WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[DC]

Let's try again: How's it coming with that collapse / demolition explanation?

That doesn't mean "pretend to understand what Bazant or Greening did and then critique it."

It means present your own explanation for what happened.

that will take some years for me, a huge amount of time for modeling and an even much bigger amount of time hoping my computers dont crash. or geting acces to a cluster.

and why pretend? i just stated that i have some troubles with understanding some of theyr claims. how is that pretending to understand theyr paper?
i fear alot ppl here do pretend to understand it while they do not really understand it

 

[Architect]

Name names. But prepared for an argument if you choose those of us who are, in fact, demonstrably qualified.

 

[Heiwa]

Let's try again: How's it coming with that collapse / demolition explanation?

That doesn't mean "pretend to understand what Bazant or Greening did and then critique it."

It means present your own explanation for what happened.

But I do! I start with what normally would happen! Local failures up top, partial, small collapses ending in collapse arrest with the upper block or what is left of it resting on top. But it didn't happen.

The upper block, visible to all, implodes and disappears long before that. That's what happened.

Bazant and Greening suggest that the upper block did not implode or disappeared but pushed-down the structure below by gravity alone and was then pushed-up by the rubble (by gravity, I assume). That's what not happened. So why write a scientific (sic) paper about that?

Re the destruction of the structure below NIST has announced Nov. 2007 it cannot explain it. And nobody or few reacts.

I only try to help NIST with some observations about the upper block before destruction of the structure below. NIST could at least explain what happened to the upper block!

I have asked them. They referred to FAQs Dec. 2007 that if some floors in the upper block dropped down on the top floor of the structure below it could resist 11 staticly loaded floors and 6 dynamicly loaded floors.

So NIST says 2007 that the upper block lost 6-11 floors while Bazant and Greening assume 2008 the upper block is rigid and intact!

In order to explain what happened to the structure below we must first agree what happened to the upper block.

 

[Architect]

Let's see some calculations then.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The upper block, visible to all, implodes and disappears long before that. That's what happened.

Can you show me a video of this? Preferably one at an angle where the entire upper part of the tower isn't completely obscured by smoke. Thanks.

 

[CHF]

that will take some years for me, a huge amount of time for modeling and an even much bigger amount of time hoping my computers dont crash.

It shouldn't be that hard for you.

I mean isn't "NIST didn't model the collapse" one of the biggest twoofer complaints?

Show them how it's done.

 

[CHF]

But I do!

No you don't!

You start with some idiocy about how the top block would "normally" have been stopped dead in its tracks and then claim (with no evidence whatsoever) that the upper block "implodes and disappears."

Please provide evidence that the upper block "imploded and disappeared" and then explain what you think caused this.

Was it due to explosives? How much explsives? What kind of explosives? Where were they placed? You know....an explantion.

 

[DC]

It shouldn't be that hard for you.

I mean isn't "NIST didn't model the collapse" one of the biggest twoofer complaints?

Show them how it's done.

well i am one of the truthers that doe not claim they did not model them, i am one of them that does belive they started to model them, and for some reason stopped it. And there is a weidlinger sim of collapse initiation but i dont know if that was done for NIST.

and according to many JREFers it is even impossible to make a fe sim of it.
so i think a few years is not to much, because i do it alone and with heavyest underequipment computing power. i think modeling will not be the biggest problem, running the sim then will prolly end it, cause with private computers thats indeed impossible. maybe i can get acces to enough computing power someday.

 

[CHF]

DC,

if you ever get around to running a sim of the collapses what kind of data would you input?

How many bombs? Where would they be planted? etc.

 

[DC]

DC,

if you ever get around to running a sim of the collapses what kind of data would you input?

How many bombs? Where would they be planted? etc.

well i would try to model them as exact as possible. i did not think about "explsoves" in that sim. i just want to have a sim and if the towers will collapse without explosives in the sim, well then i think i was wrong.
when they will not, i will try to remove the core support in the floors we saw those squibs that are not squibs. maybe that will help the collapse go past the mechanical floors.

we will see. thats far away yet, i will be happy to show how many floors will be affected on impact and that crush up and crush down will happen at the same time, or atlest first crush up.

