventional design of a tall building usually leads to an inherently unstable structure in the event of a progressive collapse. In a subsequent feasibility study in this paper, a heavy-duty metal-based honeycomb energy absorbing structure is proposed. Using a finite element analysis, it is demonstrated that the structure is capable of absorbing potential energy released in a tall building collapse. The added energy absorbing devices will only occupy a small percentage of the total floor space. By properly designing and installing such devices, a progressive collapse, should it happen in a tall building, may be arrested within a few floors, and hence, the building is inherently stable to the progressive collapse. The theory is also elaborated with the example of the World Trade Center collapse."

From here.

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?143632

Yeah, he gets his stuff published in RESPECTABLE journals. You dolts make your own journal. Hey, it's cool. Put your money where your mouth is. Purchase the article, read it, and come back here nd explain why he would be researching something like this, if it can't happen.

We'll wait.....

 

[beachnut]

... global collapses in steel-framed highrises DO NOT OCCUR FROM FIRE ALONE. Okay? ...

And the Titanic was unsinkable. When you spew nonsense it is based on your expert knowledge of physics. Good job, you post pure stupid and have no clue what you are doing.

 

[excaza]

And by grad student, you actually mean Professor, right?

BTW, here is the abstract.

So, a metal version of the cardboard honeycomb the army uses for airdrop. Coooool

 

[triforcharity]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189331&page=2

#1- Not a peer-reviewed paper. Just holding you to your own stupid standard.

#2- Does anyone else see the irony in this post, from his VERY OWN LINK?

I've learned that the randi links that people post usually don't contain much, if any, relevance to the point they pretend to be addressing, so I no longer bother when someone does that.

If you want to quote the relevant text, though...

Yeah, you have become what you hate. Welcome to the Dark side.

 

[alienentity]

What challenge? And where are your calculations? I don't pretend to be a physicist or engineer. The calculations have been shown by people like Chandler, Ross, Szamboti and others. You guys don't like them. I don't care. You haven't debunked them.

Where are your calculations, alien?

Look, you seem to have forgotten that it is YOU who are claiming that the tower couldn't have collapsed.

I make no claims about the amount of rubble. You have not established that there even was rubble, and what size it was. So it's your job to follow up and make your case, not mine.

I'm simply asking for your math and evidence. If you want to cite a paper, do it properly, or at least quote a relevant section with a link.

kay? Your bare assertions are meaningless, as you know, because you are not qualified to explain things on your own.

thx for playing.

 

[ergo]

I'm sorry, I must be missing something. Nothing there says a building can't collapse from fire.

Excaza, I believe you were involved in that thread yourself. It was only from last week. I think it's been established that no other steel-framed buildings have suffered complete collapse from fire alone. Except for the shoddily built Thai sweatshop, the details of which are sparse.

If you have some new information since last week, please inform the crowd.

 

[triforcharity]

So, a metal version of the cardboard honeycomb the army uses for airdrop. Coooool

That is what I got out of it. Seems pretty cool eh?

 

[excaza]

If you have some new information since last week, please inform the crowd.

No thanks, I'd rather wait for you to cite the references that lead you to conclude that it's impossible for fire to cause the collapse of a building.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No thanks, I'd rather wait for you to cite the references that lead you to conclude that it's impossible for fire to cause the collapse of a building.

I hope you have good patience... he never seems to be able to finish a building case study

 

[excaza]

I hope you have good patience... he never seems to be able to finish a building case study

I already know it's not going to happen

 

[BasqueArch]

What challenge? And where are your calculations? I don't pretend to be a physicist or engineer. The calculations have been shown by people like Chandler, Ross, Szamboti and others. You guys don't like them. I don't care. You haven't debunked them.

.........

Chandler claimed in a YT video that perimeter columns at the top flew out at 50 mph . Simple math proved that the columns should have then outpaced the dust clouds at the start of the collapse, they didn’t, he’s wrong.