 

[CHF]

well i would try to model them as exact as possible. i did not think about "explsoves" in that sim. i just want to have a sim and if the towers will collapse without explosives in the sim, well then i think i was wrong.

I find this so indicative of the youtube generation: you can present them with several peer-reviewed papers on the collapses complete with detailed calculations that can be double checked....but they'll still need a computer sim or else they won't believe it.

when they will not....

When. Not if, but when.

Sounds like you've already made up your mind, DC. Science at its best.

 

[Dave Rogers]

well i am one of the truthers that doe not claim they did not model them, i am one of them that does belive they started to model them, and for some reason stopped it.

This needs highlighting, because you are the first person to my knowledge ever to make that claim. What's the basis of your belief?

Dave

 

[Disbelief]

that will take some years for me, a huge amount of time for modeling and an even much bigger amount of time hoping my computers dont crash. or geting acces to a cluster.

Maybe if you spent more time inputting data and less time here promoting silly CTs, you would be done in far less time.

 

[DC]

Maybe if you spent more time inputting data and less time here promoting silly CTs, you would be done in far less time.

maybe i have only a few hours a week acces to Ansys software, when the company that normaly uses that software does not need it. like on weekends or at night.

 

[DC]

This needs highlighting, because you are the first person to my knowledge ever to make that claim. What's the basis of your belief?

Dave

urban legend?
im not so 100% sure thats why i dont claim they did. but i do belive they did.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Heiwa, "it must have been something else! You tell me!" is NOT an explanation.

Try again.

Heiwa knows that the minute he puts forth his own explanation he'll get torn to shreds, so he will not ever do that. He'll dodge and he'll claim it to be off-topic. But Heiwa is a fullblown no-planer (no planes at all were used, those were "photoshopped in"), so I'd guess he believe explosives were used.

And Heiwa, again, no its not off-topic and no, you don't get to define what goes and what doesn't just because you started the thread. But I know you'd like to, its the only way you can keep dodging the fact that you have no plausible explanation to why the towers fell, not in layman's terms nor otherwise. You just have your own vivid imagination.

 

[Dave Rogers]

urban legend?
im not so 100% sure thats why i dont claim they did. but i do belive they did.

I'm not asking for evidence, nor am I suggesting you've claimed your belief is true. I'm simply asking why you believe what you believe. On a skeptics' discussion forum I think it's a reasonable question.

Dave

 

[DC]

I find this so indicative of the youtube generation: you can present them with several peer-reviewed papers on the collapses complete with detailed calculations that can be double checked....but they'll still need a computer sim or else they won't believe it.



When. Not if, but when.

Sounds like you've already made up your mind, DC. Science at its best.

yes sorry, but im skeptical when something is contradicting what i thaught to know. so i really have to convince myself in a way i know. those elementary calculations are not very convincing for me. i dont care how often they are peer reviewed.

and my way is FE sims. thats the way im used , thats the way something is done nowadays. its something we use very often.

if you did understand the formulas provided exactly and you dont distrust it, fine for you.

 

[DC]

I'm not asking for evidence, nor am I suggesting you've claimed your belief is true. I'm simply asking why you believe what you believe. On a skeptics' discussion forum I think it's a reasonable question.

Dave

i did read it several times. never knew if its true or not. but when i remember right e^n did confirm it in my topic where i estimated the needed amount of explosives in a bazantsche collapse.

but im still not sure enough. but actually nowadays it would be a normal thing to do, or atleast try. also this is not a fact, its what i think

 

[AZCat]

and according to many JREFers it is even impossible to make a fe sim of it.

You're missing the point. You can make FEA simulations of lots of things, but that's not the question. The question is: what value does FEA have for a particular system? The collapse of the WTC towers was a highly nonlinear event. Trying to recreate this is impossible. You could use various methods to get a "feel" for the behavior of the system (i.e. Monte Carlo) but you cannot expect to produce a sequence that replicates the actual collapses. The best you might hope for is some understanding of how similar various iterations proceed.