Szamboti was forced to admit his own data debunked him. (the jolt paper) . His uncorrected paper continues to deceive, the same one you now believe in.

I don’t know much about Ross. Does he believe in CT? Then no amount of math will prove he is right.

You guessed no one has debunked the math of those above, you guessed wrong.
Typical Truther sloppy, lazy, invalid, unprofessional wrong opinions.

 

[ergo]

And by grad student, you actually mean Professor, right?

BTW, here is the abstract.

Thank you for finally quoting some relevant text. Was that so hard?

Good for Zhou for thinking of everyone's safety. Yay. Cheers.

If you ask me, and it seems you are, this is a good example of where science and engineering are starting to go wrong, based on some original faulty science, fakery actually, used to explain the WTC collapses. I saw a quote from a firefighter saying that they can no longer be certain what to expect in building fires anymore, since 9/11. Is this what is meant by 9/11 "changes everything"? Do we now have to doubt Newtonian physics? We now have to worry about complete and rapid disintegration of a tower when we see some fires on the upper floors? Now building codes are going to be changed because American science and engineering has now circumvented Newtonian laws? We now can't trust steel construction?

This is idiot science. Well, it isn't even science. It's pseudo-science in the service of state crimes and mass-mediated knowledge manipulation.

 

[excaza]

Do we now have to doubt Newtonian physics?

No, why?

We now have to worry about complete and rapid disintegration of a tower when we see some fires on the upper floors?

The WTC disintegrated?

Now building codes are going to be changed because American science and engineering has now circumvented Newtonian laws?

They did? Where? Be specific. Use math, not your assertion.

We now can't trust steel construction?

The same steel construction you don't understand? The same steel construction that uses fireproofing?

This is idiot science.

Well, at least you know where you stand.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm sorry, but are JREF posts all you can cite?

If you were capable of using the search facilities, then you would know that I have cited peer-reviewed papers as well as JREF. For example, I cited this paper when it was relevant:

Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure. Mechanics of progressive collapse: learning from World Trade Center and building demolitions. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 133(3), March 1, 2007, pages 308-319.

In various other posts, not all of them 9/11-related, I have cited quite a few other articles and books. You aren't capable of reading them, so there's no point to listing them here.

Given what we know of debating tactics here, it doesn't instill confidence. Have you published these refutations anywhere else?

Well, I confess to having "published" a couple of 9/11-related calculations on my web site:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/

I believe it's you folks who are constantly demanding that others publish in peer-reviewed journals. What about yourselves?

Although I have published several papers in peer-reviewed journals, those papers do not include any refutations of Rob Balsamo, David Chandler, Tony Szamboti, or Judy Wood. The reason for that is quite simple: None of your heroes' ideas have ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal (so far as I know, they have never even been presented at a selective scientific or engineering conference), and serious scientific/engineering journals don't bother to publish refutations of crackpot ideas.

If and when your heroes raise their game to the level required for publication in the scientific or engineering literature, the scientific and engineering communities may begin to take enough notice of them to publish refutations of their work. Don't hold your breath.

 

[ergo]

Chandler claimed in a YT video that perimeter columns flew out at 50 mph. Simple math proved that the columns should have then outpaced the dust clouds at the start of the collapse, they didn’t, he’s wrong.

I'm not sure what relevance this is. So you contest the 50 mph claim? And you measured the rate of growth of the dust clouds?

Szamboti was forced to admit his own data debunked him. (the jolt paper) . His uncorrected paper continues to deceive, the same one you now believe in.

Where does he admit this?

I don’t know much about Ross. Does he believe in CT? Then no amount of math will prove he is right.

And that's the extent of your "debunking". I see.

 

[ergo]

Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure. Mechanics of progressive collapse: learning from World Trade Center and building demolitions. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 133(3), March 1, 2007, pages 308-319.

You cited Bazant as part of your deebunking?? No way!

Who is this "Bazant" you speak of? I don't believe we've heard of him before. He must be an exciting new researcher! I am eager to read his fresh new ideas!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Excaza, I believe you were involved in that thread yourself. It was only from last week. I think it's been established that no other steel-framed buildings have suffered complete collapse from fire alone. Except for the shoddily built Thai sweatshop, the details of which are sparse.

If you have some new information since last week, please inform the crowd.

Okay Ergo, then how about we approach this differently. I would like you to select one or two precedents that you think best illustrates your point that fires cannot initiate a large scale collapse of a tall building.

From there I would like you to investigate point by point what similarities they share with the WTC. This means providing technical data on the following:

• Construction materials
• Structural Framing systems
• Building envelope
• Passive & active fire protection implemented
• Circumstances surrounding the start, progression, and ending of the fire events (IE: firefighting if any, existing damage, how the fire started, etc.)

Please do the same for each of the WTC buildings, and then outline what you think the similarities are and where they differ between your precedents and the result seen of the WTC.

Answers not to post include but are not limited to:
"One collapsed and the other didn't"
"Fire simply does not destroy buildings"

The reason I am asking you to perform this research is because I would like you to explain in the best possible manner what mechanisms of the building's construction in each of your precedent's cases prevented a catastrophic collapse event as seen in the WTC. The requires much more than a half-baked "No steel framed highrise has ever collapsed due to fire before in recorded history". It requires that you explain, in known architectural and engineering terms, why the results in these precedents differed from that of the WTC.

We may do this discussion in a separate thread if you like. Consider this an opportunity in which you can more adequately justify the position you've taken, and you would also be required to step further than AE 911 truth was willing to research.. I am also willing to make arrangements for the thread if you are in any manner concerned about a large level of noise being introduced by what you may consider interference from other posters. Or if you like we can do so in this thread, your choice, but I am interested in seeing how much research you're willing to consider doing.


Parts of this discussion may require some reading of the NFPA fire documents. You might wish to look for those as well, since you will doubtless be citing the explosives testimony during the course of these case studies.

 

[excaza]

You cited Bazant as part of your deebunking?? No way!

Who is this "Bazant" you speak of? I don't believe we've heard of him before. He must be an exciting new researcher! I am eager to read his fresh new ideas!

Your sarcasm would be more charming if you showed any indication of reading and/or actually understanding what's been provided for you.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Szamboti was forced to admit his own data debunked him. (the jolt paper) . His uncorrected paper continues to deceive, the same one you now believe in.

Where does he admit this?

Oh, that was quite hilarious. For the full effect, you have to read pages 7 through 9 of the "Care to Comment" thread, starting here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175536&page=7

Because you're lazy, I'll give you a list of the highlights:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5998163&postcount=272
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5998692&postcount=274
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6001634&postcount=290
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6001935&postcount=297
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6004278&postcount=338
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6005300&postcount=346
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6005423&postcount=351
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6005642&postcount=354
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6006133&postcount=357

If you're incredibly lazy, you might have to start with post #346. Be sure to read post #351. Szamboti's admission of his error came in post #354. In post #357, he's already claiming that new and better data will show that "the premise of the Missing Jolt paper is valid".

As it turned out, however, his "new data" were almost indistinguishable from Chandler's, and fail to support the premise of the Missing Jolt paper for the reasons I explained in my post on the Chandler-MacQueen-Szamboti fallacy, cited earlier as well as here. Szamboti has yet to revise the Missing Jolt paper, so his admitted error continues to deceive you and others who have placed their trust in a high school teacher, a professor of religious studies, and a Stundie nominee who spent months denying the error in his grade-school-level arithmetic.

In the meantime, you are ridiculing Zdeněk Bažant, who is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and has published more than 450 peer-reviewed articles in science and engineering. If we compare Bažant's publication record to the combined record of your heroes, it's 450 to 0 and getting more lopsided all the time.

 

[A W Smith]

Ergo=ignorance

ignorant truther troll is trolling ignorantly.